![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
So far, JHeald has only added a list of legal citations, which would normally be considered incomplete for a Wikipedia article.
However
David Corking, Feb 14, 2006
JHeald - are you planning here to discuss the landmark EPO Technical Board of Appeal cases that seem to form a component of UK case law? I am thinking of T 208/84 VICOM/Computer related invention [1987] EPOR 74 and T 0453/91 IBM/Method for physical VLSI-chip design David C, Feb 14, 2006
Bugger. The UKPO have upated their website and everything has moved, so none of the links that went to the UKPO website work any more.
I'm working on trying to find where certain things have gone, but really need to update my firm's internal website first! In the meantime, if anyone else can track down the missing pieces of info, some serious link-updating is in order.
GDallimore 12:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the links to pages have moved in the recent UKPO change, since I have already done the necessary changes to my ukpatents site. Unfortunately it appears that a fair amount of material has been 'lost' in the move, including the analysis of computer implemented inventions in the light of CFPH and Halliburton. The link to this has therefore been deleted (for now: maybe it will appear again in future, if the UKPO come to their senses). Pearcedh 15:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Two statements seem to be particularly POV and would be better removed:
On the contrary, the Patent Office seems to me to have ploughed a pretty straight furrow in all its decisions since CFPH; and has consistently been upheld in the High Court. And although there have been variations between the judges in some of the words they have used, the principles seem to have been utterly consistent. As this UKPO decision [1] puts it, "Judgments issued by the High Court subsequent to CFPH (Halliburton, Shopalotto, Crawford and RIM v Inpro) have all pointed to a similar technical advance requirement to pass the patentability test".
As Pumphrey J. says at 168 in RIM vs Inpro: "It is now settled, at least at this level, that the right approach to the exclusions can be stated as follows. Taking the claims correctly construed, what does the claimed invention contribute to the art outside excluded subject matter?"
About the only difference has whether a purely administrative advance should be rejected as a "business method" or as a "mental act". And that should be answered in the Court of Appeal tomorrow.
Secondly:
It's worth looking at Pumphrey J.'s statement in context. RIM suggested that, tout court, "a collection of programs for computers" could not be patentable. It was this assertion, which RIM declined to elaborate on, that Mr Justice Pumphrey rejected with equal shortness. The UKPO would have done just the same. Jheald 19:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
There has been a tendency on this page for unregistered people to add links to Macrossan's webpage. User:Law Guy has just added the link as well, in addition to trying to minimise the negative view of the application expressed by the EPO and the UK Courts - e.g. incorrect reference to TRIPS that I have also edited. It is interesting that Law Guy's contributions so far consist only of things that advertise Macrossan.
Unless someone can give me a good reason why a link to Macrossan's website would benefit this article, I will continue to remove the links.
Looking at the guidelines
What you should link to
Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
This is not an article about Macrossan or his products
Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
The site contains information that is of passing interest to anyone interested in the Macrossan case, but includes no content that can add to an understanding of the issues that are central to the article. Therefore, I do not think it contains relevant content.
Links that should be avoided
Links mainly intended to promote a website
True in this case, I think
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject
Again, true, I think, for the reasons mentioned above concerning the relevance of the link to the issues at question.
GDallimore 10:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The article so far contains lots of information that I KNOW is supported by the relevant case law, but only someone who has read all that case law will be aware of that. As a consequence, I can see many apparent assertions where your average reader would just go citation needed to. I therefore think it might be a good idea to start including ref tags highlighting specific paragraphs of the case law that supports some of the assertions made in the article.
Anyone got any thoughts on whether this would indeed be a useful thing to do (before I start!), as it would be a huge undertaking!
What else should this article be doing if we want to get it to featured status? :)
GDallimore 10:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been unable to track down online versions of the Court of Appeal judgments in Gale and Merrill Lynch. Does anyone know if they're available anywhere?
Failing that, I have copies from the RPC which I can scan in as PDFs and upload to the commons. The question is, and I'm embarrassed to have to ask, what would be the copyright status of such documents? Please help. These are vital decisions for the history behind this article! GDallimore 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed two paragraphs from this section because they discuss what might be the case, i.e. an original synthesis - see WP:SYN. (I've actually commented them out, in case they're salvageable.) Wikipedia cannot speculate or express an opinion of its own, because that is original research, which is forbidden by policy. If secondary sources are available that express such opinions, and we want to make use of them, they must be cited as such, not merely reproduced here with the implication that those opinions are simply true. Hairy Dude ( talk) 22:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
So far, JHeald has only added a list of legal citations, which would normally be considered incomplete for a Wikipedia article.
