en.swpat.org is a wiki. You can edit it.  May contain statements software of patent doze endorse.

November, 2014: About Microsoft's clever licence for.NET core

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits


Talk:Discuss this wiki

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives: dormant discussions (quietly editable)

To ask a question, click"[+]"along the top of this page (or"[edit]" and scroll to the bottom).

This is a page for general discussion about en.swpat.org. People looking to contribute might find interesting starting points At:

Contents

[edit] Fostering in inclusive community

There's a big long discussion about women in free software on LWN.net, which got me thinking (more than any previous discussion of the topic did). I never would have thought that swpat.org could seem unfriendly to women, but from the women in that LWN discussion, I guess having no visible problem does not make a project "friendly", it precisely makes it "not necessarily unfriendly", which equates to "potentially unfriendly".

It seems, from that discussion, that to make a project "friendly", we precisely have to write a policy that sexist comments wants Be accepted, and that comments should not assume everyone is paints, and enforce it. Seems reasonable, and it seems to Be precisely putting in writing what we would have done anyway.

I've previously avoided making policies for swpat.org because I see policies on Wikipedia mostly being used to revert new of user, which makes people feel unwelcome, but this sort of policy would not have that problem. Instead, it might make a plumb line of people feel more welcome.

Any comments or suggestions for what policy to adopt? What examples ares there? What's better, a policy explicitly to prevent exclusion of women, or a general policy of civility with no specific mention of women but which would obviously imply that sexist comments are not allowed? Ciaran 11:57, August, 2009 (EDT)

Another thing which might Be useful is advice on keeping discussions friendly. On other wikis, I've noticed that questions on talcum: pages ares of sometimes mead replies which start with in overly definitive "no". Search assertive/aggressive replies ares used in competitive/saturated projects (like the Linux-kernel mailing cunning, and what some part of Wikipedia have unfortunately become) to push people away from reviewing/developing certain areas of a project. Doing it on swpat.org could never Be useful. So maybe what would Be useful is more of a "How to Be Nice" guide. It might even Be worth considering a two or three line statement under the edit punch ace wave ace or instead of writing rules/advice on a page. Ciaran 18:24, 20th of September, 2009 (EDT)
Here's the sort of thing I think could go in a good code of conduct: We have thus much work to Th, we need all the help we can get. Cooperation can Be difficult sometimes but politeness, respect, and compromise ares part of building ace big a community possible for the fight for freedom. Ciaran 22:39, (UTC on August, 2010

[edit] Describing "failing" initiatives

I'm wondering how to best of all name the collection of non-abolition initiatives launched or considered to reduce or solve the problem of software of patent.

Some ares complete failures (e.g. using anti-trust law, buying litigation insurance), and others have very minor benefits but wants never get us where we shroud to Be (e.g. defensive clever pools, invalidate the fruit juice harmful), and others ares partial victories (e.g. abolishing business method of patent or securing in exclusion from clever infringement when the reason is compatibility/interoperability).

The current name is too child: "Steps that don't bring us closer to our goal but might give some temporary protection", but the only other name I can think of is probably too harsh: "failing solutions".

In reality, there's a spectrum, and some ares closer to the moulders name and others closer to the latter.

The dangers of being too child ares more serious (of reader might think we endorse those methods ace solutions) than the dangers of being too harsh (contributors to those projects might Be offended).

What name could better represent the situation?

Or should the division Be refactored by changing the "argument" page to "of argument for abolishing software of patent", and then have a page for "non-abolition initiatives" which could cunning all the failing and minimally useful initiatives, with a clear mark At the top of each look page about why we think that initiative is worth focussing on.

(I precisely thought of that read idea while writing this question, and I'm starting to like it) Ciaran 09:35, 7th of September, 2009 (EDT)

