Talk:Patent/Archive 5

Use of "intellectual property" in lead
No it's not. "Intellectual property" doesn't exist – it's a term that groups together several unrelated areas of law (trademarks, trade secrets, copyright and patents, among others). To quote an excellent gnu.org essay on the subject (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html):

Now, I realise that on Wikipedia we are not here to right great wrongs. However, we are supposed to be neutral. Using terms like "intellectual property" supports a point of view – that these laws surrounding ideas and concepts should be considered the same as property rights for physical objects, and that they are somehow related to each other, even though they aren't. If we are to be neutral here, then we need to describe patents in a way that agrees with reality – not by deferring to the definitions of those who have a vested interest in us thinking a certain way. In conclusion, this needs to be fixed – and not just this article, but the whole of Wikipedia. One will encounter many loaded terms here on Wikipedia, but that's not surprising – they have purposely been embedded in the public consciousness to distort our thinking. Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs, but at the very least we can stop using loaded (and sometimes meaningless) words and terms in our articles, can't we? Describing things properly isn't righting great wrongs – it's merely being neutral. We don't have to – and shouldn't – use terms that benefit someone's point of view. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The term "intellectual property" is widely accepted, and its scope as widely accepted includes patents. Yes, there is criticism of the term and that is best dealt with in the article intellectual property; and it is. TJRC (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:TJRC: The term is meaningless. "A patent is a form of intellectual property" tells me absolutely nothing about the subject; it's like saying "A sponge is a form of blookenwhatsit" in the first sentence of Sponge. It's just filling space without imparting any information – and it's not neutral, because "a patent is a form of intellectual property" is an opinion, not a fact. It's fine to say "Patents are considered to be a form of intellectual property by proponents of that concept[citation]" somewhere in the lead (not at the beginning), but can we please get rid of the declaration that it is right at the beginning? DesertPipeline (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I must agree that starting the article with "A patent is a form of intellectual property..." sounds rather uninformative. I have reworded the first sentence to make it a little more concise. I have also moved the reference to "intellectual property" at the end of the first paragraph (with sources). --Edcolins (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The "sponge" comparison fails. The term "blookenwhatsit" is not widely accepted, and its scope, if it were widely accepted, would likely not include sponges.
 * I don't have a whole lot more to add to this, so I'm probably going to just shut up now to encourage other voices (like Edcolins, above) to be heard. TJRC (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Edcolins: This wording is better, but is it correct to call it a "title"? The page for that concept also mentions property, and the big issue here is that concepts and ideas cannot be "property" (which is part of the problem with the "intellectual property" term). Maybe I'm misunderstanding though. Also, I feel like there could be a more neutral way to mention the "intellectual property" part – for instance, maybe the sentence could continue "but this is disputed by some for various reasons.[citations]" (to maintain conciseness rather than going into it).
 * User:TJRC: I will acknowledge that I'm not the best at analogies, but hopefully I got my point across – just imagine "blookenwhatsit" as being a term that refers to multiple separate and unrelated things, and everyone who thinks about it in that way assumes that those grouped together things are related, when they actually aren't. That's basically just me rewording the problem we have here though, rather than an analogy. Like I said, not very good at 'em... DesertPipeline (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The only problem with the wording I suggest above after what's currently written for the "intellectual property" part is that it doesn't give any context. I've never been fond of this wording, but maybe tagged onto the end it can say "See Intellectual property § Criticisms"? If you have any better ideas, let me know. DesertPipeline (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DesertPipeline. I think it is correct to say that a patent is a "title". The patentee, i.e. the person to whom the patent has been granted, is entitled to exercise the "legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of years" by enforcing the patent before a court of law. The ownership is not to the concept or idea but to the above-referred legal right ("to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of years"). The title, and the right attached to it, can be transferred from one person to another.
 * I have moved the reference to "intellectual property" from the introduction to the section "Definition", with an additional link towards the section "Intellectual property". Per MOS:LEAD ("The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."), I think a reference to "intellectual property" in the introduction is not necessary. --Edcolins (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Edcolins: Thank you as well. This is only a small step towards an ultimate goal of removing language on Wikipedia which is pushing a point of view without many realising it, because unfortunately it's absolutely everywhere here (as well as other terms), but a small step forward is still a positive change. I appreciate your help here.
 * Is there anywhere I can go to draw wider community attention to this problem of loaded words, so that, hopefully, the community can agree that there is indeed a problem here and resolve to fix it? I'm not sure if me going around random articles and trying to express the problem with a certain word in each individual case will do very much good.
 * In fact, an idea that just came to me is to start a WikiProject to tackle this problem (as well as requesting wider community input). Considering you've been a great help here, would you be willing to join such a WikiProject if it were to be started? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * DesertPipeline: Thanks for your help in improving the articles, especially concerning WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS! I think these project pages might be good starting points for further work on this topic: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and WikiProject Countering systemic bias (you won't be alone). See also Category:NPOV disputes. --Edcolins (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Edcolins: I appreciate the link resources. By the way, I just noticed that there are quite a lot of instances of the word "intellectual property" in this article, and not just in the lead – should I tag them with "neutrality is disputed"? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. See WP:NECESSARY, and here is an excerpt (which is, IMHO, fully applicable here):
