Talk:Jerome H. Lemelson

Lemelson-MIT Prize
The Lemelson-MIT Prize is an embarrassment to MIT. (Comment made by an anonymous contributor).
 * Please cite your source so that we can include a comment on this in the article. Allegations are not sufficient. Thanks. --Edcolins 07:33, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * See, for example, page 10 of MIT VooDoo for an article titled "Lemelson-MIT winner stripped of prize" to for an example of student feelings.

That is ridiculous. That is a satire news article, which you can't generalize to the student body as a whole. Why don't you ask any of the prize winners how they feel about receiving the prize? Or why is has been referred to as the "Nobel Prize" for inventions. ? There is pleny of material on the internet about this.

Inventor Jerome H. Lemelson studied engineering at New York University, then worked at a copper smelting company through most of the 1950s before he was able to support himself and his family through his patents. He held more than 600 patents, and it is widely claimed (but almost as widely disputed) that he invented essential components of automatic teller machines, automatic warehousing systems, bar code readers, camcorders, computer hard drives, cordless telephones, fax machines, industrial robots, injection molding, integrated circuits, personal computers, rechargeable batteries, the Sony Walkman, video-cassette recorders, word processing systems, and much, much more.

In patent applications filed in the 1950s, Lemelson described robots that could perform such industrial duties as riveting, quality inspection, measuring, and welding. He envisioned a "flexible manufacturing system" involving machines with built-in cameras and "machine vision" -- the ability to analyze and respond to what the robot "sees" in this digitized imagery. Lemelson did not manufacture these robots or construct a working model, but decades later, as technological advances allowed such machinery to be built, manufacturers who had never heard of Lemelson were served with legal claims by his attorney. Daimler-Benz Chrysler, General Motors, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Motorola, Nissan, and Toyota were among the companies which paid substantial settlements to Lemelson.

The toymaker Mattel refused to pay, when Lemelson claimed that the flexible track used for the company's Hot Wheels toy cars had first been described in one of his patents. Instead Mattel fought Lemelson in court, in a legal battle which stretched on for more than twenty years. At one point Lemelson was awarded $71M, but he subsequently lost the case on appeal and received nothing. Ford was another company that for years litigated against Lemelson. In a 1996 verdict a judge struck down all of Lemelson's claims, effectively severing his patents for everything related to machine vision and bar codes. Then, in a headline-making reversal a year later, the same judge reversed his own decision, and reinstated Lemelson's patents. Cognex Corporation, a supplier of machine vision systems, filed suit against the Lemelson Foundation in 1998, and in 2004 a federal court ruled that 76 claims under Lemelson's patents for machine vision were unenforceable.

Some critics dismissed Lemelson as more a "patent rustler" or science fiction writer than an actual inventor. Others remember him as an American hero, as much for his tenacity in fighting for his legal rights as for his innovations. He dedicated much of his wealth to helping other inventors in what he viewed as a battle against corporate thieves, and established the Lemelson Foundation, which works to encourage and reward innovation, and carries on Lemelson's work of suing over perceived patent infringement. The Foundation gave more than $10M to the Smithsonian Institution to create the Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation, and established the National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance (NCIIA). The Foundation also provides funding for the Lemelson-MIT Program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and underwrites its annual half-million-dollar Lemelson-MIT Prizes given to outstanding inventors.

allegation and slander
I strongly oppose the inclusion of the following lines as erroneous, slanderous and belied by the record: "It is important to note that Lemelson himself did not invent many of the things he patented. He only came up with vague concepts and claimed inventions as his own. This would be similar to an average American citizen writing the US Patent Office and receiving a patent for "An engine that runs on Water." Then, when some smart engineer actually invented and started selling such an engine, the patent holder would sue this engineer for encroaching on the patent, even if the engineer had never heard of the patent or its holder."