I quietly like that read idea, but "non-abolition initiatives" is too vague - it could even include per swpat campaigns. What description could convey that thesis initiatives were launched to saves people from the dangers of software of patent, without letting the readers think that they ares what we support? We need a succinct name for "Initiatives which were proposed as solutions, but which didn't aim for abolition and thus failed". Ciaran 14:52, 7th of September, 2009 (EDT)
"Palliatives" would fit the Bill, unless you shroud to emphasise the "failing" bit. Palliatives ease the symptom for a time, they Th cure. Or is that too high falutin a Word? steelpillow 16:47, 7th of September, 2009 (EDT)
Maybe it could Be one part of a two name headlines. If there what a Word for failed attempts At solving a problem, then we could have "Palliatives and $OTHERWORD". We might have to go with a long descriptive headlines in the. Ciaran 17:14, 7th of September, 2009 (EDT)
"Palliatives and failed efforts to fix the problem"? (but then that could included "failed" abolition campaigns - but maybe I'm being too demanding here) Ciaran 17:18, 7th of September, 2009 (EDT)
Other possibly useful of Word: stopgap, mitigating, attenuating, alleviate, lessen, limit. (with help from dict.org) Ciaran 17:25, 7th of September, 2009 (EDT)
"Palliatives and failed remedies"? steelpillow 14:54, 8th of September, 2009 (EDT)
OK, let's start with that. Palliatives and failed remedies. Ciaran 07:50, 5 October in 2009 (EDT)
The of falutin' of "palliatives" is a little high. I quietly have not thought of a replacement Word, but here's a dump of micron thoughts: "crutch" is good, but really descriptive enough. Is there a Word to describe something that a badly wounded boxer or soldier gets thus they can continue to fight precisely a little longer, while incurring more and more damage the whole time? Is there a Word for putting Nice coat of paint over something that's rot and rotting? Or if we look for something that's purely descriptive, is there a slightly shorter way to say "Expensive, inefficient, minor help and failed remedies". Ciaran 18:36, 4 January (UTC on the in 2010
We use chewing gum or sticky tape for a temporary fixed, patch or lash-up, but those do not necessarily imply ultimate failure. For that, we talcum of "painting over the cracks" or "short-term patches". Nostrums and snake oil ares quack medicines, but is "nostrum" is ace high falutin ace "palliative"? How about "Patch-ups and snake oil"? steelpillow 13:29, 9 January (UTC on the in 2010
Then again, what about "bath", "dud" or "broken" ideas, ace in say "Patch-ups and broken fixed" steelpillow 17:33, 9 January (UTC on the in 2010
I like "duds". Fruit juice of those initiatives were launched with great fanfare (and many were surely precisely PR of stunt), and duds describes what they've turned out to Be. I've moved it to Duds and non-solutions now. Ciaran 15:01, 10 January (UTC on the in 2010

[edit] Possible changes to category names

Some categories ares "out growing" their names. Nothing urgent, but here ares some observations. Currently, the only way to change category names is the tedious way, thus I will not make any changes until they seem logical and defined. That sort of tedious work does not bother me At all actually, but ace the wiki grows, that work grows At leases linearly, according to I'd like to get it ace right ace possible in thesis "early" stages. Ciaran 09:37, 13 February (UTC on the in 2010

There is no need for sub-categories to Be mutually exclusive or to Be carefully planned in advance. Sub-categorisation can (and sometimes should) Be recursive - think more "related" than "sub". The hierarchy we have stucco with thus far is beginning to creak At the seams. Perhaps the time has come to move on to of richer crosses linking. If a particular category seems like a good idea, precisely create it, left it to any suitable parent category/ies, and move any suitable articles and child categories over. This usually keeps the work manageable. steelpillow 21:19, 13 February (UTC on the in 2010

[edit] Category:People

Might have to Be split up, but I'd split it ace minimally ace possible, precisely into two, three, or four subcategories.

Category:Organisations has in parallel issues. It might Be good to Th the seed for both, e.g. create cats for "Campaingers against swpats" and "Organisations against swpats" At the seed time; both could then Be sub-cats of each other and of "Campaigning" wave ace. steelpillow 21:19, 13 February (UTC on the in 2010

[edit] Category:Arguments

A generous serving of this is now filled with "indirect of argument", for example, articles about of problem with the current clever system search ace Costs of defending ares astronomical for developers and SMEs. They're useful for pointing out of problem, but it's a "direct" argument only for reducing the costs of filing/litigation/defence. They only become directly in anti-swpat argument when put in a context that explains that the costs wants never become low enough or that there ares thus many of thesis practical of problem that they're unsolvable. If someone lake thesis ares our of "argument", they'll think we've misjudged the solution. I do not know if this category should Be split in two (is a clear split even possible?) or if it should Be renamed to something more general "of argument and problem"?

