Talk:Cognex Corporation/Archive 1

"Recent Case of Sexual Harassment"
Thanks for toning down the material on the harassment suit. However, the filing of a lawsuit is generally not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. At the very least it would have to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, such as the Boston newspapers. Court filings are not acceptable sources for contentious material. Also the hrhero link given is from 2007 (you say the suit was filed in 2009) and the page contains no mention of Cognex that I could find. --agr (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed it entirely following Cogvoid's reintroduction of it. Per WP:WEIGHT, we not only need sourcing to indicate that such a lawsuit has occurred, but coverage in secondary sources in order to show the lawsuit is significant to the company's overall history. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

-- (talk)19 June 2009 (UTC) This page has been used for a long time to tout various lawsuit victories, the lemelenson case is still posted, and if a sexual harrasment case is not relevant then why just above in the history section is a minor accolade recieved in 2005 relevant. The reference to "SEMI Award" should now be romoved. In addition the argument that this case has not received as much attention and is therefor less valid is absurd. To give an example; Bob Shillman around 2001 stopped drawing a salary and he was quoted as saying something to the effect of "money is like food and I am just full". In the spring of 2009 the second round of 80 layoffs was made in ~6 months and the boston globe along with other newspapers reprinted the same quote as if it had been made recently(just google it:how could that happen?). The fact that this type of case has been brought against a company and the type of rebuttal Cognex gave is far more relevant to an encyclepedia page, cognex employees and to the public in general.You tell me why this type of important information gets surpressed and is therefore less valid while you are suppressing it. all i want is to post a matter of public record. How can a comment about money being like food be more important than the type of malicious behaviour cognex subjects human beings to. There is also "Creef v. Cognex Corporation" which was dismissed for lack of evidence, there should be more cases in the mail. Most engineers dont litigate and the fact that a termination is sudden makes it near impossible to collect evidence. shillman relies on this. Massachusetts is an "at will" state which means the employer can hire and fire at will. It is noteworthy that this company has been accuses by former employees repeatedly of not treating people with a modicum of dignity. If there is a cognex page it should be used to reveal what cognex is and not what wealthy people are capable of getting boston newspapers to print.

There is a video of cognex lawyers in court making statements that are entirely relevant to what exactly cognex is. it is freely avaible and it should be posted. This is certainly a company that ties up alot of time in court. this page is making mainly claims about vision when cognex is also known for aggressive litigation.

Please tell me how to get this information on this page and what court documents are acceptable. my intention is to document what this company does to human lives. To document the fallacy that cognex has sophisticated IP to document the performance of senior management and to document the success of its products. This does not have to be all negative but its tireson to see these people lauded as decent human beings by boston newpapers.

Sorry I know that this is supposed to be brief but this page is very misleading and I know this for a fact. it has been near impossible to get accurate information about cognex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogvoid (talk • contribs)


 * Unfortunately you're just adding more inaccurate information - this sexual harrasment case you're writing about was filed in 1998, not 2009. The case was tried quite some time ago and the jury found for Cognex. The 2009 activity is appeals court stuff. - MrOllie (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Lemelson verdict received extensive press coverage at the time. The New York Times, for example, referred to it as a "landmark decision." It's certainly important to the history of the company. More secondary source references should added to that section of the article. (It might be better if some else did this as I was a witness in that trial.)--agr (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

-- (talk)19 June 2009 (UTC)

If something has been witness by myself and I can show that it is truth can I enter it in wiki. If I can can I also enter facts that infer other facts can I make statements like "in my opinio ..."

no, there was an age discrimination case when an older man was fired very close to the time that his options came due. 1998 maybe right but i thought it was later-unless you found a new one, please send me the link.. this is the creef case there was a sexual harassement case in 2007 this is more recent than almost any other entry on this page. There is video on this page of the plaintiffs lawyer discussing the complaint and a rebuttal that cognex made which was thrown out and this is done under the eyes of an agent of justice. THere is nothing else even remotely as real here. In an "at will" state rarelly are emplyoment cases heard for many reasons. This case was deemed to have merit and the rebuttal that cognex tries to introduce is remarkable.

Another wrongfull dismissal complaint

legal action to invalidate patents is not new nor is patent law. THe term "patent troll" is new and can be seeen as disparaging inventors. One of the reasons these laws exist is so an inventor with little capital has at least a slim chance of protecting his invention. This whole topic could use its own page- does this page have a law resource page? this type of littigation can be viewed as stifling inovation and it is becomming some sort of business model.Just branding a man a patent troll, having his idea invalidated and only getting good press shows the cynical opinion shillman has towards others. Did you even read this case? or did you just verify that the link was not dead? What is landmark about this case ?who else has cited it as a precedent? Is it landmark because the boston globe put the word landmark in the headline?

This video should be posted because its relevant to the times is part of a pattern and offers a glimps into the behaviour of this company, is this not what this page is for?. This video or the transcript that is also on this page is more real than anything in the boston papers. This demonstates how HR behaves and how lawyers are used and what many people have had to face.(this behaviour can also be considered comonplace because an argument that is prepared for a court has been carefull calculated)

This is a page about Cognex and for some reason there is great aversion to posting live speaking breathing cognoids. THere is no way you can say that this wiki article tells you anything about these people or what they do. Using newspapers as reference is unreliable, shillman proved this a few weeks ago check out my last post. How could a shallow quote from ~2002 get reprinted as news in 2009? How did this happen? shillman got pr without even composing some new cute little quip.