 * I also think, as TJRC wrote, that the term "intellectual property" is widely used and accepted (for example in international treaties, see e.g. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, in the name of governmental agencies, see e.g. Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom), China National Intellectual Property Administration, Canadian Intellectual Property Office, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, Swedish Intellectual Property Office, Korean Intellectual Property Office, Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand, Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Russia), Benelux Office for Intellectual Property, in the name of courts, see e.g Intellectual Property High Court, Beijing Intellectual Property Court, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, and in the name of official positions, committees, or the like, see e.g. Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit) . While I have great respect for your (and others') view that the term "intellectual property" shouldn't be used, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. "Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow" (from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). --Edcolins (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the NPOV tag is warranted. As I said above, the term "intellectual property" is widely used and accepted; Wikipedia does and should follow that.
 * I don't even think the text with "and which has proponents and detractors" belongs here, either. That's a matter for intellectual property, and it's already dealt with there. We shouldn't bleed minor controversies into every article that uses the term. TJRC (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:TJRC: I don't consider it relevant that the term is widely used, as that's only the case because corporations want to impress a certain point of view on us and have therefore heavily pushed it. That's why we should not use the term in a sense that implies that Wikipedia agrees with the point of view of "intellectual property". As I said before, yes, we aren't here to right great wrongs, but we must be neutral, and using the term "intellectual property" in contexts other than while explaining the point of view of those who consider it to be a valid term is not right. Everything that could be related to the term should first be explained in a neutral way that agrees with reality, then the point of view of those who use the term should be explained (without making any judgement on it in Wikipedia's voice), then the point of view of those who reject the term should be explained (without making any judgement as before). What are your thoughts on this? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Edcolins: Pinging because it turns out that I missed your signature and thought TJRC was the author of both messages. Oops. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * DesertPipeline, with all due respect, I fully agree with TJRC. The term "intellectual property" is widely used, and it seems you agree with that. Thus, per WP:MNA—which is an integral part of Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy—, when writing articles about topics relating to intellectual property law, it is not helpful to hash out the controversy about the use of the term "intellectual property" on every page. Further, per WP:MNA again (see last sentence: "However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate."), a brief, unobtrusive pointer to the controvery about the use of the term "intellectual property" has been added in the section "definition", and, in my view, that is sufficient. --Edcolins (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the NPOV tag is warranted. As I said above, the term "intellectual property" is widely used and accepted; Wikipedia does and should follow that.
 * I don't even think the text with "and which has proponents and detractors" belongs here, either. That's a matter for intellectual property, and it's already dealt with there. We shouldn't bleed minor controversies into every article that uses the term. TJRC (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:TJRC: I don't consider it relevant that the term is widely used, as that's only the case because corporations want to impress a certain point of view on us and have therefore heavily pushed it. That's why we should not use the term in a sense that implies that Wikipedia agrees with the point of view of "intellectual property". As I said before, yes, we aren't here to right great wrongs, but we must be neutral, and using the term "intellectual property" in contexts other than while explaining the point of view of those who consider it to be a valid term is not right. Everything that could be related to the term should first be explained in a neutral way that agrees with reality, then the point of view of those who use the term should be explained (without making any judgement on it in Wikipedia's voice), then the point of view of those who reject the term should be explained (without making any judgement as before). What are your thoughts on this? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Edcolins: Pinging because it turns out that I missed your signature and thought TJRC was the author of both messages. Oops. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * DesertPipeline, with all due respect, I fully agree with TJRC. The term "intellectual property" is widely used, and it seems you agree with that. Thus, per WP:MNA—which is an integral part of Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy—, when writing articles about topics relating to intellectual property law, it is not helpful to hash out the controversy about the use of the term "intellectual property" on every page. Further, per WP:MNA again (see last sentence: "However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate."), a brief, unobtrusive pointer to the controvery about the use of the term "intellectual property" has been added in the section "definition", and, in my view, that is sufficient. --Edcolins (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Edcolins:I do indeed agree that "intellectual property" is widely used, but when there are ways to describe something in a manner that aligns with nobody's point of view, shouldn't that be preferred? I see what you're saying here, but surely the best solution then is to simply describe things neutrally, without using the term "intellectual property" at all. If it's already mentioned in the definition that it's often referred to as "intellectual property", that's surely enough, and for the rest of the article we can not use that word. I don't think there's any policy on Wikipedia that would prohibit this. WP:COMMONNAME only applies to article titles, so we don't have to keep referring to "intellectual property" throughout the article just because it's common.

