ESkog, not at all. For me it's a learning experience so that my future contributions can be more constructive. --Nowa13:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure; for actual content I'm afraid that I'm limited to what I happen to find on the Web, but at least I can help out with the Wikipedia styling. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of displaying my ignorance, I'm not familiar with the term "exculpatory opinion". If, as far as you know, it means the same thing as clearance opinion, then I have no problem with a redirect. Regards. --Nowa23:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the editor that contacted me asked me to revert the page for the same reasons as on March 10th (at that time I reverted out a copyright violation) I reverted today because I trusted that editor's judgement, myself not knowing anything about this subject. Please leave a message at User talk:70.29.22.85 to know what his or her motives were.--Adam(talk)16:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, Thanks for the explanation. I've Wikified the references. I hope this addresses your concerns.--Nowa22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok done - have a look on my talk page - i did a step by step edit so you could check my rational - do the same there if you think it need revision - if not then just cut and paste to RIM.PDAgeek05:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
?? from ntp page - In two of the cases, the rejections have been made "final". just before the final court date i think the USPTO rejected all of NTP's patents. have a look at in your research PDAgeek02:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PDAgeek. Thanks for the inquiry and follow up. Almost all patent applications are rejected on their first office action. This is especially true in a reexamination of a high profile case like NTP. The applicant then presents counter arguments and amends their claims to get around the rejection. If they succeed, then the patent is allowed. If they fail, they get a second "final" rejection. The rejection is only final in the sense that the patent office wants another fee paid before continuing the negotiation. In the case of the two NTP final rejections, NTP chose to appeal the decisions instead. They have three levels of appeal to go before all avenues have been exhausted. (Board of appeals, Court of appeals, Supreme court). You can see the details of each case at [1]. Click on the cases that begin with a 90. Those are rexaminations. Then click on the "image file wrapper" tabs to see the details of the correspondance between the patent office an NTP. --Nowa13:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes but I’m referring to final rejection of all 5 patents in dispute - not 2 as you state. In addition, a final office action as I understand it, means all appeals material and arguments provided by NTP since the first office action rejection have not changed the minds of the examiners that all claims are rejected. As far as the USPTO is concerned, they have rejected the patents. Of course, NTP has other “legal” appeals they may want to pursue, however if they don’t start an appeal in court in 60 days the patents are automatically invalidated. Regardless, my point is, top USPTO technical experts have now firmly agreed that the patents should never have been issued in the first place due to prior art. It is unlikely this decision will be overturned in a court of law or any other Board appeal. All reference to the USPTO has been removed from the RIM page, which is a key part of the story. You have stated on the BB page that RIM used NTP technology, well not according to the latest findings of the USPTO and until the mater is resolved then I think this statement is incorrect. Furthermore Nowa please remember we get only 1% of all the info, 99% is confidential. Please comment. PDAgeek03:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PDAgeek, Excellent comments. Since you’ve raised a lot of good issues, let me answer in stages over the next couple of days. Let me also state up front the limitations of my knowledge. I am a registered US patent agent and as such, I am authorized to represent clients in front of the USPTO. That means that I draft patent applications for clients and help them get approval for their patent applications at the patent office. The work I do is no different from that of a patent attorney, except I do not represent clients in court, such as in patent infringement cases.
My specialty is Business method patents. I’m also patented inventor myself with 17 patents in the chemical industry from my former career as a research engineer.
That being said, one of the most important things to realize about patent law is that A patent shall be presumed valid (35 USC 282). Thus, until NTP has exhausted all of its appeals of the patent office’s current rejection of their claims or unless they decide to abandon their patents, their patents are presumed valid by the courts, even if they are undergoing reexamination. I realize this may not seem just, but it’s for the protection of inventors. Otherwise deep pocket corporations could file one reexamination after another and an inventor would never be able to enforce his/her patent.
