Talk:In re Alappat

essay

Article is written like an essay; not like a Wikipedia article. Tagged it accordingly. This is what experts do when they first come here... Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed, and noted that initial editor is following the general style used by WP:SCOTUS for case articles, not written as an essay as claimed. WP:CIR and note that the editor accused of being "new" by Jytdog had over 400 edits in 2008 before Jytdog made his second edit, and that he has created 10 times more articles than Jytdog has. GregJackP Boomer! 22:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. Please address the substance of the tags. Again, you attacking ad hominem instead of dealing with substance. It is crazy, GregJackP. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

and still no response. Sad. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why this is tagged for being an opinion essay or for containing original research. The article contains in-line citations to support factual claims, and the summary of the case is consistent with the description of the facts in the Federal Circuit's opinion. I don't see any original research here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. The Background section has no citations, and has interpretive statements like "There was no serious question that the technology described above is the kind of thing with which the patent laws are concerned. Alappat's patent application described a device within an oscilloscope, that helps to control the oscilloscope's screen illumination in a certain way. The issue was whether the patent claimed merely that thing or claimed something else, as well—something that goes beyond the kinds of thing on which the patent laws grant exclusive rights, just as Morse's eighth claim in O'Reilly v. Morse claimed something beyond what the patent system covers." -- which is just very surprising to see unsourced in a Wikipedia article, to me. That sort of thing. Footnotes 11 nd 12 are not references, but unsourced asides - something else we don't do in non-law articles. And, just saying, the bulk of the the commentary section - all the WEIGHT there, is based on a WP:SELFCITE. These are all things that inexperienced but expert Wikipedia editors do. These are the kinds of issues I see here. I would try to fix this but GregJackP has kind of gone to war against me... this is also what led me to broaden the discussion to members of WP:SCOTUS. He is also claiming an article like this is how WP:SCOTUS does things - if so that would be surprising to me. Thanks again for asking. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

