Neal Macrossan

Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's application

Neal, Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for the edit to Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's application. Does the article basically get things right? Any important points that should be added?--Nowa 11:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Nowa, thanks very much for your welcome.

As to the question as to whether the article basically gets things right, without purporting to be an exhaustive analysis, here are a few initial comments -

1. Regarding "The alleged invention in Macrossan's application ..." - this could well imply to a disinterested reader that the subject matter was not really inventive. However there was no debate over whether it was actually inventive or actually an invention. That the subject mater was novel and inventive was accepted right from the Patent Office hearing onwards as a finding of fact - see paragraphs 2 & 3 of the Patent Office Hearing Decision. And see paragraph 4 of the High Court decision which confirmed that "The novelty and lack of inventive step points were ... resolved ... and did not figure at the hearing or in the Decision.". So an alternative and neutral phraseology, would be simply to say -

"Macrossan's application was for an automated method of ..."

Also, as to " ...an automated method of acquiring the documents necessary to incorporate a company ...", I think that "acquiring" could give the wrong impression i.e like "purchasing" or "gathering together". It would be more accurate to say "assembling" or "producing".

Also, as to -

"Macrossan's patent application was rejected for not being an invention since it was found to relate to a method of doing business as such and to a computer program as such. The Court's reason for this rejection was that there was no contribution made by the alleged invention that lay outside excluded subject matter."

given my initial comments above, I think that it would be fairer to say -

"Macrossan's patent application was rejected for not being patentable subject matter since it was found to relate to a method of doing business as such and to a computer program as such. The Court's reason for this rejection was that there was no contribution that lay outside excluded subject matter."

2. Regarding -

"However, it has already been well-established in previous case law that TRIPS is not self-enacting and therefore the judgment rightly ignored any impact that agreement might have on current UK law and practice."

Surely the phrase "it has already been well-established in previous case law that TRIPS is not self-enacting" needs a supporting reference to the previous case to which it is referring? What English cases have held that?

And, as to "the judgment rightly ignored any impact that agreement might have on current UK law and practice" ... sounds like point of view to me.

3. Regarding,

"The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure have expressed the view that the decision of the House of Lords confirms that the correctness of the Court of Appeal.[13][14]",

if FFI's expressed view is worthy of inclusion in this article then is not my view (set out with supporting reasons here) that the reason given by the House of Lords’ Appeal Committee, for refusing to give me permission to appeal, is not objectively supportable, also worthy of inclusion?

Regards, Neal Macrossan

Neal, What I find works best when you have a number of changes to make to an article is to take it one step at a time and see if the changes "take". For example, per your suggestion, I changed the wording to "Macrossan's application was for an automated method of ..." and put in a note that I was trimming POV (point of view). That should be a fairly noncontroversial change. If it's still there tomorrow, you might want to go ahead and make the next change. If someone objects, then we can offer them a chance to discuss on the article talk page.--Nowa 01:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Nowa.--Neal Macrossan 08:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Commercial applications

Neal, Out of curiosity, are there any commercial products on the market that embody your invention?--Nowa 01:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nowa, yes Incorporator.com.au for producing Australian incorporation documents, and UKcorporator for producing UK incorporation documents. Also, there are various infringing systems (I have been granted a patent by each of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Singapore). --Neal Macrossan 08:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Neal, It seems to me, then, that a short wikipedia article on the subject might be worthwhile. Care to take a stab at it? If you would like, you can post a draft below on this talk page and then we could work the bugs out before posting.--Nowa 12:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nowa, thanks very much for that invitation. Just at the moment however, I'm probably too busy with other things, but maybe I'll have a chance sometime to get onto that. Thanks again, and regards. --Neal Macrossan 00:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to create an article about the commercial products, if they are notable (probably okay but see Wikipedia:Notability just in case). However, if you have a conflict of interest, you should exercise great caution. In particular, you should avoid editing articles related to products you are involved with (that's rather important: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). Cheers,--Edcolins 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest guidelines

Thank you for your contributions. They are great, and I am not blaming any of them. They seem to be perfectly neutral. As a matter of precaution though, I just want to be sure you have carefully read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest when getting involved in editing Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's application. There are thoughts in there you may find interesting to read. But, again, I am not blaming any of your contributions. Just go ahead... Thanks. Cheers, --Edcolins 22:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Edcollins, for specifically drawing my attention to those policies and guidelines (which I had not known of, or read before). Quite apart from them, and prior to reading them, as a matter of common sense the same sorts of things had occurred to me anyway. And that was one of the reasons I chose to register under my own actual (and recognizable, in the context of these articles) name - I see this as a kind of disclosure of conflict of interest, every single time I make an edit. Also, being conscious of those sorts of considerations, I have tried to be scrupulous in every edit I make, and I have tried to keep them to facts, and referenced things. And as I am sure you can imagine, when I see stuff that is blatantly wrong, it's very hard for me not to edit them (and quote a source). Also, some things only I (at least amongst the current batch of editors) am in a postion to know e.g. precisely what I argued, and to whom I argued it, and when I argued it. Also, I figure that, any edits I make will be looked over very carefully by the other editors and corrected where wrong (particularly as such edits by me are being made in my own name). Anyway, thanks again. --Neal Macrossan 03:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm enjoying the dialectic between GD and Neal as the article takes shape. Very educational to a US based practitioner.--Nowa 12:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application#Comparison of EPO and UK practice

Thanks. I have updated the section. Do you see anything else to update? --Edcolins (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)