1. Lemelson did in fact invent and in some cases manufacture ( or license to others to manufacture) some of his inventions. Read the references, such as the Design News engineer of the year article. 2. The comment on "an engine that is run on water" is rediculous. The implication is that patent examiners are so stupid to award this man 550 worthless patents? That corporate lawyers from IBM, Ford, Mitsubishi etc. who licensed his patents after years of deposition are foolish enough to pay ( as the record shows) over 1 billion dollars in licensing fees? Are they so foolish and cowed by this single individual's "worthless patents", and so irresponsible to their shareholders? Has the poster actually read any of Lemelson's patent applications? The are available on the Lemelson.org website and the Smithsonian's Lemelson website. If he did he would realize the complexity and depth of the ideas, and not relie on such foolish innuendo. Riley is correct that Lemelson was subjected to years of slander and poorly thought out statements as we see posted in Wikipedia. Remember, he was one individual who stood up to some of the worlds largest corporations, on the power of his ideas, defending himself for years with little help or resources. He should not be portrayed on this website in this manner. unsigned edit by 

In defense of Jerry, and he doesn't need any.
I was a personal friend of Jerry. If inventing like he did is so easy, why don't his detractors try doing it? An example of my experience: When we approached a company that copied and was selling our patented item  their lawyer said to us. "We're not going to pay you for the past two years we've profited from your invention. And we'll only pay you 1/3 of normal royalties.  And if you don't like it you can go to court with us for the next ten years." Well what do you think we did? We settled. That's what big companies do to inventors. Jerry had the guts to stick it to them. Most of the big companies believe in "NIH", don't you know. That means "NOT INVENTED HERE". It means they refuse to pay a royalty and will try anything including paying off judges, which happened to Jerry with regard to one of his inventions. And they can also "get to" the Patent Office Personel. -- unsigned edit by 
 * Cool story, bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.248.93 (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
The "References" and "External links" sections should be checked for neutrality. It seems these two sections are somehow flooded with references and links in favor of Lemelson: --Edcolins 08:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." (What Wikipedia is not)
 * "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view." (What should be linked to)


 * I edited the section that said: 'This dishonesty can be witnessed in statements attacking Lemelson and the Lemelson Foundation by legal opponents such as the president of Cognex, Robert Shillman. He noted [9] "I don't want readers to believe (the Lemelson Foundation) is a charitable enterprise...It's not a charitable enterprise. It gives a small percentage to charity to paint a veneer of kindness and philanthropy on top of what is a rotting piece of material." As a matter of public record, to date the Lemelson Foundation has given over 90 million dollars to numerous programs supporting inventors, innovation and entrepreneurship.'


 * Calling someone dishonest is pretty blatant POV, and, as I pointed out in my edit, $90 million is about 7% of the $1.3 billion in royalties collected. I think we might also point out that Mr. Shillman himself started as a small inventor. I worked for one of his competitors and remember visiting him when his operation consisted of a PDP-11 on a folding table in a nearly empty office. He built Cognex into a major player in machine vision by hard work and many inventions. Shillman deeply resented the fact that Lemelson collected more in profits than he did, based on a patent that Shillman thought was junk. The large corporations pretty much abandoned him and signed licenses with Lemelson. Shillman took the risk of challenging the patents in court (I was one of the witnesses at the trail) and won. Symbol's situation is pretty similar. This is not a story of large corporations against small inventors, it's small inventors who built and marketed their inventions against a small inventor who didn't.--agr 13:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but the 90 million dollars is part of a 5% payout of an endowment (public record) of the Lemelson Foundation worth over 300 million. If you take into account that the tax base on such licenses approximately 33%, and attornies fee (for these types of contingency lawyers) of 33%, the charitable aspect of this is raised quite significantly e.g. after subtracting 66% that Lemelson probably gave to the Feds and his attornies you are left with (even given the possibly inflated totals of 1.5 billion) 500 million. 300 million of 500 million is 60%- a very different number than you cite there. Therefor I have taken out your 7% figure. Shillman's statement is obviously dishonest, given this accounting above. He is obviously a smart guy. Why would he demean the charitable enterprise that is unequivacably doing good work for inventors and society at large? In addition, his public statements on Lemelson (e.g. comments that he should "burn in hell") don't reflect well on his character, regardless of how much he disliked the Lemelson Licensing program. BTW, you stated that "this is not the story of large corporations against small inventors". What story are you referring to? This entry is on Jerome Lemelson, not Robert Shillman and Cognex. His story can't be reduced to a legal battle, fought years after he died, with Cognex et.al. As his history clearly demonstrates, for his entire life Lemelson did engage in a David and Goliath battle with some of the world's largest corporations, who often demeaned and slandered Lemelson in much the same way Shillman has done. To forget this history skews and distorts Lemelson's life and accomplishments.


