Talk:Invention promotion firm/Archives/2016

You're scaring away my customers!
To whom it may concern, Under the heading of "Invention Promotion Firm", I find it grossly unfair that your site has chosen the names of certain individuals (and companies) that were named in lawsuits over the past 15 years. You should either list every lawsuit against every invention promotion firm (and the names of their officers and directors), or none at all. In fact, your site should not be posting allegations against certain individuals without posting the corresponding outcomes for each individual and corporation. The webpage as it stands now, could be considered libelous and commercially disparaging. Your writers have chosen (3) lawsuits against invention promotion firms in an arbitrary and capricious manner. I am formally requesting that you remove the names of the individuals on this webpage (and references to lawsuits) - unless you are willing to list every lawsuit against every invention promotion firm that has ever existed. If Wikipedia is offering a definition of an "Invention Promotion Firm" - these lawsuits and the named individuals have nothing to do with such a definition. In addition, there are many Invention Promotion Firms that have never been sued, but have more complaints and unhappy clients than the (3) you have arbitrarily chosen. Invention Promotion Firms date back to the 1850's and Wikipedia is not offering any information about how the field developed, or any of the successful firms that have helped inventors earn royalties. Also, your contributor may have had a monetary motive for wanting to denounce the names of the individuals and corporations listed under this category. Some of these invention "activists" point to these lawsuits and invention promotion firms as scam artists, and in the same breath are taking thousands of dollars from inventors and claiming to be the "good guys" (because they are named in a lawsuit on Wikipedia). Your writer's approach to this subject is slanted, biased and indefensible. My suggestion is to have another writer (without an agenda) research the subject properly and refrain from posting allegations from lawsuits against individuals. Some of these allegations were without merit and some were dismissed. Wikipedia is leaving itself wide open for a defamation action by vilifying only a small select group of invention promotion firms. Please consider revising this page. Sincerely, Arnold S. Thompson Esq. Thompson, Waters & Noble Wash., DC
 * Anyone may edit Wikipedia content. If an editor objects to the content of an article, said editor can change it. However, Wikipedia editors must follow guidelines for editing.  Properly sourced content must not be removed.  Improperly sourced content must not be added. See wp:rs for guidelines on proper sourcing of content.--Nowa (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Project Mousetrap
AlanScofield has repeatedly deleted content from the section on Project Mousetrap. He has asserted that none of the charges of contempt brought against the parties were ever proved. I will check to see if there are references to support that. In the meantime, I will reinsert the deleted content since it is supported by references. I've also begun to edit the article content to more closely match the references, including explicitly stating that the defendants did not admit to any wrong doing in the settlements.--Nowa (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Nowa Nowa has repeatedly chosen to arbitrarily list defendants in one FTC action. There are dozens of FTC, SEC and Attorney General lawsuits against invention promotion firms since the 1970's. The category is "Invention Promotion Firms" not "Invention Promotion Firm Lawsuits." The original contributor appears to be asserting a personal negative bias against an entire industry. Especially since the contributor claims to be a "patent agent," there is an obvious conflict of interest because patent agents and patent attorneys are competing for the same business. There has always been animosity between invention promotion firms and patent practitioners who are in direct competition for the same clients (inventors). This page should be written by someone with an objective viewpoint, who is not predisposed to condemning invention promotion firms based on personal opinion and possible monetary loss. The original contributor also claims to be an inventor and patent holder. This experience may also have colored the opinion of this contributor. Finally, there are no lawsuits mentioned under similar types of "promotion firms" for other creative works needing intellectual property protection. These include: book promotion firms, film, art, music, etc. Wikipedia categories are based on the definition of the subject, its history, and a balanced description of what the topic covers. This entire page offers a biased, negative, and self-serving description, which does not offer the public a fair overview of the invention promotion business. -- AlanScofield (User talk: AlanScofield|talk) 14:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * AlanScofield, thank you for participating in the talk page. As you know, the content of all Wikipedia articles should be a neutral summary of the content of [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|

