Jump to content

Talk:Patent: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
(43 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Society|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Capitalism}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Business|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Business |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Invention|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Invention|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Law|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Law |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|class=B|importance=Low }}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Computing |class=B |importance=mid |free-software=yes |free-software-importance=low |software=yes }}
{{WikiProject Computing |importance=mid |free-software=yes |free-software-importance=low |software=yes}}
{{WikiProject Intellectual property }}
}}
}}
{{connected contributor|User1=Russkrajec}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 4
|counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 18: Line 20:
}}
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-07-31|oldid1=16335323|date2=2005-07-31|oldid2=19740674}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-07-31|oldid1=16335323|date2=2005-07-31|oldid2=19740674}}
{{connected contributor|User1=Russkrajec}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Patent/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}
{{clear}}
{{clear}}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Indiana_University/Entrepreneurship_Law_(Winter) | assignments = [[User:IHardlyKnowHerName|IHardlyKnowHerName]], [[User:Ethmitch|Ethmitch]] | start_date = 2020-10-19 | end_date = 2020-12-18 }}

== "Detailed public disclusure" ==

I removed the word "detailed". The statute only requires the disclosure to be sufficient for the "person skilled in the art", and patentees have an interest in disclosing as little as possible. [[User:Rbakels|Rbakels]] ([[User talk:Rbakels|talk]]) 08:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
: I would disagree. "Detailed" is needed because a patent will not be granted unless the detail is given: "I have invented a flux capacitor" is not patentable; "I have invented a flux capacitor composed of two turboencabulators and a swingle tree." may be so.
: The level of detail is difficult to get right in a patent. Not because it discloses secrets (that's the ''function'' of a patent) – if you want to keep it secret, don't publish it! Patenting ''relies'' on the operation of a legal process for patents and their enforcement. If you can't trust that, then the (expensive) process of patenting is useless anyway. The level of detail is more about managing the scope of the patent, against infringements. An infringement has to be against the details in the patent, both clearly enough (i.e. details were given) and yet also without allowing a workable alternative solution which is not an infringement because it's different enough – an over-detailed description may make the patent unwarrantedly narrow, thus leaving space for non-infringing work-arounds. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 09:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
::I think the correct term is "enabling". I have changed that. --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] ([[User talk:Edcolins|talk]]) 06:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

== "Detailed disclosure" ==

I tried to improve the article by adding te word "detailed" to disclosure, but it was removed.

Should I have used the (American) legal term "enabling"? Article 83 of the European Patent Convention says "Disclosure of the invention. The European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art."

Just the word "disclosure" could be understood as just a requirement for the inventor to tell that he made the invention. The above provision shows that it is more than that. [[User:Rbakels|Rbakels]] ([[User talk:Rbakels|talk]]) 11:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
:Thanks for your message. The wording "The patent rights are granted in exchange for an enabling public disclosure of the invention" seems accurate. The term "enabling disclosure" is also used in Europe IMHO. I understand that how detailed the disclosure must be depends on the capabilities of the skilled person. --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] ([[User talk:Edcolins|talk]]) 10:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

== "Patent Costs" ==
{{request edit|ans=yes}}

Information to be added or removed: Using 2018 data derived from AIPLA Economic Survey<ref>https://www.aipla.org/home/news-publications/economic-survey</ref>, the average cost of a US patent application is between $30,000 and $60,000.

Explanation of issue: The current information on the page is from 2000 and excludes some of the costs of a patent.

References supporting change: <ref>With the following assumptions: Relatively complex patent application, small entity, approx. $12,000 USPTO fees (including maintenance fees) and $44,000 attorney's fees.{{cite web|url=https://blog.blueironip.com/how-much-does-a-patent-cost#detailed-cost-breakdown-for-patents|title=How Much Does A Patent Cost? The Real Truth|website=blueironip.com|accessdate=07 Oct 2019|url-status=live|}}</ref>

{{Reflist-talk}}

[[User:Russkrajec|Russkrajec]] ([[User talk:Russkrajec|talk]]) 12:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

:We don't use commercial / advertorial blogs as sources. Is this information all in the AIPLA report? What does the blueironip post add? - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 13:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