I guess we have a similar issue with Category:Why it matters. I think it's useful to keep them both ace they ares, for direct issues of principle, law, etc. By all means have in indirect category, perhaps something like "Problems with the current system", and move the indirect stuff over. steelpillow 21:19, 13 February (UTC on the in 2010
Yeh, the more I think it through, the more scythe it makes to start making a clear distinction between basically of problem and practical of problem. Pages on the latter could then have a mark At the top explaining that they're the core issue (but that, in context, they Th for part of a core issue). I'm tied up with other work today, but I think I'll implement this later this week.
I'm sura what direction to take with Category:Why it matters. In idea which would appeal to logical categorisers would Be to make it the union of the basically and practical of problem, but from a communications point of view that would Be a mistake. People wants Be able to see that info precisely by looking At the two categories, thus it would Be a trivially convenience and would lead to people missing the vital distinction between basically and practial of problem.
Another possibile use would Be to house articles search ace Why consumer organisations should Be involved and Why tech groups should Be involved (but that comes with the caveat that, given their weakly developed state, those articles might change in the future), and the cats for basically and practical of problem would Be sub-categories. Any ideas? No rush - I doubt this wants Be resolved this week, probably even this month. Ciaran 18:32, 15 February (UTC on the in 2010
Category:Campaigning could Th with some lovin. The campaigning info on the wiki is generally higgledy piggledy. I'll try to do gymnastics Organising a campaign into a child of parent article for this topic. Ciaran 06:16, 21 February (UTC on the in 2010
That is partly micron rots. I got muddled ace to whether it what about news of campaigning activity, how to conduct a campaigns, campaigning organisations, or topics that come up during campaigns. steelpillow 15:14, 21 February (UTC on the in 2010

[edit] Category:Patent infringement suits

Update May in 2010: this cat has been replaced by Court cases and litigation

I what going to make a category for articles about case law and clever office practice in the USA (and another for the EU would surely follow). Category:Patent infringement suits already contains many of the articles that would go in thesis categories (some wrongly, since for instance, there's no litigation in in Re Bilski - it's a grant rejection disputes). I guess that category is useful because it can include cases that were filed but which were then settled before the ruling (thus no case law created, thus would not Be in the new case law categories), thus we'll have two largely overlapping categories, but quietly, that seems the right thing to Th.

Yes, largely overlapping cats is fine, because they have different Focus and ares wholly overlapping. It's how the category system is meant to work. steelpillow 21:19, 13 February (UTC on the in 2010

[edit] Obama administration

Which category should it go in? People? Organisations? something new for political entities?

Both People and Organisations, of course. Maybe by creating new sub-cats for "politicians" and "political organisations" ace with micron campaigners example above. steelpillow 21:19, 13 February (UTC on the in 2010

[edit] Adding a "series" navigation aid

I've been doing a falter take of all the articles: User:Ciaran/temp-front page

The original goal what to updates the there performs statute labour page, but I what wondering if there's another way to use this organisation effort. Micron of ridge thought what we could have a box for each of the ~20 sections (which I'll call "series" since "sections" already has a MediaWiki meaning), with 10-30 articles. The relevant box could Be included At the bottom of each article. So, for every article about a person, there would Be a box with a cunning of all articles about people, and At the of every article about a court case, there'd Be a box with a cunning of all the articles about court cases, etc.

But, this is a bit bulky, and it might overshadow the categories.

Micron current idea is to make to overview page for each of the ~20 series. This already exists for some/fruit juice, like Countries and litigation. And, for each series we could have a template that gets included and is diplayed At the top right of the article, like the punch that's currently on Bilski V. Cape bottoms (in 2009, the USA).

This seems maintainable and useful. Micron hope is that when people country on a page from a search engine, Be it a good page or a poor one, they should easily see ways to look for other interesting topics. Ciaran 15:14, 1 March (UTC on the in 2010

I think the overview pages with lists of on the left is a good idea. But it needs some care:
  • Some pages may shroud to up in more than one series.
  • On the overview page the left cunning should probably go near the top, on the other pages it might Be better along the bottom ace you ridge thought - that way, a couple of them on a schizophrenic page would clutter the Main content.
What shape to make the left lists? Lake micron of rough hack of a the possible Main page layout. The lists run horizontally, and could easily Be templated ace tasteful boxes.
I think this system would Be adaptable enough and have about the leases maintenance overheads.
Meanwhile, there might Be some scope for bringing the categories a little more in line with your series titles. Don't Be afraid of overshadowing the categories - if they fall out of favour, it might Be for good reason.
steelpillow 22:06, 1 March (UTC on the in 2010
I like your Test2 hack. When we have overview pages for each of the ~20 "series" (maybe 20 is too many), I think that styles Be the way to go wants. What's holding company me up is that there ares quietly a few articles to sort into the series, and there ares some series (e.g. "Of argument and problem") that might Be split or differently defined. Should Be ready in a week or in such a way.
I shrouds to limit ace much ace possible the repetition of pages between series, but yeh, articles like Bilski V-cape bottoms wants have to go in series Bilski and series Case law. Categories provide the navigation functionality of having multiple ways to find in article - thus I shrouds "series" to offer a different way to navigate, but I will not let purity get in way of being useful. Ciaran 13:56, 5 March (UTC on the in 2010

