![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I think early in the article it should be explained that the use of the word patented is sometimes simply used to express the uniqueness of an idea, such as "my patented mango-fish tacos". Ken 03:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
In order to properly use the word patent, one would have to actually hold a patent granted from the USPTO. Trademark rights can exist without registration, via common law rights, but generally these days most companies and persons register trademarks with the USPTO too.
I am all for the removal of any site with Ads, period. I didn't do it in my recent purge, but most the services these sites offer are all availabe through independent patent offices at no fee. I believe we should just link to the USPTO search site, KIPO (Korea), the EPO search site, and any other independent ones we want to link. EPO's search does a good job of searching a wide variety of patents including the US System. Does anyone else seem to think the best way to avoid spam is to just not link these other sites? I have no problems with any free of adverts because those sites aren't getting ad revenue from our links. I want some guidance before I go hacking and slashing the links section anymore. - Thebdj 06:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a large amount of overlap between many of the articles in the field of patents and I think there is substantial scope for improvement. As an initial step to tidying things up, I propose to centralise all pre-grant details at either
Patent application or
Patent prosecution (not sure which yet). This article does refer to
Patent prosecution as being the main article on that area, but then goes on to give lots of detail on the matter, which detracts from the other good content of this article that is directly related to the article title. Any comments?
Kcordina
Talk 14:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC) See temporary articles at
Patent prosecution/temp and
Patent application/temp that are undergoing review to replace the relevent existing articles.
Kcordina
Talk 12:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I searched for patent wiki-templates (something like {{US-patent|123456789}}, to provide an external link to patent documents) but found none. Is there none, or have I just overlooked them? — Eoghanacht talk 14:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
A criticism section should fairly represent the views of critics. As of the 11th April this did not appear to be the case, and the edits made by me on that date were intended to remedy this deficit. I removed content strongly supportive of patents to the rationale section, reordered the remainder to make it flow more logically, added a definitive statement of the monopoly argument which seemed strangely missing, adjusted the balance of the historical record section, and appended an extremely brief summary of modern abuses, as a critic might identify them. I believe the result is fair and is now NPOV to the extent that is appropriate in a section explicitly presenting a particular viewpoint. It has made the article slightly longer so some further editing for length may be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.217.76.77 ( talk • contribs)
By 'expert in the field' you must mean patent attorney? They are pretty opaque to everyone else.
OK - I like this. Lets go for it. Possibly a little verbose but I can't see how to do it better. However the sentence about market incentives alone possibly being sufficient shouldn't get lost. I've implemented the changes.
Overall I am much happier about the section now. It had serious POV problems when I started that have now been largely fixed. I'm probably going to turn my attention to Economics and patents next - an article which I believe has serious POV problems in that the critical side of the issue seems to be completely absent.
Kcordina, Hawthorne, Great collaboration. I like what you've done to the criticism section.-- Nowa 21:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Would this be an appropriate place to inform the public about the scams of invention development firms and the virtually non-existence of any track record of success? 69.239.225.126 14:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)larry
I've been wrestling with how best to deal with the (in my view) absurd number of pages that exist for patent topics, and how best to deal with them all. See, for example, the see also section of the patent page - not only is it hard to read, the chances of keeping all of the articles sufficiently cross-linked that no pages get lost are slim. I think the best answer I've come up with is to create an article with a title of something like "Legal concepts of patents". That page would then be home to very brief discussions of the various legal concepts that currently have their own page - where the concept is small enough, it would only exist on that page (with redirects as appropriate), or where the concept is larger, a brief summary could be given with a link off to the main article. That way, the see also section can be shrunk to one (or a few) pages, and links can go to sections in that page. Any thoughts? Kcordina Talk 08:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I think all of the above is great. I would still like to keep patent as "home base", however. This is where someone new to patents is most likely to go first to learn about them.
In terms of an overall taxonomy of patent articles, how about:
We could then start to add genera within these overall classes and sort the current articles according to the genera.-- Nowa 22:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the following edits from the article as I disagree with their inclusion. Let's discuss them here to decide how to include the material:-
[a] Patents can only be enforced through civil litigation
Is this definitely true everywhere? I'd prefer something less strong like Patents are generally enforced.. or Patents are enforced, I've got a niggling feeling there are some criminal provisions associated with patents.