Yes it does and I’m aware of it. Seems our backgrounds are similar – I’m a wireless engineer and inventor – however no legal training like yourself. I understand and fully agree with your above and the legal aspects of this story however, I have problems with the truth from an engineering and social perspective. I view the legal truth established by the jury in opposition to the technical truth established by the USPTO during their final re-examinations and rejection of NTP’s patents – a decision which I believe is almost never overturned on appeal. As an engineer, examining the record, I would be inclined to follow the advice of the patent office experts. An example of this is the willful verdict. How can it be willful when RIM had no previous knowledge of NTP’s inventions? Of course it is the legal truth which forced the settlement, but is this the rational truth taking all other issues into account? Here lies the conflict of perception between the legal truth and the rational truth of these circumstances. When the rule of law is used to conclude a scientific truth which is in opposition to the scientific authorities then we’ve all got a serious problem. This is why I believe in documenting any aspect of RIM’s patent infringe, both issues must be simultaneously stated. With the theme or caveat - the Jury found RIM guilty and the USPTO has found the patents invalid. RIM was called “guilty” as of the jury verdict when it occurred regardless of appeals just as the patents must be called “invalid” as of the USPTO verdict regardless of appeals. In both cases it wasn’t the “legal” truth because of appeals pending however, it is the factual reality. Does this make sense? PDAgeek23:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does. And I agree that the scientific, social and legal aspects are all important. I might also add the political aspects are important as well. Alas, I'm really only qualified to address the patent aspects.
That being said, I'm not sure why you think that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences "almost never" overturns an examiner's final rejection. If you take a look at page 134 of the USPTO's annual report for 2005, you will see that the Board of Appeals reverses examiner's final rejections about 50% of the time. Here's a link [2]
I see affirmed and reversals about the same but that's the total process. I don't see any numbers for after final reexamination. is your page right? PDAgeek 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Your reference to affirmed and reversals are for patent applications AND reexaminations. What are the stats for the Boards reversal of final reexaminations? PDAgeek00:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the assertion that RIM "didn't know" about the NTP patents, again, I'm not sure what gave you that impression. I haven't read the trial transcripts, but at least one newspaper article that covered the story states that NTP sent RIM a letter informing them of the existence of the patent and offered them a license in 2001. They only sued RIM in 2002 after RIM didn't respond. Here's a link to the article. [3] Since RIM was informed of the existence of the patent and since they still chose to continue to infringe it without getting an outside legal opinion, that makes their infringement willfull.--Nowa 23:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC) yes i see - only after they knew and didn't stop. yes and the judge did that PDAgeek03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I double checked on the status of the reexaminations. It appears that the only patent facing a final rejection in the reexaminations is US 6,067,451. Have I missed something?--Nowa 23:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC) i'm not sure if that is one of the 5 in the case, all of which have recieved final office action, or one of the first 8.PDAgeek 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC) I’ve seen in several media reports that all 5 patents in question have received final office action rejection, the last one the day before Judge Spencer’s final hearing on Feb 23rd. – does your research confirm this or is it RIM propaganda. PDAgeek00:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nowa, I believe RIM licensed all the rights to the patents so NTP cannot take action against anyone else (took a bullet). So the reexaminations are a moot issue. They are of no use to NTP or RIM (if they actually bought them) because they wouldn’t stand up in court. I believe there is far more prior art than has been reported. I don’t think NTP is going to spend any money on defending these patents because they are unenforceable. So Nowa, under this scenario what will happen to the patents??
I forgot about Nokia - but i think rim may have bought all the rights so they may be getting or have cancelled the fees - we don't know. My interpretation of the RIM comment “the patents are toast” not meaning they are invalid but that RIM bought all the rights hence NTP will have no interest in defending them because they can't use them. PDAgeek 01:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
PDAgeek, I took at look at the file wrapper for the reexaminations related to one of the patents at issue in the NTP v RIM lawsuit, US 5,436,960 ('960). You can see it here [4]. It's clear the NTP is still vigorously defending it's right to the '960 patent. I don't find this particularly surprising. These cases are often more about pride than hard headed business sense. NTP is going to want vindication and confirmation of the validity of their patents. With a kitty of $600 million, they can afford a lot of legal work to continue pressing their case. Furthermore, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of NTP going after other providers of mobile email service that are not partners of RIM. RIM's direct competitors, for example.
