Talk:DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com

note on refs

Its very useful to include links in refs (not required, but very useful and generally expected). Also, instead of repeating refs, we have a way to shorthand cite them in subsequent instances. I will implement both for the decision, in a moment. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Some other comments. In general, way too much use of the decision itself as a source, In Wikipedia, this is a WP:PRIMARY and we use them very, very carefully, to avoid original research, which is not allowed in WP. Instead, we read what secondary sources have to say, and we summarize them. We are editors here, not authors. I hope that makes sense. By the way, review the relevant secondary sources also helps to determine what aspects of something, and what views on something, are the most important. This is essential to comply with the policy, WP:NPOV, specifically to avoid putting what we call "undue weight' on some aspect.... so the article should be built by a) reading the primary source (or course!); 2) reading what solid, mainstream secondary sources have to say about it; 3) mulling over those secondary sources say, and building the article based on them. You should cite secondary sources more than primary sources.

Finally - I find that the blogs patently-o and patent baristas to be super helpful as secondary sources - they are among the most read patent law blogs. ; i have not been challenged on that, so i think that is a safe way to go. I wouldn't reach for obscure blogs, or some law firm's one-off analysis. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding authoritative blogs, I would add IP Watchdog to the list. Regarding the title, you might want to go with inish-caps (i.e. DDR Holdings vs. Hotels.com) --Nowa (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

student article

i see now, this was a student article. i have held back really working this over, to let the creator finish, but I will go to work on this soon. I will gut it, because there is way too much reliance on the primary source. It is not an acceptable WP article as it stands. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could find some appropriate wp:rs to support the content instead of simply "gutting it." Not that it couldn't use a good trimming,but recognize that the student put a lot of work into this.--Nowa (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits today

Harcamone please stop what you are doing. You are constructing content by stringing WP:PRIMARY sources together. This violates Wikiepdia policy -- see WP:SYN, which is part of WP:OR. Articles need to be constructed from secondary sources, not primary ones. I've reverted what you have done so far. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog Hi, we are doing a school project and I am the second editor on this. I need to show the edits I have done and I am working on completing the article by tomorrow. Please stop editing out my work and wait until I can properly complete my assignment. Thanks. Harcaome

I am sorry but that is cart before the horse. Please tell your professor that Wikipedia does not exist so that students can get grades, and that this is an abuse of Wikipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists for anyone to edit for any reason as long as the edits are consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. That being said, Jytog is right. Harcaomone, you must base content on secondary sources, not primary ones. Furthermore, no one is going to wait while you get an assignment done. You need to decide on your edits before you enter them.--Nowa (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

How it works

PraeceptorIP This section was pretty much all WP:OR which we don't do in Wikipedia, so i removed it. Please do read WP:OR and let me know your thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. I will revise and nothing will be in it that is not supported by a reference to a published source, preferably Internet, that said whatever it is that I state. Will that be OK? (PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC))

PraeceptorIP not sure if the ping went thru to you, but I also left a message on my talk page for you about this. Bgwhite (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

secondary sources are what you want - please don't read the patent and interpret it yourself. also please keep WP:WEIGHT in mind with regard to the whole article. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Loss of page citations

The original author (although not the principal editor) of this article was User:Dawgwoof bearrawr. March 1, 2015. He referenced in footnotes a number of factual statements and quotations from the court's opinion to the pages of 773 F.3d at which the fact or quotation was stated or set out. (It is standard legal practice to give that information, not just Bluebook style but in all legal writings, including court opinions.)

Later, on March 1, the editor User:jytdog, presumably meaning well, converted the footnote citations to AWB style, that is, a b c d e f... all the way to ad, ae, af. (See fn 2 of the revised version). In doing this, the editor, doubtless inadvertently and well meaning, destroyed all of the page cites to the specific pages that supported the author's assertions and quotations.

This made it pretty much impossible for a reader to check the veracity of the author's assertions or accuracy of the quotes or find amplifying material in the opinion concerning what the article asserted at the points in question. This apparently is what happens when you convert from normal legal citation style (giving specific page cites) to AWB style (which masses all pages together).

As I understand it (having been so informed), this conversion will occur whenever an article acquires at least one ref name citation. (That can occur if any passer-by inserts such a reference.) It occurs as well, of course, if an editor undertakes to change the citation style, as happened in this case. Unfortunately, this undoes a lot of valuable work and removes substantive content from the article. It makes the article worse.

I would like to try to find a way to avoid this happening. In discussing it with User:GregJackP, the analogy of robots.txt occurred. This is a line of code that causes bots such as Google's to refrain from processing a webpage that has that metatag (as explained in the WP article on robots.txt). A notice such as {{BBstyle together with appropriate code might do this. There may be better ways to address this.

The MOS recognizes the propriety of using Bluebook style (which includes use of specific page cites) for legal articles. There is a good reason for giving specific page cites. And not using them greatly lowers the value of the article. I would like to discuss a way to fix this problem on this Talk page or another as appropriate. (My concern is limited to pages discussing US law, particularly cases. What I have said above is not meant to apply more widely.)

