Talk:Patent

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'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)

References

Reply 30-JUN-2023

  Unable to review  

• Page numbers have not been provided with the proposed sources, indicating the page number where the confirming information exists.

Regards,  Spintendo  23:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@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

  Unable to review  

• Some or all of the provided sources are paywalled and cannot be accessed for review.

Regards,  Spintendo  09:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Requesting an edit

I think it would be relevant to add in the “Benefits” section the following findings from a reliable source (scholarly papers). What do you think? I have a COI with de Rassenfosse. (See my userpage).

Reasoning for inclusion: This empirical evidence contributes to a better understanding of how patent protection can impact the long-term value and durability of innovations. By referencing this study, the article gains credibility and depth, enriching the information available to readers seeking insights into the advantages of patents in terms of innovation sustainability and economic impact.

Requested edit:

A 2018 study using data from the Australian Inventor Survey (AIS) found that patented inventions experience a lower depreciation rate of 1-2% compared to non-patented ones. AM13prime (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Requesting an edit

I think it would be relevant to add in the “Costs” section the following findings from a reliable source (scholarly papers). What do you think? I have a COI with de Rassenfosse. (See my userpage)

Reasoning for inclusion: This inclusion helps address concerns surrounding the proliferation of low-quality patents and their potential negative effects on litigation costs and innovation incentives. The study's results provide concrete evidence that the fee adjustment played a role in improving patent quality by reducing the issuance of lower-quality patents. As the patent landscape evolves, these findings offer insights into the potential effectiveness of using fees as a policy tool to enhance patent system efficiency.

Requested edit:

Scholars have discovered that increased patent fees, resulting from the Patent Law Amendment Act of 1982, filtered out roughly 10% of the lowest quality patents, which may address concerns about the rise of low-quality patents leading to increased litigation costs and reduced innovation incentives. AM13prime (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Declined Placing this author's articles in several different Wikipedia pages is stretching it. One has already been placed. Regards,  Spintendo  14:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

References