Talk:Jacobsen v. Katzer/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

June 2010 Disputes

7 June 2010

To everyone: At the bottom of this dicussion page, I introduced a new section for the agreed upon section by section to be posted once we all agree. Htsimson's input plus the other individual's input combined, note the recommended "Overview Section":


I do not agree with FETrekkie's bold section, since I think it overstates and understates the case. It should be more factually terse in many respects. Also, I can not agree with Htsimson's viewpoint or .54's of the case either that only selected bits and pieces of it are of any interest, while the rest should be ignored. The case seems to have many facets to it, and each should be put into context. I am not sure what this case has to do with Bonnie and Clyde, is that in the court record someplace? WonkaWonkia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.84.243 (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Replying to the above: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of record. Wikipedia policy (What_Wikipedia_is_not) says that Wikipedia is not just collections of random facts, but rather information that is generally "notable". Wikipedia:Notability The article should be limited to information of notable interest to a large community. It should not contain minor facts of interest to a few persons. That kind of information is also likely to fall afoul of selection bias. The selection of specific facts based on interest or viewpoint is also a point-of-view and original research problem. The best way forward for this article is to limit it to the parts that have been cited in the legal and technical communities. I'll have an assistant pull the citations for this case. That will give us some objective information about interest. Hstimson (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitely agree that the article needs to be dramatically shortened and focused on the notable conclusions of the case. Not all cited facts that are of interest to parties of the case will be of interest to readers of the article (the "Background" section is particularly egregious in this respect). I also don't think going line-by-line or paragraph-by-paragraph is necessary, advisable or according to WP policy, but I appreciate the attempts to seek consensus and will do my best to contribute where I can. Npdoty (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The aspects of the case that are of interest to many are those things that are noteworthy and show something interesting. If there are parts of the case which are of no interest to you, then I would suggest they may have interest to a broad range of others. I do not understand what legal citations to the case have to do with it. I do not understand what your assistant could 'pull' that would be of much use. Any citations to the case will likely be on the appeal since I do not believe courts normally cite district court rulings. WonkaWonka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.84.243 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


Jacobsen v. Katzer/KAM was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer / KAM (collectively the defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case primarily addressed claims concerning copyright, patent, cybersquatting and Digital Millennium Copyright Act. An appellate decision(ref) by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed aspects of copyright law relevent to open source software.

The case established the following precedents; (1) Government employees cannot bring a charge of libel for a FOIA request (111.pdf), (2) A copyright cause of action can be made when the copyright has no value (given away free) (08-1001.pdf), (3) The downstream users of an infringing derivative work are subject to copyright claim and statutory damages with no license defense (08-1001.pdf), (5) the voluntary replacement of infringing product does not stop an injunction (08-1001.pdf), (5) Declaratory Judgment on patent infringement requires a prevailing party (243.pdf), (6) Copyright Fair Use defense (Oral/Implied licenses) can be used as defense when information is obtain and there is no scope limitation (395.pdf), (7) A cybersquating claim can be made when there is a property interest as a result of a previous legal settlement (190.pdf)

I recommend the "bolded paragraphs above" be used for the Overview Section. If you agree, place your "wiki name" at the end of this sentence.FEtrekkie

— I DISAGREE with the proposal above in bold, because it does not hold to hstimson's point about stressing just the results of general interest; it greatly minimizes the CAFC decision, and pays more attention to district court decisions that are much less important. It's trying to hide the CAFC decision, the part that got a lot of interest and has been already cited in multiple cases, and mistating several of the points the CAFC made. (3) in particular is a tremendously misleading reading of the decision. It's like leading an article about Bonnie and Clyde with "if anybody bought stolen property from Bonnie and Clyde, they were at risk of being prosecuted for receiving stolen property" That's REALLY not the main historical point about Bonnie and Clyde, and the paragraph above is not the point about the Court of Federal Appeals decision. (Examples are OK on talk pages, just not in the article itself, because we reason about things here; we present information in an unbiased, cited way on the main page). I also DISAGREE with WonkaWonka's formulation, which is essentially the same. I DO AGREE with hstimson's formulation. 99.105.52.45 (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

— I believe the one below is more accurate and should be used to avoid overstating things and any potential bias. WonkaWonka.


Htsimson. I suggest the following.

On March 13, 2006, Robert Jacobsen (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Matthew Katzer/KAM (Defendant) over Model Train Software in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This case included 407 court Dockets, and 2 Federal Circuit Appeals Federal Circuit. The case settled out of court after summary judgment in March 2010 (403.pdf).

The case established the following precedents; (1) Government employees cannot bring a charge of libel for a FOIA request (111.pdf), (2) A copyright cause of action can be made when the copyright has no value (given away free) (08-1001.pdf), (3) The downstream users of an infringing derivative work are subject to copyright claim and statutory damages with no license defense (08-1001.pdf), (5) the voluntary replacement of infringing product does not stop an injunction (08-1001.pdf), (5) Declaratory Judgment on patent infringement requires a prevailing party (243.pdf), (6) Copyright Fair Use defense (Oral/Implied licenses) can be used as defense when information is obtain and there is no scope limitation (395.pdf), (7) A cybersquating claim can be made when there is a property interest as a result of a previous legal settlement (190.pdf)

This case is an open source license case, but impacts both commercial and open source software. The following sections below review historic details of this case.

6 June 2010

FEtrekkie wants to install an editing process that is at variance with Wikipedia policy on editing. That paragraph-by-paragraph process would, with the article as it stands, result in inevitable delay.

Never-the-less, I will agree to starting at the begining of the article. I do this because I'm trying to get this article back to proper Wikipedia form: It should cover the information of general interest. It should not be a place where the parties argue parts of the case again. It should provide information on the general law, e.g. appellate decision. It should not include "examples" or "explanations" of the law created. It should contain minimal information beyond the actual case. It should not make arguments about District Court motion practice. It must not contain subtle or unsubtle digs at any of the parties via tricky URLs in references. Etc.

Wikipedia is not a place for the parties to continue to argue their case. They can do that elsewhere. A Wikipedia article at most can contain a reference to those arguments. It must not rehash or reinforce them.

To see examples of these, please read the case articles for Gottschalk_v._Benson, KSR_v._Teleflex, Festo_Corp._v._Shoketsu_Kinzoku_Kogyo_Kabushiki_Co., EBay_Inc._v._MercExchange,_L.L.C., MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., and In_re_Bilski. Those articles cover significant decisions with a fraction of the text of this article.

These don't discuss how many filings there were. They don't spend time on the details of the lower court action(s). They present the important result(s) of the case.

This article needs to move in that direction.

For a summary paragraph, I therefore recommend and propose condensing the article to main points (I have omitted intra-Wiki links):

Jacobsen v. Katzer/KAM was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer / KAM (collectively the defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case primarily addressed claims concerning copyright, patent, cybersquatting and Digital Millennium Copyright Act. An appellate decision(ref) by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed aspects of copyright law relevent to open source software. It holds that

  • The Artistic License does put valid conditions on the use of licensed software.
  • Those conditions limit the copyright license, and actions outside them are infringement.
  • An injunction to stop that infringement is a suitable remedy.

This result has been discussed in multiple venues (refs as agreed to).

We can then proceed to build a short article on that basis. Hstimson (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the facts should be more accurate than stated above. Could you please check the "holding" of the appeal and modify it as appropriate.

I do not see where in the opinion of the court that "an injunction to stop that infringement is a suitable remedy". I believe the opinion remanded the case to determine if an injunction is appropriate.

Also, the opinion does not state they are "valid condition" but rather "enforceable copyright conditions".

Also, I do not see in the opinion that actions outside them are infringement. Actions outside the enforceable copyright conditions could be valid uses of the materials for other reasons.

Please check the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkawonka (talkcontribs) 17:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OVERVIEW SECTION INPUT

4 June 2010

FEtrekkie to Htsimson and others: Please provide input/changes to this section so it can be agreed upon. If this is OK, please add your "Wiki-name" as a signoff at the end of the quotationed section below. If NOT OK, please provide input after the heading "Additions/Changes" FEtrekkie

Originally written section appearing in Wiki Article below:


"Jacobsen v. Katzer was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer (defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case addressed claims concerning copyright, patent, cybersquatting and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues.

The case settled February 16, 2010.[1][2] The litigation encompassed 405 Federal District Court document filings and two appeals to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case has aided in the clarification and the establishment of the enforceability for the licensing of both open-source software and commercial software under United States copyright law."


Additions/Changes: Please provide your input below........................

(The following suggestion was made by WonkaWonka, nee JMRIadvocate, on June 4, 2010)

I suggest the additional following proposed change for discussion.

"Jacobsen v. Katzer/KAM was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer / KAM (collectively the defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case primarily addressed claims concerning copyright, patent, cybersquatting and Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The case settled February 16, 2010.[1][2] The litigation encompassed 405 Federal District Court document filings and two appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. [citation to court here]

The case has aided in the clarification and establishment of the enforceability for the licensing of both open-source software and commercial software under United States Copyright law."





03 June 2010

FEtrekkie to 136.152.155.19:

Respectfully, I reversed your replacement (insertion) of the patent section.

I objected to Htsimson's input into the patent section. Read the discussion page. A methodological approach must be used beginning with the Overview section to the Background section to subsequent sections. I am awaiting Htsimson's review of the Overview section first. Once that is agreed upon, we'll go onto the next section. The patent section is just a few sections beyond our discussion at this time. Relax, 136.152.155.19 we'll get to the patent section shortly.

Htsimson, please respond to the Overview section so we can move to the Background section.

I will look into the Wiki article everyday to facilitate it's review and input.

