User talk:Edcolins/Archive05

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers the dates between September 11, 2007 to February 9, 2008.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User talk:Edcolins/Archive06. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Patent trolls
It really cannot be salvaged. All it was (to the extent it was sourced) was a list of allegations from anyone that so-and-so was/is a patent troll. By reading the article patent troll it is susceptible to many different meanings so lumping people and companies together here is rather indiscriminate. Moreover, just because someone alleges that someone is a patent troll, why is that encyclopedic? who is doing the alleging? how is it provable? it's akin to List of assholes or List of idiots and we get to put whoever anyone has called by those names on the list. Again, disparaging with different definitions unbound by whose allegations they are nor any way to disprove/prove those allegations. Carlossuarez46 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comparison is a good one: the list of designated terrorist organizations has the following inclusion criteria: "this list is of organizations that are, or have been in the past, designated as "terrorist organizations" by other notable organizations, including the United Nations and national governments, where the proscription has a significant impact on the group's activities" If you were to recreate the list where the designation of patent troll has been levied by the UN or a national government and that designation leads to significant impact on the patent troll's activities, the list can be re-created. You will of course acknowledge that none of the entities listed on the prior version of the list met those criteria. It would shock me if any entities meet such criteria, but feel free and find them. Note also the difference in BLP, OR, SYNTH and POV concerns in the terrorist orgs list: being on the list is no statement by WP that these are terrorist orgs, nor is it buying into what some other entity has labelled them, it is merely saying that these orgs have suffered a significant impact on their activities by being labelled as terrorist orgs (rightly, wrongly, or whatever, just a fact) - not that someone has called someone a terrorist organization - it's that it has had real impact. Compared to the patent troll where its just a derogative or an opinion akin to the asshole or idiot list - no consequences for being on that list and it does appear to be very much a WP judgment because nearly anyone is open to the accusation but few are listed and who levels the charge is subjectively evaluated or just not evaluated then we get to an indiscriminate list. Carlossuarez46 20:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Patent Cooperation Treaty - languages of publication
currently only mentions eight languages of publication. To my understanding adding Portuguese and Korean is only a proposal. Am I wrong? Thanks. --Edcolins 14:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Saw it on the news and thought it was final. Should have checked my sources, sorry. --Himasaram 05:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Internet as a source of prior art
The article does not read as though it is an encyclopedic article; it reads more like an essay. I suppose a copyedit tag might have been more appropriate. -- lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ed, ...
Dear Ed, Sorry I am not sure where to leave a message for you. Can we talk ? I very much appreciate your edits and sense of perfection, however I think some of them are excessive. I am sure we are both reasonable people and can agree what is referenced and approrpiate, and what is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCorward (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your message on my talkpage (sorry I don't know if there is a better system):

Thanks a lot Ed. I was referring to your edits to Maurizio Giuliano. I agreed with some, not with others. I hope you can look at the current version and see if it seems ok to you. Clearly there is no point in you and I undoing each other's work. So I hope that as long as you agree what is factual and referenced, you won't remove it. On my side, I did remove things that were not referenced and re-phrased some text, so I do agree with the policy. Also please note that the two books in question are on Amazon.com, but I did not insert a link to them since this would infringe the rules (i.e. as this would be advertising). However as this person has published two books, I think that there needs to be some info on that in the text, and I referenced it to reviews about the books too. Cheers. --CCorward 16:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Actually I realised that I still had one link that links to amazon.com, which would be illegal I think as it is advertising (for one of the two books but not the other). I am not sure whether that one should be rmoved, and replaced with just some of the reviews about it. On this point I have no objections or strong feelings as I can see the need to avoid links to sites where something is sold.