PraeceptorIP (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

the refs that cite decisions now have all links to the decisions and using the "find" function on a browser it is dead simple to verify things now. the claim that it is more difficult to VERIFY is not accurate. I've noticed that there is a general effort to convert articles about court cases to bluebook style. While being BOLD is great in WP, making this kind of systemic change is something that should be discussed at a relevant project board before implementing. Jytdog (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

So why did you not discuss it at WP:LAW prior to your changing the citation style? The original author was using a mix of Bluebook and something else, note the use of Bluebook "signals" such as "see," "see e.g.," and the like. If you are going to complain that this needs to be discussed, perhaps you should have applied that standard to your own actions. GregJackP Boomer! 16:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

So,using the "find" function on a browser - what if the reader is at a law library trying to look it up in the actual reporter? You just sent him to the wrong page... GregJackP Boomer! 17:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Footnote 3 now contains about 20 incorrect page citations, thanks to your edit, Jt. A reader has no way to know that they are incorrect (until she tries to look the point up and finds out there is a mistake). It is no answer to an objection to your incorrect presentation of data to say the reader should use the "find" function on a browser to find the correct answer for the misstated information.

Is it the fact that the "systematic change" you accuse about is occurring in articles originally in BB style because the original author used that style or in articles where the principal editor uses BB style (WP recognizes principal editor choice of style as appropriate)? (Just asking to keep up the friendly dialogue. :-)    ) PraeceptorIP (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Jesus, what the hell did you do Jyt? Do you know that you eliminated a huge number of precise, pinpoint citations that directed the reader to the exact spot (i.e., page) of the information that was being cited? If you are not competent in handling legal citations, leave them alone! Contact me or someone else who knows what they are doing if you have a concern. Now we've got to go in and undo the mess that you've created because of your lack of familiarity with Bluebook. GregJackP Boomer! 16:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• My response to PraeceptorIP is about the implementing-bluebook-across-many-articles activity, which is systemic and is the kind of change that should be discussed at a project page before implementing. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It was already Bluebook. I'm fixing what you, I'm sure with good intentions, have messed up. If you are going to change the citation style, discuss it first. Second, make sure that your changes are accurate and don't send people to the wrong page—it makes it difficult to verify. Third, if you need help with Bluebook cites, ask someone. GregJackP Boomer! 17:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

since you are avoiding the actual topic, I will just do it myself. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do. When you do so, please make sure and explain how you mis-cited DDR Holdings, showing that every quote came from page 1259 of the case. It is plain error, as if you had cited "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." to page 54 instead of page 3 (where it actually appears). This is a discussion over the material that is in the article, that you changed, and the efforts that are going to have to be expended to fix the mistakes that you have made. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 19:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@PraeceptorIP: Thanks for starting this discussion here, and working with others to improve the references in this article.

Although there are many citation styles, there is no "AWB style" of referencing. AWB general fixes do many things, including two for references that are generally considered helpful:

1. "Imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles" by combining references in an article where some of the references are already combined. Now that the references in this article are uncombined, AWB won't do this.
2. "Fixing errors in citation coding" either automatically or by alerting editors to things like unbalanced parentheses which need to be fixed manually.

Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that the issue is that AWB will come in after an editor has inserted a named ref in error (i.e., they were not following the existing citation style, and then an AWB bot comes in and names all of the refs. Then one of us have to come in and manually fix each citation. So most of us just assume that it making an AWB style. Anyway, thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 04:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about some commentary

I have a question about some of the commentary quoted in the "Commentary" section. Some of the statements are relevant and informative (e.g. Quinn) but others are vacuous and seem not to add anything to the article. I wonder if they should be deleted.

I can see why Crouch and Quinn should be quoted, because they make substantive legal comments about the case; Borella likewise.

On the other hand, for example, Michelle Holoubek in the Law360 blog says, "Future cases will determine whether the DDR decision gains traction within the patent community." That seems to be a meaningless remark (never mind the cliche about traction). She just dilutes what Crouch and Quinn say.

Steifel's "Plainly, DDR will not be the final word on software patent eligibility." is another remark that IMHO could just as well be forgotten.

No need for hurry to delete, but what do others think? Is there any point in including these commentators' remarks? I would stick with just Crouch, Quinn, and Borella. But what is the consensus?

PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur. GregJackP Boomer! 22:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverting wholesale edits made by unregistered editor without first discussing issues on Talk page.

I have undone a wholesale edit of this article that unregistered editor PTOtalk made without first discussing issues on this Talk page. The unregistered editor is new to this part of WP, has no previous contribs listed, has no user page, and has unknown credentials. The prior edits of this article were made by quite a number of experienced WP editors, most or all of whom are lawyers and/or patent lawyers. The prior edits reflect a consensus judgment, although it probably did not satisfy all of us in all details.

The new edits of PTOtalk are not all of them bad, although I think some are bad (I think it is silly, for example, to change judgment as a matter of law to JMOL in WP, because many WP readers will not know what that means--at least not unless an explanatory footnote is dropped). It is just that these edits are wholesale and without discussion. What I would like to see here, instead, is a point by point discussion (preferably polite) on this Talk page with an explanation of each of the many, many changes--bad and good. Then they can be discussed and then accepted or rejected on a consensus basis. Many may be unexceptionable.

I respectfully urge, also, that PTOtalk register and create a user page that gives some idea of his/her background, so that we know where he/she is coming from. A little more diffidence in the future might be appropriate, too.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think your point on first discussing wholesale edits is good. I respectfully disagree that any user should put forth credentials for editing this or any other article. The content of articles should reflect the content of the sources. There is no need for any editor to have any credentials (e.g. lawyer, patent attorney, etc.)Nowa (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)