FEtrekkie —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

02 June 2010

I did not know that anyone who lives in the US believes that you do not have the right of free speech. Just because the facts do not support your point of view, is no reason to delete the facts. Find the facts that do support your point of view, and add them. If there are no facts that accomplishes that task – then you have your answer, you are wrong in your opinion, and you need to change that opinion.

All your comment has done is to make it extremely important to me and reinforce the fact that only citable information should appear in this article. Currently the article is very, very well documented. What I see is someone trying to remove factual information because it does not support their point of view.

Have you not made a hypothesis and discovered in the process of data collection that you drew the wrong conclusion? This Wikipedia article is no different. The user should be left up to themself to draw their own conclusions.

I reviewed the court records regarding my statement about “business process and software change”. What I found was, Katzer made the changes in the software in 2006 independent of any court mandate. The settlement is pretty clear that Katzer was not required to make any additional changes to his software. The $100K payment looks more like extortion (legal, but still extortion), than any value payment (a value payment would be one for services or licenses granted, etc.) Granted Jacobsen did get an injunction, but for what? Katzer was not required to change anything; otherwise the settlement would have documented it.

So why did the case not settle in 2006 or 2007?

Because of this simple question, this article must have documented, historic facts supporting any inserted written statements.

I restored the changes that 99/217 made. This is what the discussion pages are for.

Reply to 64.134.147.62

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free speech zone. It is not a place for polemics. The paragraphs above are an example of exactly what Wikipedia policy seeks to avoid. It is certainly not a balanced view of both sides of the issue.

No one has pointed to bias in HStimson's patent section. No one has pointed to other disputed aspects of it. Therefore, the the result of the discussion is that HStimson's patent section is the most balanced available. Under Wikipedia policy for a disputed section, until somebody proposes _specific_ text changes, and discussion takes place on this talk page, that is the section that must stand.

I have replaced it. 136.152.155.19 (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

01 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.147.62 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

FEtrekkie to Hstimson: I happened to look into the Wiki article. I do not understand what the RUSH to address this article is.

I undid your “Patent” insert into the article from the discussion page as I disagree with some of your input. We can address the patent section later , sentence by sentence AFTER all of the other sections preceding it are reviewed.

I strongly recommend, we address the wiki article section by section WITH the first section being addressed first! The Overview and Background must be correct as the other sections follow these two sections. We have to keep in mind that the facts must be in chronological order.

Let’s address the first section (Overview) first. Make any corrections, additions to the Overview section (See bleow) onto the discussion page. When we both agree, then we can adjust that section of the Wiki article, removing the headers for that section and moving onto the next section.FEtrekkie

OVERVIEW

Jacobsen v. Katzer was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer (defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case addressed claims concerning copyright, patent, cybersquatting and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues. The case settled February 16, 2010.[1][2] The litigation encompassed 405 Federal District Court document filings and two appeals to the Circuit Court of Appeals. The case has aided in the clarification and the establishment of the enforceability for the licensing of both open-source software and commercial software under United States copyright law. The details of the case are covered in the sections below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetrekkie (talkcontribs) 15:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

To FEtrekkie in reply to above

FEtrekkie, you are not the owner of this page, and your sole opinion can't be a veto. A plan to go sentence by sentence through a 40kB-plus article is not realistic, and is just another recipe for delay on your part. You haven't pointed out factual issues with HStimsons proposed section, you haven't pointed out any bias in it, you haven't pointed out any other places where it fails to meet Wikipedia standards. One the other hand, multiple people including myself have pointed out all those problems in the existing article, which needs to be fixed. HStimson made a proposal, waited the time you suggested, dealt with the one comment received. That's the way the system is supposed to work, and we are not going to give up making it work that way.

I am putting back HStimson's edit, as reformatted and with the extra reference that was added. If you think there's anything wrong with it, point that out here for discussion.

If you want to work on the introductory section next, that's fine. Over the next week, let's try to get something there we can agree on. 99.101.199.131 (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WonkaWonka, nee JMRIadvocate, reverted changes under dispute in violation of the Wikipedia dispute policy and the discussion to date on this talk page. Further, the associated edit summary was off point and misleading. Negotiations over content, particularly in cases of bias, are to take place on the talk page. They are not to take place via dueling edits of the article.

I have reverted the change. A reminder: Successive attempts of this type are vandalism, and can get accounts and article blocked.

If somebody wants to dispute aspects of the article, whether factual, bias, original research or any other, raise the issue here, and explain the reasons.

216.27.180.212 (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

May 2010 Disputes

31 May 2010

There have been no substantive issues raised about my proposed patent section. One comment addressed the point on the settlement agreement. I agree that it would be better to address that in another section.

The proposed section has been available for nine days. That's enough time. Replacing the existing biased section with this one meets all the other the criteria of the Wikipedia policy. I've therefore just put it in place, except for the settlement point.

Please point out anything missing via this talk page. Fixes for "missing" things should preserve the balance of the section. Please avoid argumentation, selective quoting, etc. We don't want to restart the issues that have cast this entire entry into doubt.

Which section should we work on next? I'll wait a day or two for somebody to propose a draft for some next section. If not, then I'll probably research and propose one.

Hstimson (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

30 May 2010 I recently read the Wikipedia article for the JvK case and was intrigued by the discussion section.

My conclusion is, this case has gone on for a number of years, recently settling this past March so history will not change. I recommend everyone wait and allow Htsimson and FEtrekkie to address only the historical facts. Why? The amount of litigation in my opinion is out of line given the scope of the complaint, subsequent 400+ court dockets which resulted in only a small $100,000 settlement fee paid to Jacobsen without Katzer having to change any business practices or products.

Since Htsimson and FEtrekkie have volunteered to focus on refining the Wikipedia article. I recommend we allow them to do so. There should be no time dependency as they’re only reviewing historical facts. I suspect the result of their work will simplify the Wikipedia article even more than already written and the finished work product/article will factually reflect history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.147.62 (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(Replying to the comment by 64.134.147.62 above)

The line "The amount of litigation in my opinion is out of line given the scope of the complaint, subsequent 400+ court dockets which resulted in only a small $100,000 settlement fee paid to Jacobsen without Katzer having to change any business practices or products." is exactly the biased presentation that needs to be removed from this entire discussion. "small ... settlement" is a value statement. "without Katzer having to change any business practices" is factually not true, as Katzer and KAM are now subject to two permanent injunctions that specifically cover things that a Federal judge ruled that Katzer had done in the past. As to "change ... products", Katzer himself said in a court filing that he'd changed his products in response to Katzer's complaint.

The way to get this Wikipedia article back to the facts is to stop arguing one side or the other, and leave the detailed arguments aside. I think HStimson's proposal is in the right direction, and should be done soon.

99.101.199.131 (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

29 May 2010

I have added references to HStinson's suggested content for patent section (below), instead of creating a new copy with all that in it, since this talk page is getting so long and the history feature lets him put it back easily if he wants to.

Now that a week has gone by (FEtrekkie's original suggested interval) and no substantive comments have been made to HStimson's proposed text, I think we should take the next step and insert it. The goal is to get a common, clearly unbiased base, and I think his draft has definitely done that. What we'd have to guard against is the biased addition of lots of detail on just one side or the other, including attempts to argue the case anew, etc, but we have ways to do that.

I do not think that further delay is needed. FEtrekkie may be on vacation, but this isn't my job and I do it on my own time, as I'm sure others do. Further, when FEtrekkie and the -one- other person (by several names!) were editing, they didn't express any interest in waiting for consensus, and often ran right over other people's edits with immediate undo's and replacements, so I think HStimson following FEtrekkies 1-week suggestion has clearly gone far enough that way. 99.101.199.131 (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

29 May 2010

FEtrekkie to Htsimson: I'm on Holiday till the second week in June. I'll communicate to you my recommendation of "proceeding forward" upon my return.

We (both of us) have to be cognizant of the fact that a number of individuals over the years have provided input into this Wiki article. We MUST respect that input as this article is collaboratively reviewed.

I have inserted into each section a "POV-Check" heading. As mentioned earlier, after each section is reviewed, collaboratively edited and agreed upon by you and I, I'll remove the "POV-Check" heading.FEtrekkie


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetrekkie (talkcontribs) 10:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

21 May 2010

I think we agree that collaboratively editing this entry is the best way forward.

I disagree that going sentence-by-sentence is likely to be productive. Viewpoint bias is larger than specific facts in specific sentences. The presentation of the entire case needs to be balanced. I think it would be better to go section by section. Each section should present the key points on its topic with balance, proper emphasis and quality references.

It is a Wikipedia principle that an article should focus on its specific topic, not on general knowledge. This article is about the Jacobsen v. Katzer case. That's all it's about. The article should be confined to that rather than attempt to argue any larger dispute.

Let me propose a set of key points for one section. The patent section looks problematic to me. I practice patent law, and this section contains statements and arguments that are not consistent with the law and the outcome of the case. I don't believe that arguing over one sentence at a time will be productive in fixing this. We should first agree on the set of key points. Then we can construct a section that represents each of those in a balanced way.

My suggestions for the key points in the patent section follow. I list them in chronological order. We should add or subtract from them to reach agreement. I've left off references for now.

