Talk:Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

The opinion is here - work needed
On June 19th, the court ruled in favor of CLS Bank, that is, they found that the Alice Corp patents are invalid. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf  This page needs the attention of an editor familiar with the case. 164.119.76.253 (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A half dozen editors or more have incorporated the results. 72.244.206.94 (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp. Pty. ... at Bloomberg Law site
There are ~10 citations in the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International section which are maintenance nightmares. They all look something like this:
 * CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1279-82, 106 U.S.P.Q.2d 1696, 2013 ILRC 1851 (Fed. Cir. 2013) [2013 BL 124940] at Bloomberg Law site

and all link to the same URL:
 * http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/CLS_Bank_Intl_v_Alice_Corp_Pty_Ltd_717_F3d_1269_106_USPQ2d_1696_2/1

Isn't there a better way to format these repeated refs? Perhaps ?

72.244.206.94 (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Quite right. There is no point citing Bloomberg or anything but Justia or a similar legal opinion source. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

CAFC vs. Sup. Ct. - balance
It makes no sense to have so much material about the superseded Federal Circuit opinion vs. so little about the much more important Supreme Court opinion. This should be edited drastically to limit the CAFC discussion and expand that for the Sup. Ct. There should also be something at the end about what happened in the lower courts as a result of the Sup Ct op. Would someone such as BD or Ecolins like to volunteer to do that? It would be possible to copy from the WP US Software patent article. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have shortented this to some degree. But not enough. PraeceptorIP (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing the Introduction
Jytdog tells me, in an unfortunately condescending tone, that he thinks the second paragraph of the article is not sourced enough. That para. says: Although the Alice opinion did not mention software as such, the case was widely considered as a decision on software patents or patents on software for business methods.[2] It and the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Kappos, another case involving software for a business method (which also did not opine on software as such), were the first Supreme Court cases on the patent eligibility of software–related inventions in three decades.[3][citation needed] Footnote [3]: The last Supreme Court case involving the patent eligibility of software-related inventions had been Diamond v. Diehr in 1981.

Jyt says: Thanks for asking about the cn tag. It means "citation needed" and we use that when someone adds unsourced content to Wikipedia. This is one of the things I've been trying to speak with you about - you cannot add content to Wikipedia based on your own authority - content needs citations that support it. This is a fundamental way that Wikipedia is really different from writing a journal article that has your name on it as an author. In this content you added, the first sentence is sourced. The second sentence is not sourced, nor is the footnote; that all came straight out of your head. That's not good editing, here in Wikipedia.


 * We have two items that jyt thinks needs sourcing.


 * The second sentence says that Alice and Bilski involved software for business methods, but did not say anything (specific) about software. This is an Intro. to an article about Alice. If you read the article, you will see that it is about software for a business method but does not speak about patenting software. The Bilski article is in, so that you can read it to find out what the case says about patenting software (nothing!). I don't think it is possible to source a universal negative. The only way to know that a case does not mention something, say X, is to read it and fail to find any mention of X. If anybody can source this, let's hear how. (Maybe there is an article that somebody wrote that says the case does not mention software. I didn't find one. But I read the cases. I didn't see anything in them about software. And, as mentioned later in the present article, in oral argument Justice Sotomayor said she didn't want to address software [as such] and didn't think it was necessary to do so.)
 * The footnote is said to be unsourced. It cites a 1981 case, Diehr in [['s, and says there are no more Supreme Court cases on patent eligibility of software-related inventions after that until these two cases (Bilski and Alice) came along three decades later. Again, a universal negative. "There is no X in Y." How do you establish the absence of something and source it to the satisfaction of jyt? (Furthermore, is it even necessary in an Introduction? The Introduction to a case, according to WP MoS Law is not supposed to give much detail, just an overview, with details further on in the article.)

There are other IP or patent specialists around WP, maybe even other patent law professors. Have any of them ideas on how to source these two points? The two statements are certainly correct and are common knowledge among patent lawyers (of which, of course, jyt is not one). I don't see how to source a negative statement, such as "There are no black swans"; all you can do is look for a black swan and maybe you will find one some day (go to Australia). Maybe you won't. (If you read all of the Supreme Court decisions between 1981 and 2010, you won't find one on whether you can patent a software-related invention.)