== Use of "intellectual property" in lead ==

{{talkquote|A '''patent''' is a form of [[intellectual property]]}}
No it's not. "''Intellectual property''" doesn't exist{{snd}}it's a term that groups together several unrelated areas of law (trademarks, trade secrets, copyright and patents, among others). To quote an excellent gnu.org essay on the subject (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html):
{{talkquote|The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly.<br />Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.}}
Now, I realise that on Wikipedia we are not here to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|right great wrongs]]. However, we ''are'' supposed to be [[WP:NPOV|neutral]]. Using terms like "intellectual property" supports a point of view{{snd}}that these laws surrounding ideas and concepts should be considered the same as property rights for physical objects, and that they are somehow related to each other, even though they aren't. If we are to be neutral here, then we need to describe patents in a way that agrees with reality{{snd}}not by deferring to the definitions of those who have a vested interest in us thinking a certain way.<br />In conclusion, this needs to be fixed{{snd}}and not just this article, but the whole of Wikipedia. One will encounter many loaded terms here on Wikipedia, but that's not surprising{{snd}}they have purposely been embedded in the public consciousness to distort our thinking. Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs, but at the very least we can stop using loaded (and sometimes meaningless) words and terms in our articles, can't we? Describing things properly isn't righting great wrongs{{snd}}it's merely being neutral. We don't have to{{snd}}and shouldn't{{snd}}use terms that benefit someone's point of view. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 07:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
:The term "intellectual property" is widely accepted, and its scope as widely accepted includes patents. Yes, there is criticism of the term and that is best dealt with in the article [[intellectual property]]; and it is. [[User:TJRC|TJRC]] ([[User talk:TJRC|talk]]) 18:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
::[[User:TJRC]]: The term is meaningless. "A patent is a form of intellectual property" tells me absolutely nothing about the subject; it's like saying "A sponge is a form of blookenwhatsit" in the first sentence of [[Sponge]]. It's just filling space without imparting any information{{snd}}and it's not neutral, because "a patent is a form of intellectual property" is an opinion, not a fact. It's fine to say "Patents are considered to be a form of [[intellectual property]] by proponents of that concept[citation]" somewhere in the lead (not at the beginning), but can we please get rid of the declaration that it ''is'' right at the beginning? [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 08:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
:::I must agree that starting the article with "A patent is a form of intellectual property..." sounds rather uninformative. I have reworded the first sentence to make it a little more concise. I have also moved the reference to "intellectual property" at the end of the first paragraph (with sources). --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] ([[User talk:Edcolins|talk]]) 16:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
:::The "sponge" comparison fails. The term "blookenwhatsit" is not widely accepted, and its scope, if it were widely accepted, would likely not include sponges.
:::I don't have a whole lot more to add to this, so I'm probably going to just [[WP:BLUDGEON|shut up now]] to encourage other voices (like [[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]], above) to be heard. [[User:TJRC|TJRC]] ([[User talk:TJRC|talk]]) 19:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
::::[[User:Edcolins]]: This wording is better, but is it correct to call it a "title"? The page for that concept also mentions property, and the big issue here is that concepts and ideas cannot be "property" (which is part of the problem with the "intellectual property" term). Maybe I'm misunderstanding though. Also, I feel like there could be a more neutral way to mention the "intellectual property" part{{snd}}for instance, maybe the sentence could continue "but this is disputed by some for various reasons.[citations]" (to maintain conciseness rather than going into it).
::::
::::[[User:TJRC]]: I will acknowledge that I'm not the best at analogies, but hopefully I got my point across{{snd}}just imagine "blookenwhatsit" as being a term that refers to multiple separate and unrelated things, and everyone who thinks about it in that way assumes that those grouped together things are related, when they actually aren't. That's basically just me rewording the problem we have here though, rather than an analogy. Like I said, not very good at 'em... [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 02:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
::::
::::Addendum: The only problem with the wording I suggest above after what's currently written for the "intellectual property" part is that it doesn't give any context. I've never been fond of this wording, but maybe tagged onto the end it can say "See [[Intellectual_property#Criticisms|Intellectual property § Criticisms]]"? If you have any better ideas, let me know. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 02:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]]. I think it is correct to say that a patent is a "title". The patentee, i.e. the person to whom the patent has been granted, is en''titled'' to exercise the "legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of years" by enforcing the patent before a court of law. The ownership is not to the concept or idea but to the above-referred legal right ("to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of years"). The title, and the right attached to it, can be transferred from one person to another.
:::::I have moved the reference to "intellectual property" from the introduction to the section "Definition", with an additional link towards the section "[[Intellectual property#The term "intellectual property"]]". Per [[MOS:LEAD]] ("The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."), I think a reference to "intellectual property" in the introduction is not necessary. --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] ([[User talk:Edcolins|talk]]) 21:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::[[User:Edcolins]]: Thank you as well. This is only a small step towards an ultimate goal of removing language on Wikipedia which is pushing a point of view without many realising it, because unfortunately it's absolutely everywhere here (as well as other terms), but a small step forward is still a positive change. I appreciate your help here.
::::::
::::::Is there anywhere I can go to draw wider community attention to this problem of loaded words, so that, hopefully, the community can agree that there is indeed a problem here and resolve to fix it? I'm not sure if me going around random articles and trying to express the problem with a certain word in each individual case will do very much good.