  • Katzer holds a series of patents titled "Model Train Control System". The first was filed in 1998[1]. Subsequent patents were filed via continuations and were granted subject to terminal disclaimers for double patenting.
  • Katzer filed suit against and sent infringement C&D letters to two people in 2002 regarding the Winlok and Railroad&Co programs[2][3]. The recipients argued prior art and other defenses[4]. Katzer dismissed the suits.[5][6]
  • Katzer sent infringement C&D letters and invoices for patent licenses to Jacobsen starting in March 2005[7][8][9][10]. Jacobsen argued invalidity and noninfringement in reply[11][12].
  • Katzer sent a Freedom of Information Act request referencing patent infringement to Jacobsen's employer in October 2005.[13]
  • Jacobsen filed suit for declaratory judgement in March 2006, requesting judgements including non-infringement, invalidity and others.[14]
  • Motion practice and judicially-mandated alternative dispute resolution processes took place in 2006 and 2007. During this time, Katzer had not presented his defenses in an answer to the complaint.
  • In January 2008, Katzer disclaimed the patent in suit and a second patent.[15]
  • In motion practice, Katzer argued that the disclaimers made the patent dispute moot as the patent could no longer be enforced after disclaimer.[16] Jacobsen argued that he still had an apprehension of suit on other patents retained by Katzer, based on prior communications from and behavior of Katzer.[17] Katzer stated that he had not planned and did not intend to enforce any other patents.[18] The Court ruled the patent dispute moot.[19]
  • (There should be a sentence or two about how the settlement agreement bears, but I propose to leave that wording for later since it seems a contentious aspect of the article)

Hstimson (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Addressing hstimson's last point above, about "how the settlement agreement bears", I agree that's "contentious"; many edits have been removed in that area. There's also a lot of opinion and unbalanced facts in the Settlement Agreement section of the main article about patent.

I suggest that the settlement agreement should be left out of the patent section, and localize the entire discussion of the settlement agreement to a section of it's own. That way, we can find a way to balance that part by itself, perhaps by just having two "viewpoint" sections that are separately edited.

99.101.199.131 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

19 May 2010

FEtrekkie to Hstimson:

I placed the "POV-Check" into the Wiki article.

I recommend, if you concur, you (Hstimson) go by section and identify the specfic sentences you believe are "not neutral" within that section. I believe this article is fairly neutral as it stands but lets give you the benefit of the doubt. This may take some time......a few months, but as I indicated earlier, my interest is only in accuracy. During this time period, I recommend all editors not change the article until each identified sentence is agreed upon after everyone has provided input into the discussion page. I suggest a maximum of one week time period for any response to your identified sentence. When we complete this, I'll remove the POV-Check from the article and you can remove the POV's from your end. A comment on your "original research" input: This can be taken two ways (1) original research or (2) an example to illustrate. What do you think?(User FEtrekkie)


19 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetrekkie (talkcontribs) 02:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hstimson to FEtrekkie and others

Wikipedia policy requires that you discuss the dispute and achieve consensus, then the people who put the tag on should take it off. If consensus can't be reached, there's a dispute resolution process. Wikipedia:DR You don't unilaterally take the tag off just because you don't think you're got a point of view bias. The fact that you don't think the edits are biased while others do think so is entirely the reason there's POV dispute!

One of the key principles in resolving WP:NPOV disputes is achieving balance in the article. WP:UNDUE WP:GEVAL Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Situations_and_handling. Balance requires a range of information reported in an even-handed way. When one side of the case's points are again and again edited to be "alleged", and the other's contentions are presented as fact evidenced by "Court documents", the presentation is not even handedWP:SPS. When a single argument by a party is cited as fact, despite a counter-argument by the other party, that's a biased presentation. Much of the exposition that surrounds the discussion of the actual case is original research WP:NOR and synthesis WP:SYN that is subject to bias of its own, and therefore by Wikipedia policy should not be included. Removing preferred source material, such as case-law citations, in favor of non-reviewed web pages is improper sourcing. WP:PSTS None of this should be included in the encyclopedia.

This page has become the subject of an edit war WP:EW. The people FEtrekkie mentions as making the page "very representative" have been a large part of the reason for that. By removing other people's edits as "unsubstantiated", instead of letting them add to the entry or at most adding a "citation needed" tag, those editors have made the situation worse. There have been multiple violations of the three revert rule WP:3RR.

Although individual editors may disagree on one or more of those things, it is clear that there is a dispute going on.

What is the process from here?

The dispute is still present. The entry should be tagged to represent that.

I'm going to reinstall the dispute tags. I would prefer that everybody involve follow the dispute resolution process. That means not removing dispute tags until there is some broadly accepted resolution.

I think that the only way to really resolve this is to focus this entry back to the specific Jacobsen v. Katzer case and decision. Most of the contention seems to be on characterization of facts outside the case itself: Patent preliminaries, license terms, etc. Most of the discussion of details is only interesting to the parties themselves, or perhaps is being put down as a way of making points elsewhere by citing "Wikipedia". In either case, that doesn't rise to the level of notability WP:NOTE required for an entry in Wikipedia.

There has also been a dispute about which documents to cite and how to describe them. Wikipedia is not to be just a collection of links WP:NOTMIRROR), and adding citations "because they reflect the record" is not the point of an encyclopedia. The entry should just reflect the main points of the case and its outcome, along with a suitable small number of key documents.

The next round of editing should focus on reducing the entry to a balanced, minimal description of the underlying legal case. Editors should allow each other the grace to do that, and try to pare this article down to a common, valuable core that can be agreed upon.


Hstimson (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me add to Hstimson's comments above. After that comment was put in the talk, "WonkaWonka" added the following text to the main page: "Put in context, this is equivalent to having a box of 500 crayons and selecting your favorite 291 crayons, then arranging the 291 crayons on your desk and claiming a copyright in the selection of the 291 crayons arranged on your desk."

That's not acceptable under several of the policies that HStimson pointed out. It's "original research" and "synthesis". More importantly, it's biased, because it's not showing two sides. It's misleading, because it's inconsistent with the court's ruling that Jacobsen's content was copyrightable.

And because of that, I'm going to mark that section as under dispute.

I hope we can find a way to end this, but I agree with HStimson that the same people adding more opinion is not going to be progress.

99.101.199.131 (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

17 May 2010

FEtrekkie to 99.101.191.131 and others

I am amused by your comments. I am not wonkawonka.

I discovered an additional secondary source and added this reference to the background segment. This reference is sourced from the May 2005 MRIA "Reporter" Newsletter (See page 2).

My interest has been only in the accurate representation of the facts in the JvK case. I conclude now (May 17, 2010), thanks to 99.101.191.131, wonkawonka, 96.25.65.132, 184.76.40.252, freepen and others, this article is very representative of the JvK case. This article per wiki policy should be left standing without constant POV insertion. On this basis, I have removed the POV dispute heading. (User FEtrekkie)


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetrekkie (talkcontribs) 14:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

14 May 2010

The change history of the main page shows a long sequence of changes by user "Fetrekkie". These continue up until 13 May 2010 and stop. A new series of changes by user "Wonkawonka" starts 14 hours after the last post by Fetrekkie, with a different style of submit comments. This might lead one to conclude that another editor has joined the "point of view" dispute on this page. However, Wonkawonka is just a rename of the "Fetrekkie" user: Special:Contributions/Wonkawonka. This appears to be yet another attempt by this person to bypass the idea of community editing of the Jacobsen v. Katzer page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.199.131 (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

recent revisions

16 March 2010

I would like to thank “Freepen” and “12.73.27.92” for their input into the “Settlement Section” of the Wikipedia article. However, this input was not entirely correct and was misleading. I made the necessary corrections along with placing in parentheses the definition of a release in accordance to the wording of the J v K Settlement Agreement. I recommend to those of you who add to , or refine, the Settlement section of this article, please read carefully the publically available Settlement Agreement (Federal District Court Document 402 series), appearing on both JMRI (www.decoderpro.com ) and Trainpriority’s (www.trainpriority.com) web sites. [((fetrekkie))] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetrekkie (talkcontribs) 13:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


14 March 2010

Fetrekkie, you're right, and I apologize. I had you confused with "Freepen", which appears to be a sock puppet for Matthew Katzer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.27.92 (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


13 March 2010

Anonymous: Thank you for your input. I re-reviewed the Settlement Section composed by me and only one footnote did refer to www. trainpriority’s web site (reference #24). Given your input, I removed that footnote (#24) from the Settlement section as the supporting documentation on the web site could be considered biased. Regarding your other comments, I’m not sure where you obtained your written examples/ information from. None of the items mentioned within your comments are part of the Settlement Section. You must be confusing me with someone else’s input, elsewhere in the Wikipedia article, outside of the Settlement Section. (Fetrekkie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetrekkie (talkcontribs) 02:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


13 March 2010

Fetrekkie, your 'original analysis' carries many misleading points. What you refer to as "court records" are one parties filings and declarations, which are by definition disputed. You removed citation to the decision of the Court in favor of statements made by that same party. You removed citations to external articles in terms of citations back to that same party's web site. And by moving citations to court documents from URLs from just document numbers to links like "example_jacobsen_lied_about_infringement_jmri_network_ver_1_4.pdf" you've introduced a bias into what should be factual information.

I've known Matt Katzer for more than 10 years, which is why I'm posting anonymously, and this is the kind of thing he routinely does.

Let's put this article back to a very simple statement of basic facts, with pointers back to the web sites of the two sides. Nothing else will be stable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.27.2 (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


13 March 2010

I just happened to open up the Jacobsen v Katzer Wikipedia area this afternoon and was surprised that my original analysis input into Wikipedia for creation of the Settlement Section was changed. Thankfully, someone reverted it back to my original insertion. My insertion was done after extensive review of the case. The insertion is accurate and fully supportable by citations. Incidently, I accidently came across www.trainpriority.com web site that listed all of the court documents for the Jacobsen v Katzer case after finding the JMRI web site listing of the same court documents somewhat confusing to use. It's good to know that there are two web sites available to obtain the original court documents. I am sure future law students will take available of this resource. I am concerned that this "vhkane person" is purposely deleting correctly citable material for "who knows for what reason". It appears there are enough other readers that will make an effort to keep this area accurate, reversing the "undo's". Thank you whom ever you are.(FEtrekkie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetrekkie (talkcontribs) 21:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


March 13, 2010:

There have been more than a dozen recent revisions to this by "Freepen". That user seems to be Katzer or a Katzer affiliate. It's a newly created account, which has only edited this page and the "JMRI" page (software involved in the case) Freepen has posted multiple links to Katzer's web site before Wikipedia or Bing has indexed the corresponding pages, indicating there's some likelihood of inside knowledge. And the language used, including syntax and spelling, is very consistent of features in Katzer and KAM web sites.