I would like to see what is the consensus among informed Wikipedians about whether further sourcing is needed in a case like this.

Thank you for your comments. - PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Jytdog

 * Source what?

Hi Jyt: On Alice, what do you want to source? The Diehr case from 1981 is 'ed and there is a whole article on it? What do you mean by the Cn? Thx.

BTW, Jyt, you aren't a patent lawyer or a software person. Are you following me around? Why did you go to Alice? It's curious. - PraeceptorIP (talk) 1:48 pm, Today (UTC−5)


 * Thanks for asking about the cn tag. It means "citation needed" and we use that when someone adds unsourced content to Wikipedia. This is one of the things I've been trying to speak with you about - you cannot add content to Wikipedia based on your own authority - content needs citations that support it. This is a fundamental way that Wikipedia is really different from writing a journal article that has your name on it as an author. In this content you added, the first sentence is sourced. The second sentence is not sourced, nor is the footnote; that all came straight out of your head. That's not good editing, here in Wikipedia.


 * Am I following you around, and why did I go to the Alice article? I care about IP for a bunch of reasons. It is one of the key engines of the US economy and is playing a bigger and bigger role on the world stage as the "knowledge economy" is spreading into more and more industries. The Alice article has been on my watchlist for a long time. So no, I didn't follow you there. You are going to find me at a lot of IP articles. I care about it. I also deal with it as part of my job; I make decisions that depend in part on what kind of claims are allowable and what the chances are that issued claims will survive efforts to invalidate them. Jytdog (talk) 3:29 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Jyt, if you don't mind I will reply on the Talk page of the article. Thx. PraeceptorIP (talk) 3:49 pm, Today (UTC−5)


 * i don't mind at all - that is totally appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 4:11 pm, Today (UTC−5)

First, in compliance with MOS:LAW, you can cite it to a primary source, such as the oral arguments hosted at Oyez. Second, consider rewording the language. Maybe can help—I don't know enough about IP law, but Jytdog gets fixated on stuff like this. I'll try and think of a way to address the issue, I'm sure you're right, but he's not going to accept that and will keep harassing you until a consensus emerges (again) to say that he's wrong. BTW, I'm here in response to a request from Praeceptor for help in formatting the lead properly for the article. GregJackP  Boomer!   23:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * End of moved section
 * Response and discussion
 * I provided sources for the two unsourced statements. NBD. Statements need sourcing in WP - nobody can write stuff based on their own authority. Has nothing to do with any field in particular. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There is some support for the "in three decades" bit of the disputed content, which can be found in the wired article. Panel three says "[SCOTUS] hadn't said anything useful on 'the strike zone' [as explained earlier this means patent eligibility] in 30 years." The wired cite is from 2014, so 30 years would mean roughly 1984-or-earlier since the most recent relevant SCOTUS decision prior to Alice-v-CLS. Neither the article nor the comic mentions Diamond v. Diehr of 1981 that I noticed, and the authors of the comic (writer Julia Powles of University of Cambridge and artist Ilias Kyriazis says Wired) also make no mention of the Bilski v. Kappos from 2010 -- this throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the idea that Alice-v-CLS && Bilski-v-Kappos are *both* about patent eligibility for software, because according to Powles there was no such SCOTUS decision in the roughly-1984-to-roughly-2014 timespan. Maybe she published something more detailed that a web comic, somewhere else, and gave footnotes and the names of legal cases? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of software
I reverted a change to the discussion on software, everybody knows that 1) Alice was not a software decision; and 2) it has been used on software patents ever since. had come up with good language that was supported by the opinion and WP:RS. His, and 's language should stay, especially as Praeceptor is a subject matter expert in IP law. If you want to change the article, get consensus. GregJackP  Boomer!   20:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm good with that revert. The change made by Gronky was WP:OR in any case.  The source provided didn't mention either of the passages from the decisions that Gronky cited.  Gronky's content was as follows:


 * Two excerpts from the ruling which have lead to many software patents being invalidated by District and Circuit courts are: "the method claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." And for the patent in question's "media" and "system" claims: "add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea, we hold that they too are patent ineligible" (NB - I removed the blockquote formatting and added quotation marks, for convenience here on talk)