See, there is another editor that doesn't see OR or an essay. What will it take for you to quit hounding Praeceptor? GregJackP Boomer! 02:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware that there's some broader bad blood here (which I'm going to ignore), but I'm surprised that the entire Background section is effectively unreferenced. Am I just supposed to take someone's word for it? If it's all in the Federal Circuit opinion then that's fantastic but non-obvious to general readers. Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That is the general way that legal writers do things, the background information is not cited all the time, but the legal information is. It is something that follow-up editing can correct, but that lack of cites doesn't make it either an essay nor original research. GregJackP Boomer! 03:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that it looks like an essay because of how it's written. This isn't a legal publication; it's a general-interest encyclopedia. A five-paragraph background section, written in somewhat laid-back style, with a single footnote that's more of an aside than a reference? Sure looks like an essay at first impression, and without sources there's no reasonable way for anyone other than the original editor to prove otherwise. This is a collaborative project written by volunteers; we shouldn't need to rely on hidden assumptions to collaborate. I don't know how to reconcile comments here and elsewhere that editors should feel free to refactor or make follow-up edits to an article written in law-review style with the considerable abuse dished out toward an editor right here on this talk page (again, don't care about the bad blood). If someone's free to edit then he's free to tag indicating a perceived problem. Mackensen (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"...and without sources there's no reasonable way for anyone other than the original editor to prove otherwise." The court opinion this article is about should be the first source anyone checks. postdlf (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Reading the Federal Circuit gives me indigestion. Unless you're a specialist it's not obvious that the "Background" section is summarized from the Federal Circuit opinion (I'm assuming it is; I have no idea and the article doesn't say so). Even people generally familiar with the appellate system don't know anything about it. I mean, sure, we can tell the newbie editor to go read the decision, figure out which parts of the background were taken from where, and then add the appropriate cites. This gets harder, of course, as people move on and IPs or whomever sprinkle more random text into the article. Mackensen (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I could easily fix it, but some bozo thinks that removing the tags and inserting an infobox constitutes "edit-warring" and slapped a warning on my talkpage to harass me. So I can't add a cite showing that most of the first paragraph comes from 33 F.3d at 1537 (as do most of the second and third paragraphs), or that formula comes from 33 F.3d at 1538, or so on. No, instead of letting editors who know how to read what Praeceptor has written, compare it to the court opinion like Postdlf mentioned, we have to let the article be held hostage to his tags. GregJackP Boomer! 05:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, don't care about the bad blood. Do you always drop in random attacks on other editors with every comment? I don't know that it's actually improving the situation, and it damages your case. If this is the edit you're talking about then color me unimpressed. Adding an infobox obviously doesn't resolve the core issue raised here and adding essay tags isn't "harassment." You could obviously add the cites requested and ask for review (I admit, collaboration is obnoxious), or even add the cites and remove the tags on the good-faith belief they resolved the issue (probably not, because your behavior on this talk page would make that difficult to credit). In the alternative to these, you can keep arguing with me about how a "bozo" is holding this article hostage and how you won't share the information needed to resolve this discussion. Jytdog left the infobox in place so he seems a pretty ineffective hostage-taker, if you ask me. Mackensen (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, against my better judgement I began reading In re Alappat and searched in vain for the fact that Alappat was employed at Tektronix. I do not doubt that this information is factual, but "reading the opinion" doesn't get me there. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because I'm tired of people who do not know how to create content harassing those who do. Perhaps it is because I'm tired of people who are not competent in an area running off genuine experts in that area. Perhaps it is because admins ignore passive-aggressive bullshit, but don't hesitate to block if someone adds references to an article to improve it under a BS 3RR—which is exactly what would happen if I added material. You haven't said a word about his snide remarks here or elsewhere. You haven't said a word about how he denigrates an expert editor, nor how he attempts to out editors in the name of his COI god, even after he has been told he is under no circumstances entitled to that type of information. Tell me exactly why I should "collaborate" with someone who is not competent in legal articles or referencing? You have had three editors with experience in legal articles tell you that it is not an essay nor OR, and to look at the opinion to verify that, yet you would rather support the one editor who says that it is both. And you have the chutzpah to talk about collaboration? Really? No, I'll wait and fix the article later. Thanks for your input though. GregJackP Boomer! 14:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"Also on the brief was Francis I. Gray, Tektronix, Inc." In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1994), abrogated by In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008). "Alappat, Edward E. Averill, and James G. Larsen were employees of Tektronix, Inc. of Wilsonville, Oregon, a manufacturer of electronic test equipment and computer-related equipment. Their patent application was designated in the PTO as application Serial No. 07/149,792. In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1994)." W. Wayt King, Jr., The Soul of the Virtual Machine: In Re Alappat, 2 J. Intell. Prop. L. 575, 594 (1995). GregJackP Boomer! 14:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, that took me all of 5 minutes to find and pull the info for that. GregJackP Boomer! 15:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP, I have helped loads of new, expert editors figure out how Wikipedia works. Teaching people is not running them off. GregJackP, what I reverted was your removal of the tags before the issues were fixed. I will not revert if you FIXIT - remove OR, add sources, fix WEIGHT issues, etc but please don't remove the tags until the issues are fixed. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What "new" editor are you talking about? Praeceptor had 400 edits in 2008 while you had but a single edit. Harassing people is not "teaching" them. Please stop harassing people and making denigrating statements about their experience. Second, there was no OR here - three different editors have said that. There were no "issues" to fix except for your wikihounding of Praeceptor. Besides, didn't you say you weren't going to work COI issues for "a bit"? It's sad, really, to see how quickly that ended. GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Am trying to minimize my interaction with you per the excellent suggestion made at ANI; I hope you will do the same. As this entanglement started just a few hours before that suggestion was made, I am just trying to minimally respond to you here and then would like to stop. There is no need for you to respond; please just know I will not revert edits you make fixing the article, but please do not untag it until it is fixed. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but there are issues to fix (not sure what these references to COI are?): the background section relies on sources other than the Federal Circuit opinion (thank you GregJackP for finding those). They should be added at some point, once we're all done yelling. I'd do it, but although I've been editing law articles at least as long as GregJackP I'm not (as I said) comfortable with law review style. Believe me, I'm aware how sensitive people are about citation styles (myself included). Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's generally a good practice with case law articles to give an annotated, pinpoint cite early in the facts section, to explain that the summary derives from certain pages from the opinion. Anything not in the opinion itself should be cited separately (even if to a lower court's opinion), and probably noted specially in some way because if only verifiable to a news story, for example, it may represent a fact outside the record or that they deemed irrelevant, and we wouldn't want it confused with something the court expressly relied upon.

As these sections usually involve summarizing a lot of continuous content (most judicial opinions will summarize all the facts of the case in a single, separate section and then proceed to the legal issues), citing every sentence in our background section that derives from that opinion would be unnecessary. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

remaining OR or essay-like content

Please review these two chunks of content:

First this bit from the Background, which is still (in my view) unsourced OR/essay. This is a subtle thing, as there is a footnote, but the footnote itself appears to be me to building an argument - in other words, SYN. Like all good essay writing, this bit of content lays foundations for the discussion in the Aftermath section and the interpretation by Stern that is provided there. (which is the only voice given any weight in interpreting the case) But this is not how we write WP articles, in my view.

In other words, Alappat's patent application described a device within an oscilloscope, that helps to control the oscilloscope's screen illumination in a certain way. But the issue, according to the PTO, was whether the patent claimed merely that thing or claimed something else, as well—something that goes beyond the kinds of thing on which the patent laws grant exclusive rights.

