Talk:Jerome H. Lemelson

message: I was a personal friend of Jerry.  If inventing like he did is so easy, why don't his detractors try doing it?
An example of my experience:  When we approached a company that copied and was selling our patented item  their lawyer said to us. "We're not going to pay you for the past two years we've profited from your invention.  And we'll only pay you 1/3 of normal royalties.  And if you don't like it you can go to court with us for the next ten years."  Well what do you think we did?  We settled.  That's what big companies do to inventors. Jerry had the guts to stick it to them.  Most of the big companies believe in "NIH", don't you know.  That means "NOT INVENTED HERE".  It means they refuse to pay a royalty and will try anything including paying off judges, which happened to Jerry with regard to one of his inventions. And they can also "get to" the Patent Office Personel. -- unsigned edit by 
:Cool story, bro.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.248.93 (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  In defense of Jerry, and he doesn't need any. 

message: Hi! Please could you be more specific with respect to what needs cleanup in this article. I'd like to help. Cheers. --Edcolins 06:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleanup done. Thank you. --Edcolins 18:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks better. Thanks! Cwolfsheep 11:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup request 

message: I made a few edits to restore some balance to this story.
In particular, I corrected an incorrect quote from the CAFC appeal ruling (04-1451) that had said
"a pattern of unjustifiably delayed prosecution"  which does not appear at all in the judge's ruling to "unreasonably long … delays in prosecution," which is what the ruling actually says.  I abbreviated the sentence to fit the context. The complete sentence from the ruling says, "Thus, all of the subject matter in the patents in suit was pending for an unreasonably long period of time, and the delays in prosecution to issuance of the asserted 76 claims applied to all of the remaining claims." Nowhere in the ruling does any form of the word "unjustifiable" appear. This was clearly inserted by someone with an axe to grind. An unreasonably long delay, may or may not be justifiable.
I also added a reference to a Strategy+Business article which attempts to place the Lemelson story in the context of the ongoing struggle between small inventors and big companies and the role of the US Patent Office in mediating that struggle. I updated the number of patents granted and attempted to remove adjectives and statements that were clearly biased in favor of more neutral ones.
74.67.180.35 03:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the controversy over the hundreds of millions he made over the machine vision patents is understandable, the fact that he made many millions more in legitimate, uncontested licenses with a number of the world’s most successful companies including IBM and Sony, among others, lends credence to his impressive record as an inventor.
Please cite your sources. Otherwise, it sounds like pure speculation and original research, thank you. --Edcolins 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I have added the tag . I think the references may still need to be carefully verified to see if the whole sentence correctly reflects what is in the sources. I have however no time to do that right now. Cheers. --Edcolins 08:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemelson patents and controversy 

message: I removed the following recent addition because it is mostly puffery and the substantive parts are already in the article:
:The holder of more than 600 patents, Lemelson and his remarkably creative intellect touched almost ever facet of our every day lives. He received an average of one patent a month for more than 40 years — all on his own, without support from established research institutions or corporate R&D departments.  He devoted much of his life to championing the rights of the independent inventor, and to ensuring an enabling environment for invention and innovation to flourish, leading to a prosperous economy and improved lives.
I think more substantive, sourced  biographical info (schools, employment,etc) would be helpful. --agr 00:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brief Biography 

message: Ed- what do you think about separating out the patents from the controversy section. There is enough info on Lemelson's patents, separate from the legal controversy, to justify this distinction.   AS it is written now the reader could assume that all of his patents were contested or controversial, whereas only a fairly small number were the subject of litigation. Any thoughts on this appreciated! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.183.76.202 (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. It could be a good idea. Ok, but only if both positive and negative statements are removed from the section. The remaining section on patents should not be biased. --Edcolins 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating out patents and controversy 

message: The article states that Lemelson, with 600 patents, was the second most prolific American inventor after Edison. That is not correct. My grandfather, Carleton Ellis, had over 850 patents.````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.148.245 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started an article called Prolific inventors. I would like to include Carleton Ellis in this list, but can't find any references to the actual number of US Utility patents that he held. (Total number of patents is not adequate, as Design patents are not for inventions, and international patents is essentially "double counting", as they are typically for the same invention as a corresponding US patent). If you know of any such reference, please post to Talk:Prolific inventors. (It appears that Lemelson was the 16th most prolific inventor of US Utility patents. Some of the inventors are not American, so Lemelson is the 12th most prolific American inventor. Although many of these inventors are recent, Lemelson was never the second most prolific American inventor - During his time, Melvin De Groote, Francis Richards, and Elihu Thompson (and possibly Carleton Ellis, to be verified) were ahead of him) AlexBartlett4 (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous info in this article 

message: This section has no evidence that would support the argument that Lemelson was 'controversial'. Who cares what some 'journalist' at Ars Technica thinks about him? Show evidence of criticism by a similar inventor or somebody with more credit.
Also, this section was updated the day that an article about Newegg defeating a patent troll was published (as shown in the references). Lemelson is mentioned in the article by the author but, again, there is no evidence that we should care that the author of this article thinks Lemelson is a patent troll.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.191.83 (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jerome H. Lemelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050901024921/http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103 to http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aOmqPqs3330E&refer=us.
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1055043&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101111055745/http://invention.smithsonian.org//downloads/fa_cohc_tr_mauc730223.pdf to http://invention.smithsonian.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jerome H. Lemelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928120841/http://fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1451.pdf to http://fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1451.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Jerome H. Lemelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523232446/http://invention.smithsonian.org/resources/online_articles_detail.aspx?id=529 to http://invention.smithsonian.org/resources/online_articles_detail.aspx?id=529
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927011646/http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/oct04/features/downbut/downbut.html to http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/oct04/features/downbut/downbut.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011110354/http://cognex.com/pdf/corporate/Lemelson_decision.pdf to http://www.cognex.com/pdf/corporate/Lemelson_decision.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100216063102/http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/04-1451.pdf to http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/04-1451.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090827112403/http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/04-1451o.pdf to http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/04-1451o.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070418232137/http://ipmall.info/news_activities/news_rines/rines039.asp to http://ipmall.info/news_activities/news_rines/rines039.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060225150642/http://www.designnews.com/article/CA151329.html to http://www.designnews.com/article/CA151329.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050201071047/http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/careers/careerstemplate.jsp?ArticleId=i050202 to http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/careers/careerstemplate.jsp?ArticleId=i050202
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050923183748/http://www.cognex.com/corporate/lemelson/patent_king.asp to http://www.cognex.com/corporate/lemelson/patent_king.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified