Talk:McGhee et al. v. Le Sage & Co., Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007 May 1. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2008 March 1. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete.

The non-sew-on drapery hook or the pin-in drapery hook is a useful invention. I am in a house, at this moment, which has several dozen of them on draperies throughout the house. I see drapery hooks everyday in houses and businesses. I have also seen them in use in Europe and Latin America. The drapery hook keeps the draperies attached to the traverse tracks and drapery rods. Without this invention the draperies would fall down. The invention adds to the ease in which people everywhere can install their own draperies. Draperies add insulation to homes and business and also insure privacy and have esthetic appeal. The drapery hook helps people install this type of rudimentary insulation without the time consuming and labour intensive use of seamstresses and sewing machines. Insulating homes and businesses cuts down on electric bills and reduces global warming.I think it is important to know who invented the non-sew-on drapery hook (pin-in drapery hook) that person is James William McGhee. I have the original patents from US and Canada and some advertising material from the original company for cross reference material.

Mjmcghee

I would consider that a product used in tens of millions of homes and business worldwide a notable product. A product that adds to the security, esthetics, and overall comfort of everyday life by giving people a way to hang their draperies is a valuable and useful product. Whoever invented this product would be of interest to people that are studying issues as varied as the industrial revolution to ways we can better insulate our homes though the use of draperies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmcghee (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 April 2007

We need at least the patent numbers in the article. They could go at the bottom in a "Patents" section. If you have one of the actual pins , you could scan or photograph it and add that. Drapery pins such as [1] look pretty obvious, so it is surprising someone wasn't making them hundreds of years ago. Edison 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

United States Patent number 1521030 dated 1924 I scanned this in and uploaded the file 4-30-07. copy of patent number 246361 dated 1927 Dominion of Canada I scanned this in and uploaded 4-30-07 along with detailed drawings. He also invented the bending machines and needle pin sharpening machines this technology wasn’t around hundreds of years before, only at the turn of the last century. Mjmcghee

I agree the product is clever and important, and I've used a bunch of them myself. But "notable" is here a wikipedia term of art, meaning supported by significant secondary sources. Since I can't find anything about the subject in books or online articles, I suspect your inventor relative doesn't rise to the bar of wikipedia notability, and since I can't get you to address the issue I have gone ahead and listed the article for deletion; might as well get it over with, rather than spend a lot more effort that will eventually be tossed out. Dicklyon 03:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to disturb your reality with more reference facts from the US patent office patent number 1334661, 1475306, and 1521030 all accessible on-line. There are also quite a few patents for the machines that bend and sharpen these highly machined hooks and rings. Also Canadian Patent Database patent number 246361, another on-line source Mjmcghee

[edit] Still no references

The article is still unreferenced. Apparently there are no secondary sources about the subject, as all the editor can point to are his patents. If some refs don't get found and added, should we nominate it for deletion again? Dicklyon 05:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-notable

I still don't think this case is notable, but I added the cite in case anyone wants to go to the case and read it and add to the article.

  • I looked it up, or tried to, in Chisum on Patents. For those of you who don't do or plan to do patent law for a living, Chisum is the leading secondary authority (i.e., not a primary authority like the statute or court cases themselves) on United States patent law. It's 17 volumes long and is an extensive discussion of almost all important points of patent law. This case is never mentioned.
  • A google search of the case name, in various forms, only turns up this article. In fact, that's how I initially tried to find the case citation, and was surprised to find such a dry hole. The only way I could get the case cite was to look up the patent number in Shepherd's.
  • A google search for the citation turns up nothing. This is pretty surprising. I'd expect a few hits. This means that this case is very rarely cited; which is another way of saying it's not very notable.
  • A google scholar search for the cite turns up a single work that cites to this case, "Commercial Success as Evidence of Patentability," a 1968 law review article from the Fordham Law review. (Google scholar does have some holes, of course.)
  • In the AFD, Legis Nuntius mentioned that there was a 55-page ALR article with a single paragraph on this case.
  • As a Ninth Circuit patent case, this is not all that exciting. All patent appellate law now comes from the Federal Circuit, and before the Federal Circuit was around, from the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals for many years.

I'm not trying to re-open the AFD here, but it would be great if those who spoke up in favor of retaining the article would step up and whip it into shape if they're serious about retaining it. TJRC (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(Just to pile on a bit....)

  • Nothing in the MPEP, either.

I will also concede that some of these obscurity may be because this is an old case, and the US patent law was completely rewritten in 1952. Thus, decisions about the 1952 Act are more likely to be cited in modern legal cases and resources like the MPEP than old cases. But I'd still expect to find more cites in scholarly works, and in Chisum, which include extensive discussion of history, well before the 1952 Act. TJRC (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)