Talk:MDS America

"Legal History" section

I'm removing the Legal History section. It appears to discuss a patent disagreement with some small company, and having half the article about it appears to be undue weight. Please cite major stories in mainstream news sources confirming the importance of any legal case. Thanks! Weregerbil 12:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Weregerbil, I again do not understand. I have just checked the articles on Echostar, USAirways, etc. All contain info that is only covered in the trade press. Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. I can only go by what is written. I thought this was an encyclopedia. Here what wikipedia writes about wikipedia:

Wikipedia (IPA: /ˌwikiˈpiːdi.ə/ or /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdi.ə/ (Audio (U.S.) (help·info))) is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project.

now Encyclopedia:

An encylopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia,[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.

I did not read anything about 'mainstream' articles covered by mainstream press. Perhaps what is frustrating me is that anyone in the field of Microwave distribution knows of the significance of this court case. If the trade info is not explained to the "layman" in the US Airways article, or the Echostar article, why is it so important in the MDS America article? Why would mainstream. I have inserted one of these references in the MDSA article and it states the significance of the court case. As well I have inserted a New York Times article that explains MDSA and Northpoint and their significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.109.95 (talk • contribs)

So can this information and its significance be verified using reliable sources, as required by Wikipedia policy? Weregerbil 12:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the New York Times a reliable sources? Is Broadcasting and Cable? I have included links to both. I have experpted the Wikipedia page you reference.

Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources.

The New York Times link references the Congressional hearings (Mr. Kirkpatrick's Senate Testimony was linked from day one) on this matter which are already linked from this article. I simply do not see how this matter which spawned 3 bills in Congress, two Statements of Administration Policy from the White House, and the "most contentious proceeding " in FCC history could be described as "a patent disagreement with some small company." Why would the US Senate hold hearings on "a patent disagreement with some small company?"64.134.109.95 16:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Serious referencing problem

This article seems to have similar problems as those appearing in the MDS International article. There are multiple instances of opinions about cases only having the actual court documents cited. The New York Times article briefly references the MVDDS technology itself and discusses Northpoint in detail but doesn't back up anything in the Technology section its being cited for. Also the statement This court case and subsequent invalidation of Northpoint's patents opened the way for the free licensure of MVDDS spectrum. is supposedly backed by the Internetnews article, but while the article talks about free licensing for providers who use satellite, it never mentions invalidating patents - which is a rather extreme claim. The entire Appeal subsection is referenced to a document which no longer exists - since the reference contains nothing more than a url, its incredibly difficult to verify whether or not this information is correct.

In short, the article needs to correctly cite secondary sources and preferably give complete citations for them instead of the abbreviated references being used or a great deal of text needs to be removed. Shell ^babelfish 22:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am someone with first-hand knowledge of this case, these companies, and their on-going dispute so I have followed this discussion with some interest. After so doing, I have concluded that Wikipedia, while a great concept in theory, is junk in practice and this running battle seems to prove it. I have witnessed admins admonish a party for "attacks" then turn around themselves and attack the admonished party:

Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please understand that personal attacks are absolutely not allowed on Wikipedia. Your positive contributions are appreciated; comments such as "pathological liars" may get you blocked without further warning or discussion. There is no excuse for personal attacks. Please understand the phrase no excuse. Not even the excuse you are now preparing to present to us (emphesis supplied). Thank you. Weregerbil 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to ask if the admin who wrote this is clairvoyant, but I don't for two reasons: I will be accused of making an attack; and this unprofessional display can only be construed as an attack, so there is no point to even broach the question. The following was written by another admin:

Also the statement This court case and subsequent invalidation of Northpoint's patents opened the way for the free licensure of MVDDS spectrum. is supposedly backed by the Internetnews article, but while the article talks about free licensing for providers who use satellite, it never mentions invalidating patents - which is a rather extreme claim (emphesis supplied).