 * That is WP:OR. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Guys, I'm baffled by the current text. Everyone knows that the judges say all sorts of things during oral hearings, including playing devil's advocate.  Quotes from oral hearings are only pertinent if they're clearly reflected in the ruling and are useful for explaining it, which is not the case here because my second point is that this ruling obviously did affect software patents.  There've been so many software patents invalidated post-Alice that one patent lawyer calls it "AliceStorm".  Overtly pro-patent lawyer Gene Quinn said:
 * "the Supreme Court decision in Alice will render many hundreds of thousands of software patents completely useless. … On first read I don’t see how any software patent claims written as method or systems claims can survive challenge"
 * Now, I think he's going too far there, but for a lawyer specialised in obtaining software patents to say that, suggests it's obvious that this ruling affected software patents.
 * I've given two sources from patent lawyers specialised in software, and I can find a heap more if you want more. What's the source for the article saying the court did not "rule on the patent eligibility of computer software"?
 * If you mean they didn't use the words "computer software" when ruling that a category of software patents are invalid, then fine, let's say that. Let's say they didn't use the words "computer software" when ruling that a category of software patents are invalid, instead of the current content which is straight misleading. Gronky (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not fully sure where you are coming from Gronky. Sorry to ask this, but you do know that "software patent" is kind of a misnomer and that software was never patentable, per se, right?  (again, sorry to ask, just want to get on the same page, swiftly) Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No offence taken. Yes I'm aware of this.  This is actually one of the problems.  Patent lawyers and laypeople commonly use the term "software patent", and then someone searches for "software patent" in the Alice ruling, finds nothing, and then (because they used the wrong method for reading a court ruling) they declare that the court didn't rule on software patents.
 * The new version is still completely inaccurate.  The four paragraphs say:
 * They discussed software in oral hearing
 * They discussed software in oral hearing
 * They discussed software in oral hearing
 * The ruling doesn't use the word software
 * All four statements are true, but this doesn't come close to reflecting the section title: "Treatment of software". (If someone wanted to leave the content as-is, the title could be changed to "Use of the word 'software'".)
 * The problem is that everything in that section misses the point that this ruling has had clear effects on software patents (I'll save space by not proposing four alternative names). I've provided good sources, and I have more.  Do you (plural) accept that these sources are valid and that they say the ruling has had profound effects on "software patents"? Gronky (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Gronky - glad you are clear on that. :) The subsection on "Treatment of software" was added in this dif.  To be frank, I don't think the original content there was good WP content (which is why I just re-did it) and as I noted above, I didn't think yours was good, either, Gronky. And I think your objections to what I did with it, are very sound!  So I just removed the subsection for now, while we talk about it.

