Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Intellectual Property law (Brian Carver)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Course information[edit]

  • University: University of California, Berkeley
  • Course title: Intellectual Property law
  • Professor name: Brian Carver
  • Professor's Wikipedia username: Brianwc (talk · contribs)
  • Course start date: Aug. 27, 2012
  • Assignment due date: Nov. 7, 2012
  • Wikipedia Online ambassador: The Interior

Course description[edit]

See syllabus.

Wikipedia assignment[edit]

See syllabus.

Student usernames[edit]

Student usernames should follow the ExampleUser format below.

Content Guidelines[edit]

General Overview

Wikipedia's Three Core Content Policies:

Brian's 15-point Wikipedia Project Checklist a.k.a. HOW TO SUCCEED AT YOUR WIKI PROJECT[edit]

  • Use this checklist not only in the initial writing of an article, but also as a first reviewer of a classmate's contribution.

I will likely review projects with something like the following checklist in mind. This list is based in part on Wikipedia's The perfect article, which you might also want to read, although, don't worry, I'm not expecting "perfect" articles.

Some of the following will only apply to those working on entire pages. Re-interpret or disregard where you have a more narrowly-focused project. In no particular order:

  1. Does the contribution appear to be cut and paste from an existing source without appropriate citation? [Nothing will make me less pleased. Don't do this.]
  2. Does the lead section provide a stand-alone concise summary of the article? See: Lead section and for an even more thorough treatment see: Guide to writing better articles.
  3. Is field-specific jargon avoided where possible and explained where necessary? I.e., is the general lay audience of an encyclopedia adequately kept in mind?
  4. Are wikilinks, i.e., links to other Wikipedia articles, provided where appropriate?
  5. Is the page edited an orphan? See "What links here" in the Toolbox on the left margin. If so, find relevant articles elsewhere and create wikilinks to the page you are editing.
  6. Does the contribution maintain a neutral point of view, consist of verifiable statements, and avoid becoming original research/opinion?
  7. Are facts cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date? Are additional references for further reading provided?
  8. Is the contribution clear; written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain clear prose; free of redundant language?
  9. Correct grammar, verb tenses, and spelling? Common mistake: multiple verb tenses throughout article. Most of the topics of these articles describe past events, so use past tense consistently throughout. "The plaintiff argued...The defendant responded...The court decided..." NOT The Plaintif argues...The defendant responds...The court decides..."
  10. Is the page categorized appropriately?
  11. In general are the reasons why the article topic is notable made clear, providing enough detail on important aspects, without providing too much detail on minor points?
  12. Are links provided to publicly-available versions of all primary sources, such as court opinions? Are citations done properly?
  13. Are references formatted properly? See technical guidelines on our project page where it explains: <ref name="Baker">''Baker v. Selden'', [ 101 U.S. 99] (1879).</ref> Subsequent references to the same source then just need <ref name="Baker" /> and see generally Referencing for beginners.
  14. Is there an Infobox Template that could be used on this page? Read the summary of these on our WikiProject page. For example, there are separate templates for District Court cases, Circuit Court Cases, and for various legal topics. Ask if you are unsure what sort of Infobox is most appropriate.
  15. Is the "educational assignment" template included on the article's discussion page?

Reviewing Guidelines[edit]

Guidelines for First Reviewers (Copy Edit)[edit]

Brian's Guidelines for Second Reviewers (Peer Edit)[edit]

  • Use the following checklist as a second reviewer of a classmate's contribution.
  1. You should expect to spend as much time on a second review as you did on writing your initial article. Do a thorough, substantive, edit. Nothing is off limits. You can do a total re-write if it's needed.
  2. Cite-check every reference in the article. That means, look at each reference and confirm that it supports the point that the article cites it for.
  3. Try to find additional relevant sources not already cited and add them to the article.
  4. Make sure that the citations are formatted in a consistent manner and that none of them are simply a bare URL.
  5. Once you are familiar with the subject matter of the article, try to think of a relevant aspect of the topic that is not covered at all or not covered enough and add that information to the article, with sources.
  6. Think carefully about whether the article makes its notability obvious and if necessary, add a discussion of critical scholarship, commentary, or reactions on the subject of the article.
  7. If some aspect of the article could be better illustrated by adding an image (cc-licensed or public domain and available from Wikimedia Commons) then add such images with suitable captions.
  8. Check the article's DYK nomination. Often the reviewers make critical comments and you should correct the problems that they identify. (Do this early and note on the DYK nomination that you've made corrections and the DYK might still make it to the front page.)
  9. If after thorough review and attempts to find additional sources, images, etc. you still believe that the article is essentially perfect as is and that you could not even make 10 edits to improve the article, then review the Good article criteria and the Guide for nominating good articles and then nominate the article for Good article status. Then, instead of editing this masterpiece, participate in the review of another article in the Good article nomination process within the same subject category where you listed your classmate's article.

