Talk:Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

U.S. Supreme Court cases

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemical and Bio Engineering (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringChemical and Bio Engineering

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Patentable subject matter#The algorithm exception and the patent-eligibility trilogy|patent-eligibility trilogy]] The anchor (#The algorithm exception and the patent-eligibility trilogy) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Organization and WP:WEIGHT for article by Stern

User:PraeceptorIP in this edit, I 1) combined the "pro" and "con" perspectives on the decision, which were split; for some reason the section led off with Stern's positive view, moved to the criticism, and then returned to the positive view, with Stern's article getting three quotes altogether; and 2) condensed Stern's view into one paragraph. Would you please explain why the section should begin with Stern's perspective and then pick that up yet again later, and why the pro-views should be split as they are in your preferred version? This makes no sense. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I restored PraeceptorIP's verbiage. Jytdog has done this in the past, where multiple editors who happen to be lawyers have tried to explain to him why his edits are unhelpful. He also seems to have some sort of long standing issue with Praeceptor over an unfounded allegation he made of COI. If he wants to change the language, he should obtain consensus before doing so. GregJackP Boomer! 12:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made no allegation of COI here: I asked a question about the content. You have not addressed that, and neither has he. There was nothing wrong with the citations; your edit note doesn't speak to the issues of organization and weight. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current version of the article, and I think the current organization is fine as-is. At the beginning of the "Reactions and aftermath" section, there is already considerable WP:WEIGHT placed on the views of commentators who criticized the decision, including Quinn and Noonan, so I certainly don't think we need to downplay Stern's perspective here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with Stern having WEIGHT similar to the others. Three quotes, and leading with him, is excessive. A reader would think he must be The Go-to Person In The World on patent law; he is a voice among many in the RW. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's an accurate characterization of this section; it starts off with much longer quotations from Quinn and Noonan. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

my edit was only reverted in part and i thought it had been completely reverted. i am ok enough with the current content. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to do a more thorough reversion and edit, but I have broken my wrist and an unable to devote much attention to Wikipedia at the moment. Perhaps Notecardforfree or GregJackP or other lawyers interested in this field will review the other Jyt edits here and decide whether his snide comments about Go-to etc. are justified comments. The supposed Go-to field, by the way, is not patent law as a whole (mentioned in the snide comment) but section 101 and the Benson, Flook, Alice line of case law, which the cited author teaches a course in at GW law school. PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]