This sounds like self-dealing.

The most important part of this case, and therefore this page, are the various rulings and their consequences. Perhaps it's time to cut the page down to just that. Otherwise, it looks like it's going to be a battleground of little interest to anybody other than the principles, and that makes it a vanity page.


March 18, 2009:

Mr. Katzer is FreePen. I tried to remove his content, because he altered this neutral entry to match his version of events on his website. He then contacted a number of model train manufacturers and model railroaders who do business with JMRI, and pointed the altered Wikipedia entry as an unbiased version of events. I tried to revert it to remove his changes, and I would encourage someone at Wikipedia to do so. Apologies to FeTrekkie if I inadvertently removed his entries--I am new at this, and was focusing on Katzer/FreePen. vhkane Vhkane (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Older "recent revisions"

There have been a bunch of revisions lately to this page that have lacked references, and which seem to be biased in the direction of Katzer. Many of the resources I used when writing this article are from Jacobsen's collection of court documents, but Katzer has not published his side of the case. I would like to have both sides on here as fairly as possible, but Wikipedia can't do original research, especially without references.

If you're thinking about putting the edits back that I just reverted, please let me know what changes you're planning to make so we can hash out if there will be references, and if it makes sense for the article. This talk page is probably the best place for such a discussion.mjlissner (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

These are the first revisions in many years that have been input into the Jacobsen v Katzer assessment on factual footing with the necessary court documents or websites such as chillingeffects.org cited for references. Please note that there have been no revisions without the necessary documents being cited. Also note, these revisions have not been biased toward Katzer. These revisions have correctly matched the dates and court records accordingly. The basis in understanding this case is predicated upon the dates being correctly matched with the court documents and assorted public documents. We noticed an area addressing Jacobsen's position requiring a citation that needs to be addressed. We can find NO citation supporting this statement. We're sure that there are others regarding Jacobsen that may need to be revised accordingly, that is matching the appropriate court document with the date/subject matter.
We decided to go the direction of updating the Jacobsen v Katzer with appropriate input vs. initiating a "factual dispute" heading after these many years. That being said, it was probably a good idea that you did initiates a "factual dispute heading" which alerts everyone reading Jacobsen v Katzer that ALL items should be challenged and supporting citations double checked which includes the timeline and those items we've recently input. Emphasis should be placed on those statements that have appeared on this web site without change for many years.
The effort on all of our parts will increase the accuracy of information reported for Jacobsen v Katzer and provide credibility to Wikipedia overall.
(RAKROD (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC))
I'm intrigued who you are, since you refer to yourself as "we". Strange. Otherwise, yeah, the end result will definitely benefit from as many eyes and revisions as possible. I'll review your edits once I get a chance. mjlissner (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(New at this, not sure how to add something here properly. RAKROD is probably Matthew Katzer's brother, R A Katzer of RAK Associates. He's used the RAKROD handle to sell RAK Associates' "Link-Vet" products on eBay, c.f. http://myworld.ebay.com/rakrod/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.194.152 (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Examples

Thanks, Thumperward, for the edits, but I kinda prefer my wording of the examples cited by the CAFC. By paraphrasing, rather than quoting, we can link to our articles on the examples. (A reader coming from a legal background might not know what they all are.) We also do not need the CAFC's description of Wikipedia since readers here already know what it is and we are supposed to avoid self reference. --agr (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing about direct quoting is that it avoids triggering the GNU/Linux naming controversy in using "GNU/Linux" (see the extensive discussion at Talk:Linux/Referring to this article). If it's a direct quote, nobody feels obliged to alter the wording. Self-reference is also fine so long as it's a peripheral quote and not a direct reference to Wikipedia in the prose. I feel that a direct quote is the most diplomatic way to go. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I missed the GNU/Linux aspect. I agree the quote is more diplomatic. What do you think about putting links in the quote?--agr (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer to avoid it. It's just a link of random examples, and while I know there's a propensity to link every item in such lists on Wikipedia I don't think that people reading this article are going to need that much prodding to figure out what Firefox and Wikipedia are. The point is the type of license, not the examples. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Present tense

Present tense is used several times here. I don't believe this is appropriate; it should be possible to avoid presenting the context in the present fairly easily though. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The JMRI project is on-going. How would you word things?--agr (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
By avoiding the "to be" form (something which I didn't think I'd be saying any time soon). I'm going to try asking a user who favours the avoidance of this form if he'd care to help out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Just purging "to be" forms in the current second paragraph, we might get something like: Robert Jacobsen manages an [[open source software]] project on [[Sourceforge.net]] called the [[Java Model Railroad Interface]] (JMRI).<ref> http://sourceforge.net/projects/jmri/ </ref> The project licenses its software under the [[Artistic License]], version 1.0. Matthew Katzer and Kamind Associates, Inc. develop commercial software products for the [[model train]] industry and hobbyists. Jacobsen filed suit in [[California]], claiming that Katzer had copied portions of the JMRI software and incorporated them into Kamind's commercial software without complying fully with the Artistic License's conditions. Jacobsen sought a [[preliminary injunction]] against Katzer and Kamind in the [[federal district court]]. In August 2007 the district court denied the injunction, saying that the "defendants' alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create liability for copyright infringement..." Under the district court's reasoning, Jacobsen could still sue for breach of contract, but not for copyright violation. The legal system makes prosecuting for injuctive relief much more difficult to obtain in contract matters than in cases of copyright infringement, and it remains unclear what damages Jacobsen could claim. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Katzer billing Jacobsen

According to http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/open_source/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=LAAYF2EWTMQC0QSNDLPCKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=210004213&pgno=1&queryText=&isPrev= this started when Katzer billed Jacobsen for downloads of Jacobsen's software (!). Anyone able to provide more details of the backhround ? -- Beardo (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It started as a patent dispute. See http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060514233436196 --agr (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It all started when Katzer sent a Notice Letter to Jacobsen requesting $200,000 in fees for patent infringement by Jacobsen. Jacobsen responded by posting Katzer's "Notice Letter" on Chillingeffects/org's website.[20] (RAKROD (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

  1. ^ "United States patent number 6,065,406". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  2. ^ "Patent infringement lawsuit against Marielle Tanner, June, 2006". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  3. ^ "Patent infringement lawsuit against Juergen Freiwald". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  4. ^ http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/52.pdf
  5. ^ "Dismissal without prejudice of Katzer v. Tanner". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  6. ^ "Dismissal without prejudice of Katzer v. Freiwald". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  7. ^ "Letter to Jacobsen". March 8, 2005. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  8. ^ "Letter to Jacobsen, August 24, 2005". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  9. ^ "Bill to Jacobsen dated August 18, 2005". Retrieved 2008-10-03. 
  10. ^ "Bill to Jacobsen dated October 15, 2005". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  11. ^ "Reply by Jacobsen dated March 29, 2005". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  12. ^ "Reply by Jacobsen dated January 31, 2006". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  13. ^ "FOIA request made to the U.S. Department of Energy". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  14. ^ "Jacobsen's Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, for Violations of Antitrust Laws, California Business and Professions Code 17200, and Lanham Act and for Libel". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  15. ^ "Disclaimer of patent 6,530,329". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  16. ^ "Defendants Motion To Dismiss Counts 1, 2 And 3 Of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint As Moot". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  17. ^ "Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Mootness". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  18. ^ "Transcript of Proceedings held on 4/11/08, before Judge Jeffrey S. White". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  19. ^ "Order Granting Motion To Dismiss For Mootness; Denying In Part And Granting In Part Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim; Denying Motion To Strike; And Denying Motion For Preliminary Injunction". Retrieved 2009-10-03. 
  20. ^ "Posted Notice Letter". Retrieved 2009-10-26. 

Editing Plans

Hi, I plan to be editing this page as part of a class project mentioned here. I haven't done my background work yet, but I will soon be reviewing this case, and will be updating shortly thereafter.

If anybody has any comments about the case that I should know in advance, that would be great. It appears though that it hasn't seen much love in a while.mjlissner (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you review first the Court Documents referenced in the recent comments that have been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RAKROD (talkcontribs) 17:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

I'm marking this as disputed because I'm unsure that the last 12 revisions or so are wholly accurate and fair. I'd like to go through them all, but I lack the time. I may do this as a second half of my classwork, but that won't be due for another month or so.mjlissner (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We recommend you take the time to review all court documents associated with the statements. Especially spend time to correlate the document and date to those statements that have remained unchanged appearing on the Jacobsen v Katzer case wikipedia web site for many years.
The objective is providing a "unbiased" assessment of Jacobsen v Katzer given the impact on the software community within the United States; OSS or Non OSS.
(RAKROD (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC))
I plan to take a closer look at the changes that have been made, as time allows. For now some of the statements don't quite mesh with my understanding of the case, however for now it seems reasonable to leave them until they can be verified. mjlissner (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You will find the statements and citations we inserted along with the timeline are accurate. Interestingly, you identified the reason we became involved; to insert additional facts, cite where these facts came from AND correlate these facts within a timeline so the reader has a better, more accurate understanding of what actually transpired thereby providing a basis to determine what this case is really about and "who did what to whom". You and many others, based upon what was written in Wikipedia many years ago by whomever, may have been mislead to what transpired. The input from us into Wikipedia couldn't be accomplished until the case was nearing Summary Judgement. As soon as the Summary Judgement documents are available, publically, at the end of this month or beginning of November, we'll insert them (both from Jacobsen and Katzer). This should provide you and the readers an objective viewpoint. Please remember we're only interested accuracy, nothing more.(RAKROD (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC))


"Disputed Heading removed" after review of all citations sourced for documentation of statements made. Statement made by Jacobsen with "citation needed" found to not be supported by any court document or third party. This statement has been removed. We've inserted Summary Judgment documents and when Judge White issues Summary Judgment order, it will be posted. We believe the article now accurately reflects a fair representation of the case Jacobsen v Katzer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RAKROD (talkcontribs) 10:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Round Two Editing

I'm going to be editing this article once again. I perceive that a lot of the changes have a bit of a bias, since at least in this discussion page, RAKROD is being named as the brother to Katzer. That said, I should disclose that I'm a Berkeley student (though I don't personally know Jacobsen, and this project is unrelated).