Potential pages to work on[edit]

  • Add your name using the following format: {{User|Brianwc}}

Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Agreements[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-edit)
open Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp. Adrianeu (talk · contribs) Neilc (talk · contribs)
open Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp. open open

Copyright Protection for Code[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-edit)
open TBD open open

Copyright's Idea/Expression Distinction[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-edit)
open TBD open open

First Sale and Section 117[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-edit)
plauph (talk · contribs) Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. Amy Fu Y.ishihara (talk · contribs)
Amy Fu Redbox Automated Retail LLC v. Universal City Studios LLLP (opinion) vijwiki (talk · contribs) Pak Heng Lau

Derivative Works and Fair Use[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-edit)
open Fair use open open

Contract Formation: Shrinkwrap, Clickwrap, and Browsewrap licenses[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-edit)
open TBD open open

Copyright Liability for Internet Intermediaries & Downloaders[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-edit)
Neilc (talk · contribs) WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc. (SDNY opinion) (2d Cir. opinion) See Ivi, Inc.. eh71intprop (talk · contribs) yushan717 (talk · contribs)
open American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (opinion) See Aereo. open open
Rui Dai Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. WTV Systems, Inc. (opinion) qqz (talk · contribs) frgx (talk · contribs)
open UMG v. open open
open Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. iCraveTV (opinion) See iCraveTV. open open
open Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum and Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum (need to be merged. see me.) open open
open Seizure of Megaupload and Megaupload (need to be merged? see me.) open open
open Righthaven, LLC v. Leon * open open
open Righthaven, LLC v. Hoehn * open open
open Righthaven, LLC v. DiBiase * open open
open Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S. 390 (1968). open open
open Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 415 U.S. 394 (1974). open open
eh71intprop (talk · contribs) Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc. (opinion) Kaffyne (talk · contribs) vijwiki (talk · contribs)

* If you want to work on a Righthaven article, talk to me first.

Digital Rights Management and Anti-Circumvention[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-edit)
open TBD open open

DMCA Safe Harbors[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-edit)
open Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc. open open
qqz (talk · contribs) Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. Ruidai (talk · contribs) Kaffyne (talk · contribs)

Copyright Misuse and Preemption[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-edit)
open Copyright misuse open open

Cybersquatting, the UDRP, ACPA, and Gripe Sites[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-edit)
open Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen open open
open Lahoti v. Vericheck, Inc. open open
open DSPT International, Inc. v. Nahum open open
frgx (talk · contribs) Microsoft Corp. v. Shah Draft Neilc (talk · contribs) eh71intprop (talk · contribs)
open Newport News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City open open
open ISystems v. Spark Networks, Ltd. open open
Adrianeu (talk · contribs) Domain sniping, Domain name warehousing, and Domain tasting wulingqi (talk · contribs) qqz (talk · contribs)

Pop-up and Keyword Advertising, Metatags, TM Contributory Liability[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-edit)
Kaffyne (talk · contribs) College Network, Inc. v. Moore Educational Publishers, Inc. (talk · contribs) Adrianeu (talk · contribs)

Patents (Particularly Software and Business Method Patents)[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-edit)
Y.ishihara (talk · contribs) CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. Pak Heng Lau kevinkgong (talk · contribs) (talk · contribs) Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp. kevinkgong (talk · contribs) wulingqi (talk · contribs)
kevinkgong (talk · contribs) Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Adrianeu (talk · contribs) Ruidai (talk · contribs)
yushan717 (talk · contribs) Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Y.ishihara (talk · contribs) open
wulingqi (talk · contribs) Microsoft v. AT&T frgx (talk · contribs) (talk · contribs)
open Patent misuse open open

"Hot News" Misappropriation[edit]

Wiki User(s) Wiki Page(s) 1st Reviewer (copy-edit) 2nd Reviewer (peer-edit)
open Barclays Capital Inc. v. open open
vijwiki (talk · contribs) Orphan works in the United States yushan717 (talk · contribs) Amy Fu

Here is a list of more copyright topics on Wikipedia.

General student resources[edit]

For on-wiki help, please refer to this student orientation and this brief resource page.

Immediate help[edit]

Button Icon Violet - CLICK HERE for live help.svg

Looking for immediate help from a Wikipedia Ambassador? Click the big purple button on the right.

Enter your Wikipedia username, fill out the CAPTCHA, and click "Connect" to enter chat. Then explain what you need help with.

If no one replies within about 3-5 minutes, try this help channel instead.

Specific editing resources[edit]

Your Articles's Outline[edit]

  • If you are summarizing a case, the outline used by the Wikiproject on Supreme Court cases is a good overall structure to start from for summarizing any case, whether it was decided by the Supreme Court or not.

Technical Guidelines[edit]


References generally[edit]

Wikipedia articles need to be referenced using reliable sources, to ensure verifiability. Even if you don't follow every guideline (here or elsewhere), the most important consideration is to cite your sources somehow. More advanced discussion of referencing code can be found at Help:Footnotes.

Wikipedia references inspire strong opinions. Users have created several referencing styles, and have often strategically seeded the documentation to refer to one style or another, to the exclusion of alternatives. Attempts at top-down standardization have not been successful, and there is substantial disagreement about the relative merits of various styles with respect to features (e.g. extraction of metadata), readability (e.g. on various screen sizes), compatibility (e.g. among Internet browsers, especially old ones), accessibility (e.g. for screen readers for the blind) and other things.