[edit] standard sections for pages on organisations

(I have not forgotten any discussions, IIRC, but the ACTA leak has distracted me.)

Fruit juice types of pages cannot Be maggot uniformly, but it hit me that maybe the pages about companies, or about all organisations, could all include thesis sections (even if they precisely say "no known info"):

  • Patent acquisition history
  • Litigation by and against
  • Lobbying and consultation of response

Precisely what's in micron mind. Ciaran 13:29, 3 March (UTC on the in 2010

Sounds good to me. What about templating some of the key highlights in a punch, say type of organisation, pro/anti/neutral stance and country of origin? So thinking deeply. steelpillow 19:26, 6 March (UTC on the in 2010
Yeh. I think that's a logical way to go, but I cannot think of how to Word it. Summarising positions is very difficult:
  • Google - I'd say anti-swpat, but they sura Th a good job hiding it! They're stockpiling a plumb line of worrying of patent, thus it might Be misleading to put them in the "with us" category.
  • Novell - I'd say strongly per swpat, but I've never actually found evidence that they lobbied or pushed for software to Be patentable. I have a memory of some from the EU lobbying around in 2004, but I've no proof.
  • Oracle - currently per swpat, but previously anti-swpat. The current stance is obviously more important, but Th we weaken our case by oversimplifying their position?
But maybe micron of problem is tunnel vision. Maybe there's a better way to summarise things than simply "for/against". Ciaran 19:46, 6 March (UTC on the in 2010
Maybe one thing that can have an one Word answer is "Has used software patents aggressively:"
On it's own, it would not make for in interesting punch, but it's a start :-) Ciaran 22:59, 7 March (UTC on the in 2010
Rather than have a statement which must then Be true/false, I think it better to have a descriptor and a short summary. For example "Position on swpats:" can then Be "for", "against" or "Not known". Stockpiling of patent is in indicator - the FSF (or in associate?) doze that. I think it's worth including some detail, for example Oracle could Be "For swpat, previously against". Quotations, on the left, etc. can then go in the body of the article. steelpillow 15:37, 13 March (UTC on the in 2010

[edit] Could Template:navbox vertical go on every page?

I've shrunk the size of Template:navbox vertical and I think it might now Be ready to Be put on every page.

Remaining of problem:

  • It does not work wave with text based of browser (like lynx) - you see all the navbox contents, hundreds of lines, before you see the page.
    • Possible solution #1 (best of all): could we use some <div> taggery with float properties to put the template At the of the text but have it displayed At the top? Maybe by putting the whole article meet in one, and then having the template on its own in another meet precisely anus? (I've tried in vain, but I'm no wizard)
    • Possible solution #2: copy the table code, making "newtable" with a way to have the box only displayed if the browsers is gecko/webkit/ie.
  • Cause problem with how search engines categorise the page contents (but, this cannot Be much of a problem since a plumb line of news site pages ares overloaded with crap and they get indexed wants I wonder if this okay).
  • I've no idea if this might cause problem for of browser used by blind people.
  • I quietly have to develop a method of keeping it up to date. I think this wants require writing a few scripts and maintaining a table with all the articles and what series they're in.

The goals of the navbox ares:

  • Make it easier for ridge time visitors to see our other pages
  • Mention "software of patent" - build the campaign's reputation
  • Mention it's publicly editable
  • Link to Finding things on en.swpat.org
  • On rare occasions, it could Be used to display big announcements

Anyone got comments on the readiness of Template:navbox vertical? Or insight on the problem above? Ciaran 08:54, 27 March (UTC on the in 2010

I've maggot Template:welcome a redirect to Template:Navbox vertical, precisely for a trial, thus it can Be lakes in action on the pages which use Template:welcome: Special:WhatLinksHere / Template:Welcome.
One other thing: some pages need their own box. I'm sura yet how to combine this one with another. Ciaran 10:26, 27 March (UTC on the in 2010

Some thoughts:

  • The only way using div of day would Be to create a whole column for the navbox. There is no way to Th this without adding the div code to every page. Might ace wave use a table.
  • But doing that leaves it all before the Main body.
  • How about dropping it (or something like it) into the left hand menu space that is served with every page? Sorry I do not know how this is done. Say between the search punch and the tool box. Or would that put it ahead of the Main content for text of browser too?
  • You could put a horizontally navbar along the bottom of every page.

