Template:Did you know nominations/Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 09:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.[edit]

(

)

... that software functions that are "locked" and disabled still infringe on patent protection laws?

Created/expanded by Dc.to.daylight (talk). Nominated by Kevinkgong (talk) at 04:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs to use name of article, so I suggest as an alternative:

ALT1: ... that it was decided in Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp. that software functions that are "locked" and disabled may still infringe on patent protection laws? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianwc (talk • contribs) 21:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that there is no such rule. The name of the article does not necessarily have to be displayed. Having it piped as in the original hook is perfectly acceptable; as a matter of fact, the rules say that "many hooks are better when the link is piped". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. That's good to know, but it makes the very first thing stated re format on the DYK page a little confusing/misleading. It states, "The title of the new article must be in bold and linked to the new article." If your interpretation is correct, then that should be changed to "The title of the new article, if it is used, must be in bold and linked to the new article." and then something further said about the piped link being in bold would probably need to be added. Brianwc (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for pointing it out. I've tweaked the rule. (And I've hidden this discussion since the presence of a discussion may tend to discourage reviewers.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Unhiding the discussion (from "Note that there is no such rule" to just above this comment), because otherwise the statement that the name of article must be used remains unchallenged. I'm leaving the alternative, now labeled ALT1 for clarity, and am calling for a reviewer below. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer needed for this nomination. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to approve the ALT1 because the first hook makes it sound like it is an empirical fact while the ALT makes it more clear that this was a court decision (though I would prefer finding a way to sneak exactly which court made the decision into the hook for even more clarity). Apart from the hook, the article passes the newness and length criteria, is well-referenced (including the hook) and shows no obvious signs of plagiarism or close-paraphrasing. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)