Talk:Software patents under United Kingdom patent law

message: Bugger. The UKPO have upated their website and everything has moved, so none of the links that went to the UKPO website work any more.
I'm working on trying to find where certain things have gone, but really need to update my firm's internal website first! In the meantime, if anyone else can track down the missing pieces of info, some serious link-updating is in order.
GDallimore 12:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Patent Office website 

message: There has been a tendency on this page for unregistered people to add links to Macrossan's webpage. User:Law Guy has just added the link as well, in addition to trying to minimise the negative view of the application expressed by the EPO and the UK Courts - e.g. incorrect reference to TRIPS that I have also edited. It is interesting that Law Guy's contributions so far consist only of things that advertise Macrossan.
Unless someone can give me a good reason why a link to Macrossan's website would benefit this article, I will continue to remove the links.
Looking at the guidelines
What you should link to
Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
This is not an article about Macrossan or his products
Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
The site contains information that is of passing interest to anyone interested in the Macrossan case, but includes no content that can add to an understanding of the issues that are central to the article. Therefore, I do not think it contains relevant content.
Links that should be avoided
Links mainly intended to promote a website
True in this case, I think
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject
Again, true, I think, for the reasons mentioned above concerning the relevance of the link to the issues at question.
GDallimore 10:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Macrossan webpage 

message: The article so far contains lots of information that I KNOW is supported by the relevant case law, but only someone who has read all that case law will be aware of that. As a consequence, I can see many apparent assertions where your average reader would just go  to. I therefore think it might be a good idea to start including ref tags highlighting specific paragraphs of the case law that supports some of the assertions made in the article.
Anyone got any thoughts on whether this would indeed be a useful thing to do (before I start!), as it would be a huge undertaking!
What else should this article be doing if we want to get it to featured status? :)
GDallimore 10:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding References - Improving the article 

message: I have been unable to track down online versions of the Court of Appeal judgments in Gale and Merrill Lynch. Does anyone know if they're available anywhere?
Failing that, I have copies from the RPC which I can scan in as PDFs and upload to the commons. The question is, and I'm embarrassed to have to ask, what would be the copyright status of such documents? Please help. These are vital decisions for the history behind this article! GDallimore 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copies of Gale's application and Merrill Lynch's application 

message: I've removed two paragraphs from this section because they discuss what might be the case, i.e. an original synthesis - see WP:SYN. (I've actually commented them out, in case they're salvageable.) Wikipedia cannot speculate or express an opinion of its own, because that is original research, which is forbidden by policy. If secondary sources are available that express such opinions, and we want to make use of them, they must be cited as such, not merely reproduced here with the implication that those opinions are simply true. Hairy Dude (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The last paragraph of the section "Menashe v William Hill" is also possibly original research. If this example was used in reasoning in court, or was provided by a secondary source as an analogy, it should be cited as such. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research under "Fujitsu's Application"