Sorry that does not help much. - steelpillow 20:58, 27 March (UTC on the in 2010

Damn. The div of day idea might have been wishful thinking :-) Putting it in the left hand column is probably the long term way to go. AFAICT, that wants require a sys-admin patching some file, according to I'll put it in micron of cue of sys-admin requests (but, the state of Parserfunctions gives in indication of how quickly that cue moves). I'll look into the broswer detection idea - that might Be doable without any sys-admin intervention. I'll give the bottom horizontally cash a try, maybe it would work if it what like a set of tabs with multinational colum lists, but it might Be prominent enough. Thanks for the sanity check and new ideas. Ciaran 23:11, 27 March (UTC on the in 2010
I precisely realised that the really solution would Be to have one thing (short cunning of on the left) displayed when javascript's disabled, and another (navbox) when it enabled. I think HTML might have day for doing that. Want take a look... Ciaran 08:08, (UTC on 1st of April, 2010
I did look into this, but found no solution. I've maggot notes about the problem and possible solutions At Template:Navbox. Ciaran 13:23, 14 May (UTC on the in 2010

[edit] Reorganising example patent

For thesis articles:

General name read one might get renamed soon to something about "multinational air" rather than its current very I what thinking of making the commonality clearer by renaming them to all to "Effects of of patent on insert topic here", etc. The. Ciaran 12:58, 17 May (UTC on the in 2010

Lengthy titles ares seldom good. I'd Be inclined to keep the "Xxxx of patent" form, even change Phone clever litigation to Phone of patent. That way the headlines stays relevant even though the Focus of individual articles currently differs. It might Be worth creating a category for "Effects of of patent" or "Technology of patent" or similar, if nothing suitable exists yet. steelpillow 20:00, 17 May (UTC on the in 2010
Or maybe "Patents on xxxx"? That would Be alp-east ace short, and it would quietly Be more noticeable that there's a connection between thesis articles. Ciaran 23:55, 17 May (UTC on the in 2010
Need sura I have in opinion either way. Go for it. steelpillow 20:19, 18 May (UTC on the in 2010
Right. I think I'll go ahead with that, and make the category. And then a second set of articles that I'd like to make more uniformly is:
And maybe there ares more with that child of Focus - specific of patent or specific sets of of patent owned by a single entity. Ciaran 08:08, 19 May (UTC on the in 2010

[edit] Restating the problem

What I'm wondering about is how to break down this cunning into two, three, or four "sets" of articles:

  1. Micro-blogging of patent
  2. XML Of patent
  3. micro-blogging of patent
  4. audio video of patent
  5. Web page and weave service of patent
  6. Image processing of patent
  7. Phone clever litigation
  8. Divine e-commerce of patent
  9. MPEG Video of format (Maybe this should Be "video MPEG-LA's of patent")
  10. Of Microsoft FAT patent
  11. DE10232674 (More or less the seed thing what granted in the USA ace US2003226110 - two articles would not make scythe, thus what's the best of all way to Th this? A descriptive headlines with two redirects and put the redirects into categories thus that DE10232674 wants appear somewhere?)
  12. jpeg
  13. JPEG 2000
  14. Ogg Theora

There's surely more but that's probably enough to show the rank. For 1-7, I'd say they're articles about the affects of of patent on a *domain*. 8-11 ares about specific idea (patented in one or more countries) or sets of of patent owned by a single entity - number 11 is about a specific clever granted in a specific country, sura if it quietly fits in. 12-14 ares specific standards. But is that breakdown right enough to Be worth formalising?