I have another question, which I am sure you can help on. If I find a website that offers its photos for free, how can I insert photos and make it clear that this does not infringe copyright ? Is there a specific format to use when creating a jpg page ? I cannot find it --CCorward 16:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

European Patent Organisation
You deleted my section "Controversies" from the European Patent Organisation article. You are a deletionist, is that what they call you folks? I find it very very annoying when people blatantly delete what I enter into Wikipedia - I used over an hour on that little piece - it REALLY makes the barrier to contribute into this project very much higher. Why don't you add some links to balance the view, if you find it so unbalanced? I find the actions of just deleting the entry clearly favoring the positive side - since the "plain facts" about EPO basically are positive as such. How can a "controversy" be positive - isn't the point of such a section to point out that there might actually be conflicts of interest? It isn't as there ISN'T any controversies, is it? You really don't think that this deserves mentioning - again as you blatantly delete the whole thing? Please educate me - I see that you are a somewhat "active committer" to this project, you must be able to show how things should be done the proper way. Stolsvik 01:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ed was right to do what he did. That article was not the correct place for the information and it is already covered far more extensively and neutrally in the european software patent article. GDallimore (Talk) 18:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't there be a clearer reference to this article, then? At this point it is only linked as the last article in the box, on the line called "Other topics". As we all know, this isn't a very obvious place to look for controversies about a subject. This is no NPOV, this is SomePOV. I think that there is SERIOUS problems with the EPO vs. Software Patents, so large problems that I think that anyone not agreeing on the fact that there are controversies are acting with serious vested interests. Please fix this. Stolsvik (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. There are lots of people shouting about it and it's a big part of my life personally but, in the grand scheme of things, it is not even close to being the most important matter at the EPO or in the lives of people generally. Too much emphasis would be undue weight on the topic. I see Ed has added a link, and that's more than enough. GDallimore (Talk) 08:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Stolski, your premise that "anyone not agreeing on the fact that there are controversies are acting with serious vested interests" seems to show that you haven't read Assume good faith yet. I think this is a rather important principle, and I would recommend to read it.


 * IMHO, the link from the template as well as the link from Software patent are sufficient. I have added "For further information, see also: Software patents under the EPC" in the article on the European Patent Convention. The controversy you are talking about is not really a controversy about the European Patent Organisation, it is more a controversy about the interpretation of the law, about the interpretation of the European Patent Convention. The function of the President of the European Patent Office is not to interpret the law and to decide whether computer- or software-implemented inventions should be patentable or not. The Boards of Appeal are the final, independent instance for interpreting the law. And the members of the Boards of Appeal are interpreting the law, in good faith, like judges do. Again, also here, assume good faith!.. --Edcolins (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ronn Torossian
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ronn Torossian, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. --Atavi 10:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Notification
According to the history of The Deserted Village, you created the redirect to Oliver Goldsmith several years ago. I have requested that the redirect be deleted so that a redlink will be visible and easily available to editors and readers. Thanks. Awadewit | talk  09:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Original Research
Ed, Thanks for your edits to tax patent. You are absolutely right about original research. I know I was pushing it, but I wanted to make the point that it wasn't just the US. The patents I listed are the foreign equivalents of US patents that have been classified by the USPTO as 705/36T.

Since I'm not aware of any references that talk about tax patents outside of the US, I thought I would step up to the plate and write an article on it. Any suggestions for a publication that might be interested?

In the meantime, feel free to delete the OR if you feel is it inappropriate.--Nowa (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion Indigenous intellectual property be merged into Traditional Knowledge
G'day .. I've responded to your suggestion to merge indigenous ip into traditional knowledge  here

I hope you find this sufficient explanation for keeping the articles seperate? Please note that as the Indigenous intellectual property article expands .. it is intended to start working through laws from different countries .. plus court laws .. it was in fact imagined that it may be necessary to eventually divide the article by country/nation?!!

Strictly speaking, I note 'traditional knowledge' ought be removed from the 'intellectual peoperty template' for the reasons outlined. (The 'intellectual property' aspects/dimensions of 'traditional knowledge' such as those referred to under the Biodiversity Convention etc, should be identified and described as part ofa full menu of legal rights encompassed/included within/under the term 'indigenous intellectual property'..

