Template talk:Patent law

Sufficiency of the disclosure

First, I'm not doubting its significance, but I think it's only 1/2 the reason it should be on the template. I'm wondering if there's a concept which might better target what this is meant to capture: the public's benefit from the patent law bargain. Of course, that's not a very good name, but I think that that's the point. We want an article which sort of covers the significance to the public of HAVING a patent law at all. Is the only benefit really the sufficiency of the disclosure? Or is it the i) disclore, ii) commercialization... (brain freeze, studying for Religion and the Constitution)... whatever else is out there? mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 23:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economics and patents? --Edcolins 14:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oooh. That could be a good one. I might have to contribute to that one. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, barely a nascent one. --Edcolins 19:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also wonder if there should be a "types of patent" link. That seems to be a pretty important, relatively generic concept. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 19:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is a sub-section in the "see also" section of patent with a non-organized list of patent and patent application types. I am not sure a proper article is necessary (there wouldn't be much in it, apart from a glossary-like list?). Maybe a category would be enough? --Edcolins 21:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TfD result

A TFD on {{PatentLaw}} was recently closed, agreeing in a merge to this template. Are there any ideas here for which links should be included (I have no idea about patent law!). You can see an earlier revision here. Thanks M a rtinp23 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Patentleft

I propose adding a link to patentleft. Or would that be against the rules because it's currently a "stub"? It seems like a very important concept that should be given more attention, in any case. ArtifexCrastinus (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your proposal. It's not a problem that the article is currently a stub. However, I would not add it to the template Template:Patent law as patentleft is one particular way to license patents (and licensing is already in the template). But let's create a new template Template:Licensing of patents! Here it is... --Edcolins (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing patent law template

Hello anyone watching this template. I changed the word "processes" in one of the info sub-boxes to "basic concepts". The word "processes" also has a term of art meaning, i.e. methods. So "basic concepts" seemed to be less confusing. I look forward to any input on this - I am American and so my english might differ from others.Saltwolf (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit. Good point. I agree that the title "processes" was confusing. "Basic concepts" is fine but somewhat still confusing to me since let's say the concept of "novelty" is also a basic concept of patent law. What about "Basic stages", "Legal phases" or the like? --Edcolins (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]