Talk:Mark Lemley
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 27 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kylabutler.
Above undated message substituted from
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mark Lemley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201225710/http://www.law.stanford.edu/directory/profile/38/ to http://www.law.stanford.edu/directory/profile/38/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
{{source check- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Third-party sources?
Mark Lemley is probably the most influential, and at least most-cited, IP professor active today. Why is it that this article is so deeply dependent on sources from or affiliated with the article subject himself?
Of the fifteen cites in the article, ten of them are to affiliated sources:
- his archived Stanford bio (1 cite);
- his law firm bio (2 cites);
- another Stanford bio (4 cites);
- his resume (1 cite); and
- his SIEPR bio, also at Stanford (1 cite).
Surely someone other than Lemley is talking about him. Why is there such a reliance on affiliated sources? Where are the
]Removed "Publications" subsection
The second of my edits to this article today removed a subsection about an oft-cited article co-written by Mark Lemley. The edit was poorly written, not in compliance with the spirit of Wikipedia's
- The subsection's title was just the title of Lemley and Doug Lichtman's article, Rethinking Patent Law's Presumption of Validity. That's no good. It contains no context explaining for the layperson what they're about to read, it wasn't italicized, the article's title wasn't in the subsection's actual text, and there's no apparent reason this information needed to be in its own subsection apart from the top section "Publications."
- The section congratulated Lemley and Lichtman for publishing "one of the most cited IP Law articles in the last ten years." According to the source, that is incorrect: Rethinking was one of the most-cited articles between 2005 and 2009, which is not the last ten years nor is it a ten-year period.
- The citation incorrectly credited Stanford law professor (and that blog's owner) Lisa Larrimore Ouellette as the post's writer. It was written by University of San Diego law professor Ted Sichelman.
- Several basic writing errors. The phrase "most cited" was missing a dash, the unencyclopedic shorthand "IP Law" with a grammatically-incorrect capitalization was used, the second sentence's use of the words "task" and "tasks" was redundant, etc.
- The biggest issue is enough that this whole subsection has to go. This congratulatory to Lemley and Lichtman was for an article that was the 17th most-cited article in that time period. That's undeniably an accomplishment but why in the world are we only spotlighting #17 when Lemley co-wrote the articles ranked #2, #3, and #6? For that matter, why mention anything but Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding? On the list of most-cited articles between 2005 and 2009 it was far-and-away #1 and it was written by Lemley alone. We're trying to show that he's just about the most frequently-cited expert in this topic and we skipped #1, a sole credit, for #17, a co-credit. Why?
This was added by