 * First of all, royalties that go to the foundation are not taxed, nor are his attorney fees (at least not to Lemelson) so your 66% number is inflated. And the foundation's cash is presumably invested and earning some return. So the $90 million that the foundation has "donated or committed" to date is not a large percentage of Lemelson's earnings from the machine vision patents. The $1.5 billion in royalties, by the way, is what Lemelson's attorney is quoted in the article as claiming.


 * Second, I believe you misquoted Shillman. The article you cite says:
 * 'But at the same time the family name is loathed for what its critics say is its practice of legalized extortion. "I don't want readers to believe it is a charitable enterprise," says Robert Shillman, president of an East Coast high-tech firm. "It's not a charitable enterprise. It gives a small percentage to charity to paint a veneer of kindness and philanthropy on top of what is a rotting piece of material."


 * You replaced "it" with "(the Lemelson Foundation)". I think it arguable (if not clear) that Shillman is referring to the Lemelson operation as a whole, not just the endowment. Also I don't think the $90 million number is appropriate to cite without including the number of years the foundation has been in operation. The article says that in "2002, the foundation's gifts totaled more than $8 million." I think it is reasonable to call that a small percentage of any of the numbers we are talking about. I am not criticizing the foundation or the family. It's laudable that they have chosen to give some of their money away. Many foundations give out just the minimum the IRS requires each year. But you are the one calling Shillman dishonest for pointing that it is small on a percentage basis.


 * Finally you say "This entry is on Jerome Lemelson, not Robert Shillman and Cognex." Fine, but you are the one who brought Shillman into the article. I am happy to take him out all together. Mr. Lemelson passed on in 1997. How much money his foundation currently disperses has nothing to do with him.--agr 22:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Reinhold, not to belabor a point, but it seems you are deliberately misreading the entry. Of course charitable donations are not subject to federal tax. But the assumption has to be that the family assigned the royalties to the Lemelson Foundation, in essence giving this money to a charitable entity. That, as stated, is currently worth 300 million, plus the 90 million dollars already granted to other charities. So who is the dishonest one? I believe that calling the Foundation a rotting piece of material whose charitable giving is small (e.g. 7%) is significantly dishonest and defamatory, and belied by the record, whether the number is 50 or 60%. The differences between 7% ( obviously a small number, which if true [ it isn't] would make your point) and 50-60% is significant. Next, engaging in denial or minimization( "I am not criticizing the family or foundation") after your extended discussion implying that the family is over inflating its charitable activities does seem somewhat disengenuous.

Finally, your comment about how the foundation currently disperses the funds having nothing to doing with Jerry Lemelson, 8 years deceased, is obviously accurate, but ignores the fact that as soon as Lemelson was financially able, he set up the Foundation and clearly defined its mission, which has directed its activities since. The direction was evident for the (many) years when Lemelson was a struggling, unrecognized inventor (see, for instance, section in Tom Wolfe's article written in 1986, for Lemelson's vision for the Foundation). All of this extended discussion is meant to refute Shillman's charges that the Lemelson Foundation had some sort of Machiavellian motivation to "paint a veneer of kindness etc", an ugly and defamatory statement that speaks of a man desperate to paint his opponents as evil-doers, while himself as a white knight ridding the world of evil. I can understand Dr. Shillman's pride in his accomplishments and skills, yet remain perplexed why he has continuously needed to personalize his legal struggles by engaging in continous character assasination, rather than "sticking to the facts". The Lemelson Foundation has dedicated itself to helping struggling inventors ( such as both Mr. Lemelson and Dr. Shillman once were) and improving the standing of inventors and innovation in American society, and after all its hard work and accomplishments does not deserve such innuendoes such as Shillman's statements reflect. I wonder why a man of Shillman's obvious intelligence and talents feels that he needs to stoop to such underhanded and dishonest characterizations...


 * You choose to focus on the amount set aside for potential future giving, Shillman has focused on the amounts actually disbursed. Both are legitimate ways of looking at the record. Neither is "dishonest." As for Shillman's strong language, it is not uncommon for patent disputes to provoke intense feelings, as each party believes the other is trying to take something to which they are not entitled. --agr 16:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup request
Hi! Please could you be more specific with respect to what needs cleanup in this article. I'd like to help. Cheers. --Edcolins 06:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The table of contents is in the wrong place.
 * Out of place quotes.
 * Two sections with neutrality disputes.