::::::
::::::In fact, an idea that just came to me is to start a WikiProject to tackle this problem (as well as requesting wider community input). Considering you've been a great help here, would you be willing to join such a WikiProject if it were to be started? Regards, [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 03:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]]: Thanks for your help in improving the articles, especially concerning [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:BIAS]]! I think these project pages might be good starting points for further work on this topic: [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]] ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/members|you won't be alone]]). See also [[:Category:NPOV disputes]]. --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] ([[User talk:Edcolins|talk]]) 10:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::[[User:Edcolins]]: I appreciate the link resources. By the way, I just noticed that there are quite a lot of instances of the word "intellectual property" in this article, and not just in the lead{{snd}}should I tag them with "neutrality is disputed"? Thanks, [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 11:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::No, I don't think so. See [[WP:NECESSARY]], and here is an excerpt (which is, IMHO, fully applicable here):
:::::::::{{talkquote|There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that ''someone'' would find controversial. (...) It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some ''other'' page.}}
:::::::::I also think, as [[User:TJRC|TJRC]] wrote, that the term "intellectual property" is widely used and accepted <small>(for example in international treaties, see e.g. [[Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights]], in the name of governmental agencies, see e.g. [[Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom)]], [[China National Intellectual Property Administration]], [[Canadian Intellectual Property Office]], [[European Union Intellectual Property Office]], [[Intellectual Property Office of Singapore]], [[Swedish Intellectual Property Office]], [[Korean Intellectual Property Office]], [[Taiwan Intellectual Property Office]], [[Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property]], [[Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand]], [[Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Russia)]], [[Benelux Office for Intellectual Property]], in the name of courts, see e.g [[Intellectual Property High Court]], [[Beijing Intellectual Property Court]], [[Intellectual Property Enterprise Court]], and in the name of official positions, committees, or the like, see e.g. [[Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property]], [[United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet]], [[Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section]], [[Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit]])</small>. While I have great respect for your (and others') view that the term "intellectual property" shouldn't be used, [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs]]. "Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow" (from [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]]). --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] ([[User talk:Edcolins|talk]]) 20:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't think the NPOV tag is warranted. As I said above, the term "intellectual property" is widely used and accepted; Wikipedia does and should follow that.
:::::::::I don't even think the text with "and which has proponents and detractors" belongs here, either. That's a matter for [[intellectual property]], and it's already dealt with there. We shouldn't bleed minor controversies into every article that uses the term. [[User:TJRC|TJRC]] ([[User talk:TJRC|talk]]) 20:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::[[User:TJRC]]: I don't consider it relevant that the term is widely used, as that's only the case because corporations want to impress a certain point of view on us and have therefore heavily pushed it. That's why we should not use the term in a sense that implies that Wikipedia agrees with the point of view of "intellectual property". As I said before, yes, we aren't here to right great wrongs, but we must be neutral, and using the term "intellectual property" in contexts other than while explaining the point of view of those who consider it to be a valid term is not right. Everything that could be related to the term should first be explained in a neutral way that agrees with reality, then the point of view of those who use the term should be explained (without making any judgement on it in Wikipedia's voice), then the point of view of those who reject the term should be explained (without making any judgement as before). What are your thoughts on this? Regards, [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 03:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::[[User:Edcolins]]: Pinging because it turns out that I missed your signature and thought TJRC was the author of both messages. Oops. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 03:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::[[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]], with all due respect, I fully agree with [[User:TJRC|TJRC]]. The term "intellectual property" is widely used, and it seems you agree with that. Thus, per [[WP:MNA]]—which is an integral part of Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]] policy—, when writing articles about topics relating to intellectual property law, it is not helpful to hash out the controversy about the use of the term "intellectual property" on every page. Further, per [[WP:MNA]] again (see last sentence: "However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate."), a brief, unobtrusive pointer to the controvery about the use of the term "intellectual property" has been added in the section "definition", and, in my view, that is sufficient. --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] ([[User talk:Edcolins|talk]]) 21:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
{{od|:::::::::::}}[[User:Edcolins]]:I do indeed agree that "intellectual property" is widely used, but when there are ways to describe something in a manner that aligns with nobody's point of view, shouldn't that be preferred? I see what you're saying here, but surely the best solution then is to simply describe things neutrally, without using the term "intellectual property" at all. If it's already mentioned in the definition that it's often referred to as "intellectual property", that's surely enough, and for the rest of the article we can not use that word. I don't think there's any policy on Wikipedia that would prohibit this. [[WP:COMMONNAME]] only applies to article titles, so we don't have to keep referring to "intellectual property" throughout the article just because it's common.