You may also have noticed that in the indigenous intellectual property tal page, references are made to dicussions about the Wikipedia General Disclaimer relating to these matters, with which you may be able to assist?? I'll 'watch' the traditional knowledge talk page for feedback! Bruceanthro 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

citation
Patent ambush thing cited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.61.51 (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Paul Lerner AFD #2
I have re-listed this article for deletion -- heads up since you have been a contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcee (talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

FICPI page
Ed I note you have reversed the changes I made to the FICPI page. You have asked me to provide sources. I am the current Secretary General of FICPI. As for the information currently there, it is factually incorrect. Charles Elderkin is NOT the President of FICPI, but as stated in the cited source, he is the President of the US Section of FICPI, which is not the same thing. How can I have the edits I made reinstated? Thanks Julian Crump Secretary General of FICPI —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianCrump (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See Talk:International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys. --Edcolins (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Maurizio Giuliano
An article that you have been involved in editing, Maurizio Giuliano, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Maurizio Giuliano. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Maurizio Giuliano == ==

Hi, I replied to your message. Let me know what you think. Thanks for notifying me. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, you're correct, the article should be deleted. I couldn't find his two books anywhere. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Doctorates
Wiki Doctorate is a new scheme designed to recognise the people who "do all the work" on Wikipedia. It has been mainly developed for Wikipedia administrators however if you have done lots to keep Wikipedia on "the straight and narrow", including being members of different groups which help Wikipedia i.e "The Welcoming Committee. We have selected to email you because you can apply for the doctorate and we would be very grateful if you did and put the userbox on your user page to boost advertising. The following link will take you straight to our homepage.

Yours sincerely

--Dr.J.Wright MD (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Therefor, therefore
This was not a mistake, see here. Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Curses! I didn't realise therefor is a valid archaic spelling. I've updated my bot so it won't try to do that substitution again. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Office de Formation et de Documentation Internationale
A tag has been placed on Office de Formation et de Documentation Internationale requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Ohmpandya  We need to talk... ♦ contribs 18:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

message on deletion of "Maurizio Giuliano"
Dear Ed,

We had some discussion some months back, about the above. I really appreciated your perfectionist - really. You were even so kind to help adding the bibliography, which I was unable to do. I indeed concluded that you were correct in your objections to the article, and I myself helped to clean up the article from unsourced statements etc.

However, now I am surprised that you promoted its deletion - and I am sorry for the late reaction but I don't monitor this closely.

In particular, I note the following:


 * I can confirm that Maurizio Giuliano is in the Guinness Book of World Records, 2006 edition, page 126 on UK edition. I can send you the scanned copy of the page, or you can tell me where to upload it.  This is an achievement already.  Yes, some media cited him as being 23 at the time, while he was 28 - some media got it wrong, but this is correctly reported in the Guiness and most other media.


 * Regarding his books, there are plenty of reviews not related to the subject, such as in US and Spanish media, most available online. While his books are self-published sources, the reviews, both academic and journalistic, are not.


 * Regarding his status as a UN official, this was not even mentioned in the article ! So I don't understand why someone would discuss about information which was not even there...  I indeed agree that he is not notable enough as a UN official, and I did not insert any info on this function.  Not sure if other people inserted it after I last saw it.

I hope you can let me know your views, as I think the case should be reopened. We are both reasonable beings. I also don't deny that I have close relations with know Maurizio, but I honestly don't think that I have personal bias in favour of this, I am trying to be objective, and I think we can both work towards an objective article in the interest of wikipedia.

Again, apologies for the delay in my reaction. I don't always have the chance to access and monitor articles.

Cheers,

-- CCorward —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCorward (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: Dear Ed, and now I see that on the article for Centre for Social Studies, you removed his name in the sentence "published authors include..", or whatever. There is a book with ISBN (which you had kindly inserted as bibliography), with him as author and CESOC as publisher. Why is this insufficient evidence that he is indeed a published author of CESOC ? I admire your objectivity, but then I need to understand this. Cheers. -- CCorward —Preceding comment was added at 21:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

further message on the above deletion
Dear Ed, I probably misworded "close relations", you would be correct otherwise. I know him and wish I had closer relations - so I corrected the above. Sorry.

Anyway, you had previously been ok with the article and even helped - and I thanked you for that. Why the change of mind ? And why make reference to his status as a UN official, not mentioned in the article ? Sorry to ask, but by any chance you know him personally too ?