Does that help? lol Cwolfsheep 17:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Cleanup done. Thank you. --Edcolins 18:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks better. Thanks! Cwolfsheep 11:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Lemelson patents and controversy
I made a few edits to restore some balance to this story. In particular, I corrected an incorrect quote from the CAFC appeal ruling (04-1451) that had said "a pattern of unjustifiably delayed prosecution" which does not appear at all in the judge's ruling to "unreasonably long … delays in prosecution," which is what the ruling actually says. I abbreviated the sentence to fit the context. The complete sentence from the ruling says, "Thus, all of the subject matter in the patents in suit was pending for an unreasonably long period of time, and the delays in prosecution to issuance of the asserted 76 claims applied to all of the remaining claims." Nowhere in the ruling does any form of the word "unjustifiable" appear. This was clearly inserted by someone with an axe to grind. An unreasonably long delay, may or may not be justifiable. I also added a reference to a Strategy+Business article which attempts to place the Lemelson story in the context of the ongoing struggle between small inventors and big companies and the role of the US Patent Office in mediating that struggle. I updated the number of patents granted and attempted to remove adjectives and statements that were clearly biased in favor of more neutral ones. 74.67.180.35 03:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)bs

I have removed the following sentence:
 * While the controversy over the hundreds of millions he made over the machine vision patents is understandable, the fact that he made many millions more in legitimate, uncontested licenses with a number of the world’s most successful companies including IBM and Sony, among others, lends credence to his impressive record as an inventor.

Please cite your sources. Otherwise, it sounds like pure speculation and original research, thank you. --Edcolins 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed. I have reinstated the section on patents and controversy you removed after having added several additional supporting references. bs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.180.35 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you. I have added the tag . I think the references may still need to be carefully verified to see if the whole sentence correctly reflects what is in the sources. I have however no time to do that right now. Cheers. --Edcolins 08:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The verification for the IBM and Sony license can be found in the Design News Article "Lone Wolf of the Sierra's" on page 5,paragraphs 3 and 4. Please remove the verification needed tag. Thank you.

Brief Biography
I removed the following recent addition because it is mostly puffery and the substantive parts are already in the article:
 * The holder of more than 600 patents, Lemelson and his remarkably creative intellect touched almost ever facet of our every day lives. He received an average of one patent a month for more than 40 years — all on his own, without support from established research institutions or corporate R&D departments. He devoted much of his life to championing the rights of the independent inventor, and to ensuring an enabling environment for invention and innovation to flourish, leading to a prosperous economy and improved lives.

I think more substantive, sourced biographical info (schools, employment,etc) would be helpful. --agr 00:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Separating out patents and controversy
Ed- what do you think about separating out the patents from the controversy section. There is enough info on Lemelson's patents, separate from the legal controversy, to justify this distinction. AS it is written now the reader could assume that all of his patents were contested or controversial, whereas only a fairly small number were the subject of litigation. Any thoughts on this appreciated! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.183.76.202 (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I concur. It could be a good idea. Ok, but only if both positive and negative statements are removed from the section. The remaining section on patents should not be biased. --Edcolins 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of quote
Ed- I think the following quote should be deleted"

"To his many detractors, (...) Lemelson's patents were in fact worthless. Lemelson, they say, was one of the great frauds of the 20th century"

Should this be considered a POV? Calling his patents "worthless" and Lemelson a "fraud" is obviously a strong ( and defamatory) POV, regardless of whether it appeared in a newspaper article or not. His patents, at least from a financial stance, were obviously not "worthless", as belied by the 1.3 billion dollar licensing, but also ( in a less contested form) his other history of licensing patents to Sony, IBM and other companies. Similarly points could be made about Lemelson being a "fraud". Does receiving over 600 patents make you a fraud? I think we should eliminate this sentence, as being not only unfair, but being factually wrong. Any thoughts or policies by Wikipedia? Thanks very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.183.76.202 (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks for your question. I don't think the quote should be removed: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." I think the two following sentences as a whole represent views fairly, proportionately and without bias:
 * "To his many detractors, (...) Lemelson's patents were in fact worthless. Lemelson, they say, was one of the great frauds of the 20th century". To his proponents, "(...), Jerome Lemelson [was] a great philanthropist, [but] the value of his charitable work could not possibly match the value of his contributions to American society as an innovator and entrepreneur."
 * Take the time to read Neutral point of view, quite interesting guideline. The article may need improvement, but Wikipedia does not require to adopt a sympathetic point of view: "the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." --Edcolins 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ed- Thanks- I accept your guidance in this, particularly in regard to "sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject". Lemelson had many enemies,and many people, justifiably or not, really hated him or what they thought he stood for and did. Many of these opinions and biases have been reflected in this Wikipedia entry. But I am glad to see that a balanced approach to the subject can be found, at least in the long run... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.76.202 (talk • contribs)