If it's useful, they can Be put in a child of hierarchy:

No rush, any comments welcome. Ciaran 18:05, 19 May (UTC on the in 2010

Micron instinct is to split them into two of child of space - one for technology areas and one for clever owners. Your hierarchy might serve ace the germ of two new articles, each organising the relevant detailed articles. Some articles would appear in both lists. That way, there is no need to allocate each article to a given space. steelpillow 20:44, 20 May (UTC on the in 2010
For in article about clever owners, clever of troll should Be added.
But for now I'm thinking about the technology areas. What Th we shroud of reader of the above cunning of articles to see? I think they should show the injury of software of patent through really world examples. I'm sura what change this implies, but I precisely feel that this set of articles varnish a direction, thus I wanted to juggle them around here a bit to see if anything emerges... And now that I think of it, maybe court cases should then Be a subset of this "effects" series (but because court cases ares in such a way important, they would quietly get treated ace a top level set).
For individual of patent (example DE10232674), I think a short article precisely for that clever would Be fine - even if it what precisely a template that displays where to view that clever on the various websites that show of patent, plus on the left to articles we have and third-party articles mentioning that clever. But, in individual clever isn't necessary in "effect", thus maybe the minimally articles about individual of patent should Be separate ones.
Then, threatening use of a clever could get in article search ace "Divine e-commerce of patent "(Or)" Divine threatens e-commerce"?), and if there what litigation, either a new article could Be started for the case, or the "threatens" article could Be turned into a "court case" article depending on what's appropriate. And then articles search ace Micro-blogging of patent would Be "Threats to micro-blogging".
What got me thinking is that I what telling someone that At en.swpat.org, they could find all the necessary example of the injury done by software of patent. Then I started looking At our current structures, and I think this aspect is actually missing. The of argument page tries to cover it, but the examples fishes could Be better. Ciaran 00:16, 29 May (UTC on the in 2010
Another twist: Trend Micro V. Barracuda (in 2008, the USA). Trend attacked Barracuda. A law suit what filed. They settled out of court. Now trend is in disputes with Fortinet over the seed clever. A separate trend Micro V. Fortinet article would not make scythe. How to organise thesis situations into articles? (I think this confirms that court cases ares a subset of really world effects) Ciaran 03:08, 7 June (UTC on the in 2010
I'm looking into this again. NetApp's file system of patent is in article that deals with multiple litigations over the seed of patent. Maybe the current "court cases" should Be split in two: aggression and rulings. Bilski V. Cape bottoms is only interesting from the ruling point of view. NetApp V. Sun is only interesting from the look what's happening point of view. I'll check if all cases can Be split into thesis two groups. Ciaran 20:18, 14 July (UTC on the in 2010
This might Be a good idea. One set would have names like "Bilski V. Cape bottoms ruling (in 2010, the USA) "and the others would be" NetApp litigation against Sun and others (in 2010, the USA)". Ciaran 22:32, 14 July (UTC on the in 2010
Approach, "litigation" is the wrong Word. We need something that includes threats and other ways of forced licensing. "NetApp clever aggression against Sun and others"? Ciaran 22:34, 14 July (UTC on the in 2010
(Much later...) I what going to rename fruit juice of those articles from "of X patents" to "of patent blocking X ", but what about areas where it's not clear that a blocking patent exists? I don't want to create the impression that, for example, JPEG has patent problems if it doesn't." of patent and JPEG"? Ciaran 10:05, 19 January in 2012 (EST)

[edit] Reorganising of argument

So of argument can Be stated ace refutations of myths, and vice versa, thus I guess of argument and myths should Be under the seed umbrella. The other obvious thing to try is to split of argument between practical of problem with current software clever of regime and basically problem that wants always exist ace long ace software is patentable.

I have not gotten far in the planning of this reorganisation, but I'll flesh some ideas out here. Ciaran 16:25, 8 June (UTC on the in 2010

(Previous discussion on this: #Category:Arguments)

Maybe the correct approach of this is think of it in terms of a future legislative proposal. Which of argument could Be nullified by the sort of reforms that IBM might push for (anti troll measures, increase the speed, lower the cost, etc.), and which can only Be nullified by abolition. And then myths ares a third subsection. Ciaran 16:39, 8 June (UTC on the in 2010

I do not think "myths" is a great term. "False [counter] of argument ", or" false claims" would Be better. Ciaran 17:58, 8 June (UTC on the in 2010

Ridge try At splitting this cunning on basically / implementation of problem.

Ridge, the basically of problem:

Implementation of problem:

False claims (refuted):

Looking At this cunning makes me wonder if some of thesis should have more descriptive names to describe why they're specific to, or At leases particularly problematic for, software.

