Talk:Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.

Sources

This is wonderful law review article, but it is not really an encyclopedia article. For instance, third party sources are needed and not court cases which are primary sources. There should be a law review article or two about the case that can be used for citations, here's one and a second that have some info, and I'm sure there are more out there (plus it made the regular news). Aboutmovies (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Orlady states: "I see that you apparently wrote the article in the law journal, but you do not appear to be the copyright holder. Wikipedia cannot publish copyrighted material."
Excuse me, but you are not correct. I have not assigned the copyright to anybody. Therefore, under US copyright law I own the copyright. See 17 USC sec. 201(a). As you recognize, the owner of copyright cannot infringe his own copyright. So far, the Quanta decision is too recent for any serious commentary on the decision to have been published, except for a piece in IEEE Micro and one in Eur. Intel. Prop. Rev.--one of which you appear to have seen (and either of which I can cite to or quote--and maybe I can scare up some blog comments).

However, I would like to meet the requirements of Wikipedia, so I would greatly appreciate it if you would spell out in more detail what you would like to see. I will then try to carry out needed changes.
PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• You're a lawyer and I'm not, so you can be expected to know far more about this issue than I do. However, I see that the article has a copyright notice identifying the copyright holder as "Thomson Reuters (Legal) Limited and contributors". If you did not release copyright to Thomson Reuters and can permit its use under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, you can follow the relevant instructions on in the templated notice on the article page.
  Regardless of ownership of the words in the article, assertions in the article need to be supported by citations to published sources (such as the law journal article); they should not appear to be original inferences based solely on primary sources. --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thompson Reuters is not legally well advised. Under US law, copyright can be assigned only by an instrument in writing. 17 USC sec 204(a). None exists here.
    
    Now, if you could please give me the URL of where the release you want is located... or please use W.'s "[ ]" convention, and I'll click on the blue words. Then I will execute the release.
    
    On the citations, would it be too much to ask if you could please put an indication wherever you want a footnote (Such as [citation?] or [who says so?] and I will supply one or try to. Thx. :-)
    -- PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • For better or worse, I'm no expert on Wikimedia intellectual property protocols. I merely noticed the non-coincidental similarity between the law journal article and the Wikipedia article, so I flagged the article. For better info than I could possibly provide, see the heading "If you hold the copyright to this text and permit its use under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" in the template in the article, and see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and WP:IOWN (which is part of the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page). --Orlady (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Does this help? I have placed the notice of CC-BY license on [1] which links to all of the articles listed (mostly pdfs), including this Quanta-LGE article, along with a statement that the CC-BY license applies to all listed materials (the page and the linked pages). All articles listed are of my authorship and I have assigned no copyright in any of them.
        --PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, that helps. I removed the copyvio template, but got distracted and didn't report back here. (OOPS!) The article still needs better sourcing, and some rewriting to get more of an encyclopedia-like tone. It reads like a law journal article without the copious footnotes. As a result, the reader has no idea who is saying this stuff and on what basis. --Orlady (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• (outdent) Regardless of the copyright status of the material in this article, I would highly advise that you not include text directly copied from elsewhere, even if the copyright holder of the source has released it. While we may be free from legal concerns, copying directly from a source without attributing or using attribution marks is still poor writing and it reflects poorly on Wikipedia when people who aren't aware of this discussion see this article and see the source and associate Wikipedia with plagiarism. I would strongly recommend that someone involved in this article rewrite it, using the law article as a reference to back up facts rather than as a direct source of text. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Some additional footnotes and citations added to lessen originality. --PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• • More footnotes and citations. Removed template that needs annotation to decrease originality. It is now heavily annotated to secondary sources. PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent revisions by 222.151.202.177

Unregistered user 222.151.202.177 (hereafter referred to as '177) has been extensively revising the thrust of this article to carry out what appears to be a political agenda--one associated with the former Administration's antitrust policy and, ultimately, the Chicago School of antitrust analysis. A number of statements have been made, such as "The Government appeared to delete this passage from its subsequent brief on the merits presumably because it recognized that there really is no anomaly once a determination is made as to whether or not the sale is authorized." in place of a statement comparing two versions of the Government's brief and then stating that no explanation was provided for the change between the briefs. The "appeared" and "presumably" in the passage by '177 is unsupported by any citation, and no documentary support for the statement exists. It is just an insupportable editorial comment.

If '177 would become a registered user and adhere to Wikipedian practices, perhaps this could be discussed in an orderly manner on this or another Talk page. Perhaps a harmonization or synthesis of positions could then be devised, to the extent that citations will support the positions respectively articulated. But as it is, the repeated unilateral changes in this article by '177, without discussion or explanation, simply amount to vandalism. I therefore propose to revert the article to its pre-'177 state, and I will hope that no further such agenda-based revisions occur.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)