Wikidata:Property proposal/Patent Assignee
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Patent Assignee
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Not done
| Description | Patents, entity which the patent was granted |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | items |
| Example 1 | Traveling Matte (Q73425986)assigneeTechnicolor SA (Q1365773) |
| Example 2 | Enabling compression based on queue occupancy (Q116979244)assigneeIBM (Q37156) |
| Example 3 | System, method, and computer program product for generating a data storage server distribution pattern (Q116996947)assigneeVisa International Service Association (Q67008891) |
| Example 4 | Management apparatus and terminal apparatus (Q116998115)assigneeFUJI FILM Business Innovation (Q1473137) |
| Example 5 | Control method and storage medium (Q116998435)assigneeCanon Inc. (Q62621) |
Motivation
[edit]With the property "assignee", Patent project can be described in greater detail.LucaDrBiondi (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Support support the idea, it looks interesting!94.94.157.146 11:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! LucaDrBiondi (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Patents
- The description feels unclear to me "Patents, entity to which the patent is applying to". What exactly does "apply" mean here? Without knowing much about patents "entity which the patent was granted" would be more what I would expect. Separately, is there a reason that owned by (P127) doesn't do the job? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the help you gave me ChristianKl ❪✉❫, i agree with you, i like the title entity which the patent was granted. I changed the title of my proposal.
- The "official" term used in the Patent lingo is "Assegnee" and so i prefer it, but the owned by (P127) property should be fine
- How should I proceed? Are we waiting for other opinions?.
- LucaDrBiondi (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- If owned owned by (P127) does the job, it would make sense to use it instead of creating a new property. In that case it would make sense to set the status of this property to "withdrawn". ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ok! If I may, I would wait for the opinion of other interested people.
- if no one answers I can put withdrawn without any problem..
- thank you! LucaDrBiondi (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- If owned owned by (P127) does the job, it would make sense to use it instead of creating a new property. In that case it would make sense to set the status of this property to "withdrawn". ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am thinking about it. Probably "owner" does not cover everything but perhaps we can try that for a while instead of creating a new property. Owner can have start and end dates as qualifiers, right? That may be the key bit. Thank you for thinking it out. -- econterms (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Econterms Yes, owner can have start and end qualifiers. This is a complex legal situation and I don't know the details. If the patent owner is always the same as the Patent Assignee we don't need a new property. If there are however cases where there's no difference it would be useful to have two properties and such good to know examples of where the two differ. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl I think "owner" is good for now. Thank you for paying attention to getting it right. The first owner is the inventor, who can "assign" it but this is basically selling it, and it can be resold. A patent is "intellectual property." So we can document the patent-specific language but until someone sees a substantive problem we don't need another Wikidata property to meet our goal of basic accuracy. Thank you, @LucaDrBiondi, for proposing this so we could figure it out together. -- econterms (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- thanks to all ...i am using the owned by property. LucaDrBiondi (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl I think "owner" is good for now. Thank you for paying attention to getting it right. The first owner is the inventor, who can "assign" it but this is basically selling it, and it can be resold. A patent is "intellectual property." So we can document the patent-specific language but until someone sees a substantive problem we don't need another Wikidata property to meet our goal of basic accuracy. Thank you, @LucaDrBiondi, for proposing this so we could figure it out together. -- econterms (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Econterms Yes, owner can have start and end qualifiers. This is a complex legal situation and I don't know the details. If the patent owner is always the same as the Patent Assignee we don't need a new property. If there are however cases where there's no difference it would be useful to have two properties and such good to know examples of where the two differ. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Econterms, LucaDrBiondi:
Not done the discussion came to the conclusion that owned by (P127) does the job. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 00:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you all guys for helping me with your opinions! @ChristianKl @Econterms
- Can i ask you how could i add also the abstract of the patent. An asbtract is a brief descrition of the patent, a bunch of lines.
- I am not sure if i will do this task but should be nice do it.
- There is a property i can use actually?
- thanks you for your help! LucaDrBiondi (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- The abstract isn't really structured data, so there's no property for storing such information. Storing patents in WikiSource might be a way to have such information in Wikimedia. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
