User talk:Edcolins/Archive07

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers the dates between November 19, 2008 – December 1, 2009.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User talk:Edcolins/Archive08. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Image copyright problem with Image:Gator-Amaz.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Gator-Amaz.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Puzl jdg.gif

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Puzl jdg.gif has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. —teb728 t c 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Your media copyright question

Have you seen the replies to your media copyright question? —teb728 t c 08:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gator-Amaz.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Gator-Amaz.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^(talk) 09:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Laddie

I am horrified that you think I contributed something to your article about Sir Hugh Laddie. Someone must have impersonated me, and I am keen to get to the bottom of who it could have been.

Please would you contact me urgently on this matter.

(I should say that I practise in the field of Patent law, and knew Hugh Laddie well, so any unfavourable comment which appeared to come from me could be a matter of considerable embarrassment to me, particularly at the time of his sad death.)

Alastair Wilson QC (<redacted>)

82.111.156.210 (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied on your IP address' talk page, here. --Edcolins (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Edcolins, might you ask Alastair Wilson (with whom I have lost contact for at least a decade) to take a look at the article on British Leyland v. Armstrong Pats., to see if he would care to add anything? I know that Alastair used to know quite a bit about that area of copyright law (several decades ago, at least), and he might be able to improve it.
    
  • At the same time perhaps you could persuade him to write an article about Swish and its aftermath (related copyright field).
    
  • BTW, what was unfavorable about what anyone said re Hugh Laddie? I didn't see anything untoward.
    --PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Atoll

Hi Edcolins, thanks for the welcome, and a happy new year. Atoll (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias in this article

This article appears to contain a bias in favor of all arguments to increase the commercialization of biological patents--both by commission and by omission, the latter being that there is insufficient discussion of the arguments of the consequences of, e.g., "stacking" patents and "stealth" patents.

For the record, I am neither for nor against the increase (or decrease) in commercialization; I am just worried about bias.

Jcrglobalcap (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)jcrglobalcap

Copied message to Talk:Biological patent so that any one can take part to the discussion. --Edcolins (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

The article you created, David_Zimmer_(disambiguation) maybe deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David_Zimmer_(disambiguation).

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

1. You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
2. You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
   
3. When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
   Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
   Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
4. You can merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Green Cartdridge

Could you please look at Canon K.K. v. Green Cartridge Co. and insert categories. Regards. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

International Association of Students in Agricultural and Related Sciences

Hello Edcolins, I have been working on the page mentioned above and would like to know what kind of sources you need. As I am totally new here, would a link to the site of a university be enough like this one: http://ects.czu.cz/en/?r=227? I mean, where and how do you proof something like this? In our field, everyone knows that Monsanto and Bayer CropScience are two of the leading companies in crop sciences, where is it written down as proof for an encyclopedia... meaning for my case: asking people (students) in the field of agriculture, they will know IAAS as the biggest organization in their field, but again, where can I find the written proof for this? thanks and greets, Sebastian Oltmanns (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Edcolins, thanks for the reaction. I will be still working on this page, if there are any issues to be resolved just let me know. Sebastian Oltmanns (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I will reply on my discussion page as the whole discussion will be then easier to follow I think. Many thanks for your consideration though and looking forward to your further suggestions. Sebastian Oltmanns (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

copyright article cleanup

Hi there, since you are editing a lot of IP related articles you might want to join the "cleanup" effort for the copyright article... basically finding intext citations, removing original research and globalising it.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Neilson v. Harford

Would you consider adding categories to Neilson v. Harford? ----PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Neilson v. Harford

Thanks. Is there any narrower category than UK patent law? Do you have KB cases or Exchequer cases? PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In re: Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.