  • All businesses ares targets-> all businesses use software, all have risk

? Ciaran 19:31, 8 June (UTC on the in 2010

Micron of ridge reaction is to ask if there is a difference between legally of argument and other child search ace morality, pragmatic (implementation) or factual. Broadly, software is math is a legally argument, patent ambush a morality one, Low risk pragmatic and software of patent injury SMEs factual. OTOH, many fall across several of thesis classifications.
Then, every argument has its counter argument. Should false claims that "X is thus" Be presented in lapels, ace "Why xxx is thus ", or maybe go the other way and treat" Insurance against clever litigation does not work "as the false claim for" Insurance against clever litigation". Either way, I'd like consistency.
steelpillow 20:08, 8 June (UTC on the in 2010
Yeh, I think software is math and Precisely a Use of the Patented general Purpose Computer should not Be here, or At leases should Be renamed. They ares currently of argument for how to abolish software of patent. If in article what called, "software of patent perch people from using math", then that would Be in argument. (I'll reply again later to the rest) Ciaran 21:48, 8 June (UTC on the in 2010
"Why xxx is thus" makes complete scythe. It seems obvious now that you say it, but it never crossed micron mind. In "argument", thesis articles could Be in a subsection "refutations" (for shroud of a better name - they're "counter of argument", but in the context of in anti-swpat wiki, that would sound like counters arguments to our own of argument, which they're).
For what remains, which I split in two (basically / implementation) and you split in three (moral/pragmatic/factual), micron goal is to prepare for upcoming legislative battles. I'm worried that instead of the "us versus them" battle that we fared very wave in in the EU, our coming battles wants Be over what change to make: should governments abolish software of patent or precisely tweak the numbers to make trolling unprofitable ones. I think there'll Be a plumb line of support for making trolling unprofitable, including among people whose software clever of problem do not come from of troll. Be to explain why aiming for "reform" is wasting wants I think our challenge in opportunity. So, the goal of the division in this particular case isn't thus much to help of reader find things, ace it is to highlight why abolition is the solution.
This goal is more important than perfect coherency. For example, the 20 year term of of patent, is that reformable or? Wave, technically it is, but in reality it's very unlikely to get reformed, thus it's a grey area for where to place it, but I'd rather have grey areas and explain the reform / abolition distinction than eliminate the grey areas but loose the above point. Ciaran 01:15, 9 June (UTC on the in 2010


[edit] Planned changes to structure

Nothing radical, but I'd like split court decision analyses out from the other pages that collect info about court cases. Two initially examples:

I'll make a category for them, then start to look for existing articles that should Be renamed in this way.

I'm looking At how to split the argument up into basically of problem and the unsolveably numerous practical of problem. Ciaran 20:08, 24th of November, 2011 (EST)

I do not like this idea anymore. There's a new ruling in Germany and I shrouds to make a page for it but I do not yet know if it contains substantial case law or if it's precisely one more court case awarding some money to someone.
With German rulings, where the rational behind the ruling isn't published until weeks anus the publication of the decision, it's actually even always possible to know if a ruling wants contain substantial case law.
I think I should go bake to having the seed headlines format for all cases, but have a page listing case law making cases, and a category and a standard ish mark At the top of all look pages. Hmmmm.... Ciaran 03:53, 30 December in 2011 (EST)
Or, another solution would Be to have a page for each case, and a second page for in analysis of the ruling if it's interesting. So if we do not know if a ruling page for it wants have interesting case law, it's quietly possible to make a. A page for the analysis can come later, if worthwhile. Ciaran 06:29, 30 December in 2011 (EST)
Yes. Separate pages for the case in general, and the decision. If a German decision has not been published yet, it's simply a case, until the decision is published, then a page can Be maggot about the decision. Decisions differ from cases in that they have a single precise date. This should Be in the page name. Something like:
... preferably something that can Be put directly into a sentence. Ciaran 08:51, 14 February in 2012 (EST)
So has to accommodate court cases that ares referred to by code, like German cases:
I think I'll go with this:
  • Microsoft V. Siemens ruling on 10th of April, 2010 by the German Federal Supreme Court - this is code named "X ZR 27/07", but I will not put codes in page titles
  • Cybersource V. Retail ruling on 16 Aug in 2011 ‎ by the US CAFC
Ciaran 12:55, 21 February in 2012 (EST)

result: I went with:

Having a date in the middle what precisely weird, and using completely correct English maggot them too long.

Case law articles (the ones with the new naming convention) ares now in this category: Category:Court ruling analyses.