On the latest comments changning the introduction to this piece, I do feel the need to point out that Arnold Reinhold, who has made frequent changes to this article, was a witness for Cognex at the Cognex Symbol trial. It is therefor hard to "assume good faith" with someone who was both friends with Lemelson's most vociferous and vehement critic (Robert Shillman of Cognex) and believe that somehow Mr. Reinhold is a neutral evaluator of Lemelson's legacy. I would leave to the reader to derive some possible negative motivations to put Lemelson's legacy in the worst possible light by directing them to the trial transcripts of Mr. Reinhold's testimony, and particularly his reponses to his cross examination by Lemelson's lawyers. I would not have made this personal but I believe that Mr. Reinhold is far from being a fair judge of Lemelson's life work, in that he seems to have both a personal and professional animus to Lemelson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.109.14 (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I testified in the 2003 Cognex Symbol trial about work done at Automatix Inc., another small machine vision and robotics company that I helped found in 1980. My testimony demonstrated that Automatix had products on the market for more than two years before the Lemelson organization filed patents with claims that purported to cover our inventions. That timing was key to establishing "prosecution latches," one of the reasons the district court cited for invalidating the patents in question and the principal reason the the Appeals Court for the DC Circuit cited for affirming that decision.


 * The sentence in question now reads "A series of patent litigations and subsequent licensing negotiations made him a controversial figure, seen as a champion by the community of independent inventors while criticized while criticized by patent attorneys and directors of some of the companies with whom he was involved in litigation." This suggests that inventors love him while his detractors are big corporate interests. In fact his detractors included other small inventors who built companies based on their inventions and patents. Shillman started Cognex about the same time as Automatix. He was one of our competitors. We visited him once early on to see if there was a way to work together. That didn't happen, but I remember his entire operation at the time consisted of a single, largely empty room with a desk, a few chairs and a folding table with a PDP-11 on top. Shillman's was a classic small inventor success story. Jerome Swartz and Symbol Technologies is another such story. I think my edits are fair. The well sourced views of small inventors who developed their inventions into successful companies belong in this article.


 * I'd also call your attention to the No personal attacks policy, which says, in a nutshell: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." --agr (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Reinhold, you seem to be focused entirely on the symbol cognex case material. If you look at the whole course of the criticisms from Lemelson (predating the Cognex case by many years) there was a continued drumbeat of articles criticizing Lemelson and his licensing program. Most of the people cited were large corporate directors and their attorneys (e.g. from Ford, Mitsubishi, etc). By focusing on the Goldman article ( written years after Lemelson had passed away) and not the previous pieces ( which Lemelson always believed were part of an orchestrated attack on him and other small inventors attempting to stick up for their rights) you distort the record. I am in agreement with the neutrality section, and that is why I framed by criticism above. But it is very clear, from your extended comments and changes to the article, that YOU have an extremely negative POV about Lemelson. Almost of your changes have been to place Lemelson in the worst possible way. I think it is highly unfair that someone who has such an animus to a subject would take such a strong stance against him, in a work like Wikipedia, while cloaking themselves in a mantle of "neutrality". So either try to be a bit more balanced in your depiction of Lemelson ( or own up to the fact that you disliked him and what you believe he stood for), or if you are unable write your negative and biased commentary and changes in a venue that is more suited to partisan pieces. You can't have it both ways and expect other people with differing points of view to believe you are being neutral, balanced and fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.151.198 (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Final judgement was entered in the case where I testified years ago. I have no current connection with the principals in that matter. I never met Mr. Lemelson and I have nothing against him. I believe he tried to use the patent system to his maximum advantage, which is what most inventors attempt, and that problems that I and others see associated with his activities are primarily due to faults in the patent system. Some of the faults  have since been corrected by Congress and the courts. I want to see a fair article here and have primarily focused on machine vision the Cognex Symbol case because I am familiar with those areas and they are important to the story. I have also tried to remove POV editorializing, some pro Lemelson and some bitterly anti. Again I call your attention to the No personal attacks policy. If you have problems with my edits I'm happy to discuss that here. --agr (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. In relation to the edits ( in the future sense) I would be more than happy for them to be neutral, fact based, fair and balanced, and would also be happy to have the discussion stay entirely on that level also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.109.14 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous info in this article
The article states that Lemelson, with 600 patents, was the second most prolific American inventor after Edison. That is not correct. My grandfather, Carleton Ellis, had over 850 patents.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.148.245 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have started an article called Prolific inventors. I would like to include Carleton Ellis in this list, but can't find any references to the actual number of US Utility patents that he held. (Total number of patents is not adequate, as Design patents are not for inventions, and international patents is essentially "double counting", as they are typically for the same invention as a corresponding US patent). If you know of any such reference, please post to Talk:Prolific inventors. (It appears that Lemelson was the 16th most prolific inventor of US Utility patents. Some of the inventors are not American, so Lemelson is the 12th most prolific American inventor. Although many of these inventors are recent, Lemelson was never the second most prolific American inventor - During his time, Melvin De Groote, Francis Richards, and Elihu Thompson (and possibly Carleton Ellis, to be verified) were ahead of him) AlexBartlett4 (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section
This section has no evidence that would support the argument that Lemelson was 'controversial'. Who cares what some 'journalist' at Ars Technica thinks about him? Show evidence of criticism by a similar inventor or somebody with more credit.

