Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:08, 6 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

== PLAGIARISM OF THE INVENTION OF THE MOUSEPAD OUGHT TO NOT BE PUSHED BY THE[REDACTED] SUPERVISORS CONTINUED...

Armando M. Fernandez invented, named and documented the mousepad.

Dicklyon--Continues to push plagiarization statements, half truths and half pictures in order to misrepresent the mousepad and its true inventor Armando M. Fernandez who invented named and documented the mousepad.

Navou--Locks the mousepad article in a state of half truths and half pictures in order to support the further pushing of plagiarism of the invention of the mousepad.

SWITCHERCAT-- Unconcientiously and harmfully reverts corrected statements about the truth of the the inventor and the history of the mousepad with the apparent intent to push plagiarism of the mousepad in wikipedia.

GDallimore--plagiarism pushing in[REDACTED] by pushing a half truth and a half picture to support erroneous statements about the mousepad while pushing plagiarism of the mousepad.

Thespian--Sometimes gets enlightened, but not totally enlightened, and falls short of fully redeeming himself about the truth and real history of the mousepad. Thus, often pushing plagiarism of the mousepad and not understanding the fallacy and errors in the false statements misattributing the invention of the mousepad to the wrong person.

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)

• Old requests for peer review