Anyway, if you don't change mind, let's leave it to the community. In my view, we have (1) a serious Guinness Record, (2) two published books and academic and journalistic articles which are the subject of third-party reviews, i.e. not self-published sources. I think this is enough for notability, maybe you don't think so. Let's let others decide.

On his status as a UN official, I did not insert it (nor did anyone else) as I don't think that is notable. I am trying to be fair. Indeed, I hope you can also be fair in reconsidering.

Cheers,

--CCorward (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

further on the above, in reply to your comments
Hi Ed, thanks a lot for your comments in reply to the above. I can see that you know the wikipedia rules much better than me, and you are perfectionist and objective. So I think that we can have objective constructive dialogue on this (if/as required). I must say that I was a bit surprised by your interest in the subject. It seemed a bit strange to me that you went around looking for references to him in other articles and removed them without objecting to the rest of those articles. But it's well within your rights as a member of the wikipedia community... so, it's up to you and me as human beings to be reasonable and find ways to coexist in wikipedia, or even to cooperate if we can (like you did when you inserted bibliography, which I dont know how to do).

As you have probably seen, it has been agreed with Jerry that the article is now in my user space, and I and others will make revisions so that the article may be objective and meet wikipedia standards on sources etc., and Jerry or another admin may then move it back to main space provided she/he agrees to the contents and sources. Clearly, it would be useless to do this unless you agree on its contents... as I am sure that both you and I have better things to do than revert each other's edits. ;-) I see that other users too, totally unknown to me, had also made 'positive' edits to the article and were against the deletion, so I think it's not just you and me after all.

I must note that I share many of your views on this. For example, the references to the subject's status and work with the United Nations was not inserted by me, I think that is not a notable fact for now, I will remove them. I focused on two main things: the subject as an author, and the subject being in the Guinness. On the first, I hope we can agree that there are indeed third-party reviews and this is not just self-published sources, and that the books and debate emanated from them (plus some articles) is sufficiently notable. On the second, I am uploading the image too to my unserspace, along with additional reviews, and I do think that entry in the Guinness, complemented by numerous reviews in important media, is notable too.

I hope you do agree on the above. If so, I don't see much scope for conflict. Personally, I dont see why if a wikipedia user knows additional facts (e.g. exact date and place of birth) not found in third-party sources but only in self-published sources, this cannot be inserted, and even if these are the rules, they are clearly not implemented in all articles. But you know the rules better than me, so if you say the date of birth cannot be inserted, well, you are probably right... I will accept any of your comments in the same spirit.

On the references to the subject in other articles, I have reverted two of them so far, I honestly think that the references were relevant and well-sourced, for the reasons explained therein. For example among the authors of CESOC, it is clear that he is an author of that instritution, since we have an ISBN with him as author and CESOC as publisher. So, why remove him while not checking the others ? ;-) I hope we can find agreement on those things too.

Cheers,

--CCorward (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

patent reform act of 2007 & objective perspectives
It alarms me that the patent reform act of 2007 page lacks adequate attention to the folks who are hurt most - small entities and individual inventors. This notion is not an opinion but a well borne out issue that is discussed in every quoted document on either side of the debate. It simply cannot be ignored.

My contributions, supported by over a dozen recent articles from authoritative sources any are no less objective than an entry that tax patents would be banned. So what!

The spirit and purpose of meaningful debate in light of the well-documented & huge opposition to this act should not be ignored if you seek an objective page.

As a patent holder with experience with both prosecution and litigation of patents, it serves the American public poorly to redact or remove the insights of a greater number of contributors to this debate. In fact such acts are remarkably similar to the stealthy manner in which the proponents of this bill have approached the entire notion that transparency is the best disinfectant.

I simply expect more from a user-contributed site such as Wiki.

With due and considered respect, Scott Moskowitz

And, once again, my letter in opposition to the act. Nothing to hide, even in plain sight ...

