Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:36, 21 September 2007

Mousepad received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

1

BLP Warning

Allegations of plagiarism may be in violation of wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. If you post, or revert the removal of, such allegations of plagiarism, you may be blocked or banned from editing. Complaints may also be made to your Internet Service Provider. Please try to keep Misplaced Pages free of potentially libelous information. Thank you.

Please note that this is not an attempt at censoring any editor. Disputing or debating who invented the mousepad is not forbidden. It only becomes a problem when allegations are made that could potentially bring lawsuits against Misplaced Pages. Sheffield Steel_stalk 17:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

When a defence statements are made in behalf of Mr. Fernandez who invented, named and documented the mousepad, defence statements are removed, deleted, labeled. If that is not censorship by the supervisors. Then what is?

See here: http://www.priorartdatabase.com/IPCOM/000024222/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.134.143 (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has removed the document you are referring to. It is in the article, including a full quotation of the content. The article says neither more than or less than the disclosure statement. Nothing more than that will be allowed without another source. How are you failing to understand this simple point? GDallimore (Talk) 12:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true, the article, in contradiction to the contents of the refered documents, seek to defame Mr. Fernandez and give full credit of inventorship of the mousepad to Kelly, The reference in support of Mr. Fernandez shows that it is legal documentary, undisputable evidence. The references pushing plagiarsim of the mousepad on behalf of Kelly show that the content is nothing but plagiarism and conjecture. Yet, Mr. Fernandez is being defamed here in[REDACTED] by supervisors and editors by being called a designer of the mousepad when he has the undisputable evidence. Kelly is being falsely attributed first inventor of the mousepad on the basis of WWW article which are evidently no more than plagiarism and conjecture.

BLP concerns

I have removed text which contains violations of our WP:BLP policy, for reasons I have outlined below. Please do not re-add this text. Thank you. Sheffield Steel_stalk 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Since our anon editor is edit-warring to re-introduce this material, I have reported the incident here. I don't know what else to do. Sheffield Steel_stalk 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Another lie from SheffieldSteel. The statement plagiarism about the mousepad is not an illegal statement. The statement conjecture about the mousepad's first inventor is not an illegal statement. You remove it because you are indeed pushing plagiarism and conjecture of the mousepad in the main article and the only way you can get away with it is through your censorship of the article, of the discussions and of the RFC. You are obviously in violation of the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the press to push your personal plagiarism and conjectures here in wikipedia. Typical of tyrants, bullies and plagiarism pushers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.134.143 (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I have just opened an RFC on the issue concerning the inventor of the mousepad. There is one editor that contests who invented the mousepad, with this addition. However, the following information is still uncited:

• "This is contradictory" doesn't indicate or elaborate on the contradiction.
• The claim that the term mousepad wasn't popular before the 1979 release, and was only made popular afterwards.
• "According to Dick Lyon" doesn't have a reference. Also, such a reference needs to be from a mainstream article.
• Pang's support based on conjecture isn't cited or referenced.
• The mousepad design by Armando M. Fernandez, although is the first to be documented, is being claimed to be the first. However, this is in conflict with two other referenced in the article from mainstream articles stating that Jack Kelley was the inventor. Just because he designed a mousepad doesn't mean that it was the first one.

As you know, Misplaced Pages requires most additions to be Attributed to a reliable source. If the content cannot be verified, or if it is original research, it will be removed. --Sigma 7 18:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For a year or so I have been reverting Armando's assertions that he invented and named the mousepad. I'll defer to others to examine the cited source and anything else they can find to see if I've made a mistake in this. Dicklyon 02:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I see two sources saying that Kelley invented the mousepad in 1969, and one that says Fernandez's employer documented it ten years later. What sources are there (other than arguments on this page) that Fernandez invented it? Sheffield Steel_stalk 03:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you list the sources so we can determine if they are plagiarism or conjecture or both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.109.189 (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources are on the article page; the links to the video and to the Pang article, which is on a site we consider a reliable source. You've removed them a couple times. --Thespian 08:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of a disclosure statement

I wanted to make something clear in my recent edit about disclosure statements. When a company issues a disclosure, it is not to secure their rights to the invention in any way, it is to make the idea public. This ensures that nobody else can subsequently get a patent on the same product, but indicates that the company making the disclosure has no intention of applying for a patent themselves.

The implication is normally (although this would be OR and therefore can't go in the article) that the disclosed product was not considered sufficiently new or inventive to be worthwhile pursuing a patent for. It is also possible that the Xerox did not think that the product would be worth protecting even if it was new and inventive.