Also, this section was updated the day that an article about Newegg defeating a patent troll was published (as shown in the references). Lemelson is mentioned in the article by the author but, again, there is no evidence that we should care that the author of this article thinks Lemelson is a patent troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.191.83 (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, whoever this "unsigned" user is, didn't read the article correctly, and may have an agenda, consider his summarily dismissing that this Lemelson article is not controversial.

Secondly, the praise in the first section of the Jerome H. Lemelson article appears over the top, for any Wikipedia article, and wreaks of biased editing.

The ARS Technica article in question can be found here:

The second to last paragraph contains the quote in question, and it's clear that the statement about Lemelson is made by Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng, and reads: "It's actually surprising how quickly people forget what Lemelson did. [referring to Jerome Lemelson, an infamous patent troll who used so-called "submarine patents" to make billions in licensing fees.] This activity is very similar. Trolls right now "submarine" as well. They use timing, like he used timing."

Further, this wikipedia article talks about Lemelson's use of this submarine tactic:

It's my opinion, that at the very least, this article should be labelled controversial. ElectroDrache (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source for the controversy section. This 2001 Fortune article goes into quite a bit of detail: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2001/05/14/302986/index.htm "one of Lemelson's former attorneys, Arthur Lieberman, questions whether Lemelson was an inventor ... "In many cases, Lemelson didn't patent inventions," says Lieberman. "He invented patents." Qwy47 (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jerome H. Lemelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050901024921/http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103 to http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aOmqPqs3330E&refer=us.
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1055043&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101111055745/http://invention.smithsonian.org//downloads/fa_cohc_tr_mauc730223.pdf to http://invention.smithsonian.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jerome H. Lemelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928120841/http://fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1451.pdf to http://fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1451.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Jerome H. Lemelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523232446/http://invention.smithsonian.org/resources/online_articles_detail.aspx?id=529 to http://invention.smithsonian.org/resources/online_articles_detail.aspx?id=529
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927011646/http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/oct04/features/downbut/downbut.html to http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/oct04/features/downbut/downbut.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011110354/http://cognex.com/pdf/corporate/Lemelson_decision.pdf to http://www.cognex.com/pdf/corporate/Lemelson_decision.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100216063102/http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/04-1451.pdf to http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/04-1451.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090827112403/http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/04-1451o.pdf to http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/04-1451o.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070418232137/http://ipmall.info/news_activities/news_rines/rines039.asp to http://ipmall.info/news_activities/news_rines/rines039.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060225150642/http://www.designnews.com/article/CA151329.html to http://www.designnews.com/article/CA151329.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050201071047/http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/careers/careerstemplate.jsp?ArticleId=i050202 to http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/careers/careerstemplate.jsp?ArticleId=i050202
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050923183748/http://www.cognex.com/corporate/lemelson/patent_king.asp to http://www.cognex.com/corporate/lemelson/patent_king.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)