Template talk:Patentability
 | Law Redirect‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
The template is not about patent law (which is a much larger domain), but just about patentability. --Edcolins 22:20, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Inventorship[edit]
IMHO the link towards inventor (U.S. patent law) seems a bit at odds with the others. It would probably be better to create a separate template with links to inventor (U.S. patent law), reduction to practice, conception (U.S. patent law) for instance. I dunno how we could call this template. What do you think of the suggestion? --Edcolins 19:56, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
- My instinct is that we should refrain from breaking down every concept into unique articles for each jurisdiction. It just seems like an awful lot of duplication, and many unnecessarily create lots of little articles instead of more comprehensive ones. There would be more value in topical articles which also offered the treatment by other jurisdiction on the same page--a purely comparative analysis. I dunno. Mmmbeer 02:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I moved it back, you are right. But still I don't feel it is appropriate to have a link towards inventorship in the "patentability template". Looks rather at odds with the other. --Edcolins 15:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
- You're probably right in an international context--I'm not sure how much inventorship even really matters in the international context, and it may be that generally it doesn't. However, in the US, at the very least, inventorship is like the first step to patentability. You can't get one unless the patent application is taken out on their behalf. The patentability template does have both US and non-US patentability requirements, so I'm not sure that it's really any different than those. Mmmbeer 16:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- I meant that the perspective in "Inventor (patent)" did not represent a world-wide view. The article should probably be edited (not necessarily by us) to improve its geographical balance. A stricking example of such a geographically "unbalanced" article is "Person having ordinary skill in the art. I tagged it as such. --Edcolins 10:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
- You're probably right in an international context--I'm not sure how much inventorship even really matters in the international context, and it may be that generally it doesn't. However, in the US, at the very least, inventorship is like the first step to patentability. You can't get one unless the patent application is taken out on their behalf. The patentability template does have both US and non-US patentability requirements, so I'm not sure that it's really any different than those. Mmmbeer 16:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I moved it back, you are right. But still I don't feel it is appropriate to have a link towards inventorship in the "patentability template". Looks rather at odds with the other. --Edcolins 15:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Inventorship relevance to patentability in Europe[edit]
Inventorship can be relevant to patentability in Europe, although in only a limited way. Where a disclosure is made within 6 months preceding the filing date of a European patent application, the disclosure is not taken into consideration if it was due to, or in consequence of, an evident abuse in relation to the applicant or his legal predecessor. Thus the identity of the inventor (who is often the applicant, or his legal predecessor) can be of vital importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.63.250 (talk • contribs)
- Indeed. Thank you for this quite interesting comment, and improvement. I have integrated your comment in Inventor (patent). --Edcolins 21:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)