I think it might be useful to ask - should we keep this subsection in this location at all? If so, what should we accomplish in it? I'll also ask, who is savvy about the form that SCOTUS articles usually take -- where would be the appropriate place in this article (if any) to deal with the deeper background of the subject matter? (for this case, it would involve briefly describing the kind of claims that are in what is commonly called a "software patent", so that it is clear later, when "method" and "system" claims are being discussed, that "software patents" were what were actually under discussion?) Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to give a typical lawyer's answer—it depends. If you want to talk about the fact that Alice had a major impact on subsequent decisions, it should go in "Reception" or the SCOTUS/SG recommended "Subsequent developments" section. If you are wanting to talk about the fact that Sotomayor actually said something about it in oral arguments, it would need to be in an "Arguments" subsection of the "Supreme Court" section. Or you could split it up, with part in the "Background" section, part in one of the two just mentioned. I know that's not much help—sorry. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was helpful! I was thinking of it being at the very start of the background section, so that the IP law context is clarified.  Some of this is done in the current lead, and we could copy some of that down into the body.   I think once we establish what the heck a "software patent" is, the content itself will make it clear that "software patents" were under discussion the whole time.  Does that make sense to everybody?   you too? Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, like the court, I think we can get by without defining "software patent". We need a section about what the court said (and they talk about computers rather than software), and then we need a section about the effects.  Our sources for the latter will probably be patent lawyers, and they pretty much all discuss this topic in terms of "software patents".  So we say that many patent lawyers have highlighted the sudden increase of software patents (we can just wikilink it rather than defining it) being found invalid by district and circuit courts which invoke the Alice decision. Gronky (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * mmm but that kind of misses the point. SCOTUS knew they were taking on a "software patent" case from the getgo. When they talked about methods and systems and what a computer does, they knew they were talking about software patents.  What I am suggesting is that we start that background with a discussion of what a software patent is (methods carried out by a computer, and some kind of system including a processor and storage media with instructions), so the SCOTUS case discussion makes sense, and the #alicestorm that followed makes sense (which it has).  If we do that there is no need to explain later...  Do you see what i mean? Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. I think there's a risk of getting bogged down in defining software patents, so I was aiming to keep it simple so that at least we have something, but if you're willing to aim higher then, by all means.  Gronky (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * yes short and sweet for sure. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why define when you can wikilink to software patent? Very first sentence is "A suggested definition..." and the second sentence says "...there is no legal or conclusive definition..." which clues the reader in immediately that the subject is extremely edgy/tentative/whatnot.  Going for short and sweet might be a mistake, if you end up unintentionally oversimplifying.  I haven't verified that the wikipedia page-content over there, actually jives with the meaning of that phrase in the context of this case, however, so that should be done first obviously. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Justice Thomas cartoon
A user has objected to the following cartoon as being racist. File:Cartoon of Justice Thomas refusing to explain Alice ruling.jpg Law Comics commentary on "we need not labor..." I agree that the cartoon is unacceptably racist. If all it said was "We need not labor..." with "Ummm yes you do" then in my opinion it would be fine. However, it then goes on to use African American slang (e.g. "know what I'm sayin?") and the person criticizing Justice Thomas is portrayed as white. In my mind, that makes it unacceptable for this article unless someone can show that the cartoon itself is notable by pointing to an RS that discusses it.--Nowa (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * the comic is intended to be satire (of sorts). In this interview with Wired, the author described the work as "whimsical." Even if we assumed, arguendo, that the image was objectionable, that is not ipso facto grounds for removal (see WP:NOTCENSORED). The comic is discussed in an encyclopedic manner, and the inclusion of the comic in the article helps readers understand the range of commentary about this case (as well as the case's cultural impact). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * True. Simply being objectionable is not sufficient reason to remove an image.  On the other hand, there is no value to keeping objectionable material that is unrelated to the subject matter of the article.  If the image were cropped to just the portions I mentioned above, it would illustrate the frustrations the patent industry as a whole has had with the Alice decision without including unnecessary objectionable material.--Nowa (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See below for my comments to Jytdog. I think the cropping that you propose will likely obscure the comic's characterization of the Court's opinion in this case. Additionally, as I mentioned below, I think the comic ultimately helps readers understand the case's impact and the range of commentary about the case. For those reasons, I think it should be kept as-is. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * fwiw that cartoon has bothered me from day 1. Depicting Thomas as Mr. T is just ick.   Yes there is no policy barring this kind of racism in WP that I am aware of.  That doesn't mean we have to include it. I would be happy to open an RfC and my sense is that the community will reject the use of this cartoon by a landslide. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We can certainly open it up for RfC, but I don't think that's necessary. I think enough editors are watching this page for us to reach consensus.--Nowa (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Notecardforfree so are you are arguing to keep this racist garbage in our article or are you OK with removing it? Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * in my opinion, I think this cartoon is intended as a tongue-in-cheek satire (I encourage you to read the rest of the comic for context). I, for one, wouldn't call this "racist garbage," though I am certainly in no position to judge your subjective experience with the subject matter. I support inclusion of the comic because I think it ultimately helps readers understand the breadth and range of commentary about the opinion. Furthermore, the article discusses the comic in an encyclopedic manner, and the article does not attempt to advance any particular point of view. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Looks like we will not get a quick consensus and will need an RfC. I will prepare it.   fwiw, I don't think "whimsical" or "tongue-in-cheek" is an acceptable excuse for racism except maybe between friends. It has no place in a serious encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC Keep or remove cartoon?
This article currently contains the following image and content:

Image: File:Cartoon of Justice Thomas refusing to explain Alice ruling.jpg

Content:
 * Law Comics commentary on "we need not labor..."