Whatever the reason for the disclosure statement, we do not know what it was and cannot make guesses within the article. GDallimore (Talk) 20:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting pro-corporate opinion and anti-individual inventor opinion you have below. You seem to intentionally leave out the fact of the right to invention form issued by corporations as a precondition for hiring an individual into a corporation. In that form corporations take over the rights of inventors, EXCEPT IN CALIFORNIA (USA). Thus in California, when an inventor has an invention, s/he, has the options of (1) not tell the corporation and apply for patent as an individual and retain all rights to the invention; (2) allowing the corporation to take over the invention and patenting it, therefore, the inventor gets a patent with the costs of the patent finaced by the corporation--here the inventor looses all rights and benefits to profits from the invention;(3)request the corporation for a release of rights to the invention back to inventor so inventor can negotiate and profit as an individual from his/her invention. However, corporations attempt to kill all three possibilities against the individual inventor when they instead choose to publish the invention proposal in a disclosure statement. An additional secondary benefit to the corporation is blocking others from attaining a patent on the invention, thus, in a future time should the invention become popular, as the Mousepad did, they can still have full access to the rights to the invention and implement it into their products without having to pay royalties to the inventor. Thus, when a company issues a disclosure, it indeed is to secure their rights to the invention with the additional benefit of not paying for the cost of attaining a patent, as happened with the Mousepad. There seems to be something illegal about this in the USA, state of California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.218.42 (talk • contribs)

Interesting thesis, Armando. I take you feel that Xerox screwed you, then, right? I've been in California and companies and IP law for a few decades myself, and never heard of anything like you describe. Dicklyon 06:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a Californian and have never heard of the law being different here from the rest of the USA. I don't see how it could be if patents are covered by federal law. Interstate commerce and all that. (p.s. I really don't see how a person could invent or patent a surface. That is, rubber pads already existed; this is just a new use for them.) Steve Dufour 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

California does have its own laws about employment agreements and what employers can require about the assignment of inventions. See Section 2870, Chapter 2 of Division 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California, or read what it says about it here. What Armando said has some partial truth to it, in that if he told his employer about an invention even though he didn't need to by law, and then they published it even though they had no rights in it, they could mess up his right to patent it. But in this case, since the only plausible context for a mouse pad was to go with a Xerox Alto mouse, it seems likely that Xerox did have rights to the invention, and the right to publish it defensively. But I'm no attorney, so just guessing. What I've never heard of is any company publishing an employee's invention that they didn't have rights to; they would get sued. Dicklyon 03:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

They don't want you to know your rights as a californian. This is the kind of stuff that you need to look into at a very personal level as it can be very risky for an employee of a corporation to know such rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.109.189 (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There are various patents issued by the U.S. Patent office which are offsprings of the mousepad first invented, first named and first documented by Mr. Armando M. Fernandez. — 67.101.109.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Optical mouse reference

I'm contesting a reference shown in the article, inserted here and later linked to a scanned copy. A couple of glances within the article doesn't show anything about mousepads, and I suspect that the article might not be related to the statement at hand. If the reference can't be confirmed (either providing a page number or a quotation), I am suggesting it be removed. --Sigma 7 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

See p.21, last paragraph in the short section titled "Design Goals," which says "...most users of ball mice use a special pad anyway to increase the friction on the ball." Dicklyon 03:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I see it. I strongly suggest adding the page number for that reference, as a single quote like that is easy to miss. --Sigma 7 02:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Dicklyon 03:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Book ref for Jack Kelley

Milestones in Computer Science and Information Technology, by Edwin D. Reilly, 2003, says "The first such pad was 'invented' by Jack Kelley, who went on to become a noted designer of furniture." He probably got it from one of the sources we already cite, so it's not really much of a confirmation. It's not clear what he intended by putting "invented" in quotes. Dicklyon 05:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the quotation marks indicate that he is repeated a quotation, or perhaps that he doesn't think the mouse pad is much of an invention. Luckily, it's not our job to solve that riddle. Either way, it's a source. Good find! Sheffield Steel_stalk 13:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP Concerns with posts by User:69.3.133.80

Sigma 7 said: "I asked for a source that claims plagiarism, not a list of pages that you believe contain or push plagiarism." This quote hits the nail on the head. I don't think that User:69.3.133.80 sees any difference between his own opinions and the truth. This would not be a problem in itself, but User:69.3.133.80 has repeatedly made accusations of plagiarism without citing any source.