The only times that we should use the term "intellectual property" is when saying something about what proponents of that term believe. If you want, we don't even have to add on any criticism after saying such things – as long as we're not writing in such a way as to imply that Wikipedia itself supports the point of view that the term is legitimate, i.e. in Wikipedia's voice. I hope I've explained myself sufficiently here. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, wait, I think I have a better case to make here.

The point of view expressed by using the term "intellectual property" is one that can be refuted as being non-factual. The term implies two things: that the laws which it groups together are somehow similar (which they aren't), and that intangible concepts and ideas should be considered "property" (implying that laws surrounding them should be more like laws for physical property, to "protect" them as physical property is, even though it is impossible to steal, as in deprive someone of, a concept or idea).

Because of this, no matter how widespread the term is, no matter how many people believe in the concepts it expresses, that cannot make them true, and it is wrong to write an article which, in Wikipedia's voice, agrees with an opinion that goes against facts. Is this a fair assessment? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * DesertPipeline: Thanks for your message. In my opinion, if the term "intellectual property" is widely used, and if, for example, a reliable source draws a comparison between patents and "other intellectual property rights", there is no valid reason why Wikipedia could not reflect this. The alternative to doing so would be to always list the different types of intellectual property rights (more precisely, what reliable sources consider to be encompassed under the term "intellectual property", i.e. trademarks, copyrights, industrial designs, etc.) instead of mentioning "intellectual property". However, that alternative would simply be extremely unconcise and would also not reflect the content of the reliable sources relied upon. Thus, my answer to your question ("(...) when there are ways to describe something in a manner that aligns with nobody's point of view, shouldn't that be preferred?") is, I am afraid, no. There is no reason to systematically avoid using the term "intellectual property," without considering the source(s) used to support the specific statement in which the term "intellectual property" is used.


 * In addition, please read Verifiability, not truth. There are plenty of ways to improve Wikipedia articles (e.g. adding reliable sources, checking whether existing sources are reliable, removing unreliable sources and any controversial statement that relies on a unreliable source, etc.) but you may not systematically remove the term "intellectual property" from Wikipedia articles merely because you disagree with the use of the term "intellectual property", i.e. because you believe that using the term "intellectual property" is "non-factual". --Edcolins (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The term "intellectual property" throughout the article
User:Edcolins: We don't have to be non-concise, and we don't have to remove all usages of the term. My suggestion here is to ensure that all statements which are the beliefs of proponents of "intellectual property" are attributed to the proponents of the term and not stated in Wikipedia's voice, which implies we agree with the opinion. WP:ASSERT states: The text of Wikipedia articles should assert facts, but not assert opinions as fact. When we treat "intellectual property" as legitimate, we are supporting a point of view.

For instance, the first occurrence of "intellectual property" in the article is currently in this sentence: Some other types of intellectual property rights are also called patents in some jurisdictions

(This one is doubly bad, even, because it uses the loaded (in this context) word "rights". This word is usually considered positive. For example, "human rights"; so when it's used in a context like this, it distorts thinking on things like this and makes it appear that these things are necessary. "Protection" is another word used like this in a loaded way.)

I'm not that good at rewriting these things myself, but I know how this occurrence can be fixed, at least. It should say something like this: Some other laws that proponents of the concept consider to be intellectual property$[cite the opinion]$ are also called patents in some jurisdictions

But actually, now that I think about it, it would probably be better to just say "Some other laws are also called patents in some jurisdictions", because whether or not proponents of "intellectual property" consider these other laws as "intellectual property" is irrelevant to this sentence. Let's try the next occurrence then.

