Sheldon Rampton wrote:
There *would* be a problem, however, if Wikipedia were to treat every patent application filed and accepted at the U.S. Patent Office as sufficient documentation to warrant mention in Wikipedia. All kinds of crackpot scientific theories get patented. (They probably have a whole wing just for storing blueprints of perpetual motion machines.)
Reasoning back to the lawsuits that we're discussing here, I would say that the existence of a lawsuit and court decision is akin to issuance of a patent by the U.S. Patent Office. It's an undeniable fact that the patent was issued, but until said patent is deemed noteworthy enough to be mentioned in a scientific journal, it's not significant or noteworthy or credible enough for mention in Wikipedia.
The Sept. 25, 1920 issue of "Scientific American" at page 310 included one paragraph articles for recently patented inventions of
* A shawl muffler * A gun camera * An apparatus for measuring ohmic resistance of liquids and solutions * An incandescent lamp protecting device * A seat for agricultural implements * A clod breaking agricultural implement * A stepladder * A hydrant * A sponge rubber article and method of making same * A pressure bar mechanism * A price marking system * A copy holder * A grinding tool * A combination socket wrench * A newspaper vending machine * A bearing puller * A speed operated circuit closer * A cushio9n support for large musical devices * A vaporizer * An internal combustion engine * An automatic gas controller * A railway car door * A toy book * A headlight dimmer * A cushion tire * A design for a calendar mounting * A design for a spool holder * A design for a doll
We have a lot of notable patents to write about
Ec