Yes the 960 is the foundation of all the others. I read it a few years ago. The first 50 claims sounded like Mobitex – a US system operational on Feb 1991. However, Mobitex was a 1990’s system with an email mailbox built into it. NTP’s invention is the gateway between a one-way paging system and a computer networked email system – covering all of the many types of email systems at the time. But NTP’s gateway is exactly how RIM connects to cellular data systems of today which enables the push email dynamics. So any company that uses a push email technology or any device that uses RIM’s system (palm, treo etc) may also be infringing. That being said, we still don’t know the agreement and I suspect for that amount of money RIM purchased all the rights blocking NTP from addressing other infringements. PDAgeek00:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In exchange for not seeking damages if the patents don’t survive RIM seeks what is essentially ownership of all the future patent rights. You’d have to be crazy to turn it down for 600m if all your patents were facing possible extinction anyway. Note NTP bought Visto and Good shares. That’s a weird kind of licensing agreement. Why wouldn’t they just take them to court or collect fees instead of spending money on buying into them? By the way do you have any information on who are the 20 or so NTP partners that invested in the company over the past few years? PDAgeek02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about the specific NTP investment partners, but it is not uncommon for investors to put up the cost of legal fees in a patent infringement case if the patent owner's case looks good.--Nowa21:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as RIM demanding an exclusive right to the NTP patents, I can't imagine NTP agreeing to that once RIM had been convicted of patent infringement. RIM might have been able to do that, however, if they had responded more positively to NTPs original letter of inquiry.--Nowa21:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as NTP buying into Visto and Good Shares, it seems like a shrewd move to me. It put more pressure on RIM to settle since NTP was not only threatening to shut them down, but they were investing in their competitors as well.--Nowa21:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the merits of RIM's position v. NTP's position, that's impossible to make a snap judgement on. I reviewed some of the filings of both, and is often the case, they both make good points. What you haven't heard, for example, is how the patent office is giving NTPs claims a wider interpretation than the Courts did. This means that it will be easier for them to apply prior art to invalidate the claims. In my experience, this is common in the patent office. If this case does get appealed to the courts, it will be interesting to see how they rule on the meaning of the claims. If they apply the meaning to the claims that they've already given them, they may very well overturn the patent office and find the patents valid.
I think what you refer to as wider USPTO interpretation may be the same systems vs methods problem the appeals court had to deal with. They overturned some of the infringement claims of Spencer’s court rulings and upheld some as well. (partial appeals success by RIM) remember Spencer didn’t impose the full willful penalty either. As I said my guess is the claims will never get to court for my reasons (speculation) above. PDAgeek02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting issue is whether or not the court will accept the "Telenor" reference as prior art. This is the key previously unconsidered document. Only one copy existed in a library in Norway. The only indexing of it was by a title, authors and short summary not directly related to mobile email. The legal question is was this document sufficiently in the public domain to be considered a "publication" and hence prior art. NTP says it wasn't because a person skilled in the art seeking to solve the problem of mobile email would not have been able to find it without an "unreasonable" search (like what RIM had to go through to find it). The patent office disagrees. It will probably be up to the courts to decide.