The English patent system evolved from its early medieval origins into the first modern patent system that recognised intellectual property in order to stimulate invention

...Okay, this one is just a blatant falsehood. I don't even know what the specific timeframe here is, but since it says "first modern", I can only assume that it means a time before the concept of "intellectual property" was even invented. This is what that essay I linked is talking about – this term causes overgeneralisations. I can only imagine that this sentence actually means "that allowed persons to restrict others from copying their work". I can't think of any other valid meaning here.

Next occurrence: Influenced by the philosophy of John Locke, the granting of patents began to be viewed as a form of intellectual property right.

John Locke died in 1704. The concept of "intellectual property" wouldn't begin to manifest until at least a century after his death.

Next occurrence: In an attempt to satisfy the competing demands for inexpensive drugs and effective intellectual property protection.

Another occurrence where the term isn't even imparting any information. "effective copying restrictions for original drug"... whatever the word is. Sequences? Whatever it is that's patented in drugs, put that at the end, and then you'll have a sentence which actually makes sense.

Debates over the usefulness of patents for their primary objective are part of a larger discourse on intellectual property protection, which also reflects differing perspectives on copyright.

Okay, it's the last occurrence where it's not a name, but we finally have one that should actually be here. It should say something like this instead for neutrality: Debates over the usefulness of patents for their primary objective are part of a larger discourse on other laws considered to be intellectual property by proponents of that term, which also reflects differing perspectives on copyright.

