Talk:Patent misuse

Significant edit[edit]

Hi,

I am adding a significant edit to this page on Monday. Please feel free to make necessary modifications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sashashekhar/Patent_Misuse .

Thanks in advance, Sasha Sashashekhar (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the note. It looks very interesting (although I had no time to read through the material in detail yet). Perhaps, you could improve the style by having a quick look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. You may also want to use Template:United States legal citation templates. Otherwise, please go ahead! Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Sashashekhar (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Thanks for expanding the article. --Edcolins (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have ideas for improving content in this article? One idea would be to include a section on the adoption of "Patent Misuse" in formation of "Copyright Misuse." Open to a few more... Sasha

An idea could be to explain whether the concept of "patent misuse" exists outside the U.S., even under another name. --Edcolins (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive citation to Brian D. Hill[edit]

See footnote 7. This WP article contains excessive citation (or perhaps miscitation) to a student note on the Princo case by Brian D. Hill as authority for many dubious or at least controversial points—essentially, the death of the misuse doctrine. Hill does not support the views he describes. Indeed he deplores them and finds them quite worrisome. But the WP article uses Hill's article as authority for generalizing from Princo that misuse is no longer what the Supreme Court used to say it was. Yet, the Court's June 2015 opinion in Kimble reaffirms the old case law, says "pooh pooh" to the academic and judicial critics calling for abolition or overhaul of the misuse doctrine, and says that misuse is not antitrust and finding misuse does not require looking to antitrust law for guidance. The effect of Kimble is to toss the Federal Circuit's Princo opinion into the dustbin.

Therefore, while Hill may accurately describe Princo and its tendencies, the WP article is wrong to rely on that as a true statement of current patent law. The old precedents still govern, and Princo is wrong in disregarding or "overruling" the Supreme Court's old cases. Hill's summary of Princo is thus not a reliable source for the current state of patent misuse law (not Hill's fault).

I propose that somebody go over each of the fn 7 cites to Hill and the WP misuse article text that fn 7 purports to support, in order to check them for current accuracy, then find a more reliable source (either secondary or primary) and correct (or rephrase as somebody's opinion in the past) the text if needed, using the post-Princo version of the law. I would prefer that somebody else do this who is familiar with patent antitrust and patent misuse law. If nobody else will step forward within a reasonable time, I will do it. But I would rather that someone else take responsibility because it may be thought by some that my 40 or more years in these particular trenches impairs my NPOV.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the Hill paper is not a reliable source, let's be bold and remove any statements based thereon. The article should aim at presenting scholarly consensus when available. A review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper (per WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Is the Journal of Business & Technology Law peer-reviewed? Does not seem so. --Edcolins (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is more how a previous editor used Hill than with Hill himself. Hill is a student, but he wrote a thoughtful and generally correct statement of what the Federal Circuit held in the Princo case. The editor then used Hill as a source to describe what the present state of misuse law is. But Princo is inconsistent with prior Supreme Court law and the latest (June 2015) Supreme Court decision on the subject of misuse. Therefore, what Princo says cannot be regarded as an accurate general statement of misuse law or a basis for predicting what circuits other than the Federal Circuit might rule or for that matter what state courts such as the Washington Supreme Court (whose judgment the Brulotte Court reversed) might do.

Maybe the article needs a de-Princoization rewrite in the text with support taken from US Reports or F2d instead of from Hill's description of Princo. Another possible source would be the ABA Antitrust Developments book or else Hovencamp or Areeda. -- PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Patent misuse. 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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 27 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jasminesu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of California, Berkeley supported by WikiProject Intellectual Property law and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]