![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kirkbi AG v Ritvik Holdings Inc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
This article seems to have a bad case of legalese and obfuscation going on. We all know that Lego lost, but the introduction doesn't say so, and just say in passing "also know as the Lego Case", without saying who was representing Lego and who the other party was. It goes on to a very technical legal description of the case, full of 7(c) and other 11(b) which have no significance for someone not working in the legal profession in Canada. Basically, this is half of a wikipedia article, only the tech part.
Hear me, I don't say we have to go to the extension of, for example, Ammonia, but at least change the intro as something like :
Also, I quite dislike the smugness of this paragraph :
If I understand it well (and I mean that somehow this was written to obfuscate the uninitiated), it simply means:
(and if my interpretation is wrong, that directly makes my point: this is not understandable, and as such, should at least links to another place in Wikipedia where one could educate himself on how to interpret this...)
Last note, the importance of this case is here underplayed: the Supreme Court decision, while having only effect in Canada, had created a worldwide effect, meaning that other cases made by the Lego Group in other (non-Canadian) jurisdiction made reference to this ruling. This is absent from the article...
2.30.122.92 ( talk) 16:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
References
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kirkbi AG v Ritvik Holdings Inc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
This article seems to have a bad case of legalese and obfuscation going on. We all know that Lego lost, but the introduction doesn't say so, and just say in passing "also know as the Lego Case", without saying who was representing Lego and who the other party was. It goes on to a very technical legal description of the case, full of 7(c) and other 11(b) which have no significance for someone not working in the legal profession in Canada. Basically, this is half of a wikipedia article, only the tech part.
Hear me, I don't say we have to go to the extension of, for example, Ammonia, but at least change the intro as something like :
Also, I quite dislike the smugness of this paragraph :
If I understand it well (and I mean that somehow this was written to obfuscate the uninitiated), it simply means:
(and if my interpretation is wrong, that directly makes my point: this is not understandable, and as such, should at least links to another place in Wikipedia where one could educate himself on how to interpret this...)
Last note, the importance of this case is here underplayed: the Supreme Court decision, while having only effect in Canada, had created a worldwide effect, meaning that other cases made by the Lego Group in other (non-Canadian) jurisdiction made reference to this ruling. This is absent from the article...
2.30.122.92 ( talk) 16:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
References