Assuming Kelley is still alive, and since internet sources (and a book) link his name with the invention of the mouse pad, I think there is a good chance that people who might have contact with Kelley may come to this article, and potentially also read the discussion on the Talk page.

WP:BLP says:

• Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages.
• These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages.

Sigma 7 has asked for, and has not received, a source for the claim of plagiarism. Therefore I am removing this material from this Talk page immediately, and if it reappears, we may have to take the matter to WP:BLPN. Sheffield Steel_stalk 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

These are from the Stanford MouseSite

So I decided since we can't find much textual proof in any direction to instead look for photographic evidence of the use of mousepads during the 1970s to determine when something that we would now call a mousepad first possibly started appearing in pictures of computer work environments. As soon as I started to look for the environment, instead of the mousepad itself, I found MouseSite, a Stanford site detailing the history of the mouse. Nowhere on the site is the mousepad mentioned, however, what there *is* is photographic evidence of Englebert's time spent with the Augmentation Research Center (ARC) from the late 60s to 1974 when the funding dried up and a good many of the researchers moved to Xerox PARC. All photos were donated to Stanford by Douglas Englebert (can be found here: http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/gallery/index.html). While it can be assumed that these pictures (since they were owned by Englebert) all predate him leaving ARC in 1975, the only one that can be definitely dated just based on website information are the Kudlick photos.

• http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/gallery/slides1/mice/mice.html (note the 'circa 1968' on the 3-button mouse picture that clearly shows a mousepad)

• http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/gallery/photos/w09.html
• http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/gallery/photos/w09-2.html
• http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/gallery/photos/m14.html (third and fourth pics esp; this person, Mike Kudlick, left ARC in 1974; thus these images predate 1974, unlike the others where we only have 'early 70s' as a time frame)

There are many, many more that show partial photos with mousepads, or that show them less clearly, this was just a sampling before I decided I had enough to come back and report. These mousepads seem more similar to modern ones than the one described in Fernandez' disclosure, which was obviously made for the later optical mice over the early mice with wheels.--Thespian 07:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

None of those are mousepads. Mr. Armando M. Fernandez first inventor of the mousepad, first named the mousepad and first documented the mousepad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.109.189 (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

They look like mousepads to me. What possible justification could you have to say they are not mousepads - apart from your hysterical belief that you were the first to come up with the idea? All we have is a design document showing you designed a mousepad in the late 1970s. That document says nothing about naming it and nothing about it being the first.

Just because someone carves the shape of a car out of a piece of wood does not mean that it is a car. It is just a piece of wood carved which looks like a car. It does not function as a car, it will not take you any where on a powered engine as it is just a piece of solid carved wood.

Just because cause a person carves the shape of a woman out of stone, does not mean that it is a woman. It is just a piece of stone carved like a woman. It does not function as a woman as it cannot give you love.

In the same manner Just because a person cuts a piece of material round and puts it under the mouse which was invented and documented by Mr. Englebart, does not mean that the piece of material, wether paper, plastic or whatever is a mousepad.

Just because Jack kelly designed a console with a dual tray for Mr. Englebart's purpose does not mean that Jack Kelly was first to invent the mousepad.

A mousepad to be a mousepad must function as a mousepad which is clearly defined by Mr. Fernandez's invention as published below. Mr. fernandez's invention has been the foundational invention of the mousepad. If in doubt look at Everglide's Archtype mousepad. Mr. Fernandez's foundational invention has been the one after which all conventional mousepad have been paterned. Armando M. Fernandez was first to invent, first to named and first to document the mousepad. See: http://www.priorartdatabase.com/IPCOM/000024222/

Here, we have evidence of a thing that looks like a mousepad being earlier than your designs. I'm going to look up the OED to see what I can find about the first use of the term.

Here you are correct in that the thing looks like a mousepad, but it is not a mousepad. Just as a sheet of paper looks like a mousepad but it is not a mousepad.