reliable secondary sources.]] Neutral point of view, however, does not mean that the article can not have an overall positive or negative view of a subject. I means that the article should fairly represents the view points of the references. If you feel this article's content is unfairly negative about its subject, and can find reliable sources that provide a more positive view, I will certainly back you up on adding the content of those sources to the article.--Nowa (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Nowa (User talk Nowa|talk) 14:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nowa, thank you for responding to my comments regarding the need for an objective description of the "Invention Promotion Firm" Wikipedia page. According to your reply, you are asking for "reliable sources" to prove that a more positive view should be taken of Invention Promotion Firms. Now, let's take a hypothetical example: let's say that a contributor decided to edit the "Patent Attorney" Wikipedia page, and then she listed all the patent attorneys and patent agents who have been fined and disciplined by USPTO's Office of Ethics and Discipline for misrepresenting their legal services. This contributor might also add a list of deceptive patent attorneys who have been disbarred for unethical conduct, or those who have been sued for misrepresenting their licensing capabilities during the last twenty years. Then, in all fairness, let's say that an invention promoter was the Wikipedia contributor to add these punitive actions to the Patent Attorney page. As you can clearly see, this example runs parallel to your authorship as a patent agent (and patentee) who like others in your profession are predisposed toward denigrating Invention Promotion Firms. Therefore, let's not allow hypocrisy to set in here. Looking at all the facts, some Invention Promotion Firms are owned by patent attorneys, and consequently, some patent lawyers claim to provide the same services as Invention Promotion Firms. So, instead of either one of us attempting to judge or generalize about the nature of Invention Promoters and patent attorneys, my suggestion is to allow my last edit to stand until another contributor objects to the manner in which all Invention Promoters are being portrayed as con-artists. One final point, I don't understand your insistence on including this old FTC Mousetrap lawsuit that was filed almost twenty years ago. Almost all of those companies are no longer in business, and since 1999, all invention promoters have been regulated by federal disclosure laws to prevent the type of allegations mentioned in that FTC lawsuit. Therefore, Project Mousetrap is old news and irrelevant because it pertains to a description of invention promotion firms before the new federal laws took effect in 1999. So, in all fairness, this reference should be removed due to its inference that invention promotion firms are still acting in the same manner as they purportedly were before 1999. Accordingly, if every Wikipedia page about various types of businesses included lawsuits from twenty years ago - there would be a litany of protestations from a myriad of pertinent companies who are doing business in 2016.

AlanScofield (User talk: AlanScofield|talk) 20:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a section on disciplined US patent agents/attorneys would be an excellent addition to patent attorney. A list of notable disciplined patent agents/attorneys would be welcome.  I would support anyone who made this addition to the article, irrespective of their background, provided that said person followed Wikipedia content guidelines.
 * Regarding letting your last deletion stand, I will not support that since the content was supported by reliable sources and was notable. Furthermore, I have attempted to improve the content to address your concerns.  I added the observation, for example, that the fact that these parties settled does not mean any admission of wrongdoing.  As long as the section fairly reflects the content of the references, it should stay.
 * Regarding waiting for other editors to contribute, I see no reason to delay. Reliably sourced content  should not stay removed.
 * Regarding my alleged bias against Invention Promotion firms, actually I have quite the opposite. One of the reasons I created this article was to learn more about invention promotion firms.  I found it hard to believe that that an industry this successful would have only negative press.  So I looked and found a suitable positive reference and added the content to the article in the section “Defense of invention promotion firms”.
 * Regarding changes in the law causing changes in the invention promotion industry, I think that's an excellent subject. A more comprehensive explanation about the changes in the law and the changes in the invention promotion industry would be a great addition to the article.  Nonetheless, Project Mousetrap is notable historically and hence it belongs in the article. --Nowa (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)