A quick search on Google will show multiple instances of reporting on this issue and substantiate this "rather extreme claim". The following link is to a law firm website (this law firm was not involved in the litigation) where they discuss the outcome of the case and its impact on patent law:

http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/fd041d1f-0c09-4789-9788-39eca2212aac.cfm

By itself this is very sloppy work on the part of the admin, but a complete read of this on-going saga suggests that a few admins have decided to get into a "pissing contest" with an editing party for some unknown reason. The title "Serious referencing problem" is a "window into the soul" of the admin who wrote it. Is this a "serious problem"? I think not! You are dealing with a primary source of this information; the same source a researcher from a "mainstream" (what does "mainstream" mean anyway, and who is the judge of that?) publication would contact to write on this subject, yet, despite court records, congressional records, and news articles pointing to this person as a principle in this matter, the admins subjectively claim the information needs a secondary source when any amount of diligence on the part of the admin would confirm the veracity of information. The way I read the reliable sources page, a primary source can be used if not disputed. In the face of court rulings, congressional records, and news articles, what is being disputed? The better question is, why do these admins spend their energy rebuffing the editor and throwing up roadblocks to prevent the dissemination of worthwhile information instead of simply using their admin status and power to steer the editor in the right direction?

I purposely vandalized one of the pages connected to this subject (no one who read the page could reach any other conclusion except vandalism) to see how the admins reacted; I didn't hear a word from them. I can't imagine that it wasn't reviewed, yet only the original editor of the page caught it and reverted it; no warning from an admin before or since the page was reverted. Where are the admins spending their time and energy?

As I said earlier, in it's present form, Wikipedia is a worthless compilation of second-hand material that is subjectively edited by admins who seem less interested in making Wikipedia a valuable resource and more interested in throwing around laughable power, I guess because it's probably the only life they have and the only area of their life that lets them feel important. Remember, all glory is fleeting. If Wikipedia doesn't get control of its admins and dump its subjective rules, it will be destined for the scrap heap of history; replaced by a site that better fills the need that Wikipedia is currently neglecting

209.214.214.3 21:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the reference, as requested. Please note that it is the responsibility of the party adding information to properly source their additions and that any editor has the ability to ask for sources for information, particularly when those claims are out of the ordinary or potentially harmful to the subject if untrue. Please see WP:ATT for our policies on sourcing. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

More Information

The outcome of the patent case described in this article started an entire industry and was covered extensively in the telecom press. Could the author of this article please place more references in the article as well as fill in some detail as to the case? Thanks64.195.223.68 18:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

More Information about the owner company

We enrich the page with informations from the Owner Company Al Fawares S Ali Khalifa Al Sabah one of the major rebuilder of IRAK With US government funds.

Also we expect to add next days more usefull informations about S Ali Khalifa Al Sabah a great figure of Kuwait Oil KOTC story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.206.63.250 (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

+One of the "more usefull informations" that we can all bet that the above "editor" will not include is this one: Arabtimes Kuwait published on 26th Apr 2007 about dismissing this garbage. I will excerpt a small piece here:

"The court has seen no evidence against Sheik Ali Al-Khalifa and no merit in the case, which dragged on for 20 years.

This case has highlighted the weakness of the government and its tendency to surrender to the Parliament. According to an Arab proverb “victory comes in one hour of patience.” In the case of Sheikh Ali Al-Khalifa it has taken over 20 years."

As well the reader might find this interesting and we will notice if it is inserted as part of "more usefull informations" referenced above Sh. Ali:

"Since 1991, he has held a variety of positions in several international banks and institution. His wealth of experience and successful management style has won his Excellency acclaim in the international business arena. He was nominated as one of the World's top 50 CEOs by Fortune Magazine in 1987.

Sheikh Ali Khalifa remains a very influential in the fields he previously held posts in. In US relations, Finance, Oil, and even in OPEC matters the influence of Sheikh Ali is unsurpassed."

As one looks at all of the postings about a leading world figure and good man, why are essential pieces of information always omitted? WizardOfWor 22:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:TALK. --Ronz 23:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

+Ronz, are you seriously suggesting that a newspaper in Kuwait is not a reliable source about happenings in Kuwait? How do you verify this without OR? How is what I have written above my POV (other than the observation that the above will be left out)?WizardOfWor 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)