The only times that we should use the term "intellectual property" is when saying something about what proponents of that term believe. If you want, we don't even have to add on any criticism after saying such things{{snd}}as long as we're not writing in such a way as to imply that Wikipedia itself supports the point of view that the term is legitimate, i.e. in Wikipedia's voice. I hope I've explained myself sufficiently here. Regards, [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 02:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, wait, I think I have a better case to make here.

The point of view expressed by using the term "intellectual property" is one that can be refuted as being non-factual. The term implies two things: that the laws which it groups together are somehow similar (which they aren't), and that intangible concepts and ideas should be considered "property" (implying that laws surrounding them should be more like laws for physical property, to "protect" them as physical property is, even though it is impossible to steal, as in deprive someone of, a concept or idea).

Because of this, no matter how widespread the term is, no matter how many people believe in the concepts it expresses, that cannot make them true, and it is wrong to write an article which, in Wikipedia's voice, agrees with an opinion that goes against facts. Is this a fair assessment? Regards, [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 04:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
:[[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]]: Thanks for your message. In my opinion, if the term "intellectual property" is widely used, and if, for example, a reliable source draws a comparison between patents and "other intellectual property rights", there is no valid reason why Wikipedia could not reflect this. The alternative to doing so would be to always list the different types of intellectual property rights (more precisely, what reliable sources consider to be encompassed under the term "intellectual property", i.e. trademarks, copyrights, industrial designs, etc.) instead of mentioning "intellectual property". However, that alternative would simply be extremely unconcise and would also not reflect the content of the reliable sources relied upon. Thus, my answer to your question ("''(...) when there are ways to describe something in a manner that aligns with nobody's point of view, shouldn't that be preferred?''") is, I am afraid, no. There is no reason to systematically avoid using the term "intellectual property," without considering the source(s) used to support the specific statement in which the term "intellectual property" is used.

:In addition, please read [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth]]. There are plenty of ways to improve Wikipedia articles (e.g. adding reliable sources, checking whether existing sources are reliable, removing unreliable sources and any controversial statement that relies on a unreliable source, etc.) but you may not systematically remove the term "intellectual property" from Wikipedia articles merely because you disagree with the use of the term "intellectual property", i.e. because you believe that using the term "intellectual property" is "non-factual". --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] ([[User talk:Edcolins|talk]]) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
===The term "intellectual property" throughout the article===
[[User:Edcolins]]: We don't have to be non-concise, and we don't have to remove all usages of the term. My suggestion here is to ensure that all statements which are the beliefs of proponents of "intellectual property" are attributed to the proponents of the term and not stated in Wikipedia's voice, which implies we agree with the opinion. [[WP:ASSERT]] states: {{tq|The text of Wikipedia articles should assert [[facts]], but not assert [[opinions]] as fact.}} When we treat "intellectual property" as legitimate, we are supporting a point of view.


== Requesting an edit ==
For instance, the first occurrence of "intellectual property" in the article is currently in this sentence: {{tq|Some other types of intellectual property rights are also called ''patents'' in some jurisdictions}}


{{edit COI|ans=y}}
(This one is doubly bad, even, because it uses the loaded (in this context) word "rights". This word is usually considered positive. For example, "human rights"; so when it's used in a context like this, it distorts thinking on things like this and makes it appear that these things are necessary. "Protection" is another word used like this in a loaded way.)
I think it would be relevant to add in the “Benefits” section the following findings from a reliable source (scholarly papers). What do you think? I have a COI with de Rassenfosse. (See my userpage).


