[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[Ray Saintonge]

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