if satisfied that?

< Previous | Next >

Camlearner

Senior Member
Khmer
Hi

It seems to me that if satisfied that used below means if there's a reason to believe that. Am I right?

The commission, if satisfied that the interests of the members, policyholders, or
shareholders of the affected company are properly protected and no reasonable objection
to the application and plan exists, may approve, disapprove, or require modification of the
proposed plan of consolidation, merger, or reinsurance prior to approval.
Source: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ico/section/2013/521.8.pdf
After hearing the application, the court may, subject to this section, make the order if satisfied that:
(a) the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied; and
(b) the patentee has given no satisfactory reason for failing to exploit the patent.
Source: http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/cl/australia1.html
Thanks
 
  • Edinburgher

    Senior Member
    German/English bilingual
    Not quite. If there is a reason to believe it, it's possible the reason might not be sufficient, so it doesn't necessarily mean they actually will believe it, but here it does mean that they actually believe it.
    It is a short form of "if it is satisfied that" (it being the commission or the court).
     

    Camlearner

    Senior Member
    Khmer
    If there is a reason to believe it, it's possible the reason might not be sufficient, so it doesn't necessarily mean theyactually will believe it, but here it does mean that they actually believe it.
    :confused:

    Anyway thanks Edinburgher for your help. So in conclusion, can I say if satisfied that mean that if they/it believe that?
     

    Edinburgher

    Senior Member
    German/English bilingual
    So in conclusion, can I say if satisfied that mean that if they/it believe that?
    Sort of. The process of satisfying them that X is true is one which makes them believe that X is true. So it goes a little further than them simply believing it (we often associate belief with faith), they have to have been convinced by evidence, so that their belief is not a matter of faith but of knowledge or fact or logical conclusion.
     

    Edinburgher

    Senior Member
    German/English bilingual
    Just to elaborate on that, I meant that if you have a reason to believe that X is true, this may not be enough to make you believe it.
    Your reason for believing it might be that someone (whom you trust) told you that it is true. But someone else (whom you also trust) may have told you that it is false.
    Now you have a reason to believe, and you also have a reason to disbelieve. What do you do? Do you believe or disbelieve?

    I was only trying to illustrate that having a reason to believe something is not the same thing as believing it.
     

    Edinburgher

    Senior Member
    German/English bilingual
    I'm not sure that's entirely true, Parla. But let's not open that can of worms. I suppose we can believe something on faith and trust rather than being convinced on the basis of logical proof, but on the other hand we also speak of religious conviction despite the fact that religious belief is really only faith-based.

    More to the point, perhaps, in the context of #8, is the fact that to believe is not the same as to convince, and hence to be believed is not the same as to be convinced.
    If person P believes assertion A, then it is A that is believed, but P who is convinced, not the other way round. They are not the same, they complement each other.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top