Talk:Diamond v. Chakrabarty

Language Adding

There Must Be Tagalog Language

Landmark Case of the U.S. Supreme Court

@Im5yrsold: With this edit you suggested this case should be included in List of landmark court decisions in the United States. It certainly is arguable. I have seen it described as such in some RS. However, it is not in the list of landmark decision of SCOTUS. Do you have RS to back it up? Have you tried to add it to the list of those cases? I have not been able to determine the basis of how that list was created. I do not see RS that backs it up that list... --David Tornheim (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: here are two:

• Diamond v. Chakrabarty: A Retrospective on 25 Years of Biotech Patents
• The Media, the Public and Agricultural Biotechnology.

I'm also in favor of adding this case to that list. If nobody else does it I might do so.

--Fixuture (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I am an academic lawyer from Europe, engaged in comparative patent law. For me there is no doubt that Diamon v. Chakrabarty is a "landmark" case, if only in view of the number of times it is cited. Rbakels (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

POV problems

The article has some POV issues. For example, it says, "critics were hung up on potential effects". This is dismissive and unencyclopedic language. It treats it as a foregone conclusion that the subject matter would be patentable, and even puts "there were no legal grounds to dismiss the claims" in "Why SCOTUS Agreed to Hear the Case" (the Supreme Court could not decide the issue of patentability before even hearing the case). Another example is, "This has the potential to cause entities to seek the approval of the courts more than follow the rules written by Congress, tipping the power in the government to an unbalanced state." in which the author injects their own tangentially related POV opinion, not backed by any source. Mattflaschen - Talk 04:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Legal issues are always contragious. But I was not aware that this case was particularly contagious. Perhaps a separate lemma must be added on "patent controversies". Patenting living matter (from micro-orhanisms to animals of even humans) is definitely contagious: proponents will argue that private parties will not invest in useful(?) research without patents, opponents will question ethics. Rbakels (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC) Ah, such a lemma already exists: Societal views on patents

Overhauled the Article

FYI, I overhauled the article today with the aim of removing a bunch of unsourced, unencyclopedic, duplicative, and/or POV material. The article still needs more citations and I will try to come back to this soonish and add more, but hopefully my edits have brought this article to a better place than it was before I started. If anyone else has suggestions for improvement, please feel free to let me know and I'll see if I can add them. DocFreeman24 (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)