Can you please give me a little background as to what is disputed in this article? I am admittedly unfamiliar with this particular aspect of patent law, and I hadn't read this case earlier. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 01:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ralph Eckardt

I'm not sure why I go notified, as all I did was mark it for delition in the beginning. --JekShadow_talk 20:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold L. Sirkin

Why do you say "He has not been the subject of published secondary source material."? I found hundreds of such references. The notability standard measures whether a well-written article would meet the N standard, not whether a current poorly-written version does: the nominating editor has an obligation to search for sources first. In this case, the right thing to do was add a {{primarysources}} tag, rather than an AFD. THF (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Come Join Us

Hey, I left a comment on List of Dayton inventions

You should join me and Stratocracy on Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries since we can use all the help we can get on research. We've been working on that page tirelessly now for a couple of months. --Yoganate79 (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-disclosure Agreement External link

Hi Ed, I've had another crack at presenting a good argument for having a customizable NDA external link added at Talk:Non-disclosure_agreement. I'd appreciate your reconsideration when you're next free. Cheers, Jmlipton (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

AfD nomination of Brian Giovannini

An article that you have been involved in editing, Brian Giovannini, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Giovannini. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Edcolins (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. - jc37 10:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Federal Circuit cases format

Hi Ed. Quick question...is there a reason (good or otherwise) that in all the fed cir case articles, the case citation is given in the first line as a reference rather than actually giving the citation inline, such as with the SCOTUS case format? I understand that there isn't an actual "official reporter" on the lines of the U.S. Reports, so the case citation will probably end up biased towards West, but since it's so universal I don't really see an issue...Let me know your thoughts when you can. Thanks! Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Anton Piller orders

An AP would be in France une saisie contrefacon. In no way a "descriptive" seizure, there is no such thing in french law. A "saisie contrefacon" is some kind of conservatory seizure, or impounding, of course about counterfeit products. You mistook the Belgian terms, which is close to saisie descriptive and the French ones. No French lawyer nor judge would understand what you mean. As for the sources, too lazy to check the proper articles from NCPC. Google it, saisie contrefacon, and you will find an interesting European summary written by a German lawyer, which describes the European Union texts, and some of the national ones. To say the truth, that is where I learned that Belgium uses "descriptive"... never heard it before, and I have been a lawyer for 20 years. By the way, what are your sources??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.167.45 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation

I see that this is a Wiki Manual of Style concern and not a matter of English composition. I stand corrected. Thanks for the info, it will save me endless needless edits. :) --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 15:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Anton Piller orders

yes, it is a lot clearer about french law. Actually, amazing to see how in different countries using various formal systems (common law VS Roman law), the solutions end up being the same, or so close. A saisie-contrefacon will prevent the possessor of the seized material from disposing of it until the court has decided. The plaintiff has 2 weeks to start the action, and the seizure is void and null if he does not do anything in those 2 weeks. Otherwise, the counterfeit articles are frozen, very often still where they were, but disposing of them would turn the process into a possible criminal one - detournement d'obets saisis; once again, your contempt of court has the same results! What I learned from practice, though, is that very often some kind of a settlement will be found, before things go to court, or before a judge hears the parties, because most of those infringements concern materials with a very short lifespan. Therefore, if the stuff cannot be sold in three to six months, many times it won't interest anybody anymore, or at least, it won't interest the plaintiff anymore. The plaintiff is the one who had the idea, paid for the advertising, sells his name, assumes the costs of creation in short. And in most domains - fashion, toys, videos, movies, games, etc...- it is good now, or never. Fashion from last fall is already history, toys (Donkey Kong, remember? Hardly? I had a case about counterfeiting them for a lot of money, which blew out as fast as the toy! same for the water guns all the kids had 15 years ago, one summer, and one only) don't last much more than a season, etc... Of course, you still have a few classical favorites who remain, watches, luggage, usually luxury brands.

By the way, you seem to know Wikipedia a lot better than i do. It seems that although i have an account in French, i must openanother one in English. It does not seem possible to just switch languages... Have a nice day, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.167.45 (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

saisie-contrefacon

You are right, there is not necessarily an impounding, probably because of the costs involved - though i would think Viutton's bags would impound and destroy as soon as authorized. Thanks for the link, I will look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.167.45 (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Patent Family"

Dear Ed - I note you've removed my previous entries under the "Patent Family" heading.

I will of course defer to your status as "sysop", but my entry, I believe, was fair and comprehensive, not to mention being based on my understanding of European, British & US Patent Law. As a qualified British & European Patent Attorney, and one who has dealt extensively in the workings of the US Patent system, this is not insubstantial. The majority of what I wrote has firm basis in law, and furthermore might have been of use to others preparing legal agreements in which detailed consideration needs to be given to a definition of "patent family".

The reason for my entry was that I thought (and still do think) the current entry is imprecise. Regardless of what I think ( which is not that relevant as far as the world at large is concerned!), I'd be grateful for a few of your own comments.