That’s a great point, I agree with NTP – this stuff is from Mars. However it’s the only thing that was reported to the media – the rest non-disclosed – so we really have no idea what they independently looked at. PDAgeek03:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said above, all of it is disclosed on the USPTO web site. By law, all reexamination proceedings must be open to the public. See ref 4.--Nowa21:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This will be a fun one to watch. NTP has until 4/24 to file an appeal to the Board of Appeals in the patent office. Stay tuned.--Nowa22:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say you have seen they are vigorously defending the '960 patent. When was their last date of submission or action to the USPTO – was it before or after the agreement? PDAgeek03:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The filed amended claims on 24 March 2006. Settlement date was 3 March 2006. I'd say NTP is going all the way with this.--Nowa21:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see, looks like my speculation on the agreement is wrong. i'll read the reexam and new claims tonight - thanks for the link - "all the way" maybe but the edits look extreme. PDAgeek23:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed. I couldn't make heads or tails of it. Not my field. Bottom line, though, does it have everything you need for mobile push email? Anything missing? Any problems that would need a lot of work to solve?--Nowa02:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was impressed too. Problems? I don’t know legally but 1) Norway didn’t build it, according to an article on the mobitex page Norwegian telecom bought Mobitex in 1988 which has no x400 gateway. 2) x400 did not become the defacto standard for email system connectivity, but it was the certified standard at the time. 3) your point, on obscurity is THE issue. BTW, seems both the TekNow SAM (paging push) and AlohaNet (2-way) were operational with email gateways pre “priority date” (thanks) but RIM failed to show this in court. Push-Pull? NTP is push by default – a paging system just broadcasts (pushes) the message regardless if the user’s pager is on or if in radio coverage, the system has no feedback way of knowing, there’s an unacceptable chance of not receiving the message. Push really is a 2-way radio concept. As you move in and out of radio coverage, the system knows this and pushes mail only when you get back into coverage, thus no messages are lost, improved reliability – see Mobitex. I don’t know if NTP claims a 2-way system. I’m not sure but if not, that may have been an initial USPTO scope of search problem. Interestingly, Mobitex was a wireless email system as of 1990 terms, with mailboxes, just like stand-alone (not interconnected) corporate LAN email systems at the time, however, it didn’t have (until RIM) a way to connect (gateway) to other email systems. Seems the technor system did. PDAgeek03:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More accurate description of “fraudulent demo”. [7] I view Simon Avery as a tabloid journalist. His reporting is biased and questionable. Perhaps you can find a better reference for the RIM page [8]. I also see Glenayre as small irrelevant information compared to other patent issues such as Europe and should be removed. More stuff. [9][10][11] what do you think? PDAgeek06:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nowa. Cheers for the barnstar, much appreciated, it's good to know one is appreciated. Please take a look here at a suggestion, and offer your thoughts. KcordinaTalk08:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:EPO pendancy.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded, Image:EPO pendancy.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Good idea. Thanks. Let's wait and see. The annual report is indeed not a publication of the European Union. It is a publication of the European Patent Office which is not legally bound to the European Union, and which is likely to assert its copyright. IMHO there is no direct or implied right to use the material you copied, without prior authorization. --Edcolins21:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't want to make them too big since that would crowd things a bit, but I can make them a little bit bigger on the next update. --tomf688{talk}23:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tom, Thanks for your reply. What I've done is only show every other or every fifth number on the scale. See example --Nowa23:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a rather controversial article. I would suggest first to improve the citations structure using for instance the "ref" element :
Example:
According to scientists, the Sun is pretty big.<ref>Miller, E: "The Sun.", page 23. Academic Press, 2005</ref>
The Moon, however, is not so big.<ref>Smith, R: "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 46(78):46</ref>
With at the end of the article:
==Notes==
<references/>
Then it would be worth adding the tag {{citation needed}} after each speculative statement, so that we can easily identify what's dodgy. I think citing sources is one of the most important aspects for making a respectable article.
I don't think much of the overall structure. For starters, I think we could use a good definition of a software patent with perhaps one or two examples. I'd also like to show some statistics to illustrate the growth in software patents. We should also include some discussion as to why source code is not required in the US. I'd also like to see a section on Japan where, as I understand it, software is directly patentable.--Nowa20:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for experimenting with the page Software patent debate on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. TheRanger03:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nowa, thanks for the positive comments about the software patent article. Was that to soften the blow for changing "uncategorised" to "uncategorized" in the List of software patents article? Sorry, but as an Englishman, I shudder at such uses of the letter "z" :).