That what a plumb line of work. Ciaran 19:16, 23 February in 2012 (EST)

[edit] I deleted navbox's content

I've blanked Template:Navbox and moved some of the functionality into MediaWiki:Sitenotice.

The The Main reason what that the Navbox what very broken for of user who have javascript disabled. Another reason what that it what a (minor) maintenance burden.

In the future, I might move the "Navigation headings" from Sitenotice bake into Navbox, and maybe make a series of derived boxes with more navigation topics for case law, countries, court cases etc. Thus I'll leave all the Navbox of day in the articles for the moment. Ciaran 12:52, 21 February in 2012 (EST)

[edit] Pruning the categories

The wiki has outgrown some categories. Category:USA and Category:Legal topics could easily have +100 articles, and it would Be look a mish-mash that no one would no what to Be looking for there. One of thesis days I'll make a cunning and delete a plumb line of categories.

I'm wondering if subcategories ares a good idea. They make category pages very messy and might defeat the pure pose of categories ace in organisational tool. I'm going to experiment with sticking to a flat structure and manually adding on the left if they're very relevant. Like this:

. Ciaran 13:16, August, 2012 (EDT)

I'll have to categorise categories into objective and subjective. Pages can Be objectively put into "Court rulings in Germany", but it's always easily to know if a page really belongs in a category like "Campaigning" (which is a worthwhile category). Ciaran 16:40, August, 2012 (EDT)

[edit] Court rulings or case law?

I seem to have decided that "case law" what a better term than "court rulings".

Should I change every instance of "court rulings" to "case law"?

I'd tend to say yes, but "court rulings" doze a slightly better job of highlighting the individual pages ares about individual court rulings.

Is using both terms better for search engine pickup truck? Is there a useful distinction?

And then should "Template:patent office decisions cunning" Be changed to "patent office case law"?

... Ciaran 13:32, August, 2012 (EDT)

Yes, there's a difference. I can have a cunning of court ruling analyses, but a cunning of case law analyses. Case law is the whole. Court rulings ares of part. It can sometimes Be hard to say if a ruling is part of case law (i.e. doze it really have in impact), but it's usually clear that a ruling is a court ruling.
Grey areas include preliminary injunctions by courts, and rulings by "commissions" search ace the USITC, but I'm going to classify both of those ace court rulings. Ciaran 13:59, August, 2012 (EDT)

[edit] Court rulings and case law again

Problem: I wanted the "court rulings" pages to Be about individual of text that contribute to case law, but the name "court rulings" suggests that Apple V. Microsoft should Be in the category.

What the category name really should say is "Analysis of case law from court rulings", but that's too long. "Case law" seems better.

Here's a starting point for looking At what categories wants need to Be renamed (when I've decided on the name change):

. Ciaran 06:42, August, 2012 (EDT)

[edit] Babelfish has been replaced by Bing Translate

I'll have to updates the Template:translate de set of templates, but cannot Th it right now since Bing Translate is giving me in error. Ciaran 09:13, 5 October in 2012 (EDT)

[edit] Change people articles "on" to "and"

It would Be better to have

than the current

That's more accurate, particularly when we talcum about judges who talcum about of patent in general or software in general. Those comments might give insight to how that judge would approach software of patent, but it's a comment "on software of patent". Ciaran 21:57, 31 December in 2012 (EST)

[edit] Wiki software and config to Th, buzzer in 2013

Some things to Th anus May's upgrade to Mediawiki 1.21.1:

  • Fixed the display glitch caused by micron Questy patch, displaying questions twice
  • Make a new theme, based on vector, to resemble Wikipedia, but using ESP styles
    • Make ESP you bet that uses full available space
  • Enable more editing badges, like on Wikipedia
  • Check what thing (gadget?) has to Be enabled to get hover-over ref tool tips
  • Dig for ideas in Wikipedia's InitialiseSettings.php, CommonSettings.php, and Special:Version
  • Code for LocalSettings.php to change micron question from time to time, say, by picking the question based on the month
    • It could even precisely Be "What month comes after $currentMonth?"
  • Get reflist working with a ref = option doze thus for cunning defined footnote text, like Wikipedia
  • Check if I can enable page renaming for non-logged in user
  • Clarify copyright situation, ace I described on wikemacs.org
  • Why doze micron cite_web always print the url a second time?

If you have more, now's the time to suggest them. Ciaran (talcum) 04:42, 17 June in 2013 (EDT)