Is there a process to appeal this ? I really think this who site needs an overhaul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by cogvoid (talk • contribs)


 * Have you fully read the links you're posting? The suffolk.edu link is for the 'Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court' - that's an appeals court. Read the briefs linked on that page - they refer to case filed in 1998. On the separate issue of the Lemelson case, here's another reference from bloomberg . It's as notable as patent cases get. Also, the term Patent troll is not a new one it was printed forbes as early as 1993 - MrOllie (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You wrote 'If something has been witness by myself and I can show that it is truth can I enter it in wiki.' This is incorrect. See the policies on verifiability and original research. If you know something to be true and you can reference it in a reliable secondary source such as a magazine or newspaper article, then you can enter it into a Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore- and I want to assume good faith here, but I can't parse your statement otherwise- your asking about entering something to which you've been witness yourself suggests you may be involved in said court case.
 * Certainly there's a process to appeal this- the dispute resolution process. I suggest you follow it if you don't agree. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

hang on! I am not involed in any court case and I never met these plaintiffs and to dont you make threats about good faith, if I have not written that I know these plaintifs you have no business making any threat. But it you are serious about good faith check out the profile of the guy who is only allowing possitive information. Check out all the unsubstatiate claims I had to take out. When I began watching this site was basically a pamphlet filled with claims that were not and could never be substiate. The guy who wrote the innacurate claims has been deleting anything negative for months and he clearly has some interest in the fate of cognex. Further he made some statement about vision technology that were not true in any way, I believe this man is an engineer and knew he was stretching the truth. CHeck the history. I dont know where 1993 date for patent troll but none the less this is recent and it is far deferent from the term inventor. On Cognex's own site you can find a paper calling inventors "patent troll" and bullies. This man is enourmously wealthy, COgnex keeps about 1/2 billion on hand (the statements are also on their site) so for him to call anyone else a bully in terms of resource to sue could only be devises to fool idiots

And am starting wonder what you're stake is in allowing a comapny to use wiki for profit and PR.

And Jesus can you read??

sexual harrasment rebutted and Yes! I know this is an appeals court this is where the judge agrees that the argument that conex made to have the thing dismissed was unacceptable. There is a link to video or the transcript on this page sited

The creef case stinks all around and the way the events unfolded seemed rigged. Creef v. Cognex Corporatio I believe cognex uses this firm often and if you look around you can find a page that basically instructs companies on how to terminate and even points out that its not possible for an unemployed person has the resource necessary to litigate.

I have yet to go throuth the case but it yet annother wrongfull terminatiom RICHARD WILTSIE, PLAINTIFF:wrongfull terminating

I will appeal this tommorow.

i)just to get it straight you claim that the The Lemelson verdict received extensive press coverage and this make it more relevant that the sexual harrassment case? you claim this is a landmark case because there were more stories written about it. This is the reason you allow the Lemelson verdict stay on the page while cases that allege abusive behaviour towards empolyees less important? even though the latter is a newer case and seems to conform to a pattern

i)if this is a landmark case I think the onlyway to prove that it is a landmark case is to find out how many other cases reference this case and how often cases that are truly landmark get reference in a complaint. The word landmark is beeing thrown around alot and  it seems more grandios than appropriate. clearly more PR than anything and should be removed.
 * I beg your pardon, but you seem to have misread my statement above. You're speaking of threats- where did anybody make a threat? Furthermore, you are now making clear assumptions of bad faith- disruptive ones. And almost everything you're giving as sources are primary sources- court documents, etc. which are entirely unacceptable for establishing the relevance of any of these court cases.
 * As was said above, and as will continue to be said throughout, companies all over the world face legal action every day of the week, and the vast majority of those cases are of minor relevance to the overall history of that company.
 * And we aren't talking about what else is or was in the article- we're talking about WP:WEIGHT with regards to this specific incident. Please stick to the problem at hand. If you cannot provide any evidence in reliable sources (as defined in WP:SOURCES) that this court case is relevant to Cognex, I respectfully ask that you cease arguing the point. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

-- (talk)
 * 1) Talk:Cognex Corporation. Disagreement over why the lemelson case can be posted but not the Dahms appeal. 21:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. The ruling on cognex's rebuttal is truly a Landmark ruling and is mentioned as a precedent in sexual harrasment cases.This is also notable because the CEO himself was involved. I see no reason why the lemelson is allowed to be posted but not this rebuttal. I am an engineer and find some of the arguments for not posting this are hypocrital and frivolous. The relevance of this case to me is undeniable. Identifying companies like this one would change the some of the work invironments engineers are expected to tolerate. Fewer lives would be thrown in to disarry. Pages that pretend to be imformative should not looks like marketting pamphlets.

proof this ruling is a precedent:  

Engineering is supposed to be a profession. we are expected to hold ourselves to high moral standards out of respect for our profession and collegues. This behaviour is all the more outrageous in this context. I have seen so much abuse done to good poeple and it always goes unchallenged and unoticed. This rebuttal ruling should be included on the page. As the page stands now wikipedia is misleading investors, prospective employees and engineers about this company. This co-opts the ability these people have to attack its employees and their famillies.