Regards,

Jim Denmark. Jcdenmark (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw this and just thought I'd drop in my thoughts. First, I agree with Ed's reversion of your edits. Expert as all three of us are in patent law, it is extremely tempting to add our expertise to articles. This is not what Wikipedia is about - it is about adding expertise written by others and published in reliable sources. That said, I also agree with Jim that the current article is a bit of a mess. My personal view is that patent families have little to do with "inventions" and more to do with "related applications" (unless you're going to make the oversimplification that one patent application relates to one invention).

So, work is definitely needed on the article, but the starting point should be finding more reliable sources which explain the term "patent family", not adding in what each of us feel is meant by the term.

Just my two (insert "small unit of currency appropriate to your nationality" here). GDallimore (Talk) 13:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Exhausted combination

The claims drafter hopes to avoid a rejection because "exhausted combination" is no longer considered a valid ground for rejection, after the Radio Steel case. The Federal Circuit overruled the Supreme Court and held exhausted combination no longer a legitimate ground of rejection and the PTO did not resist. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Hilton Bombing

You might recall that article. Has now been fixed.

I suspect Ambi was ASIO or similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberglas (talk • contribs) 10:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

European Convention relating to the formalities required for patent applications

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of European Convention relating to the formalities required for patent applications, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Summaries/Html/016.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Micropatent changes

Hi, would you mind taking a look at Talk:MicroPatent? I have added some additional information about the citations that were removed from the article. I am hoping maybe there is reason to re-consider the deletion.

Thanks! Kristin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwikiva (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Traffic

Hi. You once expressed an opinion re the proper topic of Traffic; that now is the subject of a requested move. See Talk:Traffic#Move. --Una Smith (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Patent article citation removal

You removed the citation to an addition I made to the article patent about patent pending status per WP:RS. I would dispute your removal for two reasons. First, the source is a long-time registered patent agent, (since 1972 according to the USPTO website) https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/details.do?regisNum=26309. This shows credibility as an established expert in the field of patents. Further, I think it is inappropriate to simply delete the citation without replacing it with a more reliable source. If you dispute the information's accuracy, delete it. Leaving it unsourced I think is worse than sourced using a self-published (though expert-written) work. Huadpe (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Experiment in Better Patent Examination

Ed,

Are you interested in participating in a wiki-based experiment in better patent examination? If so, feel free to contact me.--Nowa (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Kafka machine‎

See Discussion page. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In re Bilski messed up

Would you please take a look at In re Bilski and do something? (Thanks.) PraeceptorIP (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

I had changed the format of the Rand Warsaw page and had added the links back in and also links to other patents held by him. Do you think those are not relevant as well?

Thank you for your help. I am still getting used to entering content on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joycee161 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Patent page, Costs section

Thank you for your work in overseeing the Patent page. I've added a new section to the Talk page that tries to address your queries, though I haven't correspondingly improved the main page (other than a trivial improvement in wording). The rewording in question was one of the places you've marked as ‘vague’, and I've taken the liberty of removing the vague marker just in case the new wording is clearer for you; though if the issue remains then please add a note to the talk page suggesting how it could be improved. Pjrm (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've now changed the main page to give more detail for the source of the ‘in the order of a million dollars’ claim, and am much happier with the resulting reference. I've removed the ‘quote needed’ marker, in view of the extensive quote I added to the talk page.

For the moment, I've retained the ‘vague’ marker, though I'm not sure that it does contravene WP:MoS#Unnecessary_vagueness: (a) unlike the examples in MoS, the costs are already quantified accurately, even if particularly imprecisely (“on average in the order of”); (b) the precision currently given is already not too far from the ideal amount of precision given (i) the purpose of the figure within that section and (ii) the uncertainty in the true average. I do agree that a bit more precision, such as “very roughly $n million”, might well be an improvement. Another possible improvement would be to give a characterization in terms of the amount of money at stake in the case.

I've added an introductory paragraph to that Costs section, though it's still something of a stub for further work. Pjrm (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Law practice management

I have nominated Law practice management, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law practice management. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cassandra Project

The article Cassandra Project has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article tagged as hoax. Completely unreferenced. Google search turns up several hits, none of which corroborate this story. At best an unverifiable, non-notable concept.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)