Talk:KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

External links to analysis

I don't want to crowd a (too) short article with many external links, but here's some analysis at the SCOTUSblog before it scrolls of the tickers. Rl 07:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• KSR: An ovemphasis of the importance of published articles?, Lawrence Ebert, 2007-04-30
• Analysis of Supreme Court patent law decision in KSR v. Teleflex, No. 04-1350, Joshua Sarnoff, 2007-04-30
• KSR v. Teleflex: Workmanlike, Yet Frustrating, Solveig Singleton, 2007-04-30
• Some thoughts about KSR v. Teleflex: The "Marketplace" Test for Obviousness, Michael Barclay, 2007-04-30

And from Patently-o (ends with links to more commentary):

• KSR v. Teleflex: Supreme Court on Obviousness, Dennis Crouch, 2007-04-30
• Another commentary: Brief commentary on Teleflex with links to source materials and translations

Propose and discuss additions to external links? -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Blog entries are generally unacceptable sources for the articles. Jon 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Blogs generally don't get articles in Wikipedia. SCOTUSblog does. There's no point in adding all the links above to the article, but they are potential and acceptable sources. Rl 18:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a blog link, but it contains a listing of cases that cite KSR v. Teleflex (I think). Keep? -Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 21:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Cases with application of the KSR standard of Obviousness.

I say keep. Ultimately, the question is not, "is this resource a blog?", but rather, "is this resource useful to readers?" This is a very useful list. Maybe in a couple years, when the KSR dust has been settled, it would be best to remove it. But let's keep it for now. Terry Carroll 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to just say no. Do not insert this link. The question is also "does this resource comply with Wikipedia guidelines?", see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, which include:

• "1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." The blog clearly does not provide such a unique source.
• "11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Unless it is somewhat made clear that the author of the blog (apparently here) is a recognized authority. I don't think he is.

--Edcolins 19:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still going to argue for a keep here.

First, thanks very much Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided pointer. It's helpful.

I note right off that it's advisory in nature. This is a list of links that are "normally" to be avoided, but not prohibited. They're links that "should" be "avoided." "Normally," "should" and "avoided" are all fairly weak words here. If there's a good reason to include a link, if it improves the article, then it should be included, notwithstanding its appearance on this list. This is an excellent candidate for Ignore All Rules, and in the spirit of WP:WIARM: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." (I apologize that the quote includes "mindlessly," by the way; I don't consider your objection "mindless".) The thing is, it would be great if there were a Wikipedia article on "Cases that cite KSR." But there's not. Adding the link to this resource is helpful, and ultimately improves the article, and improves the encyclopedia. At least for the time being; I can foresee that Professor Miller will eventually stop tracking these, and the list becomes dated and no longer useful. At that point, I would agree that it should not be included.

With respect to the two points cited, I disagree with the application of both of them. On #1, The site pointed to provides a unique resource: the list of cases citing KSR. This list is not in this article, and there's no reason to suppose that it would be in this article were it to become a featured article. Certainly it couldn't be copied from Professor Miller's site without his permission. Yes, someone else could recreate it, but no one has.

On #11, I have to disagree with the statement that Miller is not a recognized authority. Looking at his list of publications, presentations and testimony and his C.V., I have no problem calling him a recognized authority. He's a professor at a well-known IP law school teaching IP law; has ten published law review articles; about a dozen CLE presentations to attorneys in three states; testified before the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission; and serves on the Advisory Council to the Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit. This isn't just Some Guy With A Blog.

Based on all this, I think the link should be included.

(Apologies for being such a WP:LAWYER; habits, you know.) Terry Carroll 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment, I think we could probably get away with relaxing WP:LAWYER here given the subject:-P. Seriously, who here isn't a lawyer or in a legalish/patent profession? Now, back to the link, I would much prefer a source with the same list that isn't on that advisory no no (i.e. not a blog). Also, is it really necessary to have something like this? I haven't looked, but do the other case articles have similar links (list of cases that cite them)? I know that this case is relatively new and is shaking up things...so maybe find another reference and just keep it until the case gets old, crusty and overly cited? Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting discussion. If the article becomes a featured article, I think it would have to comprise a section entitled "Role in subsequent decisions" (or equivalent of course, such as "Interpretation" or the like) to be comprehensive (see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria). An example of featured article is Roe v. Wade, and it includes such a section. The article would then comprises a section containing anything the log entry contains, unless considered unimportant.

This being said, your point on "Ignore All Rules" has been nicely made, and I am not objecting to the inclusion of the link as a matter of principle. I am just concerned that the list of decisions provided on this "resource page" may not be 100 % reliable and neutral (the list seems very good but, well, I cannot myself confirm this). Also, the "could" in "On this resource page, I offer a running list of the patent cases in which tribunals have, or could have, applied the KSR case to analyze the question of nonobviousness." (emphasis added) seems at least partially subjective... A possible consensus could be to include the link to the resource page in the article with a cautionary note indicating how reliable and neutral the list may be considered. --Edcolins 12:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Eraser analogy

I'd question the comment in the article "For example, the benefit to having an eraser on the end of a pencil can be recognized by all, but does that make a pencil-eraser combination obvious?" It seems to me that the facts in the case are more like this: there is prior art describing a pencil with an eraser at the end and other prior art describing a material designed to erase ball-point pen ink. Is a ball-point pen with an eraser at the end then obvious?--agr (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

lower court case

In order for this article to be complete, someone must add citations to the lower court cases, which do not appear here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.108.42 (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

KSR is a highly controversial decision

There are many patent professionals who find the wording of this decision highly troubling, as it substantially removes the objective metrics previously in place.Wikibearwithme (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikibearwithme (talk · contribs), thanks for your message. Can you cite a reference in that respect? --Edcolins (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)