Talk:Patentable subject matter

Untitled
Can I patent a law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-G (talk • contribs) 18:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe add in the legal dispute in 2010-2015 about Blue Origin patenting rocket landings on sea and SpaceX who objected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.130.82.105 (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 27 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): B0lland1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed split
Please discuss below whether to split Patentable subject matter into Patentable subject matter (with a small section about USA) and Patentable subject matter in the USA, where the current text in the "United States" section will go, as proposed by Walter Tau.

Please explain your rationale for proposing the split here as well. Felix QW (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that splitting the article is a good idea. The resulting article about patentable subject matter in the United States should, however, be titled "Patentable subject matter in the United States", not "Patentable subject matter in the USA", per MOS:NOTUSA. Thanks --Edcolins (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Currently the Section about the USA is larger, than the rest of the article. This is primarily because of the large body of law on this topic in the USA compared to the rest of the World. The latter stems from several particularities of the US legal system:
 * 1) very long (236 years) continuous history under one Constitution (and no Ammendments related to IP law ever);
 * 2) highly litigious nature of the US legal tradition;
 * 3) Common Law system with binding precedents;
 * 4) huge size of the US economy and the resulting higher value of US patents, which justifies expensive litigation.
 * Furthermore, US patent law historically developed separately from the rest of the World (most Civil Law countries follow the EPO practice in fact), and despite numerous attempts by the Congress to bring the US Patent Law in line with the rest of World, it has not happened. Perhaps, the most dramatic difference in 2023 is in the unity of invention. Another big one is inventive step. I would like to emphasize these differences in the US section of the main article, while resolving other details to the US-specific article. Walter Tau (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that the split is a good idea once you've finished working on the United States section. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 that the split is useful depending on the expansion of the different descriptions. Jorahm (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are any members of this discussion licensed to practice patent law outside the USA (or have knowledge of such)? I encourage you to contribute to sections about other jurisdictionsand especially about the PCT/EPO guidelines. Walter Tau (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The most active editor in that field is Edcolins. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess the priority should be to split the article. See WP:PROPERSPLIT. --Edcolins (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll just go ahead and split the article. There does not seem to be any opposing voice. Edcolins (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Done! See Patentable subject matter in the United States. Hopefully I didn't forget anything. --Edcolins (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)