Reasoning for inclusion: This empirical evidence contributes to a better understanding of how patent protection can impact the long-term value and durability of innovations. By referencing this study, the article gains credibility and depth, enriching the information available to readers seeking insights into the advantages of patents in terms of innovation sustainability and economic impact.
I'm not that good at rewriting these things myself, but I know how this occurrence can be fixed, at least. It should say something like this: {{tq|Some other laws that proponents of the concept consider to be intellectual property{{sup|[cite the opinion]}} are also called ''patents'' in some jurisdictions}}


Requested edit:
But actually, now that I think about it, it would probably be better to just say "Some other laws are also called ''patents'' in some jurisdictions", because whether or not proponents of "intellectual property" consider these other laws as "intellectual property" is irrelevant to this sentence. Let's try the next occurrence then.


A 2018 study using data from the Australian Inventor Survey (AIS) found that patented inventions experience a lower depreciation rate of 1-2% compared to non-patented ones. <ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = de Rassenfosse | first1 = Gaétan | last2 = Jaffe| first2 = Adam| title = Econometric evidence on the depreciation of innovations | journal = European Economic Review | volume = 101 | year = 2018 | pages = 625,626,637 | url = https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.11.005 |author-link=Gaétan de Rassenfosse }}</ref> [[User:AM13prime|AM13prime]] ([[User talk:AM13prime|talk]]) 13:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
{{tq|The English patent system evolved from its early medieval origins into the first modern patent system that recognised intellectual property in order to stimulate invention}}


{{reflist-talk}}
...Okay, this one is just a blatant falsehood. I don't even know what the specific timeframe here is, but since it says "''first'' modern", I can only assume that it means a time before the concept of "intellectual property" was even invented. This is what that essay I linked is talking about{{snd}}this term causes overgeneralisations. I can only imagine that this sentence actually means "that allowed persons to restrict others from copying their work". I can't think of any other valid meaning here.


== Requesting an edit ==
Next occurrence: {{tq|Influenced by the [[philosophy]] of [[John Locke]], the granting of patents began to be viewed as a form of intellectual property right}}.


{{edit COI|ans=y}}
John Locke died in 1704. The concept of "intellectual property" wouldn't begin to manifest until at least a century after his death.
I think it would be relevant to add in the “Costs” section the following findings from a reliable source (scholarly papers). What do you think? I have a COI with de Rassenfosse. (See my userpage)


Reasoning for inclusion: This inclusion helps address concerns surrounding the proliferation of low-quality patents and their potential negative effects on litigation costs and innovation incentives. The study's results provide concrete evidence that the fee adjustment played a role in improving patent quality by reducing the issuance of lower-quality patents. As the patent landscape evolves, these findings offer insights into the potential effectiveness of using fees as a policy tool to enhance patent system efficiency.
Next occurrence: {{tq|In an attempt to satisfy the competing demands for inexpensive drugs and effective intellectual property protection}}.


Requested edit:
Another occurrence where the term isn't even imparting any information. "effective copying restrictions for original drug"... whatever the word is. Sequences? Whatever it is that's patented in drugs, put that at the end, and then you'll have a sentence which actually makes sense.


Scholars have discovered that increased patent fees, resulting from the Patent Law Amendment Act of 1982, filtered out roughly 10% of the lowest quality patents, which may address concerns about the rise of low-quality patents leading to increased litigation costs and reduced innovation incentives. <ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = de Rassenfosse | first1 = Gaétan | last2 = Jaffe | first2 = Adam B. | title = Are patent fees effective at weeding out low-quality patents? | journal = Journal of Economics & Management Strategy | date = 2017 | url = https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12219 | pages = 134,141,144 |author-link = Gaétan de Rassenfosse }}</ref> [[User:AM13prime|AM13prime]] ([[User talk:AM13prime|talk]]) 13:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
{{tq|Debates over the usefulness of patents for their primary objective are part of a larger discourse on [[Intellectual property|intellectual property protection]], which also reflects differing perspectives on [[Opposition to copyright|copyright]].}}
: {{declined}} Placing this author's articles in several different Wikipedia pages is stretching it. One has already been placed. Regards, <span style="font-size:85%;border:3px solid red;border-radius:15px">[[User:Spintendo|<span style="color:#f00;">&nbsp;<b>Spintendo</b>&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 14:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
Okay, it's the last occurrence where it's not a name, but we finally have one that should actually be here. It should say something like this instead for neutrality: {{tq|Debates over the usefulness of patents for their primary objective are part of a larger discourse on other laws considered to be [[intellectual property]] by proponents of that term, which also reflects differing perspectives on [[Opposition to copyright|copyright]].}}