As I'm editing, I'll try to make my edits as atomic as possible so that understanding them and reverting them will be as simple as possible. If you feel that any of the edits I have made are untrue or should be reverted, I'd love if you discussed that with me before making any changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjlissner (talkcontribs) 05:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As we indicated in our earlier correspondence, our interest is only in any statements being inserted and or changed, are accurate with the appropriate citation (source) noted. In addition, chronologically, statements must reflect the timeline. Thank you for your actions moving forward as being "atomic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by RAKROD (talkcontribs) 17:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

RAKROD, I thought you might be interested in looking into the conflict of interest section on Wikipedia (in particular the section on legal antagonists , since it has been revealed on the talk page that you are Katzer's brother. I appreciate your desire to get the facts straight, but I'm afraid that needs to be done by people that are not as close to the case as you, your brother and Jacobsen are. I'm going to be making many changes to the page in the next few days, and I hope they aren't reverted or edited by you. If they are, I will likely request a dispute resolution per the information here: Dispute_resolution, since verifying your edits has absorbed so much of my time already.


MJLISSNER: You too are absorbing much of my time. I originally entered into refining this document to insert additional citable facts, remove any statements that are not properly cited WITHOUT significant modification to the author's original work. In other words, I did not erase any of the original work that was properly cited. You are removing insetions that are properly cited. I suspect this is contrary to Wikipedia's policy. My sole objective has been and continues to be to provide greater specificity with the proper citations. The insertions made by me have been factual, neutral and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies.


I suggest before you do any additional editing, you take the time to read the 370+ documents in order to familiarize yourself with the whole case. Your objective should be to expand the specificity and neutrality of this document and not obuscate the facts at large by removing previously cited facts.


FACTS AND DATES ARE THE FACTS AND DATES. THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS. YOUR INSERTIONS SHOULD BE VERY CLINICAL AND FULLY CITABLE.


Instead of removing citable facts you should be adding citable facts that helps clarify what is going on. Since you are a student, there is a fundamental honesty that you need to internalize and use for the rest of your life. This is an opportunity for you to approach this law suit very clinically. My expectation as a reader is that you would not delete citable facts but augment these facts with additional citable facts. You do wikipedia a dis-service by obsucating the facts through their removal. This brings into question your neutrality.


It's very important to have honesty in academia and remember, the facts are the facts and the dates are the dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RAKROD (talkcontribs) 07:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary Judgment ruling

I've added a brief summary/description of Judge White's ruling from December 10. I'm not a legal expert though, so if I've used terms of art incorrectly or misstated conclusions, please feel free to edit and explain your changes in this Talk section.

We still need to add these rulings to the separate sections of the article. The ruling has implications on the copyright infringement, DMCA and cybersquatting sub-sections, and a reader who's only interested in, for example, the cybersquatting claim should be able to read the latest cybersquatting ruling just by reading that section. I'll also try to update the lede. Npdoty (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverts in Patent claims section

I've had to re-apply most of my fixes from last night after they were reverted by Jmriadvocate. If you disagree with these changes, I certainly appreciate your adding in what you believe is necessary, but reverting my changes to previous versions (complete with grammatical errors) doesn't seem too helpful. Also, I don't think it's necessary to provide every detail in this section, or references to USPTO or other guidelines for every past or possible objection. Our goal should be to write an article that's easy to understand, which is what I've been focusing on.

I've tried to make my edits small and justifications clear in the commit messages. If we could talk about any issues here before making changes directly to the article, I'd really appreciate it. Having to repeat all of my changes to the clarity of this section is difficult and tiresome. Thanks for your help, Npdoty (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Infringement of Method Claim

jmriadvocate, whoever you are, please don't remove a citation to case law in favor of a review article that's no even primarily on point. In the US legal system, case law wins over your assertions of your "understanding" of the elements of patent infringement every time. The law is quite simple: For there to be an infringement of a method claim, one actor must perform all steps of the method. Once direct infringement has been established by a court of law, additional actors may be liable for indirect infringement, for inducement, and other follow-on offences, but without direct infringement there is no infringement. To say that a program "infringes" a patent is just wrong, has no legal basis in US law, and if you asserted it as a patent holder, would be grounds under MedImmune for an action for declaratory judgement. Perhaps that's why Jacobsen felt he had to act.

I've read Katzer's primary filings in this case, and I don't see anywhere where he showed that any individual performed all the components of a claimed method or used any software, let alone Jacobsen's, to perform all the components. Could you please point me to a reference?

Absent that, I think it appropriate to remove the link to http://www.trainpriority.com/court_docs/jacobsen_denied_JMRI_infringes_329_patent/example_jacobsen_lied_about_infringement_jmri_network_ver_1_4.pdf because that appears to be a screen show made by Katzer using the JMRI software. That doesn't establish infringement, only that infringement might be possible. To the extent that the software has other uses besides infringement, it doesn't even count as evidence toward a claim of infringement by any specific user.

I'll come back in a day or so to see if you've provided a reference in the case that I've missed. Hstimson (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Point of view dispute

I believe that recent changes by "Jmriadvocate" have made the article very point-of-view in areas. Where I have tried to edit sections to improve their neutrality, my edits have been reverted (not with rv, but with new edits which overwrite all changes) and other editors seem to be having the same issue. The bias has become particularly extreme recently with the uncited characterization of "aggressive tactics" of one of the legal antagonists, repeated assertions about a patent covering "those exact capabilities" when this is part of the legal dispute, the implication that JMRI was simultaneously infringing on a patent and attempting to spin the court case ("Despite JMRI first including the "exact same capabilities" over 4 years after KAM filed for a patent on it, JMRI asserts that the case is about "fledgling open source projects,""), the proliferation of unnecessary facts and in many cases only facts that support one particular thread of an argument, and more issues that I'm honestly not able to keep up with.

I have tried to make changes to the article, and to start a discussion on the changes and reversions both on this Talk page and on "Jmriadvocate"'s talk page, but have failed to engage a discussion or remove article bias. I'm adding WP:NPOV templates so that others might be able to get involved. Thanks, Npdoty (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