For everyone except Fernandez: as a patent attorney, I have seen this sort of hysteria in inventors before. People who are convinced that they came up with an idea first, and that people have stolen their idea and if only they had patented it they would be millionaires by now. Even when you show them that their idea had been thought of years before, they fnid some reason to maintain their delusion such as saying "but mine is painted pink" or "but I call mine a discombobulator not a ramjet". Finding these new sources will not appease Fernandez, but it is making the article better, so good work guys! GDallimore (Talk) 08:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm really sorry that life has done whatever it's done to you to make you need to cling to this so desperately. But those ARE mousepads. They're a pad; 'a flat surface or area', and they're under computer mice. They're mousepads, regardless of your later disclosure (not patent). There's a reason Xerox didn't do anything but publish your disclosure, and those hundreds of photos of prior art simply made the mousepad an extension of existing work, not an invention. Even if you invented it, documented it and named it as a completely new concept, in a vacuum where you were unaware of the existance of those little black circles being used under mice already (at Xerox, when most of ARC went to PARC?), it doesn't matter, because someone else also came up with it, and earlier, and there's a pile of photographic proof of it.--Thespian 08:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good find; I was looking for photos, too, but didn't look there. Pretty clearly there were a variety of mouse pads being used before 1979. I don't want to deny that Fernandez invented a useful, with a non-slip compliant surface, but for the article we do need to stick to what's verifiable; his invention was not for the optical mouse, which didn't exist yet, but for the ball mouse with optical shaft encoders. It remains an interesting open question to find who first made up or used the term "mouse pad". I bet we'll never know. Dicklyon 16:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how you use a term which Mr. Fernandez created as a name for his invention of the mousepad and falsely attribute it to an item in a picture for which there is no evidence of it functioning as a mousepad. That is called conjecture. You see an item that looks like a mousepad and you fabricate a conjecture about it. You ought to stop conjecturizing and get to the facts. The facts show that Mr. Armando M. Fernandez invented, named and documented the mousepad This template must be substituted.

You can try to redefine a mousepad. However, Mr. Fernandez provided a definition which is in harmony with his inventing, naming and documenting the mousepad.

The definition in simple terms is "A pad with a surface for enhancing the movement of a computer mouse pointer on a display."

However, the[REDACTED] editors keep deleting it. This template must be substituted.

OK. Simple question which you have refused to answer in the past. Let's focus on the naming of the mousepad. Where does http://www.priorartdatabase.com/IPCOM/000024222/ use the term "mousepad"? This document does not provide evidence that you "named" the mousepad. Where is that evidence? GDallimore (Talk) 08:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

On a more serious note, images aren't loading for me, although they did in the past. When it comes up, we can grab a small portion of the image or otherwise get a Request for permission? Of course, we don't want the page turning into a gallery but showing the progression of the mousepad history would be useful for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigma 7 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mouse pad or Mousepad

Having looked up mousepad in the OED, I have found that there should be a space in it - ie "mouse pad" not "mousepad".

Quote from OED

"mousemat chiefly Brit., a small pad over which a computer mouse is moved to produce movement of the pointer on the monitor screen. mouse pad = mousemat."

A quick google search seems to confirm that "mouse pad" is more common although, being British, I don't know because I always say "mousemat". I think the article should be moved. Any thoughts? GDallimore (Talk) 09:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What the OED claims as standard American English, and what is actually used, is often a little different, dear to my heart as they are. 6,490,000 ghits for "mousepad", 2,310,000 ghits for "mouse pad". Leave as is. --Thespian 09:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the hits for "mouse pad" include the hits for "mousepad", but not vice versa, so the numbers are meaningless. You have to look at the term that people are actually using within those hits. GDallimore (Talk) 09:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you doing it *with* the quotes? Because if you do it with the quotes, to preserve *exactly* what's between them, what you'll find is exactly what I say. Often a page will use both, but if one only uses "mousepad", it does not show up when you search for "mouse pad". Try them with the quotes, and pay attention to what is bolded in your search results. --Thespian 09:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose a move, because the current name is fine, and very popular. "Mousepad" gets way more google hits than "mouse pad". Also note that the OED didn't find the use of "special patterned mouse pad" in the cited 1982 article. Dicklyon 15:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But also note that the 1982 article uses "mouse pad" :) Anyway, I've sent that article off to the OED now to see if they will update the entry. Also, the OED suggests looking at a particular Scientific American as part of the history of the mouse.

1977 Sci. Amer. Sept. 234/2 The user makes his primary input through a typewriterlike keyboard and a pointing device called a mouse, which controls the position of an arrow on the screen as it is pushed about on the table beside the display

Anyone able to get their hands on a copy - I wasn't reading SciAm when I was three months old! Could be useful as it just predates the Armando Fernandez disclosure so might tell us some interesting things.GDallimore (Talk) 07:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review