Talk:DigitalEurope

Sources and facts

Can anyone cite a source for this:

For example, when asked at a meeting of Conservative-group MEPs in Brussels on 2004-11-09 whether he would class as a "software patent" a patent application for running a new software algorithm on a computer, which would calculate square roots more quickly, (ie the UK case "Gale's Application"), Mr. MacGann said that he was unable to answer.

It shouldn't in the article otherwise. Furthermore, the view that EICTA's construction of the expression "software patent" is narrow is actually very subjective, since there is no universal agreed definition of the expression. I removed both paragraph. --Edcolins 20:08, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ed, are you seriously contending that a definition of "software patent" which excludes "Gale's Application" isn't narrow?

Can you give an example of any definition which would be narrower than this?

As for the paraphrase, you can source it to me (j.heald at ffii.org.uk). I was there, I asked the question. If you doubt me, you could ask Florian Mueller (NoSoftwarePatents), Erik Josefsson (FFII), David Martin (M-CAM), Mark MacGann (EICTA), Tim Frain (Nokia) or Leo Baumann (EICTA) who were the panellists -- or 30 or so MEPs and assistants who were present. The question was later again put to Mr MacGann by Piia-Noori Kauppi MEP who was chairing the meeting. EICTA had said that unanimously they were against Software Patents. Did that mean they would be against an application like "Gale's Application" being patented. No answer.

I've added the words "according to anti-swpat activists" to the paragraph to clarify.

As you have extensively made the point, the term "software patent" is used by different people to mean different things. If you're going to include a quote that includes the term, it is responsible to give some indication of what the speaker means by it. (Jheald)

"Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources)" (No original research). On the one hand, you are acknowledging that you were on the meeting, on the other hand I can't find any primary sources (preferably independent news web sites or the like, but not just a blog). Unless you can point out some external sources, I do not think what you added complies with wikipedia's secondary source policy.

As for the narrow definition, I reworded it. The tricky thing is that EICTA does not explicitly defines the expression "software patent" and is scarcely used by them. Have they defined the expression "software patent" anywhere? --Edcolins 22:18, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

technical not defined

The term "technical" is not defined in the Commission and Council versions of above-mentioned directive, however.

Technical contribution is defined.

---

"Technical contribution" is defined as a "contribution in a field of technology", so that doesn't really help much without a definition of "technical" or "technology". Additionally, that definition continues:

The technical contribution shall be assessed by consideration of the difference between the state of the art and the scope of the patent claim considered as a whole, which must comprise technical features, irrespective of whether or not these are accompanied by non-technical features.

This means that "the scope of the patent claim considered as a whole" must comprise technical features, but that the technical contribution itself does not have to be technical (regardless of what (non-)definition of technical you use). E.g., suppose the claim as a whole is "a computer executing program that does X, where X is a novel and non-obvious algorithm applied to processing text", then the difference between the state of the art (a computer) and and the patent claim considered as a whole is "a program that does X". This will then be the "technical contribution", even though even the EPO considers processing text not technical. It's valid because the claims as a whole still contain technical features (the computer).

-- Jonas Maebe

Copyright violation?

Recent edits remade the lead to be a near copy of 2013 docs and the current official website http://member.digitaleurope.org/website/home.aspx. Some of what was there before also appears to have been copied, or at least a very close paraphrase (the 2012 statement of vision and mission are copied from http://www.digitaleurope.org/Ourwork.aspx). So I took it out and replace it with a copyvio tag as suggested at Template:Copyvio and WP:Copyright problems#Instructions. If someone knows of a suitable license from the originator we can put it back. Or someone can rewrite it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Both the old and the new copied parts were put in by users with digitaleurope in their user names, so they may be attempting to represent the organization. If so, they should be able to get the organization to provide the required license, perhaps. Dicklyon (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DigitalEurope. 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/20141129030756/http://www.ce.org/News/News-Releases/Press-Releases/2012-Press-Releases/GLOBAL-INDUSTRY-APPROVES-REVISION-OF-SUPPLY-CHAIN.aspx to http://www.ce.org/News/News-Releases/Press-Releases/2012-Press-Releases/GLOBAL-INDUSTRY-APPROVES-REVISION-OF-SUPPLY-CHAIN.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)