Talk:3Com 3c509

Patent

I have deleted the following section per

WP:PRIMARY

:

U.S. Patents: U.S. patent 5,307,459 with priority date 1992-07-28.

The patent describes a method where a data transfer counter triggers a threshold logic that generates an early indication or interrupt signal before the transfer is completed. The adapter also writes timing information into status registers such that a device driver can optimize for any latency.^[1]

References

^ <U.S. patent 5,307,459

A patent is inherently a primary source. Patents are not drafted ("described") by the USPTO (or by any patent office), but by the patent applicant (or its patent agent/attorney). In the present case, there must at least be a secondary source establishing the link between that particular patent and the "3Com 3c509" network card model. Where is the link? How can we verify this? Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link can be established by reading the article and taking a look at the Image:3ComEtherlinkIII.jpg which has a big text sign on it "U.S. Patents: 5,307,459". And the text describes what the USPTO patent is about, which is in fact innovative. Therefore the mentioning of it. Bytesock (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, but, in my opinion, the text on the network card itself does not justify a complete section entitled "Patents". The inscription merely constitutes a claim that the card was somehow covered by the patent. Is there any secondary source discussing that particular patent and its link to the network card? --Edcolins (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the patent it's obvious that 3Com were on to something smart. Thus the importance of mentioning it. And a reason why the competition might had a hard time. If you have done any technical computer communication design this ought to be obvious. Bytesock (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that any person or company who applies for a patent typically believes they are "on to something smart". Otherwise, they wouldn't apply for a patent in the first place, would they? The issue is about inclusion into Wikipedia, and here we have a problem. The section "Patents" focuses on a particular patent, without any secondary source confirming that there is actually a link between the patent and the network card, beyond 3Com's claim –a primary source– that there is one. We ought to be much more careful. To me, the inclusion of the "Patents" section violates Wikipedia:No original research. --Edcolins (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edcolins invited me to review the patent sections. It looks OK to me. You could certainly make the point about primary sources and original research, but the fact that the patent number is printed on the card and that the description in the article merely summarizes the patent abstract tells me that the section is appropriate for encyclopedia inclusion.--Nowa (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nowa! I won't insist on removing the section, then. --Edcolins (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EtherSeries, EtherLink, EtherShare and other 3Com products in this lineage

Jamplevia (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] <U.S. patent 5,307,459

[1]