[b] Which leads to a greater division of labour, and hence to more rapide and sustainable economic growth, as per Adam Smith.
I think this needs a source; where did Adam Smith state this?
[c] Although this arguments has failed to be demonstrated in reality, the main reason being that all property is a monopoly right conferred to the owner that property, and hence; patent rights are akin to property rights, which always tend to contribute to the general good.
I really don't like this bit. The criticism section is currently set out in a very 'x has been proposed,y has been postulated - but this section has a suggestion of solid fact about it, which I don't think can be substantiatd. I also don't understand the bit after the semicolon, always tend to doesn't work for me - they either always do or the tend to, they can't do both.
[d] the grant of a patent is, essentially, the grant of a monopoly or the grant of a patent is, supposedly, the grant of a monopoly
To my eyes, it's got to be the former - the grant of a patent is the grant of a monopoly, there's no suppsedly about it.
[e] patents are sometimes granted without any knowledge being imparted to society, especially with reference to source-code in software programs.
The bit after the comma worries me - I don't see the relevence of it. But this may be US-centric problem with which I'm not familiar.
Kcordina Talk 08:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
For those interested, there is a new web site which posts US patent applications and provides a blog like forum for commentary and linkage to prior art. The site is Patent debate.
This is clearly a commercial site and normally I would be the first to delete a link to it as linkspam. Because it is unique (to the best of my knowlege) and serves a long felt need, however, I think it's worth incorporating into one of the exiting patent articles.
Any suggestions?-- Nowa 00:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Where can I put the 1st patents? USPatent 16:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Holder of the most patents: Shunpei Yamazaki. violet/riga (t) 23:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking that it might be good to have the three kinds of patents in the US and any others throughout the world, if more exist.
Currently the provides the following three patents:
1. plant patents - covers asexually reproduced plants and is predominately used by plant breeders 2. design patents - covers appearance of an article to the extent that the design or appearance is dictated by aesthetic considerations. 3. utility patents - majority - device or an article, a composition of matter, a method or a process of doing or making something, or, less commonly a new application for an existing device or material, or a product made by a particular new process.
NOTE: Some of this content is copied out of "Essentials of Intellectual Property" 2004.
I'm not keen on the edits by the above IP, but rather than be somewhat impolite and simply revert them (as I did at Patent attorney), can someone else proffer an opinion. I don't like them as the new version conveys less information, is misleading as it implies drawings are always required and similarly with renewal fees. Also, the link the patent attorney article isn't needed at that point. Would the editor comment please on why they think the new version is an improvement. Kcordina Talk 08:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you find out whether a certain patent had its maintenance fees paid and is still active or not? Talking about patents within the past 20 years, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.73.173 ( talk • contribs)
With regard to the paragraph just added to the article about the Ebay judgement, does the judgement really address the problem in the 1st half of the paragraph? My understanding of Ebay is that it says that a final injunction is an equitable remedy, not a statutory one, and the judge must weigh up factors in deciding whether to issue one. This doesn't seem to be connected to the first half of the paragraph which is talking about fragmentation of patent rights. I haven't read the judgement though, so it may well talk about that as well. Can anyone (preferable the editor) enlighten me? Kcordina Talk 14:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Cut and pasted from above:-
A recent post suggests the case eBay v. Mercexchange corrects a problem in patent law by permitting some use to others of the patented process. I believe that over-states the case < http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-130.ZS.html>. The opinion by Justice Thomas merely says the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied the wrong test when it permitted a permananent injunction against eBay. The CAFC followed a "general rule" that permanent injunctions would be granted barring exceptional circumstances. That's the wrong test. The opinion outlines a four-factor test which must be applied before a permanent injunction can be granted. Since the CAFC didn't use it, the decision of the CAFC was vacated and the case was remanded to the Federal Circuit. Now the CAFC has to re-consider the case - whether the district court was correct when it refused to grant the permanent injunction. The fourth part of the test, "that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction," may make it difficult for Mercexchange to win the permanent injunction on remand, but that's not at all the same as saying the issue is "solved." I would delete the reference to eBay v. Mercexchange altogether, or if not, then I would explain in greater detail what's going on. It may be possible for an infringer to continue using the patented device or process, if the public interest would be served and an adequate alternative remedy can be found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by smallgwg ( talk • contribs) .