I also have posted some articles relevant to the performance of this group of upper managers. Why have they been removed. I merely posted comments made publically by cognex.
 * The appeal itself is again a primary source and useless for establishing the relevance of the court case to Cognex' overall history. The HR Comply newsletter is a better source, but again I don't see how it establishes relevance of the case to the company's history. You haven't provided a shred of evidence in compliance with what I've asked for above.
 * I'll also say now, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Comments such as "Identifying companies like this one would change the some of the work invironments [sic] engineers are expected to tolerate" will frankly be taken as prima facie evidence of behavior in direct conflict with that policy by quite a few editors here. Let me further warn you not to use this article talk page for posting unsubstantiated claims and hyperbole only tangentially related to improving the article. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

-- (talk)19 June 2009 (UTC)

The statements I made were not posted on an actual page. I am not using this site as a soapbox. The rebuttal that cognex used is as relevant as anything else about this company. The way a company treats its imployees is one of the its important defining qualities. Do you see that? This argument was made in response to a complaint. Any argument that cognex makes in a courtroom that sets a precedent is surely important. If you cannot see this I dont know how to make it more clear.

It is the argument in the appeal that I want to post. There is nothing else that I want to establish.

In the court proceeding the points of the argument cognex made (I think they refer to it as the "slut" defence) are clearly articulated and discussed further the breifs from the case are available in pdf. Is this what you are calling primary source ? I have included two other cases that cite the ruling, This is certainly not a primary source. 

you said "You haven't provided a shred of evidence in compliance with what I've asked for above" I provided proof that the ruling on the argument was precident setting. (Who has privided proof that the lemelson case has been sited in other cases. What else is needed to show compliance

Also you said I made assupmtion about "good faith" you had just finnished suggesting the same thing asking if I had been involved in this lawsuit. You have no business reading information into what somebody has written. This will distort. THe guy who was initiated this argument has a website. I suggest you have a look around.

Unless you can tell me clearly what more needs to be provided (and you have !NOT) this is now pointless and has been all along. Tell me why you decide at what stage in a lawsuit the arguments become more relevant than at a others? I thought I had made an appeal. If I didnt I would really appreciate if you could do it now.

1)I take issue with the argument that lemelson is more improtant because is was in the newspapers more often 2)The argument that the statements made by Cognex are not important to the history of the company clearly wrong. A legal precedent was set and the arguments offer a very clear and relevant view of the way this employee was treated. 3) I have provided secondary sources.

more evidence has been cited in this case than for the lemelson case. btw I cannot find any legal arguments that cite lemelson. thess should now be provided.

You should have to justify some of the statements you made.

Wait a minute-The man who initiate this disagrement sais his name is Arnold Reinhold. There was a man by the same name involved in the lemelson patent dispute. is it allowable to infer anything here ??? Worse! browsing the internet there seem to be a business relationship between an "Arnold Reinhold" and cognex. can I ask user arnoldreinhold if there is? I would like to ask what is the nature of the relationship between the user arnoldreinhold and cognex if one exists. Further there was a page for "Arnold Reinhold" that wikipedia removed? I cannot access the history. Why was the page "arnold reinhold" deleted.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogvoid (talk • contribs) 00:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

-- (talk)
 * 1) Talk:Cognex Corporation. arguments to post a statement made by cognex. 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We are not discussing the Lemelson dispute, Arnold Reinhold nor any article other than this one. We are discussing the relevance (per WP:WEIGHT, which I suggest you read and understand) of this sexual harassment case. Please cease this desultory prevarication and address this concern appropriately, at which point we may move on to another concern. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about this the other day, so I looked up the Dahms case again to see if it had concluded: I figured an update would be a fitting postscript to the above discussion. On appeal the verdict was fully upheld, meaning that Cognex won all the issues brought up at the appeal. - MrOllie (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Temporary protection
I've protected this article temporarily in hopes that the edit dispute will be resolved on the talk page rather than by edit war. I see no discussion whatsoever on the latest dispute; please talk it out first. I trust that you'll find that this article has been locked to the wrong version. Happy editing. Cool Hand Luke 16:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that you've unprotected the article; I hadn't personally engaged in discussion about the specific paragraph because it looked at the time that its removal was wholly a WP:POINT-based one. But even so I agree that discussion of that particular removal may be in order, and so I'll explain why I think the content belongs:
 * Here is the most recent restoration of the content in question. Its removal appears to have been predicated on its failure to meet WP:WEIGHT. I disagree with this in that the key points of the paragraph are supported by references in high-quality reliable sources (in this case, USA Today, New York Times and Bloomberg L.P.). In fact, not only are the key points supported, the articles being referenced themselves testify to the significance of the Lemelson case. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looked like a POINT to me as well. Cool Hand Luke 14:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There apparently was relevant discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive548. Cool Hand Luke 14:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)