I'm also sorry to report that I'm going to stay out of the current edit war going on over there. I don't have strong views either way, but can see Josce's point.
As for other ways to improve the article, I started with putting in some definitions of the different terms, and was planning to echo those down into the Software_patent#Scope_of_software_patentability, since the article is currently wrong to suggest that A piece of code not relating to "the use of controllable forces of nature to achieve predictable results" and so forth. These are definitions of what would count as the dividing line between patentable and unpatentable software, not a definition of software itself. Unfortunately, I got distracted by other things: (wearing straw boater in bottom pic!) I'm also tempted to highlight that the term "software patent" is used largely as a pejorative term to describe patents that should not be granted, as opposed to CII which describes inventions that cover both sides of the divide between patentable and non-patentable, but would fear accusations of bias and have no real citation for that except every single patent related thread on Slahsdot!
Anways, lots of things to think about. I'll stop talking for now. I've put your talk page on my watchlist if you want to respond to any of my comments here rather than splitting the discussion over two pages. GDallimore12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GDallimore - Thanks for your thoughtful response. Sorry about the Z. Feel free to change it back. I wasn't aware of the English spelling.
I agree Josce has a point. I'm just trying to encourage him to show proper etiquette.
I know I said I wasn't going to get involved in the edit war, but I suddenly remembered reading about this patent/open source conflict on Axel Horns' blog, so had to mention it. GDallimore00:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The passage "re-issued with numbers beginning with "X" to distinguish" does not match the content of X-Patent, which is why I changed it back to 'ending with' after it was changed to 'beginning with' by User:38.139.36.119. However, is the content of X-Patent incorrect, considering information at (USPTO search result)? If yes, then that article needs to be fixed, correct? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ceyockey, Good points. The USPTO has the x in the beginning of the number in their database but the patents themselves generally have the x at the end of the number. The only exception I could find is patent x00001. I'll try to edit both articles to reflect this. --Nowa21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, Thanks. I added the reference. No one really knows how much he has made. He's very secretive. Last I heard it was a billion.--Nowa02:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a picture of him here: [13]. I contacted them for permission to post on Wikipedia. Permission denied. I asked if I could have a contact at his company to see if I could get a publicity photo. They said they were not allowed to give out contact information to his company. Now that's someone who values his privacy.--Nowa23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new template {{Cite patent|..|.....}} replaces them all. Seems an improvement to me. I don't know however why the US patent template hasn't been replaced as well. --Edcolins21:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message on my talk page. Not much to mediate so far, it seems pure vandalism. Strange that the target is the same particular section. I have added a message on the talk page of the vandalizing users. The message comes from {{subst:test}}. Cheers. --Edcolins19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your specific question, a patent application is a primary source, and an encyclopedia article is different from a copy of a primary source. For example, if you were to look up United States Constitution in an encyclopedia, you would expect an article about the Constitution, not just the text of the document itself. More generally, you may want to take a look at WP:NOT for a list of many of the things that should not be included in Wikipedia. Also, Wikisource is a Wiki project that does accept primary source material. Dave6talk01:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, Thanks for the further explanation and link to WP:NOT. I understand how Wikipedia is not a place for primary sources. The excerpted section for the article I posted is from the "Background" section of a patent application. Background sections are specifically written to be short encyclopedia-like articles about what is already known in the field of a particular invention, but not the invention itself.