Law Comics cartooned Justice Thomas saying that "we need not labor..." and replied "yes you do!" while wagging a finger at him as an accompanying article asserted that his opinion “baulked at the messy, challenging issues surrounding software” and was “not a particularly useful” decision about patenting software.

The cartoon has been objected to, as being racist. Thomas is a living person so WP:BLP may be at play.

There is a separate discussion ongoing about deleting the image,.

With regard to this article, should the image and content be retained/kept or be removed? Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

!votes

 * remove in my view this is a racist depiction of a living person (the Mr. T reference/sterotype is obvious). This adds nothing to the article except ugliness.  While Thomas is a public figure and is wide open to any kind of well-sourced, appropriately weighted content criticizing his work on the bench, this goes way beyond that and into the gutter.  There was and has been and will continue to be discussion of Alice in high quality sources.  Wired is no great authority on patent law, so it is unclear to me why there is content from it in this article, except to bring in the cartoon. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, for the reasons noted by Notecardforfree, supra, that this cartoon panel is a pretty clear satire of the decision. It also does a great job in explaining the issues, something that the opinion itself does not do very well. In one panel, the cartoon sums up for the layman what an IP lawyer did with an entire presentation, "Is it eligible for a patent: Better go ask Alice." Further, I don't read this as a racist attack on J. Thomas, and WP:NOTCENSORED applies. GregJackP   Boomer!   03:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * remove Copyrighted comic, not of any lasting notability. I don't see the comic as particularly racist though. Agree with Jytdog that the discussion in the article is a superficial excuse to justify the comic. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, the comic is released under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license, as noted on both the Wired site and the original comic site. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * remove the cartoon text is so blurry it's unreadable That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove. Fails NFCC requirements. The notion that prose cannot be explained in prose is preposterous. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove While I understand how silly patents often are, and how silly software patents almost always are, the cartoon tells me nothing. The images are a total mystery and the wording means nothing. The article should only contain messages expressible in English with interpretation from a reliable secondary source. If such a source has explained the cartoon, the explanation (without the cartoon) can be included. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove Fails non-free criteria as can easily be explained in prose. (I am not convinced by the Racism argument, if we are rolling out Mr T comparisons everytime a black character uses the word 'fool' it will never end. Its not like he aint getting in no plane sucka.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove per wp:ATTACK page, cuz "I pity the fool" is the phrase, and I think the cartoon is NOT racist but just an overly negative spin about statements made by Justice Thomas. Instead the text could quote phrases which question his judgment, but a cartoon which denigrates a person's actions could only be used when it is claimed as "iconic" such as a photo reported as displayed in a police station on a bulletin board of infamous criminals. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, for the reasons noted by Notecardforfree and GregJackP, supra. This cartoon is fair, even if misguided, commentary and is similar in concept (but more graphic and user-accessible) than the article's quoted comments of law Professors Duffy and Merges, each of whom is a recognized expert in patent law. Thomas's very good opinion for the Supreme Court does not go beyond the limits of the actual case and therefore leaves a great deal beyond those limits unexplained. It is legitimate to object to that, as Alice in Patentland does; it is also legitimate to say (as one quoted authority in the article does) that Thomas is right to be reticent in order to maintain Court unanimity. The Alice in Patentland cartoon simply reflects one side of the controversy--in fact the majority stated among legal commentators. The racism argument is nonsense. That cartoon has been around for several years now in  legal circles and no informed person has previously object to it as racist. That argument is just a figment of the imagination of uninformed observers of patent law developments. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keepfor the reasons noted by Notecardforfree. I don't see any racism involved. 176.11.8.77 (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC) — 176.11.8.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Remove. Unnecessary. It does not clarify the opinion. It is best seen as attacking Thomas' opinion, but does not help the article to do so in an image.  If a case can be made that the image itself is notable, an article could be written about it.  DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per my comments here and here. I also concur in the comments of the learned and, above. As I've said before, this comic helps inform readers about the depth, breadth, and form of commentary about this case. For readers who assume that legal scholarship only happens in textbooks or law journals, this comic helps broaden their perspectives to show that legal discourse occurs in other media as well. The use of this image is limited, judicious, and encyclopedic. The text of the article explains its significance. For those reasons, the use of this image complies with WP:NFCC. The editors arguing in favor of removal have not advanced any valid policy-based grounds for removal. They primarily rely upon the premise that the image should be removed because it offends them (or they believe it is an offensive depiction of Justice Thomas). I disagree with this premise, but even if it were true, it would not support removal because Wikipedia permits the inclusion of "offensive" content so long as it is depicted in an encyclopedic manner and it does not attempt to advance a particular viewpoint. See for example the cover of the "Jump Jim Crow" sheet music at the Jim Crow laws article -- would these editors also object the inclusion of that image? Or would they say it is important to inform readers about the breadth and quality of contemporaneous commentary on the subject? See also WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is also important to remember that the comic need not be notable; notability guidelines apply to the subject of articles, not commentary about topics covered in articles. For all those reasons, I support keeping this image in the article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Replace Most of the remove votes assert that the excerpt is confusing. The entire cartoon,however, does lay the problem out nicely.--Nowa (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails NFCC, all the other discussion points are moot. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove. The three arguments against its inclusion (other than copyright, which seems to have been definitively dismissed based on the existence of an acceptable CC license) seem to be 1) it's racist; 2) it does not meet WP:NFCC; and 3) it adds nothing to the article. I express no opinion on the first. On the second, someone has claimed that it's licensed under "CC BY-NC 4.0 license, as noted on both the Wired site and the original comic site". I would be persuaded on that argument if the original site and its license were properly identified ; both Wired and PatentlyO are reprints, with PatentlyO relying on the author "generously allowing" republication, rather than any CC license. PatentlyO's reliance on a separate permission makes me cast a jaundiced eye toward Wired's claim that it's CC-licensed; and the Wikipedia File page relies only on Wired's assertion. I don't think relying on a consumer's claim of license, rather than the originator of the work, is a sufficiently good practice.