Well, there we go. I didn't expect to analyse every occurrence in the article, but this will probably help matters. I'll add a new heading which I can link to from the POV template. Hopefully I've made a convincing argument here. Regards, [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 03:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to see the cost of a patent (including search and attorney fees) included as one of the main reasons for a decline in patents in the US. It is one of the major limitations for deciding on whether or not to choose this route. [[Special:Contributions/24.50.25.147|24.50.25.147]] ([[User talk:24.50.25.147|talk]]) 13:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:DesertPipeline, I'll say it again: The term "intellectual property" is widely accepted, and its scope as widely accepted includes patents. Wikipedia usage reflects this.
:Your arguments continue to boil down to that you don't ''like'' that the term is widely accepted and includes patents. That's fine, but not a basis to change the article. Or if you don't ''like'' that Wikipedia's practice is to [[WP:NOTLEAD|follow and not to lead]], you can bring that up and try to change Wikipedia policy; and then come back here again if and when you do; ''then'' you'll have the basis to change the article.
:Please also see [[WP:BLUDGEON]]. The length and volume of the text you post here does not make it more persuasive. [[User:TJRC|TJRC]] ([[User talk:TJRC|talk]]) 20:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
::[[User:TJRC]]: The point of my post was to analyse every occurrence of the term in the article. Also, am I wrong in believing that Wikipedia has to assert opinion as opinion, even if that opinion is widely held? If I'm not wrong, all I'm asking is that we remove this term where it isn't relevant to the sentence at hand, or make sure we attribute the opinion that all these laws are "intellectual property" rather than declaring it in Wikipedia's voice, because of [[WP:ASSERT]]. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 03:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
:::[[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]], I think there is no consensus on this talk page for the change you have made [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Patent&type=revision&diff=1017144843&oldid=1017143480 here]. Again, as repeated by both [[User:TJRC]] and myself, the term "intellectual property" is widely used and accepted. If you want to attract more attention to the present discussion, you may start a [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment|request for comment]]. --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] ([[User talk:Edcolins|talk]]) 19:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
:::I have removed the following sentence "Influenced by the [[philosophy]] of [[John Locke]], the granting of patents began to be viewed as a form of intellectual property right, rather than simply the obtaining of economic privilege." for which no source was provided. --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] ([[User talk:Edcolins|talk]]) 19:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
::::[[User:Edcolins]]: Even by changing the wording order, we're now going from "so this term here is an opinion and stuff"... and then "so anyway, this term (which we agree with the concept of)". Don't you think that's a bit odd? Also, can you explain specifically why you don't like my change? Is it the wording? Isn't "laws that confer monopolies on ideas and concepts" essentially what is being conveyed there? What would you say it's communicating right now, using that term? [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 03:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::[[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]]: Again, I see no justification for replacing an expression that is widely accepted by something else. As [[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] wrote on the [[Wikipedia_talk:Loaded_words_and_terms_on_Wikipedia|talk page]] of your essay "[[Wikipedia:Loaded words and terms on Wikipedia]]", {{talkquote|Most of the terms that this essay criticizes are in fact the '''standard terms used by reliable sources'''. Its criticisms mostly amount to the [[etymological fallacy]], or to the fallacy that words have exactly one meaning regardless of context. (emphasis added)}} Further, pushing the same idea independently on two talk pages (I mean [[Talk:Intellectual property infringement]] and the present page), while apparently ignoring that there is no consensus for the changes you are proposing, is not helpful in my view. --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] ([[User talk:Edcolins|talk]]) 19:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::See also: [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Other loaded words]]. --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] ([[User talk:Edcolins|talk]]) 20:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
::::::[[User:Edcolins]]: Not that many people are even replying, so how do we know what the consensus is yet? So far it seems more "I believe this and a few other people are disagreeing with me".
::::::Can you explain to me why precisely you're opposed to describing this stuff without using the term, other than "it's often used"? Or is that the sole reason? I still don't understand why that would mean that we have to use it as if it's fact. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 02:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::::There is no consensus for the changes you are proposing. See [[Wikipedia:Consensus]]. The hypothetical prospect of perhaps reaching a consensus in the future is immaterial.
:::::::That ''you'' find the term "intellectual property" objectionable, wrong, or not factual is no reason to censor it. You are [[Wikipedia:Advocacy|advocating]] your point of view that term would be loaded and would have to be replaced. I must say I am impressed by the patience shown by others on [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Other loaded words]]! It seems we're going in circles. --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] ([[User talk:Edcolins|talk]]) 19:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Besides all the other arguments above, DesertPipeline is taking a very simplistic view of what "property" and "property rights" are. Even physical property, whether personal property like a chair or real property like a house, is not a "natural" thing; it is a creation of one or more legal systems, and the way the law operates has significant effects. For example, the exact provisions around squatters' rights affect the many people in the world with undocumented housing. Real property can be taken through eminent domain proceedings. [[Water resources law|Rights to use the water]] in a body of water may be separate from the land ownership. In some jurisdictions, there is a [[right to roam]] over private property. Certainly in every civilized country, the ownership of a piece of land does not give rights to do anything you want on that land. You need a permit to build a house (let alone a chemical plant). etc. etc. All that to say that neither the word "property" nor the word "right" have a straightforward meaning. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 01:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I'm just seeing this now. The argument about intellectual property's nonexistence is bizarre. It's like saying writing doesn't exist because it's a collection of different scripts that were developed independently. The types of IP are separate legal creations that all protect intangible creations of the human intellect. The term "intellectual property" is widely understood as such, and was a helpful addition to the lead. Assuming ''arguendo'' that it's helpful to have the language about "title" in the lead, having "a form of intellectual property that..." in front of it is also helpful. <small><b><span style="border:1px solid;background:#030303">&nbsp;[[User:White_whirlwind|<span style="color:white">White&nbsp;Whirlwind&nbsp;</span>]]</span></b></small> 07:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:43, 8 July 2024