What I'm trying to do here is a bit of an experiment. I'd like to see if background sections of patents might be good starting points for Wikipedia articles on fairly obscure areas of technology. Hopefully, others with an interest in the field will expand and elaborate. I expect, however, that the development of a given article may take weeks or even months given the obscure nature of the subject matter. Any thoughts on how to improve the process?--Nowa11:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The patent application you've posted would make excellent source material for an article here. The main issue is that although the background section meant to be encyclopedia-like, it doesn't really match the structure of a Wikipedia article. If you take a look around at some articles here, you'll notice that they tend to have a similar layout. There is a good explanation of the structure of an article at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. In general, we want Wikipedia to have a consistent "look and feel". I have removed the prod tag and written an introductory section, which should be enough to stop another well meaning editor from nominating it for deletion again. I think the next steps to making this a better article are adding wikilinks and removing any text that's extraneous to an article on auto insurance risk selection. Dave6talk10:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're a patent agent, you probably know more about this than me -- are patent applications considered public domain? I had assumed they were (as works of the US federal government) but now I'm not so sure. I see you mentioned "fair use" on the talk page. We can't copy large chunks of fair use text into Wikipedia articles (fair use images are ok here, but with limitations). We'll probably need to remove the text from the article if it isn't public domain or licensed under the GFDL. Dave6talk21:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, You raise an excellent question that I really don't know the answer to. As a patent agent I deal only with patent law, not copyright. I know that wikipedia is fine with the posting of images from patents but I don't know specifically that the posting of text from patents is allowable. Since this is an experiment, why don't we see if someone with more expertise than either of us can comment. Is there a forum where we can post this inquiry?--Nowa22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dropping this interesting question on my talk page. Well, on the European front, my guess would be that the text from patents are copyrighted. But that's really just a guess. Actually I don't know. Personally, I would not copied pasted anything from patents. I have posted the question here. Feel free to improve or expand the question. Cheers, --Edcolins22:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that I have just seen this edit [15]. Gosh, I cannot understand the harassment on the same section.. Do you any reason? It seems there is nothing personal in the section... --Edcolins20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The added text re Redeemable Revenue Participation Contract was not intended to be a commercial as we have nothing to sell. The RRPC is a new form of security about which there is growing interest in the financial community. The RRPC is convered by a patent filing and is part of a proprietary process.
Please embed the informationwhereever you feel appropriate.
Just found and improved an article on the "Method of exercising a cat". Still needs improvement... it seems to me there were actually a couple of patents on such a method, some quite old already... If you fancy improving it... --Edcolins22:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nowa:
Great input to this topic - where did you find this information on the sidecars since 2005? Great info. Thanks User:Topiarydan
Dan you are welcome. The info is from a Marsh press release. I checked the article and found that the link needed updating. If you click on it now, it should take you to the release.--Nowa20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. My motivation was seeing that the Wikipedia article on Glenbrook showed up on Google Earth. I presume that's because it has a lattitude longitude tag, but I don't know how often Google Earth is updated. After overnight, it still shows an earlier version of the article. I also tried tagging the picture itself with a lat-long tag to see if that shows up as well.--Nowa10:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:United States Patent Association fraud.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:United States Patent Association fraud.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Tmwd logo 05.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for the tip. I encouraged the contibutor to go ahead and make changes and we would help with a bit of constructive editing if needed.--Nowa (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Liquid Engines, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Liquid Engines is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Liquid Engines, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gromlakh (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this is not some sort of "non-neutral" edit // the facts themselves were inherently flawed and until i updated with commentary and background, at that point people got upset.
we know each other -- when would you think an independent inventor should lie down without presenting facts that i am fully prepared to support by any opposition comment. this is not a pleasant process but a well-funded attack on the basic rights of inventors.
i have to fundamentally take issue that my posts somehow do anything less than rip the sheen off of what the cfp & bsa & mark chandler & hp's counsel & the rest in spewing endless press releases they would like to be viewed as "necessary" and "decided" -- THAT IS NO AN UNBIASED VIEW! nor is ANY political view inherently anything less than political!
have them contact me. i do not ask or require that your speak on my behalf but my knowledge and background in this specific area of policy making goes back to before the 1995 WTO reports on IP harmonization. like it or not, i am not in the minority and this page SHOULD reflect the POLITICAL (supported by any available FACTUAL) assertions of its prior form.
change the pages that are politically-charged -- that would help.