 * But that's immaterial to me, in any event, because that's about whether its inclusion is permissible. I'm more concerned with the third argument, whether its inclusion is a good idea, even if permissible. And I just don't see how including this POV cartoon in any way makes a reader understand the Alice decision, or criticism of it, any better than the article already does without it. It's big and unwieldly, and a distraction, and it takes away from, rather than enhances, the quality of the article. The cartoon is also disproportionately aimed at the single authoring justice, when the opinion being criticized was a unanimous one, representing the views of all nine justices then on the court. The cartoon gives the article an amateurish look, without conveying any additional information. It should be dropped. TJRC (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit: I've struck out my text where I stated that I would be okay with the CC-BY-NC license; as User:ResultingConstant points out below, the -NC (non-commercial) element requires that WP:NFCC criteria must still be met. Just one more factor in favor of removal. TJRC (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Image not helpul to the readership. It is a comic.  It is trying to make some kind of point, about a SCOTUS decision.  Understanding the point, and catching all the in-joke references, cultural and/or legal, would not be possible for somebody not already very familiar with the subject matter.  (I love the A-Team and didn't notice the extremely vague pity-the-fool portion at all, if it is even there to be discerned, because I was hung up trying to figure out what the comic was even about, not having yet read the article-prose.  No comment on the accusations of racism, other than to say that whether the comic is racist or not, is 100% immaterial to whether or not the comic belongs in wikipedia or not -- what matters, and the ONLY thing that matters, is whether the comic has encyclopedic value to the readership.  We have articles on nazi topics, and racism, and so on -- wikipedia is not censored and saying that we must remove something BECAUSE it might be considered racist is extremely dangerous talk, which *inherently* borders on accusing the people who worked on the article of being racists, and will tend to make people think about the question of whether the material improves wikipedia or not, from the perspective of educating our readership, incorrectly and illogically.)  Because of the license, which is incompatible with CCBYSA4/GFDL used for wikipedia overall, the comic can ONLY be retained in the article if it is NOT replaceable with some alternative.  In other words, the comic cannot be purely decorative, or a mild enhancement -- it must be fairly central to the topic.  (The copyrighted Dukakis-in-the-tank photo or the Microsoft trademarked logo are examples.)  Not only is the comic not in any way central to the legal decision, it is just a repetition of the material *already* in the page:  "... similar in concept (but more graphic and user-accessible) than the article's quoted comments of law Professors Duffy and Merges... cartoon simply reflects one side of the controversy--in fact the majority stated among legal commentators."  (quoting one of the keep-votes here)  If the prose quoting the law profs is insufficiently accessible to the readership, then tag the section with Template:expert and get somebody to simplify the explanation, as simple as possible but no simpler, as the old saying goes.  If the cartoon is serving a *structural* role and providing a big portion of our coverage of one side of the real-world controversy/argument, then simply find some cites of the the 'majority' and put those cites into the prose.  But don't clutter up the article with a one-sided comic, which requires a special license-exception to be hosted on WMF servers.  Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral, and are supposed to explain the topic, describing the controversy rather than picking sides in the controversy.  Not having looked deeply into the matter, I will say nothing about whether or not the overall article is properly neutral or not, but I *will* say that having a one-sided editorial cartoon that merely duplicates in an oversimplified fashion material already in the prose, does NOT strike me as very good evidence that the prose will be neutral, prima facie.    