FETrekkie to Npdoty: I've been observing the Patent section with interest although it is not my primary area of focus. According to my associates, "JMRI Advocate" has fairly accurately reflected the elements of the patent aspect of this case i.e. disclaimer of the 329 patent, events leading upto and following that action according to court records. In our opinion, some of your earlier additions were misleading and I understand why JMRI Advocate changed this section accordingly.
Out of curosity, I requested my associates to look into the USPTO regarding any "prior art" for this patent; There is none. Therefore we conclude Katzer was the "true innovator" and originally applied correctly for the patent. Jacobsen followed Katzer's lead by a few years indicating to myself and my associates to conclude Jacobsen did in fact intentionally infringe on Katzer's patent and most importantly, Jacobsen's litigation approach now makes sense; the case was never about copyright infringement by Katzer, it appears that it was about an effort by Jacobsen to neutralize Katzer's patent position through excessive litigation on a tangent front. Given the cost of patent litigation and the convulted approach Jacobsen's attorneys used in the litigation of this case, it's understandable as to why Katzer disclaimed the 329 patent; patent litigation is extremely expensive. Jacobsen and the JMRI developers are fortunate that Katzer did disclaim the patent in that not only would Jacobsen have been counter-sued, every developer that modified the original JMRI software would have been enjoined. I also reviewed the timelines in the "exhibit section" of wikipedia. The timelines do not support Npdoty's assertion. therefore I recommend Npdoty reassess his/her position.
I moved the POV from the top of the page to the revelant section of the Wikipedia article. In general, even with JMRI Advocate's addition/changes in the Patent Section, the JvK case article is fairly accurate. The article as it stands now provides law students as well as others with a very good overview/reference point before delving into the 400+ individual court documents. I recommend the POV dispute heading be removed.FETrekkie —Preceding undated comment added 09:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC).
I agree with Npdoty, this article seems to be written to promote one side of this lawsuit. Without even looking at the claims themselves, one can see that the article relies heavily on primary sources, which on its own is pushing the limits of Wikipedia policy. More importantly, the use of primary sources is not recommended because of the danger they will be used to push a non-neutral point of view, something which I and other editors here have expressed concerns about.
The comments by FETrekkie above seem to confirm the position that this article includes a lot of original research. The remarks about the article's "conclusions" are red flags – Wikipedia is not the place to make conclusions or synthesize primary sources. It is ideally only used to summarize and describe what secondary sources say about the subject.
Combining the concerns about point-of-view and extensive original research with the overall poor quality of the article itself suggests the article could use a substantial rewrite. Contrary to FETrekkie's assertions, law students are not going to be delving into the 400+ individual court documents of this case anytime soon. It is rare for law students to look at the underlying court documents of any case (even landmark Supreme Court cases) during the course of their study. And this case is hardly a landmark case. It is notable solely because it was the first time a U.S. court examined the enforceability of an open-source license. Other than that, the case is run-of-the-mill, no different than the thousands of other patent and contract lawsuits litigated in the U.S. every year, and this article should reflect that.
Hartboy (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Harboy's comments about original research and the excessive length. I've re-applied the POV tag to the whole article since I believe similar issues exist throughout the article (for example, the extremely long Settlement section which seems to be an argument about conclusions from the agreement; recent changes to insert quotes into the Copyright and Cybersquatting sections). I think if FETrekkie and his associates were to publish their conclusions or analysis somewhere else (a journal, newspaper or just a blog), we could then include a reference to those conclusions (and who has drawn them) in the article. Npdoty (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
FETrekkie to Hartboy & Npdoty: The Wikipedia article, from what I observe as written, accurately reflects the facts of the case using secondary sources. I do take exception by Hartboy's assertion that the facts presented within the article maybe one-sided. The secondary sources cited very much, equally, support both sides of the case. Keeping in mind, the JvK article has been constructed by a number of authors over quite a period of time, it appears all the authors have made a concerted effort to maintain accuracy and to keep within Wikipedia’s guidelines. I would suggest Npdoty use the Discussion Section to identify by specific example what areas of the Wikipedia article are factually incorrect or improperly cited by secondary sources. Additionally, everyone can provide input into the Discussion Section supporting or refuting Npdoty’s opinions or conclusions thereby improving the JvK article.FETrekkie —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC).
Your claim on the use of secondary sources in this article is incorrect. Out of 94 sources cited in the footnotes, only 4 are reliable, secondary sources. Court documents, whether pleadings, motions, or orders, are primary sources. Several are also pages existing on a site operated by one of the parties of this dispute (thus, not a reliable source). Literally, only one sentence out of this entire article can be properly cited to a reliable, secondary source.
While this inappropriate reliance on primary sources may raise the risk of POV, it even more importantly results in a type of article that shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. To wit—
This article currently does both—it provides a blow-by-blow of every single, mundane detail of a lawsuit notable for other reasons, and by doing so, as FETrekkie has said, it serves as a starting place for people looking to research the underlying court documents.
What is most troubling is that, from looking at the talk page and edit history, this article has ended up this way largely through edits by users who are parties in this lawsuit or related in some way. This obviously raises conflict of interest concerns.
The solution I suggest is to radically pare the article down to material that comes from the four secondary sources already in use (currently footnotes 45-48, Lessig to New York Times). More information can be later added through additional reliable, secondary sources. Those editors who have a close relationship to the parties in the lawsuit should declare their interest here and propose edits here rather than making them directly to the article.
Hartboy (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
FETrekkie to Hartboy: Thank you for your comments.
Using Wikipedia’s own Primary vs. Secondary Source definitions, the web sites used as references for the Wikipedia article ( www.decoderpro.com (JMRI), www.trainpriority.com plus other assorted web sites), where court records, letters, timelines, articles etc. are republished, the Federal District Court PACER web site is the only source that could be considered a “Primary Source” for court records. PACER does not appear in any of the references. The other web sites i.e. www.decoderpro.com, www.trainpriority, etc. by definition are “aggregators with commentary” . These by Wikipedia’s own definition are considered “Secondary Sources”. The 94 references you mentioned are all secondary sources. References #45 – #48 are specifically articles written about JvK are also "Secondary Sources". Since there is no use of the Federal District Court PACER Web Site documents directly sourced in the references, by Wikipedia's definition, no primary sources have been used in the article.
Your comments are fundamental to Wikipedia. Contributing authors to Wikipedia should be citing facts based upon reliable secondary sources and most importantly, if possible, those secondary sources should be able to be validated to facts obtained from primary sources for traceability. I conclude from your comments that it is your desire is to uphold Wikipedia’s fundamentals thereby maintaining these submissions to the highest standard of accuracy. After all, that is of upmost interest to all of us who use Wikipedia on a daily basis; we want consistent accuracy.
The 400+ Federal District Court Dockets and two Federal Circuit Court of Appeals submissions do in fact make the JvK case unusual. As such, I am encouraged by all of the contributing author’s efforts to fully cite specific areas within the case with the appropriate secondary sources.
I continue to recommend Npdoty use the Discussion Section to identify specific examples where he/she believes inaccuracies exist allowing the various authors/contributors to respond accordingly. I look forward to Npdoty's submissions to the Discussion Section.
I’ll be out of pocket for the next few weeks and will look in on this section again.
Best,FETrekkie —Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC).
The majority of sources in the footnotes are court documents. Court documents are primary sources regardless of what website they are hosted on; there is no "commentary" on the links I see, only PDF files of the actual court documents. I agree that references 45-48 are reliable, secondary sources, as I mentioned in my previous comment. I reiterate that they are the only secondary sources used in this article.
Do you have a source for your claim that the 400+ court documents make this case unusual? I find that hard to believe as I have never seen nor heard that claim. I fail to even see mention of it in the court documents used as sources here. If you have a source to back up that statement, I'd be happy to see it, because I find it hard to believe that that is an unusual amount of court documents.
Finally, your user contributions raise concerns about conflict of interest since they indicate that you have only made edits on this article.
Hartboy (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree: court documents are primary sources even if hosted on a different server. Npdoty (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
FETrekkie, in response to your request for specific examples, both of my comments above include multiple examples of what I believe to be point-of-view statements or sections of the article, though I don't think those are an exhaustive list. To be clear, the POV tag is not to state that there are factual inaccuracies, but that the facts are presented in a non-neutral way. For more, see the policy documents on Neutral point of view and No original research, two of Wikipedia's three core content policies (Verifiability, which you're describing above, is the other): factual accuracy is not the only standard for Wikipedia articles.
FETrekkie to Hartboy/Npdoty: One of the premises of Wikipedia is the community approach to refining these articles such that the final revision is in fact the most accurate. I look forward to reading additional, citable facts inserted into the Wiki article thereby improving the accuracy by Nydoty. However, not observing any recommended insertions into the Wiki article by Nydoty over these past numbers of weeks, I wouldn’t be surprised if the POV for this article is shortly removed.
Regarding the sequence of the factual insertions; given the large number of insertions by contributors over a fairly lengthy period of time, this article has actually “averaged out” any non-neutral insertions and is, in reality a “Neutral Representation” of the JvK case. Fetrekkie
I did try to make several of these changes to the article, on multiple occasions, but repeatedly had my content overwritten. A polite Wikipedia practice is to then move the dispute to the Talk page, which is what I've tried to do. As described above, I've noted several instances of non-neutral representations in the article. I would again repeat that the point is not to improve factual accuracy, but the neutral representation of facts. I disagree that the article has "averaged out" any non-neutral insertions: though there have been a large number of insertions, they've been made by a small number of contributors, most of whom are accused of having conflicts of interest. Npdoty (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hstimson to FETrekkie and JMRIadvocate: There is no doubt that your changes are biased to a particular view. JMRIadvocate in particular has removed discussion of patent law complete with case and law citations, justifying the resulting 'opinion' statements as "based on extensive readings'. That does not in any way meet Wikipedia community standards. I'm going to change some of those back now, and it will be very interesting if one of you, or a new sock puppet, reverts them. Hstimson (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
FETrekkie to Hstimson: >: I have no idea who JMRIadvocate is. I recommend refraining from the use of “slang” expressions for characterizing individuals who in good faith provide input to Wikipedia. Fetrekkie
FETrekkie to Hstimson: If you're referring to "sock puppet" as slang, may I refer you to the Wikipedia policy against it: Sock_puppetry Now that you're aware there's a policy against it.... Hstimson (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

From Jacobsen's representatives regarding recent changes

My name is Victoria K. Hall (I am signed on under vhkane, which stands for my married name, Victoria H. Kane), and I’m Bob Jacobsen’s attorney. I am posting because I have seen a number of changes to this Wikipedia listing, done primarily by Mr. Katzer as FreePen and possibly an associate of Mr. Katzer’s under the name JMRIAdvocate. These changes have significant “spin” in Mr. Katzer’s favor. While some of it has been edited out, Mr. Katzer’s viewpoints are still predominant. I am writing to bring these to the editors’ attention, so that this article can reflect a more balanced viewpoint.

First off, I know that Mr. Katzer is FreePen. He made changes in the original article in early March and then wrote several people in the model train industry, pointing them to his revised version of the Wikipedia article and representing it as a neutral commentary on Jacobsen v. Katzer. These people forwarded Mr. Katzer’s emails to me. Before March, I had never edited a Wikipedia article. I tried to revert Mr. Katzer’s changes, but they were reverted back by someone else. I decided to leave this article alone for a while, to let others unconnected to the case edit it back to neutral viewpoint. However, this being a complex case, there are numerous facts about this case that the average person would not know about and that contradict Mr. Katzer’s facts. I’ll start in with several – this is not a complete list.

Copyright – Mr. Katzer claims that he first heard he violated terms of the Artistic License on September 11, 2009. He probably meant September 11, 2006, which is when we filed the First Amended Complaint. This complaint included a cause of action for copyright infringement. However, well before that 2006 date, Mr. Katzer knew that there were terms of the Artistic License that he was not following, and that is in an email from him to Bob Jacobsen from 2004. http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/237-20.pdf; http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/237-21.pdf. Mr. Katzer knew that JMRI was subject to an open source license, although he initially thought it was GPL, and that one of the requirements was to “ship source”, as he himself put it. http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/237-22.pdf. That is a requirement for GPL as well as the Artistic License, if the user is distributing the code. Mr. Katzer made no effort to distribute JMRI source code with his modified version of JMRI files. Thus, when he began to distribute the modified JMRI files in mid-2005, he knew that he was violating the license terms. (It’s not as if Mr. Katzer forgot about the license, either. When he wrote the instructions for his JMRI-to-KAM converter program in early 2005, he directed users to the JMRI website to get new files and told them to see if they were in compliance with the JMRI license.)