"your" manipulation of data that is neither timely nor presently relevant in the context of how the cfp & bsa have twisted facts, whether the NAS studies, the ftc report, discredited lemley studies, the misrepresentation that the White House was in full support, the stealthy votes made under concerted efforts by one particular special interest group, etc. etc. is misguided and should in and of itself give rise to questions about "your" own peculiar representation of facts - regardless of the reaction but fully imbued with a neutral point of view -- i must have struck a particular chord with certain folks -- and, they are all probably folks i have dealt with since the wto research and report.
and, what are they afraid of? virginia wolf?
// the chinese and indian governments have PLAINLY spoken their positions // you say it is a "reaction"? our largest trading partner finds fault but wikipedia somehow changes the context because folks who want to off shore jobs, even the patent office's core focus should be cowered by some wisdom that was derived from materials that are now 5 years old?
//again even with folks like the bsa and cfp misrepresenting the interests of others, say, as per the recent post (must be a misunderstanding akin to the pto's recent arguments which appear to have inherent undeniable links with the push for the patent reform act) - the universities had to put their own press release out which emory simon doesn't clearly answer -- bsa is accountable to microsoft primarily -- just like the riaa is primarily accountable to the major record companies -- this is what these lobbyists do -- let the light shine down on their activities -- that is in the interests of a truly neutral point of view -- i digress:
NO SUCH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, whatsoever, supports the broad assertions that the page makes about reform previously and only minor edits made since color the debate as some sort of symmetrical argument between Big Pharma and MSFT/Google/Apple et al. CPF -- this is about undermining the efforts of small inventors, period.
1) no mention of Sen. Sessions vote in exchange for protecting banks from specific and known patent infringement -- this is plain industrial policy at a time that our nations banking system is under extreme stress and is entirely fair to present how the act is being pushed in the sausage factory known as democracy. Let the light in!
it's a shame that all of the relevant links that were posted in support of my edits have been >distorted< as though I have an iota of reason to misrepresent my position and that of the countless numbers of inventors that form the bedrock of innovation in this country
check "your" facts, in view of all of the links i have provided, before "watching" what has become the most recent iteration of the TRUTH >> THE PATENT REFORM ACT IS BROADLY OPPOSED ... anyone have a beef with that? you know how to reach me.
so soap box // sand box // just don't black box the process
i didn't catch that. are they threatening you? can i get a copy of any express or implied threat? my own legal rights matter here, so be mindful in quick assessments concerning allegations of defamatory behavior and any publicly viewable statements that would raise a question of libel as well. please confirm you have received this communication so that i can be made fully aware of any allegations against me. and, again, thanks for your efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalshamen (talk • contribs) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Islamic Voice (magazine), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.islamicvoice.com. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Islamic Voice (magazine) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message on my talk page. The article DataTreasury is now on my watchlist. By the way (and without any link to DataTreasury), I have created an article on Richard Frenkel. If you know any other reliable sources to add, please do not hesitate. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at [[Talk:Image:Business method delays.JPG]] and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at [[Talk:Image:Business method delays.JPG]] with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on [[Talk:Image:Business method delays.JPG]].
Nowa, I am an independent inventor and submitted the disclosed IP as a provisional application on 1/27/03. I made many well documented offers regarding the IP to the major pacemaker companies and was eventually rejected on all fronts. The IP discloses an external, non-blood exposed pacemaker that intervenes in electrical failure of the heart from the "outside in" rather than the traditional pacemaker that works from the "inside out".
Despite my best efforts and minimal legal help over the years, the application now has many bullet holes. I think I am now only a spectator in watching who owns the IP. This will be most interesting to follow as many already have different versions sent by me. I have also somehow attracted the attention of a site called "Patent Debate" that purports to address "overly broad" claims and seem to be their poster child.
