Talk:Inventor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am currently translating from French to English a series of archaeologically related texts. The word "inventeur" is used to describe the finder of archaeological remains. I have one succinct source that tells me that the English word "inventor" is a legal word meaning "finder", however I am unable to find a corroborating source either in dictionaries or any document published on the Web. My instinct tells me that "inventor" could well mean "finder" in an archaeological sense, can anyone confirm this?
Contents |
[edit] Improvement drive
The article on Johann Gutenberg has been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. Come and support it with your vote!--Fenice 21:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Improvement Drive
Thomas Edison has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for this article and help improve it to featured status. --Fenice 14:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] List of inventors
Hello can someone place a list of european inventors please en their inventions. Thank you very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yoriv (talk • contribs).
- "List of inventors" article may help (nationality of each inventor mentioned), until someone creates an article with the title "List of European inventors"... if appropriate. --Edcolins 10:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dubious section
This is dubious:
- "An example of the formal patenting of an artist method/process is the patent byYves Klein on a particular shade of blue[1]. This blue color is known as "Kleinian Blue"."
The cited source [2] does not seem reliable as French patent 63471 has been granted to DAIMLER BENZ AG for "Spring-adjusting means for vehicles". [3] --Edcolins 17:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't access the french patent database. It is likely that a co-inventor is listed, Klein's pigment dealer [4] "Artist Yves Klein works with the pigment dealer, Edouard Adam, to patent International Klein Blue, which is made up of ultramarine blue suspended in synthetic resin. The colorless carrier dries to a matte finish, creating the look of raw pigment and an illusion of depth on the painted surface"
The year of the alleged patent is given variously as 1957 and 1960:" Ipthief 04:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Major cleanup needed
The structure of the article is weird. It is hard to understand the rationale behind it. The article definitely needs a major cleanup. --Edcolins 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. It is supposed to be about 'inventor' in a broader sense than 'one who is granted a patent'. Certainly the word is used in a broader sense. For instance, people make and/or do things which are inventive, but not 'useful' (e.g. artists), or inventive, but not patentable for other reasons (e.g. mathematicians). In some sense such an inventor has even an effective or actual right to prevent others from making, using, selling, since no one can make, use, or sell without in one way or another making a reference to the original inventor, at least in the minds of those who know the subject well.
- In the same way, there are also pseudo- or generalized- trademarks.
- If all of this is not important (and it may well not be), then this article could/should be replaced with a redirect to inventor (patent).
- Ipthief 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your reply. Could you clarify the section about trademarks? I have a hard time understanding this section. Is it somehow original research? --Edcolins 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, according to wikipedia :), "The term trademark is also used informally to refer to any distinguishing attribute by which an individual is readily identified, particularly the well known characteristics of celebrities. Such trademarks can be a style of haircut (Elvis Presley's distinctive ducktail), articles of clothing or accessories (Liberace's flamboyant costumes and jewelry or Elton John's oversized sunglasses), facial hair (Groucho Marx's mustache), or even breast size (Dolly Parton and Pamela Anderson)." (see Trademark). The remark on "-esque" is pretty much "just english", but see e.g. [5]
- I should remark that my first impression of this page was:
- 06:18, 25 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Inventor (try to distinguish this article from inventor (patent) if it can not be done, they should be merged.)
- 05:07, 15 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Inventor (→Co-inventor - removed major dis-information, gave correct reference)
- In other words, it was a bunch of junk and I was trying to figure out what a page about "inventor" should be about, if not "inventor" as somebody with their name on a patent. But there is already a page for that. What do you think this page should be about (if anything)?
Ipthief 06:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be a good idea IMHO. BTW, the reference to "TRIZ" in both pages is linkspam, I believe.
- A further remark: I don't think the trademark page has it right. Dolly Parton's breasts are not trademarks. They are distingishing characteristics, (Purdue Chickens were refered to as "dolly parton" chickens, because they shared the distinguishing characteristic, not becaused they were named by, for, or with the authorization of dolly parton) but not trademarks. One can have big breasts without evoking dolly parton, or in any way "infringing" on Dolly Parton. The same is not true of "rothkoesque"(say),there is one and only one person due the attribution of having created the concept of floating squares in a color field. Rothko owns the (generalized)trademark on this,same with rubenesque, rube-goldbergesque, or whatever. Artists would typically not claim that their work is "rothkoesque" even though it might be, since they are presumed to want to have an individual name, be distinctive. One is more likely to seek the appelation of being "non-rothkoesque", since at least that is a distiquishing characteristic. There is a "common sense" if not "common law" trademark concept. Perhaps the same is true for an "invention". But it can as well be discussed under "invention" rather than "inventor". "inventor" would only be needed if it were important or illustrative to discuss the class of persons properly described by "inventor" in that sense but not in the patent sense, or both sense but for different reasons.
Ipthief 08:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Ipthief 16:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC) (amendment)
[edit] removed section
I removed the sentence
'Inventors would probable not disclose their inventions or discoveries if not for patents.
per IP: 201.253.139.144
[This last statement is unsubstantiated and IMHO clearly wrong. The Free Software movement is patent proof that people are inclined to share the result of their creative processes for other reasons than economic profit. Someone please fix this.]'
If anybody thinks that it should stay please add it back otherwise it will stay like this. --- Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 04:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