47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove The cartoon lacks an acceptable Creative Commons license, since it restricts commercial re-use and Wikipedia doesn't. In my opinion,  the cartoon adds nothing substantive enough to the commentary about the decision to overcome the shortcomings of the licensing. We should be extremely conservative in applying WP:NFCI. The use of language in the style of Mister T when applied to Clarence Thomas can be seen by reasonable people as a personal attack and a BLP violation.  I am no fan of Justice Thomas.  Quite the contrary. If anything,  my opposition to his agenda motivates me as a Wikipedia editor to be extremely careful to avoid including any BLP violations against him in this encyclopedia.  Cullen328   Let's discuss it  06:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion has been overtaken and mooted by deletion of the image in question at wp:Files_for_discussion/2016_August_15. It may be time to close this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * responding to that - this was about the image and content.  I went ahead and removed the content; we'll see if that stands and if it does then we can just archive this.  If not we'll have to let this finish and get closed.  Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * racism is not "satirical" or "whimsical". It is just racism.  WP:NOTCENSORED has nothing to do with racist content per se.  We certainly wouldn't avoid discussions of racism but we definitely don't propagate it.  Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't care if the cartoon is kept or not but I'd be grateful if somebody could explain to me why it is racist. Thomas is not depicted in a racist stereotype manner, is not subjected to racist prejudice, I honestly don't see it. What's racist about this?  Yinta n  18:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are not familiar with Mr. T, his stage persona is as follows - he is a big african-american man with a mohawk who wears lots of gold chains. he first was a professional wrestler then became an actor. he was an actor in stuff like Rocky III and The A-Team and then became a professional wrestler .  He speaks in short sentences, often with emphasis. he had several one-liners he used, like "I pity the poor fool", and referred to people as "fool" a lot.  in TV shows he was generally the brawn, not the brains (and generally shown as uneducated), and worked a lot by intimidation and force instead of reason, often acting unreasonably.  a caricature of the stereotype of a black man in American culture. (we can have a whole separate conversation about why Lawrence Tureaud adopted the persona and how he used it; that is a different conversation, and in any caes, Tureaud chose it)
 * Turning to the cartoon. Thomas wrote the decision which was unanimous. It makes sense for the cartoon to put him in the position of explaining it
 * But how is Thomas shown explaining the decision? Like someone who went to Yale law school, worked as a DA, a federal deputy secretary and then chairman of a commission, then an appeals court judge, then a supreme court judge?
 * No.
 * Thomas here is depicted like Mr T.  Big black man who calls people "fool", speaks in short, emphatic sentences in street English, refuses to answer questions and explain the reasoning, and instead states it as a matter of power and then offers a bunch of excited mumbo-jumbo. Brute force and babble, not reasoning.  In the bottom frame of the image (which is cropped here in WP - the whole page is here and you can see the whole frame there) he looms over the white girl, huge and kind of malevolent, as he spits out the Mr T answer.  In the bottom part of the frame in the square box, the "white" narrator speaks reasonably in standard English and explains the gobbledegook Thomas is spitting out.  Same thing happens in the frame to the right of this in the whole page - look at the square box and compare that to what Thomas is shown as saying.
 * ha ha. this isn't whimsical or satirical.  its racist.  it wouldn't have made "sense" if they had shown say Scalia and used the same words in the bubbles.
 * you can consider the decision poor, or poorly reasoned, without going into the gutter this way and framing it as something produced by a caricature of a stereotype of an african-american man. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC) (redact per correction below. thanks for that Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Thanks for your explanation. I see your point and it's obvious that the cartoon doesn't paint a flattering portrait of Thomas, but 'racist'? No, I don't agree with that. Cheers,  Yinta n  20:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking and for your reply. It is unflattering  - it only "works" -  because he is black; it wouldn't "work" if one of the other judges were depicted instead of him. The draping of the racist stereotype over him - a Yale-educated Supreme Court Justice  who is indeed black -  is unambiguous.  