I think it would be in our mutual interest to watch where the next generation of pacemaker dedicated to addressing congestive heart failure comes from. Thanks, corresponence welcome.
Leslie A. Beben
Pinewood Family Practice
25 East Clark Street, Pinewood, South Carolina, 29125
lbeben@sc.rr.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeben (talk • contribs) 01:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2007, Prof. John Fitzgerald Duffy raised the point that, since 2000, the appointment process of BPAI Judges has been unconstitutional."
I was wondering whether there had been any development since this paper by Prof. Duffy. Are you aware of anything? And was this view challenged somehow, by other scholars? Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I've heard about it, but haven't been following it closely. I've been much more concerned about things like the "continuation rules".--Nowa (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks well referenced to me, but since I was the original author, I should step back and let others comment. It might be worthwhile for a relatively disinterested third party to recommend that Arnold S. Thomson make the changes he feels are appropriate.--Nowa (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a helpful note: To formally request a change on Sarah Palin place {{editprotected}} in the appropriate section immediately followed by the exact change you want made and (if you want) you reason for requesting the change (such as consensus reached or edit is non-controversial in nature). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Vianello (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:Kamen still.JPG, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from {{{url}}}. As a copyright violation, Image:Kamen still.JPG appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Kamen still.JPG has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at [[Talk:Image:Kamen still.JPG]] and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at [[Talk:Image:Kamen still.JPG]] with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on [[Talk:Image:Kamen still.JPG]].
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you.
This looks like it's an image that is copyright Dean Kamen and not produced by a US Federal worker as per the licensing description. Please recheck this image. 96.57.9.139 (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are cruising all of the business method patent articles. Anything in particular you are looking for? It's something of a specialty of mine.--Nowa (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
No, nothing particular. I recently read about the In Re Bilski decision on Groklaw, and naturally came across the State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group decision. I moved the page to the shortened case name (like In Re Bilski). When I did so, I notice of multiple redirections, and decided to fix them all.
In hindsight, while I'm confident that the ", Inc." shouldn't be in the shortened case name, I'm unsure if the "& Trust Company" should be included. Most, if not all, references that I've seen do not include it unless they are citing the full case name, but it would seem as though "State Street Bank" might be a different entity than "State Street Bank and Trust" as (ex-)subsidiaries of State Street Corporation. What do you think? Int21h (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Templarion (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on BuzzDash, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since there appears to be some independent coverage of the subject, can you find a reference that isn't behind a paid site, and expand the article to be more than a one-line stub with a discussion of notability? As it is it looks like one of the hundreds of non-notable sites we get every day. I've restored the stub for the time being. Acroterion(talk)14:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The number of Google hits is generally not a good indicator of an article meeting Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. I have seen articles with large number of Google hits that are not Notable per Wikipedia norm. See WP:WEB for specific criteria. ttonyb1 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In antiquity any one who was not a Christian or a Jew was considered BY Christians and Jews as a Pagan. Usually as one moves farther out from the center of a city, religions change and become more folk like and blend into what was there was before. Christianity NEVER conquered Paganism. Chritianity gave in to Paganism. Paganism gave life to Christianity. The Pagans brought their own art, music, choirs, plays, pageants, holidays, symbols, moral standards, Saints, books, philosophy, traditions, and took control and molded Christainity to their liking. The New Testament of the Bible is written solely in Greek. Why? Because Greek (Pagan) ideas took hold. Kazuba (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
See Edwin Hatch's work Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, which he presented during the 1888 Hibbert Lectures. This work is now accepted as brilliant by today's modern Biblical scholars. It was not accepted in his life time. He was ahead of his time. Ingenuous advances in Biblical scholar ship are rarely welcome. There is a fear of new ideas that rock the boat of past conclusions that have become powerful "this is the final truth" traditions. Kazuba (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(talk) 16:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
