Talk:Criticism of patents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of patents article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 29 August 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Societal views on patents to Criticism of patents. The result of the discussion was moved.

Extension

this article needs a sumarising section on the Software patent debate, linking to the main article.--SasiSasi (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map request

Map needed

It is requested that a global map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

I think this article would be better if there was a colored map (based on this) that displayed the status of patent law for various countries. Something like "blue = no patent laws, red = WTO/WIPO member, green = other", kinda like this. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a map in the patent article that shows patents in force [1], which illustrates the fact that most patents are held by developed countries, but also needs updating (I think a good source may be United Nations Statistics Division). For this article we could do a map showing pharmaceutical licenses in force...

Most appropriate for this article would be a map of countries that have issued compulsory licenses or produce their own generic drugs in violation of existing patents... however, I am not sure where to get a comprehensive list of such countries. --SasiSasi (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2%

I didn't manage to find a list of countries that would be useful for the requested map, but this source says that only 2% of WHO's essential medicines are under patent restriction (which means six or seven medications). It might be possible (and desirable) to find the original source, and perhaps a list of exactly which medications are under patent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal: Patentleft

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. -- Pnm (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Merge Patentleft into Criticism of patents and redirect.

Rationale: Patentleft is a neologism that probably doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY but could reasonably be mentioned here. --Pnm (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The article Criticism of patents potentially covers a very wide range of kinds of criticism. Patentleft covers a particular recent technique, or licensing philosophy, which attempts to take away the sting of perhaps some of the effects underlying some of the criticisms of patents. What its success is or will be, and over what range of ill-effects, has perhaps yet to emerge in the light of experience. The two subjects really are different. Terry0051 (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Patentleft is much too specific to fit under the general criticism of patents article. Me and a few others are working on the Patentleft article as part of WP:USPP. We have a few new and recent sources. It seems to be getting more attention recently, and I think that although it is still a scarcely used and vague term, it is in the process of being developed and defined, so we should keep the article up to date on how it is being used. (Wkrantz (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose. Patentleft is a tactical use of patents, not criticism of them. TJRC (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I suggested this merge in good faith because I didn't think the topic was notable. It appears now that it's just misnamed. The article is about defensive patents, obviously notable. --Pnm (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Positive criticism"

Pnm, thanks for your edit. I essentially agree with you. Most criticisms are negative, unfortunately. To me however, a criticism need not be negative. It can be constructive, i.e. positive. To criticise: "To evaluate (something), and judge its merits and faults" (from wikt:criticise). "Criticism is the judgement of the merits and faults of ..." (from Criticism). The purpose of my edit was to encourage editing towards more neutrality in the article. That was also the purpose of renaming the article... Equating the criticism of patents to anti-patent seems to omit that a critic may also critically praise patents, and therefore produce some criticism which is not "anti-patent". --Edcolins (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Regarding the title change, I think it's an improvement. This article is a great place to take up the perspectives on patents which would seem like undue weight in Patent, but aren't anti-patent, which is a common understanding "criticism of patents." I appreciate the point you're making, too, which is that this article isn't limited to anti-patent perspectives, but should take up societal views by topic or issue. I'm interested in taking the article in that direction, too.

I don't think reclaiming the word criticism helps this article, though. I think "Criticism of patents reached an early peak in Victorian Britain..." is clearer and more natural than "Negative criticism of patents..." but maybe there's a better word, or some other way to accomplish what you want.

As for the lead: perhaps there are some secondary sources which would discuss the topic generally. In the meantime, I've taken a completely different take. I've tried to (1) provide context while (2) writing descriptively, not editorially. --Pnm (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice lead. Thanks. By the way, if the article Societal views on intellectual property is not in your watchlist, you may also be interested in the short discussion on the talk page, at the end of this section. I wrote there that you did not seem to be annoyed by the title "Societal views on ...", but of course please correct me if I misrepresented your viewpoint. --Edcolins (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merged into patent article

merged this article into Patent article. much of the content was either OR/SYN or overlapped with what was in that section already. some of content was great and used instead of what was in patents artlcle.Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Rough consensus the scope of the article is about criticism. As King of Hearts says, article can be moved back if/when support for patents is added to the article. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Societal views on patents → Criticism of patents – The article focuses exclusively on one side of the debate. Also aligns with related articles such as Criticism of copyright. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: The move from this title cited arguments that there are substantial arguments for patent, but these points were never added, and no evidence was provided that they are significant enough to be split out of the main Patent article: –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Politics has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 12:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Law has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 12:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft oppose: I'm not well versed on this topic, but a quick search found the followingin support of patents; I believe that a serious search will turn up plenty of content for inclusion under WP:DUE. However, I have no intention to undertake this any time soon, and it seems that no one else does either; as such, I have no strong objections to a move, so long as it is done with no impediment to moving back should such content be added.

Cox, Gary W (26 November 2019). "Patent disclosure and England's early industrial revolution". European Review of Economic History. 24 (3): 447–467. doi:10.1093/ereh/hez012.

BilledMammal (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the caveat that anyone is allowed to move it back without needing to gain consensus so long as they add ample coverage of views in support of patents. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting an edit

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

I think it would be relevant and useful as a summary to add at the end of the “Different industries but one law” section the following statement from a reliable source (scholarly paper). What do you think? I have a COI with de Rassenfosse. (See my userpage). Text to potentially add:

Patent quality is a complex, multidimensional concept, and policies looking to improve patent quality must consider this complexity. There is a necessity for empirical analyses using patent quality measures to be more attuned to technological diversity. ^[1] AM13prime (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: I don't think this is saying anything, or adding anything to the article. From your other request what I think you're attempting is simply adding links to de Rassenfosse's work, and this is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. PK650 (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Higham, Kyle; de Rassenfosse, Gaétan; Jaffe, Adam B. (2021). "Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement". Research Policy. 50.

[1] Higham, Kyle; de Rassenfosse, Gaétan; Jaffe, Adam B. (2021). "Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement". Research Policy. 50.

[1]