References

• Also, the "The Federal Circuit's opinion" section.

The Federal Circuit heard the case en banc, meaning before all judges active on the court. There were a number of procedural issues unrelated to the patentability of computer software, including whether the court had jurisdiction over the appeal. These issues need not be considered here, but they resulted in the court's being very fractured, making it difficult to put together a majority.

References

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the tags. You need to quit harassing PraeceptorIP. You've had a number of editors tell you that the article is not an essay or OR. I've told you that. Notecardforfree told you that. Postdlf has commented on the citations in the background section and my interpretation of his comments is that he does not believe it is either an essay or OR. Minor4th has removed the tags, stating that the issue had been taken care of. You've had a very experienced editor, Softlavender, just tell you at your talk page that you needed to stop unilaterally play[ing] judge, jury, and executioner, and do not stop or pause when legitimate, policy-based questions are raised by experienced users. This is the type of longterm "stalking", "battleground" behavior that she was talking about, and the same type of conduct that you exhibited on Bad Elk v. United States, Plummer v. State, Bowman v. Monsanto Co., and In re Bilski, among others. You need to stop and listen. Just stop stalking Praeceptor and harassing his edits. GregJackP Boomer! 16:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Jytdog -- With regard to the quoted portion from the background section, I think the grammar could use some editing, but the content is an accurate summary of Judge Archer's account of the dispute in the case. For example, Judge Archer states at page 1552 that "Alappat has arranged known circuit elements to accomplish nothing other than the solving of a particular mathematical equation represented in the mind of the reader of his patent application." The citation in the footnote is proper (and encouraged) according to the Bluebook, which uses "signals" and "string citations" to explain the authority upon which Judge Archer relied. The information contained in the footnote is a summary of the authority upon which Judge Archer relied to reach his conclusion. This is helpful for legal scholars (and laypeople) who may want to know how Judge Archer reached his conclusion. Consequently, I do not think this portion constitutes original research.

With regard to the quoted text from the opinion section, I suggest removing the language that states "[t]hese issues need not be considered here" (surely an encyclopedic analysis should give weight to all issues in a case), but otherwise the assertion is supported by the reference. Judges who did not join the majority specifically stated that they did not join the majority because they believed the court lacked jurisdiction. For example, Judge Schall stated in his dissenting opinion on page 1583 that "we are without jurisdiction to hear Alappat's appeal because it is not from a decision of the Board." Judge Archer also discusses potential jurisdictional infirmities in his opinion at pages 1545 through 1548. Consequently, I do not think this portion constitutes original research -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog I added another law review source for the material re: fractured en banc court and the jurisdiction issues. Minor4th 17:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Jytdog, please familiarize yourself with the citation style being used. In Bluebook, you can mix explanatory notes with regular citations, in fact that is the common method. Praeceptor is following standard Bluebook style in this article. GregJackP Boomer! 17:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

citation style does not trump policy -- WP:OR and WP:VERIFY remain true whatever citation style is used. Editors cannot produce explanatory notes based on their own authority. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Jyt, would you go back to the current Article text. Then identify individually and specifically what passages you think are opinion (and why, if it is not obvious to persons other than yourself, you consider it opinion). Then we can see about sourcing or rewriting it, if necessary. Right now, it seems as if you are misguided or mistaken. But if there is any merit to your seemingly uninformed-layman comments, then we can fix up any problems in an appropriate manner. Helpful suggestions are always welcome. Thank you. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll continue to do that, Praeceptor. More to come later this week. Thanks for asking. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Editors cannot produce explanatory notes based on their own authority.. WOW. You really don't understand, do you. This is one of those places where others were telling you to slow down and to listen to other, experienced editors. Praeceptor is not making shit up or producing stuff on his own authority. You have had multiple editors, many of lawyers, almost all involved in WP:LAW tell you that it is not OR nor an essay. I'm pinging Risker and Softlavender to see if they can explain it in a way that you will understand, since all of us here seemed to have failed. You have taken their advice to heart in the past, maybe they can explain it in a way that we haven't been able to. I don't know what else to say, other than the WP:1AM essay recommendation, again. GregJackP Boomer! 20:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This is just about plain old WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP, I'm not interested in entering your dispute(s) with Jytdog, so I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid pinging me on this page. The discussion/content dispute or whatever it is (I have no idea; I do not wish to look) should follow standard Wikipedia protocols such as WP:BRD and other consensus-gaining methods. If that fails, seek the further steps in WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and WP:DR. Softlavender (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, consensus of the editors here state that it is not OR, and I believe a consensus also indicate that verify is not a problem. You are welcome to take any further steps in DR, but for now the discussion is pretty much over. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)