Template:Did you know nominations/Patent misuse
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Patent misuse
[edit]... that in Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., the Court held that Henry's sale of unauthorized ink for use with a patented "Rotary Mimeograph" stencil printing machine manufactured by Dick Co., resulted in infringing use?
Created by Sashashekhar (talk). Nominated by Sydatischool (talk) at 15:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC).
- Hey we aren't lawyers! :-) Can you write a snappier hook? Victuallers (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Length is fine. Referenceing is good but not every para ends with a reference. Some paras end with See Imaginary v. Madeup - this wont do as it implies that Wiki is its own reference - which it isn't. Can you fix these references. Maybe a replacement hook might be (something like)
- ... that the patent misuse law prevents patent owners from extending their legal protection to cover unrelated items?
- Hope this helps Victuallers (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for pointing out the paras without references. I think I updated all of them, please feel free to check and add comments to the talk page. I will do my best to make timely improvements. Sasha
- Cheers, I think we are about there. There is a para that ends with "...these additions were made by the Patent Act of 1952." that needs a ref and can I suggest that the title should have USA or American in it as the article does not cover the law outside the USA. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Article has undergone a major streamlining edit (over 8000 net characters removed). The article should be re-reviewed, and the hook should be checked as well to be sure the material covering it still exists and is sourced. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hook above suggested on 4th Nov (is there a ref?) and title change requested on 9th Nov. All the paras now have referenced (good!), but I cannot see how to do a re-review without the items requested being addressed. If any third party wants to help then please do. Victuallers (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Striking original hook as too long. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Concerned that there may be OR. Statements such as "Brulotte v Thys Co. established that attempting to collect royalties after a patent expired was misuse." are cited to the course cases themselves, rather than critical analysis; a decision at a lower court could be reversed, or the impact of the case could otherwise be rendered insignificant in terms of patent misuse. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- This has just not been followed up by the nominator - so I'm removing it from the list Victuallers (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator has not edited on Wikipedia for a month. Removing from the list is never the right way to close a nomination, so I'm formally rejecting it, given previous issues and concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
