Jump to content

Talk:Patent: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
PrimeBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,048,701 edits
m →Requesting an edit: Task 40: template replacement following a move
Line 39: Line 39:
== Requesting an edit ==
== Requesting an edit ==


{{request edit|ans=y}}
{{edit COI|ans=y}}
I think it would be relevant to add in the “Non-national treatment in the application procedure” section the following findings emerging from a combination of multiple reliable sources (scholarly papers of authors specialized in this domain). What do you think? I have a COI with de Rassenfosse. (See my userpage). Text to potentially add at the end of the section:
I think it would be relevant to add in the “Non-national treatment in the application procedure” section the following findings emerging from a combination of multiple reliable sources (scholarly papers of authors specialized in this domain). What do you think? I have a COI with de Rassenfosse. (See my userpage). Text to potentially add at the end of the section:


Revision as of 07:52, 11 July 2023

Template:Vital article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 October 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IHardlyKnowHerName, Ethmitch.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive right to ...

@White whirlwind: I have reverted your edit and have added a reference. The added reference comes from the section titled "Effects". The answer to your question: "Which is encompassed in the term "exclusive right", though, isn't it?" is definitely 'no', i.e. not "the exclusive right to make, use, or sell ...", as stated. A patent does not give its proprietor the right to practice the claimed invention because the claimed invention may be more specific that the invention claimed in another patent. Besides, even if there is no such patent claiming a more generic invention, a market authorization may be required in order to be entitled to make, use, or sell the claimed invention. I hope this is clearer now. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edcolins: Ok, thanks for the explanation. I was just trying to fight the good fight in our age-old battle to clarify legal prose.  White Whirlwind  21:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wokism strikes again

The data about women's underrepresentation in patents is of dubious relevance to the article; its inclusion in the 'history' is not particularly justified. I propose its deletion. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think the information is both relevant and appears to be well sourced. Per WP:NPOV, "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" have to be represented "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". Edcolins (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an edit

I think it would be relevant to add in the “Non-national treatment in the application procedure” section the following findings emerging from a combination of multiple reliable sources (scholarly papers of authors specialized in this domain). What do you think? I have a COI with de Rassenfosse. (See my userpage). Text to potentially add at the end of the section:

However, some governments are still biased (intentionally or unintentionally) towards foreign inventors. For example, scholars have found that in the U.S. and Chinese patent systems, inventions of foreign origin are about 10 percentage points less likely to be granted a patent than domestic inventions. In the United States, no intentional discrimination of foreigners was found. Rather, the evidence shows an unintentional discrimination of foreign inventors (i.e., disparate impact of rules and practices). [1] [2] [3] [4] Additional evidence points to the fact that filing international patent applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) mitigates some of this bias.[4] AM13prime (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ de Rassenfosse, Gaétan; Raiteri, Emilio; Bekkers, Rudi (2023). "Discrimination in the Patent System: Evidence from Standard-Essential Patents". SSRN.
  2. ^ de Rassenfosse, Gaétan; Raiteri, Emilio (2022). "Technology Protectionism and the Patent System: Evidence from China". The Journal of Industrial Economics. 70.
  3. ^ de Rassenfosse, Gaétan; Hosseini, Reza (2020). "Discrimination against foreigners in the U.S. patent system". Journal of International Business Policy. 3.
  4. ^ a b de Rassenfosse, Gaétan; Jensen, Paul H.; Julius, T'Mir; Palangkaraya, Alfons; Webster, Elizabeth (2019). "Are Foreigners Treated Equally under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement?". Journal of Law and Economics. 62.

Reply 30-JUN-2023

  Unable to review  

  • Page numbers have not been provided with the proposed sources, indicating the page number where the confirming information exists.

Regards,  Spintendo  23:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patent&oldid=1164813517"