October 22, 2007

The Honorable First Name Last Name United States Senate Washington, DC ZIP+4

Dear Senator Last Name:

Atlas Has Left … Opposition to The Patent Reform Act of 2007

Without equal, America’s patent system is as uniquely American as humankind’s greatest invention, our beloved Democracy. But, come November 1st, the United States Patent & Trademark Office will limit inventors to five (5) inventions. Without an iota of evidence, proponents of these changes, embodied by The Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1145), will irreparably damage the value of our collective intellectual property. American strength will suffer. Surely authors should not be limited to five (5) books, nor Senators to five (5) votes. Indeed, what five (5) inventions would Edison have been entitled? At no time has it been as exasperating for this proud American inventor to see the Congress retroactively weaken foundational rights succinctly articulated in The Constitution, Article 1 – The Legislative Branch, Section 8 – Powers of Congress: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” No words are minced, nor is there evidence of spin.

With all due respect, I urge you, the Senate, the “living symbol of our union of states”, not to strengthen the hand of Infringers! It is unconscionable that we have arrived at such a juncture in stark contrast with our Nation’s proud heritage as the leader in the marketplace of ideas. Of my twenty-seven (27) patents (22 issued, 4 allowed and 1 European patent), several embody fundamental techniques for copyright protection. Unselfishly, these inventions should not be accorded any value less than the copyrights being protected. Frankly, a patent for the next encryption algorithm is more invaluable to these United States than a copyright on the movie telling the story of that algorithm. I agree with Mr. Chris Israel, the U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement, when he recently stated: “Cases such as this remind us strong enforcement is a significant part of the effort to eliminate piracy, and that we have an effective legal system in the U.S. that enables rights holders to protect their intellectual property. … Piracy impacts many of our most innovative industries, costs American jobs and is a huge threat to our economic competitiveness”. Indeed, the highly unpredictable outcomes of costly patent litigation is emblematic of a last ditch effort to enforce the Individual rights of Entrepreneurs of thought.

Society is clearly enriched by the free flow of ideas competing for the attentions of the day. This Great Nation should encourage vigorous, transparent debate on the economic value attributed to any resulting intellectual property. In fact, even before The Constitution was ratified, twelve States had already determined the rights of inventors to be inviolate. One State preamble read, in part:

As the principal Encouragement such Persons can have to make great and beneficial Exertions of this Nature must exist in the legal Security of the Fruits of their Study and Industry to themselves; and as such Security is one of the natural Rights of all Men, there being no Property more peculiarly a Man's own than that which is produced by the Labour of his mind.

Reasonably stated, if we knew what would succeed in the marketplace we could simply assign prices to patents, akin to old Soviet fixed-pricing policy. Invisible Hand not needed. Competition not required. To essentially eliminate the strongest incentive to those who invent today what is bought and sold tomorrow is simply un-American. The Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1145) and the new Federal Rules offer no benefit to Society. The very passion of American inventors cannot be harmonized and should never be taken for granted. Please protect our living treasures and reject this inherently flawed bill.

Yours Faithfully,

/Scott Moskowitz/

Scott Moskowitz Founder & CEO Blue Spike, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalshamen (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Digitalshamen
Ed,

I may need some back up on Digitalshamen's soap boxing.--Nowa (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Maurizio Giuliano
Hi Ed. As suggested by the administrator who removed the article, this is now being revised in my userspace, at User:CCorward/Maurizio Giuliano, with changes made by others and me. The Guinness record is also posted on the discussion page, so the claim is proven. I (and I think some others) seem to agree that there is sufficient notability because of the record on one side, and the books (subject of third-party reviews) on the other. I hope you can let us know your thoughts, i.e. are you planning to object to the article if/when it is moved to userspace ? You may also wish to make changes now, which would prevent us from having to do this later. On the UN official issue, I am not interfering. Cheers, --CCorward (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Ed. Thanks a lot for your edits to the article. I have no objections and, indeed, I think that they are basically improvements, and admire your perfectionism. I guess I shall leave it there for a while to see if others make further improvements (as Wikid77 said she/he might do), and then ask an admin to review it so it can be moved back to mainspace. So, it will indeed be good if you don't plan to object against its inclusion in mainspace. :-) And any further help or advice is very welcome.  Cheers, --CCorward (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Inspec,
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Inspec,, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Inspec, is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Inspec,, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

please keep an eye on Digitalshamen ? i am not hiding -- politics is a dirty game that requires lots of sunshine (even digitalshamen)
whatever the issues ... i am not hiding ... let them know it is ME!