First off, as a disclaimer, I interviewed Bob for a recent FLOSS Weekly, and am all for this case getting all the publicity it deserves, as there are valuable lessons here. I'm also very familiar with Artistic 1.0, having been involved with Perl since nearly the beginning. I'm interjecting here only to fact-correct your statement. Artistic 1 (and even Artistic 2) does NOT have any sort of "ship source" requirement. In fact, as far as OSI licenses goes, it's probably the weakest, being even more liberal than BSD/MIT licenses. If you view section 4(c) of Artistic 1, you'll see that a repackager can safely "distribute the programs of this Package in object code or executable form", provided they "accompany any non-standard executables with their corresponding Standard Version executables, giving the non-standard executables non-standard names, and clearly documenting the differences in manual pages (or equivalent), together with instructions on where to get the Standard Version". This is basically the "Marketplace anti-confusion clause", which says that if a binary is called "perl", it has to act like "perl" does, or you need to ship source. So, as long Katzer had renamed JMRI products, he could ship binaries without releasing source. I don't believe this point was raised or challenged, however. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

When Mr. Katzer received the amended complaint, he did not remove the infringing materials or disable them or recall them. We proved that infringing materials were still present on his later disks. He admitted that he let his customers use the infringing materials for 6 months after he was charged with infringement. http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/124-1.pdf, paragraph 28. In discovery, we asked for the “recall notices” that he said he sent, but he did not produce any and he admitted in his deposition that none were sent.

There is some garbled language in the Wikipedia article about an open issue about Bob Jacobsen’s ownership of the decoder definition files. That was resolved on summary judgment. Katzer had argued that because he had an assignment to a certain model train decoder chip reference manual, that Bob Jacobsen did not own _any_ decoder definition file based on _any_ decoder chip. Katzer lost that argument on summary judgment. Indeed, the district court criticized Katzer’s purchase of the decoder chip reference manual rights (which Katzer bought for $500 to sue Bob Jacobsen for “in excess of $6 million”), calling it a “litigation tactic”. Summary Judgment Order [Docket #395], p. 10, line 10.

Patent – This section of the current article reflects Mr. Katzer’s viewpoints, not a neutral viewpoint. I’ll offer some additional information here, which is supported by documents and testimony, which we can provide if needed.

First off, Mr. Katzer discusses DigiToys and its software in the Wikipedia article, and that it wasn’t prior art that would bar him from getting a patent. Actually, Mr. Katzer described this software in his “State of the Prior Art” section of “Background of the Invention”, thus admitting that it was prior art. Section 5, Dec. 21, 2006 Office Action, U.S. Patent Application 10/889,995 available at www.uspto.gov (Public PAIR) (referring to Applicant Admitted Prior Art). This software is WinLok 1.5 (released 1993 – Section 102(b) art), WinLok 2.0 (released 1995 – Section 102(b) art), WinLok 2.1 (released December 1997 – Section 102(a) art). The reference manual for WinLok 2.1 (p. 45, 47, 133-45) states that it can be used in networks, and that it can be used with multiple command stations (p. 122-23), capabilities which Mr. Katzer claimed. Mr. Katzer did not provide any of these with his patent applications until after we filed the declaratory judgment against him and KAM Industries, and even then it was buried amongst 6,000 pages of references. For those who don’t know, this is a shocking amount of references to provide after several patents have issued. Once Mr. Katzer provided this information, two patent examiners, and later a third, began issuing rejections, barring Katzer from obtaining further patents. In one rejection, an examiner even noted that Mr. Katzer admitted in his “State of the Prior Art” section that WinLok could be used on a network, thus barring Mr. Katzer’s networking and client-server claims. This information is available on the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office website through Public PAIR. http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair.

Second, model trains and their layouts are based on real trains and their systems. Mr. Katzer knew that TrainTrack, a company that he contracted with in July 1998, was using client-server networking in its software to operate real trains, and had been doing so since at least 1995. Since model railroaders model the action of real trains, a model railroader would have been motivated to look at real train control systems to use on his model train layout. This is common sense, and bars Mr. Katzer’s patent for obviousness under Section 103. Thus, the client-server software employed by TrainTrack was Section 103 art. Again, this wasn’t provided to patent examiners until after we brought the declaratory judgment action, and even then, it was buried in the 6,000 pages of references.

Third, Mr. Katzer has alluded in this article to the fact that he sued DigiToys (he sued the wife of DigiToys’ owner) and Freiwald Software, and that they provided information to the patent office. They did provide some articles in what’s called a “Citation to Art”, and discussed some art, but they did not provide the prior art itself. As the applicant, Mr. Katzer was required to provide the material, not DigiToys and Freiwald Software. See 37 C.F.R. Sec. 1.56. He never did—until we sought declaratory judgment.

Fourth, JMRI does have important components that were created before Katzer’s software was created, and well before the June 1997 statutory bar. Jacobsen testified under oath to this in his deposition. These components are prior art to Mr. Katzer’s patents and have never been submitted to patent examiners.

Fifth, one of the most startling discoveries that we made in this case—and which has not been revealed before today—is that Mr. Katzer has plagiarized some of his patent applications from another source. Both diagrams and portions of his “invention” section come from a book by another person. In deposition, I asked Mr. Katzer if he copied anything from someone else, other than the copying of the JMRI decoder definition files. He shifted and tried his best to avoid my questions, but then defiantly said no. Well, someone did—there is too much information that is, word-for-word and diagram-for-diagram, the same to be a coincidence. To date, he has not revealed this information to the Patent Office. If Mr. Katzer seeks to enforce his patents against others, I will make this information available to them.

Sixth, Mr. Katzer told the district court in April 2008, after disclaiming the patents, that he did not intend to sue Jacobsen for patent infringement and that he did not contend that JMRI infringed any other Katzer patents. You see that part of the story in the current article. The part of the story that you have not heard is that Katzer is receiving a huge patent license fee from a model train manufacturer, after Katzer accused them of distributing JMRI software that infringed Katzer’s patents. I found this out from the manufacturer’s U.S. representatives. To date, the manufacturer is paying that license fee. So, here’s Mr. Katzer’s story: To avoid losing patent rights in the district court, he tells the judge the JMRI doesn’t infringe any of his patents. But to coerce licensing royalties from distributors, he tells distributors that JMRI does infringe his patents. Mr. Katzer can’t have it both ways.

If Mr. Katzer wanted to confirm the validity of his patents, he could have done so in Jacobsen v. Katzer. Instead, he chose the easy route of disclaiming the patent, a route that he could have gone in March 2006 when the lawsuit was first filed. Having lost, Mr. Katzer apparently wants to litigate the issue on his website and through the Wikipedia entry. It’s too late. One important note: Mr. Katzer’s other option was to grant JMRI a license, which would have allowed Mr. Katzer to keep his patent. Let me assure you, there were other reasons that Mr. Katzer disclaimed, reasons he has not disclosed in his edits to this article, and it wasn’t because the expense involved in patent litigation.

Cybersquatting – the large paragraph on Katzer and Britton does not belong in this article. The facts in the UDRP decision are more accurate.

Jerry Britton worked with Mr. Katzer for two years and ran a listserv supporting Mr. Katzer’s software, up until the time that Britton started using a version of JMRI. After the blow-up over Katzer’s registration of decoderpro.com, Britton himself—without telling Jacobsen—registered a domain name that Katzer claimed belonged to him. Afterward, Britton told Jacobsen about it. The emails between Britton, Katzer and Jacobsen and the deposition testimony confirm the foregoing.

Katzer and Britton argued about domain name issues, but Britton did not receive direction to register the disputed domain name, nor any instructions about directing it to a “good porn site”, etc. from Jacobsen or anyone at JMRI. Britton never showed Jacobsen any of the emails he had with Katzer until discovery opened in mid-2009, four years after the Katzer-Britton dispute ended. Again, the emails between Britton, Katzer and Jacobsen confirm this. Jacobsen and JMRI had nothing to do with the dispute registration.

--

In closing, I would recommend to the editors of this article that you revert the article back to what it was in early March, before Mr. Katzer began his alterations. In the alternative, I would like to take this matter into mediation. Vhkane (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

FETrekkie to Vhkane: An interesting insight and opinion from the defending attorney for Robert Jacobsen. My input (for what it's worth): If you feel the patents are invalid, you as the attorney representing Robert Jacobsen do have the option to file with the USPTO a request for “re-examination of the Patents”. I’m sure you realize the downside of initiating this action, that is, given USPTO upholds Katzer’s patent submissions, that’s it, your client has no other recourse. I suspect that is the reason you never filed a request to the USPTO during the JvK case as there must have been substantive doubt by you and your client that the patents were in fact properly and accurately submitted by Katzer and there was no prior art. Fetrekkie
Hstimson to FETrekkie:You forget that Katzer has misused the continuation system to create over a dozen "patents" representing his single invention (Since he's signed terminal disclaimers, you can't argue that those dozen patents represent multiple inventions). As a patent attorney, I can assure you that challenging a dozen patents via the ex parte mechanism would cost upwards of a half-million dollars, and Katzer can just create continuations faster than they can be challenged. The real key here is that Katzer disclaimed two patents when they were challenged in court. If Katzer thought them valid, he would have pursued the $200,000 case he had previously claimed under oath that he had. Apparently that was perjury. Hstimson (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
FETrekkie to Hstimpson: Your comment above appears to be without basis; “If Katzer thought them valid, he would have pursued the $200,000 case he had previously claimed under oath that he had. Apparently that was perjury (Hstimpson, May 3, 2010)”. Since you acknowledged that you are a patent attorney, I would assume you’d be cognizant of the fact, according to court documents, that the patent disclaimer occurred before the complaint was answered by Katzer. “Perjury” is not applicable. Fetrekkie —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC).
Hstimpson to FETrekkie: The basic problem of bias on this page is because you refuse to accept any viewpoint other than your own. "Perjury" is certainly applicable, as the document in question was signed by Katzer just below the line that said "I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct." Katzer has repeatedly stated that various points of the law "were not applicable" because the "complaint had not been answered", but that statement was generally without foundation in law or fact. The arguments and evidence presented in motion practice, even before an answer is provided, are binding on the presenting party. Hstimson (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Better Summary Paragraph

Along with the discussion above regarding the tone, nature, and impartiality of the sections of the article, I really think that the intro paragraph could use significant attention. It does not state what the clarification to FLOSS/copyright law was, nor does it state who "won" the case via settlement. Reading through the article, it is clear that it is a ruling for Jacobson and FLOSS, but that is not stated in the intro. But, as IANAL, I can't actually decipher (from the body of the article) what the ruling says. For those of us who can't fully grok legalspeak, the intro paragraph is crucial to understanding legal articles.

