Talk:Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Canadian law
This article is part of the Canadian law WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

[edit] Peer Review

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

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

[edit] 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)