Talk:Term of patent in the United States

message: I added a mergeto tag proposing this article be merged into United States patent law because I don't think this article can really stand alone without that article.  On the other hand, this article and others may have been intentionally split off so the main article isn't overwhelmingly long; if so there's nothing on this talk page to indicate it. RJFJR (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject is certainly worth its own article IMHO. Thus, I believe merging would not be a good idea. I don't fully understand the reasoning "I don't think this article can really stand alone without that article". By the same token, one could say that the article United States patent law should be merged into United States law, etc. --Edcolins (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think that an article should have more than one little aspect of patent law and the duration should be with other parts like procedures and restrictions.  RJFJR (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether this is just "one little aspect of patent law", as you wrote, appears quite subjective to me. I personally think that it's in fact one of the most important aspects of patent law... --Edcolins (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to

message: Irrespective of the outcome of the merge question, the terminal disclaimer section has been tagged with cleanup-section for over half a decade. Does anyone have strong feelings on how to proceed? I'm almost tempted to cut it down to a small paragraph and move the rest to the talk page. Bacchiad (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to clean up this section to keep only the content that is properly supported by reliable sources. That would indeed be a very good idea... --Edcolins (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: What do we do about terminal disclaimer

message: I suggest merging the content of Patent term adjustment into the section "Adjustments possible under current law" of Term of patent in the United States, if everything is not already in that section... --Edcolins (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea. There's some cleanup needed in the "adjustments" section to make it more concise, but it should all fit in a single article quite nicely. Forbes72 (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and merged it. Forbes72 (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Edcolins (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Patent term adjustment]] 

message: The article lede (correctly) distinguishes between the term of patents filed before June 8, 1995, and that of those filed on or after that date. However, since the old term was only 17 years, and it has been more than 22 years since the law changed, it seems unlikely that there are still valid patents that were issued under the old scheme. Accordingly, it seems odd to refer to the old scheme as part of "current patent law." I recommend that the reference to the old system is reworded as a historical reference, and potentially moved out of the lede. 209.165.166.193 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: yep. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove reference to pre-1995 patents in lede?