Well, there we go. I didn't expect to analyse every occurrence in the article, but this will probably help matters. I'll add a new heading which I can link to from the POV template. Hopefully I've made a convincing argument here. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * DesertPipeline, I'll say it again: The term "intellectual property" is widely accepted, and its scope as widely accepted includes patents. Wikipedia usage reflects this.
 * Your arguments continue to boil down to that you don't like that the term is widely accepted and includes patents. That's fine, but not a basis to change the article. Or if you don't like that Wikipedia's practice is to follow and not to lead, you can bring that up and try to change Wikipedia policy; and then come back here again if and when you do; then you'll have the basis to change the article.
 * Please also see WP:BLUDGEON. The length and volume of the text you post here does not make it more persuasive. TJRC (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:TJRC: The point of my post was to analyse every occurrence of the term in the article. Also, am I wrong in believing that Wikipedia has to assert opinion as opinion, even if that opinion is widely held? If I'm not wrong, all I'm asking is that we remove this term where it isn't relevant to the sentence at hand, or make sure we attribute the opinion that all these laws are "intellectual property" rather than declaring it in Wikipedia's voice, because of WP:ASSERT. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * DesertPipeline, I think there is no consensus on this talk page for the change you have made here. Again, as repeated by both User:TJRC and myself, the term "intellectual property" is widely used and accepted. If you want to attract more attention to the present discussion, you may start a request for comment. --Edcolins (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed the following sentence "Influenced by the philosophy of John Locke, the granting of patents began to be viewed as a form of intellectual property right, rather than simply the obtaining of economic privilege." for which no source was provided. --Edcolins (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Edcolins: Even by changing the wording order, we're now going from "so this term here is an opinion and stuff"... and then "so anyway, this term (which we agree with the concept of)". Don't you think that's a bit odd? Also, can you explain specifically why you don't like my change? Is it the wording? Isn't "laws that confer monopolies on ideas and concepts" essentially what is being conveyed there? What would you say it's communicating right now, using that term? DesertPipeline (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * DesertPipeline: Again, I see no justification for replacing an expression that is widely accepted by something else. As Macrakis wrote on the talk page of your essay "Loaded words and terms on Wikipedia", Further, pushing the same idea independently on two talk pages (I mean Talk:Intellectual property infringement and the present page), while apparently ignoring that there is no consensus for the changes you are proposing, is not helpful in my view. --Edcolins (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. --Edcolins (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Edcolins: Not that many people are even replying, so how do we know what the consensus is yet? So far it seems more "I believe this and a few other people are disagreeing with me".
 * Can you explain to me why precisely you're opposed to describing this stuff without using the term, other than "it's often used"? Or is that the sole reason? I still don't understand why that would mean that we have to use it as if it's fact. DesertPipeline (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for the changes you are proposing. See Consensus. The hypothetical prospect of perhaps reaching a consensus in the future is immaterial.
 * That you find the term "intellectual property" objectionable, wrong, or not factual is no reason to censor it. You are advocating your point of view that term would be loaded and would have to be replaced. I must say I am impressed by the patience shown by others on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch! It seems we're going in circles. --Edcolins (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides all the other arguments above, DesertPipeline is taking a very simplistic view of what "property" and "property rights" are. Even physical property, whether personal property like a chair or real property like a house, is not a "natural" thing; it is a creation of one or more legal systems, and the way the law operates has significant effects. For example, the exact provisions around squatters' rights affect the many people in the world with undocumented housing. Real property can be taken through eminent domain proceedings. Rights to use the water in a body of water may be separate from the land ownership. In some jurisdictions, there is a right to roam over private property. Certainly in every civilized country, the ownership of a piece of land does not give rights to do anything you want on that land. You need a permit to build a house (let alone a chemical plant). etc. etc. All that to say that neither the word "property" nor the word "right" have a straightforward meaning. --Macrakis (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just seeing this now. The argument about intellectual property's nonexistence is bizarre. It's like saying writing doesn't exist because it's a collection of different scripts that were developed independently. The types of IP are separate legal creations that all protect intangible creations of the human intellect. The term "intellectual property" is widely understood as such, and was a helpful addition to the lead. Assuming arguendo that it's helpful to have the language about "title" in the lead, having "a form of intellectual property that..." in front of it is also helpful.  White Whirlwind   07:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, White whirlwind. Feel free to insert it back in the lead and feel free to remove the neutrality tag now. I think the issue has been adequately addressed here on the talk page. --Edcolins (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Benefits
This section needs a rewrite to attribute the arguments for patents, to put them on even footing with the criticisms. I have also removed a huge volume of material irrelevant to these viewpoints, some of which was original research. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 23:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 October 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IHardlyKnowHerName, Ethmitch.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Exclusive right to ...
I have reverted your edit and have added a reference. The added reference comes from the section titled "Effects". The answer to your question: "Which is encompassed in the term "exclusive right", though, isn't it?" is definitely 'no', i.e. not "the exclusive right to make, use, or sell ...", as stated. A patent does not give its proprietor the right to practice the claimed invention because the claimed invention may be more specific that the invention claimed in another patent. Besides, even if there is no such patent claiming a more generic invention, a market authorization may be required in order to be entitled to make, use, or sell the claimed invention. I hope this is clearer now. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the explanation. I was just trying to fight the good fight in our age-old battle to clarify legal prose.  White Whirlwind   21:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Wokism strikes again
The data about women's underrepresentation in patents is of dubious relevance to the article; its inclusion in the 'history' is not particularly justified. I propose its deletion. Ender&#39;s Shadow Snr (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think the information is both relevant and appears to be well sourced. Per WP:NPOV, "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" have to be represented "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". Edcolins (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Requesting an edit
I think it would be relevant to add in the “Non-national treatment in the application procedure” section the following findings emerging from a combination of multiple reliable sources (scholarly papers of authors specialized in this domain). What do you think? I have a COI with de Rassenfosse. (See my userpage). Text to potentially add at the end of the section:

However, some governments are still biased (intentionally or unintentionally) towards foreign inventors. For example, scholars have found that in the U.S. and Chinese patent systems, inventions of foreign origin are about 10 percentage points less likely to be granted a patent than domestic inventions. In the United States, no intentional discrimination of foreigners was found. Rather, the evidence shows an unintentional discrimination of foreign inventors (i.e., disparate impact of rules and practices). Additional evidence points to the fact that filing international patent applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) mitigates some of this bias. AM13prime (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Reply 30-JUN-2023
Regards, Spintendo  23:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Page numbers have not been provided with the proposed sources, indicating the page number where the confirming information exists.


 * @Spintendo I hope this message finds you well. I'd like to inform you that I've incorporated the page numbers into the proposed sources and I changed the parameter to |ans=n, I hope that it is okay. Specifically, I've included the page numbers for the most critical information and findings.
 * It's important to note that the four references collectively and conclusively address the very content I intended to add. The inclusion of these page numbers further supports the relevance and accuracy of the information being presented, but are not the only important and relevant ones.
 * With the updated page numbers now in place, I kindly request your review of the revised materials.
 * Best regards, AM13prime (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Reply 4-AUG-2023
Regards, Spintendo  09:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Some or all of the provided sources are paywalled and cannot be accessed for review.