this is not some sort of "non-neutral" edit // the facts themselves were inherently flawed and until i updated with commentary and background, at that point people got upset. we know each other -- when would you think an independent inventor should lie down without presenting facts that i am fully prepared to support by any opposition comment. this is not a pleasant process but a well-funded attack on the basic rights of inventors. i have to fundamentally take issue that my posts somehow do anything less than rip the sheen off of what the cfp & bsa & mark chandler & hp's counsel & the rest in spewing endless press releases they would like to be viewed as "necessary" and "decided" -- THAT IS NO AN UNBIASED VIEW! nor is ANY political view inherently anything less than political! have them contact me. i do not ask or require that your speak on my behalf but my knowledge and background in this specific area of policy making goes back to before the 1995 WTO reports on IP harmonization. like it or not, i am not in the minority and this page SHOULD reflect the POLITICAL (supported by any available FACTUAL) assertions of its prior form. change the pages that are politically-charged -- that would help. "your" manipulation of data that is neither timely nor presently relevant in the context of how the cfp & bsa have twisted facts, whether the NAS studies, the ftc report, discredited lemley studies, the misrepresentation that the White House was in full support, the stealthy votes made under concerted efforts by one particular special interest group, etc. etc. is misguided and should in and of itself give rise to questions about "your" own peculiar representation of facts - regardless of the reaction but fully imbued with a neutral point of view -- i must have struck a particular chord with certain folks -- and, they are all probably folks i have dealt with since the wto research and report. and, what are they afraid of? virginia wolf? // the chinese and indian governments have PLAINLY spoken their positions // you say it is a "reaction"? our largest trading partner finds fault but wikipedia somehow changes the context because folks who want to off shore jobs, even the patent office's core focus should be cowered by some wisdom that was derived from materials that are now 5 years old? //again even with folks like the bsa and cfp misrepresenting the interests of others, say, as per the recent post (must be a misunderstanding akin to the pto's recent arguments which appear to have inherent undeniable links with the push for the patent reform act) - the universities had to put their own press release out which emory simon doesn't clearly answer -- bsa is accountable to microsoft primarily -- just like the riaa is primarily accountable to the major record companies -- this is what these lobbyists do -- let the light shine down on their activities -- that is in the interests of a truly neutral point of view -- i digress: http://unitedstates.promotetheprogress.com/dirty-pool-in-patent-politics/646/ NO SUCH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, whatsoever, supports the broad assertions that the page makes about reform previously and only minor edits made since color the debate as some sort of symmetrical argument between Big Pharma and MSFT/Google/Apple et al. CPF -- this is about undermining the efforts of small inventors, period. 1) no mention of Sen. Sessions vote in exchange for protecting banks from specific and known patent infringement -- this is plain industrial policy at a time that our nations banking system is under extreme stress and is entirely fair to present how the act is being pushed in the sausage factory known as democracy. Let the light in! 2) no mention of the reports which have been presented in the past 4 months reflecting the peculiar and clearly political nature of the process to date including the glaring opposition by the White House itself http://ipspotlight.com/2008/02/07/white-house-opposes-patent-reform-acts-limit-on-damage-calculations/ 3) not even any support for the fact that some of the outliers to the debates, including EFF, have their own oppositions to the act >> http://blog.innovators-network.org/2008/02/arstechnicacoms.html it's a shame that all of the relevant links that were posted in support of my edits have been >distorted< as though I have an iota of reason to misrepresent my position and that of the countless numbers of inventors that form the bedrock of innovation in this country check "your" facts, in view of all of the links i have provided, before "watching" what has become the most recent iteration of the TRUTH >> THE PATENT REFORM ACT IS BROADLY OPPOSED ... anyone have a beef with that? you know how to reach me. so soap box // sand box // just don't black box the process respectfully and happily submitted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalshamen (talk • contribs) 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)