Template:Did you know nominations/Ho v. Taflove

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Orlady (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ho v. Taflove

(

)

... that according to Ho v. Taflove "concepts, ideas, methods, procedures, processes, systems, and/or discoveries" are not subject to protection under copyright law of the United States?

Created/expanded by Klueska (talk), Chischool (talk). Nominated by Chischool (talk) at 17:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the footnote here, for clarity. I think the article is fine, I think the hook is referenced, but I'm not going to OK this until the article has been thoroughly proofread. I've done some of it, but really, it should be submitted more cleaner than it was. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to simplify the language, but did not check against the sources. Agreed that the article is interesting. The image seems irrelevant - this is an article about the law, not about the court. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Could we try and pick an exemplary one of these and go with it? Otherwise this is simply too long. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have proofread the article. This article should be checked for close paraphrasing, which I will do later today. Cunard (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing check

A spotcheck of the article indicated that the sources were properly paraphrased. Cunard (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hook

I've reworded the hook and placed quotation marks around "concepts, ideas, methods, procedures, processes, systems, and/or discoveries" because it is verbatim from the decision.
I agree that the image is not sufficiently relevant to the subject to be included in the hook. Cunard (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not familiar at all with the cite court template and its intricacies. Can someone fix it? First of all there's an odd word, "text", as a link for the PDF, followed immediately by "Appellate Court Decision." Drmies (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the cite court reference and was unable to determine how to fix the error. My guess is that it's caused by the |citations= parameter of {{Infobox Court Case}} though I don't know how to fix it. Cunard (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The "Appellate Court Decision" is not generated by the template; it was tacked onto the ref after the template, apparently as an explanation, and can just be removed if desired. As for the "text", that must be the default label for the text of the decision when other parameters are omitted. If the |vol=, |reporter=, and/or |opinion= parameters are supplied, "text" will be replaced. I don't know what those correct values should be, and unless someone fills them in, I guess "text" will have to do. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You confirm my suspicions. I figured the same thing for the "Appellate Court Decision"--my question about that here is really what the (completed) template should say. Your comment on the parameters suggest that we need the author here. Thank you so much for your time, Mandarax, Drmies (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. The last sentence contains "Copyright Act" with capitals, straight from the source (page 20). There is a dab, Copyright Act, which offers a few possibilities, none of them being Copyright law of the United States as linked in the hook and in the lead. I am no expert here and am not going to presume "Copyright Act" means one thing or another--but whatever it means, it should be used in the same way continuously throughout the article. Here's where the original editor and nominator really should be available... Drmies (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

General comment: I found this an interesting article and I think it should be on DYK in a prominent way. The personal issues between them were surprising and the legal ramifications informative. This type of item makes Wikipedia respectable as an info-source, instead of all the small articles on almost unknown rivers or long forgotten musical groups, etc. History2007 (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that the only remaining issue with this nomination is that the hook fact doesn't appear in the article. Would it be acceptable to the author/nominator to substitute other wording, such as:

ALT2 ... that, according to Ho v. Taflove, ideas are not subject to protection under copyright law of the United States? --Orlady (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably no big deal for the DYK hook, but excludes the key element therein: "discoveries". The fact that "ideas, concepts, methods and/or discoveries" are not subject to copyright would be surprising to most people dealing on the peripheries of intellectual property law - and probably to the attorneys of Ho. Given that he could not have obtained a patent or a trademark, Ho was all out of options and none of the three elements of intellectual property (i.e. patent, trademark, copyright) could help him. Hence this was an important decision, with ramifications in the decades ahead. That was why I said it is a "way above average" Wiki-article. And the user will wonder how Ho will pay all the legal fees.... History2007 (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to quibble with the article nor to discuss the decision. I am merely trying to ensure that the fact stated in the DYK hook is findable in the article. As currently written, the article says the appeals court "affirmed ... [that] the expression of ideas (the idea-expression divide) can be copyrighted but not the ideas themselves" and that the district court decision that was affirmed had "assert[ed] that the model was indeed an idea and therefore not eligible for copyright protection." Elsewhere in the article, there is a statement that quotes the Copyright Act as stating that "in no case does copyright protection extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery regardless of the form in which it is described, explained illustrated or embodied in such work", but there is no indication that this was "according to" the Ho v. Taflove decision. If the quotation that is attributed to the Copyright Act is in fact a quotation from the decision, the article needs to be revised. --Orlady (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Act does, of course say that. But it needs to be interpreted in court decisions to set the precedent in specific contexts. Ho's attorneys knew what the Act says beforehand, but still went to court asserting it did not apply in this context, and this case set the precedent that in the discovery related context there is only one type of protection: "keeping your mouth shut". That was what the case showed. In Buchwald v. Paramount, Buchwald wisely relied on contractual angle, rather than the "idea angle". but we are getting off topic in a DYK discussion, so let us just pop it up and move on. History2007 (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've re-reviewed this and I believe it is good to go to the main page. As noted above, the original hook is not supported by content in the article, but the ALT2 version ("ideas") is. (The original hook quotes the Copyright Act. The decision also quotes that wording from that Act, but the copyright infringement section of the decision focuses on "idea".) --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, let us just do it and move on. History2007 (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)