Talk:Free World Trust v Électro Santé Inc

Patent vs. Copyright

The caption for the insert image under the Background header purports that the image is "Dr. Drolet's 1990 Copyrighted (Rhumart System), "MBI-3000 RESCtm Controller", model # 7802" (emphasis added). However, there is no mention of a copyright anywhere else in the article, and indeed the case deals with patent law, not copyright law. Unless there is evidence of a copyright on the design of the MBI-3000 (which may or may not even be possible to acquire), I recommend the caption be changed to state "Dr. Drolet's 1990 Patented (Rhumart System), "MBI-3000 RESCtm Controller", model # 7802", without emphasis. Ezzeloharr 16:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid capitalizing words in section headings unless they are proper nouns or the first word of the heading.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, CyclePat (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As of today, I think the article is close to "C" class, but the inline referencing should be finished. PKT 21:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

History merge

The requested history merge from Electro-magnetic therapeutic system is clearly inappropriate. The details and proposed purpose, use, and brand name of the invention are clearly irrelevant to the patent infringement case, and the English name is only marginally relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is so clearly irrelevant than please explain in better details because I see the inclusion of the inventions name as being quite relevant as the background information to this article. Even the automated peer-review suggests that there should be more information in this article. Knowing what the device does or did is an important element to understanding the case and why the électro Santé device (which supposedly gave similar) results was determined "not to be" a patent infringement. To do this I believe it is necessary to give not only background information but details about the "final result", such as the EMF waves, pulses, etc... the device itself. The device name is important to develop the history of the devices "many different names" from many different patents throughout the world, from the 1980s until present, is relevant. It explains the development and wide spread use (notability) of the device and furthermore paint a clear picture of the background information leading up to the trials (a period of 20 some years). --CyclePat (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Knowing what the device did or did not do, or what the device was claimed to do, are irrelevant to the court case unless and to the extent cited in the actual decision. The name is marginally relevant, but a redirect would be inappropriate even if the decision of the AfD were to be "keep" or "merge", as the obvious target of electro-magnetic therapeutic system is electromagnetic therapy. If there is anything to be kept, the device details should be there, perhaps something more about the case should be here, and EMtS should be a disambiguation page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually Arthur, that's what the whole trial is about. It's about having a device that performs the same results but in a different maner. This is highlighted in the present article on several occassion. Take for example: The fact that the trial is noted in Canada for setting out "the test for patent infringement" and "the principales of purposive claim construction". And Electromagnetic therapy doesn't quite seem appropriate since there are really no "3rd party" claims that indicate that this device is notably a device that is used in "Electro-magnetic therapy". Nevertheless... let me think about this since I believe we both raise valid points. --CyclePat (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

correction:There are some studies done that indicat the device is perhaps an electromagnetic therapy device. But I think you understood what I meant, (as you've highlighted at one point during our previous conversations), that essentially, it's important to have a study (or source) that is "arms lenght". It's difficult to find because even that peer-review study I've been talking about, though it's peer-reviewed, was originally written by the inventor Dr. Roland. --CyclePat (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as the actual words to Oh, Pretty Woman would still be a copyright violation here, even though a justice chose to include them in the actual decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.. The details of the invention still don't seem relevant, although they could be included if copied from secondary sources and appear in the actual decision, and any claims as to effectiveness (i.e., whether the device has any therapeutic effect) are clearly irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually Arthur, the details of the invention, in particular the patent number are included in the court decission. I'm going to look into further details for the "Pretty Woman" example you gave me, analysing the format of both articles to see what could be applied in our circumstance. Or perhaps you have a recommendation on how this could be merged into the Electromagnetic therapy article... (why not just do it as I've done with this article)? (I may just do it myself... tomorow though) --CyclePat (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: My first impression for "Pretty Woman" is that the example you are providing is a legitimate WP:CFORK. --CyclePat (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: There is only one revision in the page history of the requested merge page - and that's a redirect. I see no point in doing this. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a function of the userfication. I think this should be marked as rejected, per the delete result of the AfD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge

There's still nothing in the recently unuserfied article at Rhumart which isn't here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support WP:ONEEVENT does not strictly apply, but the notability of the device is bound up entirely in the court case, so the same arguments would seem to apply. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)