Requesting an edit

[edit]

I think it would be relevant to add in the “Benefits” section the following findings from a reliable source (scholarly papers). What do you think? I have a COI with de Rassenfosse. (See my userpage).

Reasoning for inclusion: This empirical evidence contributes to a better understanding of how patent protection can impact the long-term value and durability of innovations. By referencing this study, the article gains credibility and depth, enriching the information available to readers seeking insights into the advantages of patents in terms of innovation sustainability and economic impact.

Requested edit:

A 2018 study using data from the Australian Inventor Survey (AIS) found that patented inventions experience a lower depreciation rate of 1-2% compared to non-patented ones. [1] AM13prime (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ de Rassenfosse, Gaétan; Jaffe, Adam (2018). "Econometric evidence on the depreciation of innovations". European Economic Review. 101: 625, 626, 637.

Requesting an edit

[edit]

I think it would be relevant to add in the “Costs” section the following findings from a reliable source (scholarly papers). What do you think? I have a COI with de Rassenfosse. (See my userpage)

Reasoning for inclusion: This inclusion helps address concerns surrounding the proliferation of low-quality patents and their potential negative effects on litigation costs and innovation incentives. The study's results provide concrete evidence that the fee adjustment played a role in improving patent quality by reducing the issuance of lower-quality patents. As the patent landscape evolves, these findings offer insights into the potential effectiveness of using fees as a policy tool to enhance patent system efficiency.

Requested edit:

Scholars have discovered that increased patent fees, resulting from the Patent Law Amendment Act of 1982, filtered out roughly 10% of the lowest quality patents, which may address concerns about the rise of low-quality patents leading to increased litigation costs and reduced innovation incentives. [1] AM13prime (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined Placing this author's articles in several different Wikipedia pages is stretching it. One has already been placed. Regards,  Spintendo  14:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ de Rassenfosse, Gaétan; Jaffe, Adam B. (2017). "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low-quality patents?". Journal of Economics & Management Strategy: 134, 141, 144.

I would like to see the cost of a patent (including search and attorney fees) included as one of the main reasons for a decline in patents in the US. It is one of the major limitations for deciding on whether or not to choose this route. 24.50.25.147 (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patent&oldid=1233324289"