Whether people can see what is going on or not is a different matter.  Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In the interest of factual accuracy: while Mr. T was a bouncer and a bodyguard who had entered some toughman competitions, he was not a professional wrestler before he became an actor. He entered the wrestling arena in 1985, only after he was famed as an actor (for Rocky III and The A-Team, primarily.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Jclemens just to clarify, this RfC is about the textual content as well as the image. The discussion about the image here, will be relevant should the deletion discussion of the image determine that the image should be kept. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * fwiw User:TJRC, here is the original source of the comic, and the CC BY-NC 4.0 license grant is clear there. Looks like the project didn't move past that one comic.  But yes, this is not the main issue. Jytdog (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The image is still subject to WP:NFCC, because the "NC" license is not allowed on wiki. FAQ/Copyright. That doesn't mean we cant allow it as fair use but it has to meet all the criteria of NFCC ResultingConstant (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * understood, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks; the '-NC' flew right past me. TJRC (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The stuff in the wired article is fine, as far as being a legit source for quote-mining. Here is what we are *currently* using in the article, in a whole paragraph devoted to this wired-mag cite:
 * I strenuously object to the use of 'cartooned' as a verb.  I also don't think the prose-description of the controversial comic-panel is ANY help.  Suggest nixing all of that, and instead utilizing the most illuminative bits from this broader quote:
 * You can even use a direct quote (eliding the tortured baseball metaphor albeit) from the cartoon-prose in panel three, if that is seen as super-duper-helpful for some reason:
 * ...which snippet should be attributed to Julia Powles of University of Cambridge (in collaboration with artist Ilias Kyriazis), albeit still cited to the wired URL rather than to tumblr. I see little point in including any graphical panels (whether #3 that I quasi-quoted or panel #9 being notvoted upon above) from the comic itself; they are not illuminating, merely decorative, compared to prose which gets the exact same point across less "graphically" but equally accessibly.  Or more accessibly, if you consider vision-impaired people, and possibly also non-native speakers given how didactic the comic-lingo is.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

quotation check
Can somebody please verify this bit from the article isn't broken?


 * "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."

And if it is a correct quotation, can somebody please clarify what it is supposed to mean? As written it does not parse for me. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It is an accurate quote from the case, however, my guess it is either missing some clarifying punctuation, or a different word was intended. In the context of the rest of the ruling it makes sense, but as a stand alone sentence, it is indeed bad.


 * (Punctuation) "The mere recitation of 'a generic computer' cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention"
 * (my interpretation) quotes around "a generic computer" to indicate that stating the idea, plus the magic words "a generic computer" in your claim, does not make something patent worthy.
 * (quote from ruling) "Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility"
 * (quote from ruling)"The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. "

ResultingConstant (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (different word) there are many other places in the ruling where similar wording is used, but generally with the word "requiring"
 * (quote) The method claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
 * If it's any consolation, no one really knows what it means in the sense that there is no consistency in either the results of court cases implementing the decision or in the types of patents the USPTO is allowing. If you have a computer implemented invention, you need to contact a competent patent agent/attorney in the computer arts to get his/her opinion on how to best approach patenting it.--Nowa (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)