(71.237.193.187 (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

This page is totally confusing

Could you guys try to make it a little more simple. If you are going to talk about a bunch of weird legal stuff, could you provide links to wikipedia articles that explain what you are talking about.

Looking at the discussion page it seems like people are spending a lot of time on this page, but as a person trying to understand this article, this is not immediately evident. 108.0.2.195 (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

true. . A transcript of court settlements without an explanation is not an encyclopedia article. As an editor, I've made a start at rewriting, by removing what seems to me clearly over-detailed material, and rewriting the summary to indicate the overall results. Primary legal sources may be used, but they typically do not speak for themselves, and generally need to be interpreted by reliable secondary sources. RThese need to be added--I have not yet done this, but there is sufficient comment on the case that it should be easily possible.
The court filings of each party are not good sources, as they are obviously prepared to reflect their respective conflicting views. Some of the statements in the article currently are sourced to such filings: better replacements are needed, such as one of the court decisions. though primary sources, they are considered a reliable source here, for both the facts of the case and the view the court has taken of it.
I warn the representatives of the parties to the case not to edit the article. The editing history has shown that WP:COI is certainly applicable. While editing with COI is not prohibited if done in a purely objective manner, the history shows a continuing dispute between them over the objectivity of the edits. Since I am editing the article, I shall not take administrative action myself if they should, but I shall ask another administrator to confirm my views of the COI. I have little doubt that if the question is raised via our formal processes, they will be blocked if they continue to edit the article directly. They may of course contribute to the editing of the article, by making comments here. I am not an expert on this subject, and I am certainly open to corrections. Suggesting the reinsertion of details, especially on peripheral issues, is not however likely to be productive. This is an encyclopedia , and what is needed is sourced analysis and discussion. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on, I think you've made a good start already. Npdoty (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

October 6, 2010

FEtrekkie to DGG: By your own admission, you do not have an understanding of the case. Therefore why are you changing the factual aspects of this article? The honest thing for you to do is reverse all changes back to the Sept 27th version of the article.

I've noticed over time a deliberate attempt by individuals to "revise history" visa via merging "selected" facts with opinions. The October 6th version of this article is an excellent example of "revisionist history" as it reduces the number of footnotes (citations) from 106 to 68 with an increase in the insertion of opinion.

I bring to your attention the following example for discussion: The Sept 27 version of the Background Section is simple, easy to understand and based on facts. The revised Oct 6 version of the Background Section exhibits greater complexity with inserted opinion (i.e.,"Katzer appealed, but eventually dropped the appeal in exchange for a settlement, on February 16, 2010."). If you reviewed the court documents and truly had an understanding of judicial procedure, you would be aware there was was no dropping of the CALF Appeal in exchange for settlement. I recommend you look at the settlement document. Therefore why was the word "exchange" inserted?

I may reverse the complete wiki article dated October 6, 2010 to the original September 27, 2010 version in accordance with wiki's policy and the original agreement all parties had of not changing material aspects of the article but provide input into the Discussion Section for discussion. Before I do, I would appreciate your rationale for erasing a number of individual's contributions who have an understanding of the JvK case and further exhibit insight and understanding of the law. These many individuals have provided input over a very long period of time. Your action brings into question the erasing of these individual's input. Your action does not pass the "smell test"!

See below the "September 27, 2010 vs. October 6, 2010" Background Section of the JvK article: Readers, draw your own conclusion as to which one is most concise and accurate.

Original Version (Background Section as of September 27, 2010)

Jacobsen v. Katzer was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer (defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case addressed claims concerning copyright, patent, cybersquatting and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues.

The case settled February 16, 2010.[1][2] The litigation encompassed 405 Federal District Court document filings and two appeals to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case has aided in the clarification and the establishment of the enforceability for the licensing of both open-source software and commercial software under United States copyright law.


Revised Version (Background Section as of October 6, 2010)

Jacobsen v. Katzer was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer (defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case addressed claims concerning copyright, patent, cybersquatting and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues relating to model train control software, developed by Jacobsen under an open source license.

The District Court first found in a summary judgement that the open source copyright did not support damages for copyright violation. This was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that such copyrights were enforceable. In a subsequent summary motion, the District Court found for essentially all of Jacobsen's claims, leaving only the question of damages. Katzer appealed, but eventually dropped the appeal in exchange for a settlement, on February 16, 2010.[1][2] The litigation encompassed 405 Federal District Court document filings and two appeals to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case is of general interest because it has clarified the enforceability for the licensing of open-source software under United States copyright law.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetrekkie (talkcontribs)

I have moved this post to the bottom of the page; this is the normal place to start a new talk section. VQuakr (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
If you have personal involvement with this case, do not edit the article. The raw number of references is no measure of quality. The article is being changed because it is not currently a good encyclopedic article. VQuakr (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the changes by DGG have improved the article by making it shorter and clearer and that the large number of primary source references was not a good indicator of article quality. If there are corrections that need to be made, let's absolutely discuss them and make them, but I think the article would be much worse, and the process hurt, by reverting to the September state.
As far as I can see, the settlement did include dismissing the pending appeal. Is the concern just the use of the word "exchange"? How about: "Katzer appealed, but the appeal was dismissed as part of a settlement on February 16, 2010." Npdoty (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

FEtrekkie to VQuakr: First, I am an outsider. Second, good encyclopedic content must be verifiable and allow the reader to draw their own conclusion without bias. Then, why was the word "exchange" inserted into the October 6, 2010 Background Section of the article? Who made the decision to have DGG address the JvK case given by his own admission, he has no understanding of the case. As an additional example, the Federal Circuit Court ruling was made on the assumption that a copyright has no value($0)which is why a license agreement can be breached and litigated under copyright law by an open source or commercial company. I do not see this appearing in the revised article background dated October 6, 2010. So by not being factually accurate or encylopedic, you are doing the wikipedia readers a dis-service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetrekkie (talkcontribs) 06:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

October 16, 2010

FEtrekkie: I have become increasing concerned the current rewriting of the original Wiki article for the J v K case is revisionist in nature by those individuals now making contributions. (An example in point: The current article incorrectly states: Katzer appealed Judge White’s decision. Actually, it was Jacobsen that appealed Judge Whites decision.). In accordance with Wiki policy, I am posting the complete September 27th article onto the discussion page for review, comparison and of course discussion to the current J v K article appearing. I am recommending to my contacts, legal and otherwise, including various law schools that have an interest in copyright and patent law I may interact with; the September 27th J v K article posted onto discussion page appears is factually more accurate.

September 27, 2010 Jacobsen vs. Katzer Wikipedia Article Appears Below:

I collapsed the post of the entire copy of the article you added to the talk page. Please review WP:AGF. This article has been extensively edited by people and groups with a blatant conflict of interest; please do not attack the editors that are trying to improve the article. In my opinion it is unlikely that the consensus here will agree to a reversion of the article due to the COI concerns, but that should not prevent you from contributing to the discussion. VQuakr (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
FEtrekkie to VQuakr: Thank you for collapsing the September 27, 2010 Wiki article within the discussion section. As I have no "dog in this fight" my interest only has been accuracy. There is no intent to attack any editor. However, please reinforce the need to accuractly depict facts. I have no interest in editing the Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetrekkie (talkcontribs) 18:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I attempted to address your concern about who started the second appeal with a switch to passive voice; what do you think? VQuakr (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Better but not correct. I called one of my contacts the other day to address this. I think he's taking the time to rewrite the beginning section. Lets see what is put in by he and other people.

Can you please re-establish the link that you took off on the "External Link" section of the current Wiki article. I firmly believe a compare and contrast is very important so readers can draw own conclusions. The Sept 27th article is much more "fact laden".

One last item; Can a link or button be placed in the discussion page so one can access the earlier discussion comments? It appears a lot has been "deleted". The discussion that was "deleted" is very important for individuals to better understand this case. It would be a shame if it's lost forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetrekkie (talkcontribs) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The external link you added to a previous revision is not appropriate for the article and should not be replaced; it effectively makes Wiki a reference to itself (see WP:CIRCULAR). All previous revisions of the article are still available from the history tab. The emphasis in an encyclopedia should be a record of what third parties had to say about the case, not an extensive reference set of primary documents such as filings or sources closely involved with the dispute such as material on either party's web site. The previous discussion on this page was archived; a link to it is near the top of the page (across from the table of contents). VQuakr (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Fetrekkie, the older discussion hasn't been deleted, just moved to an archive page once this talk page was getting too long. You can easily access it by clicking on the "Archive 1" link in the box at the top of the page marked Archive. Hope this helps, Npdoty (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)