However
David Corking, Feb 14, 2006
JHeald - are you planning here to discuss the landmark EPO Technical Board of Appeal cases that seem to form a component of UK case law? I am thinking of T 208/84 VICOM/Computer related invention [1987] EPOR 74 and T 0453/91 IBM/Method for physical VLSI-chip design David C, Feb 14, 2006
Bugger. The UKPO have upated their website and everything has moved, so none of the links that went to the UKPO website work any more.
I'm working on trying to find where certain things have gone, but really need to update my firm's internal website first! In the meantime, if anyone else can track down the missing pieces of info, some serious link-updating is in order.
GDallimore 12:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the links to pages have moved in the recent UKPO change, since I have already done the necessary changes to my ukpatents site. Unfortunately it appears that a fair amount of material has been 'lost' in the move, including the analysis of computer implemented inventions in the light of CFPH and Halliburton. The link to this has therefore been deleted (for now: maybe it will appear again in future, if the UKPO come to their senses). Pearcedh 15:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Two statements seem to be particularly POV and would be better removed:
On the contrary, the Patent Office seems to me to have ploughed a pretty straight furrow in all its decisions since CFPH; and has consistently been upheld in the High Court. And although there have been variations between the judges in some of the words they have used, the principles seem to have been utterly consistent. As this UKPO decision [1] puts it, "Judgments issued by the High Court subsequent to CFPH (Halliburton, Shopalotto, Crawford and RIM v Inpro) have all pointed to a similar technical advance requirement to pass the patentability test".
As Pumphrey J. says at 168 in RIM vs Inpro: "It is now settled, at least at this level, that the right approach to the exclusions can be stated as follows. Taking the claims correctly construed, what does the claimed invention contribute to the art outside excluded subject matter?"
About the only difference has whether a purely administrative advance should be rejected as a "business method" or as a "mental act". And that should be answered in the Court of Appeal tomorrow.
Secondly:
It's worth looking at Pumphrey J.'s statement in context. RIM suggested that, tout court, "a collection of programs for computers" could not be patentable. It was this assertion, which RIM declined to elaborate on, that Mr Justice Pumphrey rejected with equal shortness. The UKPO would have done just the same. Jheald 19:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
There has been a tendency on this page for unregistered people to add links to Macrossan's webpage. User:Law Guy has just added the link as well, in addition to trying to minimise the negative view of the application expressed by the EPO and the UK Courts - e.g. incorrect reference to TRIPS that I have also edited. It is interesting that Law Guy's contributions so far consist only of things that advertise Macrossan.
Unless someone can give me a good reason why a link to Macrossan's website would benefit this article, I will continue to remove the links.
Looking at the guidelines
What you should link to
Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
This is not an article about Macrossan or his products
Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
The site contains information that is of passing interest to anyone interested in the Macrossan case, but includes no content that can add to an understanding of the issues that are central to the article. Therefore, I do not think it contains relevant content.
Links that should be avoided
Links mainly intended to promote a website
True in this case, I think
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject
Again, true, I think, for the reasons mentioned above concerning the relevance of the link to the issues at question.
GDallimore 10:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The article so far contains lots of information that I KNOW is supported by the relevant case law, but only someone who has read all that case law will be aware of that. As a consequence, I can see many apparent assertions where your average reader would just go citation needed to. I therefore think it might be a good idea to start including ref tags highlighting specific paragraphs of the case law that supports some of the assertions made in the article.
Anyone got any thoughts on whether this would indeed be a useful thing to do (before I start!), as it would be a huge undertaking!
What else should this article be doing if we want to get it to featured status? :)
GDallimore 10:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been unable to track down online versions of the Court of Appeal judgments in Gale and Merrill Lynch. Does anyone know if they're available anywhere?
Failing that, I have copies from the RPC which I can scan in as PDFs and upload to the commons. The question is, and I'm embarrassed to have to ask, what would be the copyright status of such documents? Please help. These are vital decisions for the history behind this article! GDallimore 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed two paragraphs from this section because they discuss what might be the case, i.e. an original synthesis - see WP:SYN. (I've actually commented them out, in case they're salvageable.) Wikipedia cannot speculate or express an opinion of its own, because that is original research, which is forbidden by policy. If secondary sources are available that express such opinions, and we want to make use of them, they must be cited as such, not merely reproduced here with the implication that those opinions are simply true. Hairy Dude ( talk) 22:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)