With this in mind, this is not the only "right" way to do references, but you may nevertheless find it more convenient than alternatives.

To reference a fact in Wikipedia, create an entry in the reference list (once), and a series of inline references (whenever that resource is cited). This process is standardized with several templates and markup tags.

A good citation to Baker v. Selden, a United States Supreme Court case, will appear in the reference list as:

Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879).

I made that reference with the following code:

<ref name="USSupremeCourt1">{{Cite court
|litigants=Baker v. Selden

Note that some fields in the {{Cite court}} template can be left blank if you don't have certain information. If you believe that some fields aren't relevant at all, just omit them completely.

In the text of the article, the inline reference will appear as a superscripted, bracketed, numbered hyperlink:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.[1]

You should name your references with a unique identifier in HTML-like format: <ref name="USSupremeCourt1"> ... </ref>, and fill in the contents. Thereafter, references identified as "USSupremeCourt1" will not need to have all the citation information filled in. Though you can create these inline references with <ref name="USSupremeCourt1" /> tags, it is simpler to use the {{R}} template, like {{R|"USSupremeCourt1"}}. (This is especially concise when citing several items together: {{R|"USSupremeCourt1"|"CaliforniaLawReview1"|"Lemley1"}}.) Choose the identifiers based on the source. Choose the order of the citations in order of relevance to the text (or alphabetically when there's no preference).

The inline reference used above was created with this code:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.{{R|"USSupremeCourt1"}}

While you will frequently find the <ref></ref> tags embedded in the middle of a page's code (at the point where the reference is made), it is frequently less confusing to use "list-defined references", which collects all of the filled-in references together in a single list at the end of a page, in the References section. For example:

<ref name="CaliforniaLawReview1">  ...  </ref>
<ref name="Lemley1">  ...  </ref>
<ref name="USSupremeCourt1">  ...  </ref>

As you saw before (with the Baker case example), there are templates that help you fill out references in a standard way. {{Cite court}} and {{Citation}} are good ones to use. You aren't obligated to use these templates, but they will generally simplify your task of formatting references consistently. They also improve articles by making them substantially easier to parse with automated tools.


Explanatory footnotes can be contained in a separate reference list, as follows:


This usually precedes the References section. To insert a footnote, use: {{R|This is a footnote.|group="Note"}}. If you wish to enter a reference within a footnote, use a special workaround: {{#tag:ref|This is a footnote.{{R|This is a reference.}}|group="Note"}}.

Facts and sources[edit]

Wikipedia distinguishes between citing a fact contained in a judicial opinion, and mentioning the case itself. If you're referring to a fact, definitely cite the case using a standard format as above so that it appears as a reference in the article's reference list. If you're just indicating the existence of another case, wikilink to its article (or to what the article might be called, if the article doesn't yet exist).

Finally, remember that when referencing a judicial opinion, you're citing a primary source with respect to the decision, and a secondary source with respect to the facts of the case. WP:PSTS documents Wikipedia policy for properly dealing with sources. In particular: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."


To the extent possible, provide links to publicly-available versions of all court opinions mentioned. Good sources of Federal opinions are and


How to cite to the United States Code (U.S.C.)


In general, provide links to other articles of relevance within Wikipedia. You can do this within an article by enclosing the link target's title in two sets of square brackets. For example, wikilink is generated with [[wikilink]].

Use the See also and External links sections of articles to contain standalone links. With few exceptions, external links are generally avoided in the main body of an article; instead, they are contained in the References and External links sections.

Categorization and orphaned pages[edit]

Choose a Category/Categories for the page you edit
One of the following categories might fit the page you edit:

or look for a better category in the Category tree.

Don't let the page you edit be an orphan
Click the "What links here" link in the toolbox on the left-hand margin of the page you edit and make sure it has at least three incoming links (from pages other than this one) and think about what other pages in Wikipedia ought to link to the page you edit and then add such links.

Infobox templates[edit]

Some articles, particularly case summaries, have an Infobox on the right-hand side, providing key details of the case. If you would like to use such an Infobox, here are some that may be of use:

Other Infoboxes are topical rather than court-specific. You can see a list of some of these at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Law page.

Article banners[edit]

NB. Do not create the talk page until the article itself has been started. Orphan talk pages qualify for speedy deletion.

To mark each article the subject of a student project, add the following code at the top of the talk page for each article: {{ WAP assignment | course = Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Intellectual Property law (Brian Carver) | university = University of California, Berkeley | term = 2012 Q3 | project = WikiProject Intellectual Property law }} That will result in the following banner (and make the articles easy to track):

Wikipedia policies[edit]

As you work on your Wikipedia project, you should keep in mind the Wikipedia policies we've discussed. Being aware of what the Wikipedia community expects both in terms of content and technically will help you to avoid mistakes. BE SURE TO DO THIS.

If you want to be particularly conscious of formatting and style, follow the guidelines from the Wikipedia manual of style.

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference USSupremeCourt1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).