text:
Talk:Software patent debate

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BoPro774.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Impossible to read so many patents
One of the criticisms raised against software patents (and patents in general), is that it is extremely expensive to have a qualified patent attorney read through all potentially relevant patents and determine if a particular piece of software infringes any of them. The use of keyword searches helps, but since inventors can be their own lexicographers, there may be critical patents missed.

Is there anyone working on automated means for determining if a given piece of software infringes a patent? Any open source efforts? If so, I think at least a mention of these efforts would be an excellent addition to this and other patent articles.--Nowa 10:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 * But how'd you write such software in a software patented world? --(ip) 16:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is still possible. This article is not about whether writing software by everyone is desirable. You can write software after you cleared the rights. Podmok 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon comment
I removed this comment:
 * NOT ALL SOFTWARE IS PATENTABLE: only software which embodies a new, useful, non-obvious invention is patentable. Lumping all software together for a discussion of patents is similar to racism: because software is computer code it "all looks the same." Under law, an invention is only patentable when it is non-obvious or lacks an inventive step. If an invention exists but it is an obvious improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art, it can still be protected as a trade secret. If no software is patentable (and thus the idea will not become public), it may stifle innovation more than buying a license under a patent. - User talk:68.77.170.34

as it is more commentary than encyclopedic writing. -- Trödel 20:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Still this comment has a point. Part of the problem of "software patents" is that they do not form an unambiguous category. Hence the directive proposed by the EU referred to "computer implemented inventions", but that is not a proper category either, since basically it does not matter whether a particular invention is implemented in software or otherwise, e.g. in a hardwired circuit.

I wonder how I could write this issue without being blamed for publishing "new research". In one way or another, the huge variety of "software patents" ought to be addressed, if only in view of the many positions.

Anyway, the article is called "debate", which may leave room for other opinions

It is often said that "software patents" claim exclusive rights on algorithms, but actually they have the characteristics of "problem inventions" that serve to block competition without properly disclosing a solution. Rbakels (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

keeping up to date with developments
something recent - http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061215131844340

Since the wikipedia article is not really up to date and its not really a well defined issue in regards to what software is, perhaps it should simple be removed. to use an analogy is to create an article debate as to whether or not we should have the hindu-arabic decimal system replacing the roman numeral system. Now wouldn't that be silly? Or how about whether or not the earth is the center of the universe? There was a time when it was up for debate but today we know the answer and its not an opinion, but opinions are exactly what this debate is and will remain until the facts of what software is are accepted, then there won't be a debate, nor this article. Unless its a who won what and that really would not be neutral.
 * I'm not sure I'm following your point, but I think an addition to the article referencing the groklaw article would be a good contribution. As far as whether or not articles on controversies (or debates) are appropriate for Wikipedia, there is certainly precedent.  See Evolution_debate.  I get the sense, however, that you feel that it is self evident that software should not be patentable.  Many certainly share your view.  Many others, however, equally well educated and knowledgeable, look at the same facts and come to the opposite conclusion.  Hence the fact that the debate exists and the fact that the issue is currently before the US Supreme Court.  --Nowa 03:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE ARTICLE!

 * I found this entry very useful. Together with this talk page provides a good, balanced starting point.

 * It should be noted, that the European Parliament did not ratify the proposed unified European legislation (CII) on software patents. However, maybe this is not the final word yet. --User:BruckP 1 February 2007
 * Parliament does not "ratify". The Commission proposes legislation, parliament and council may reject or amend it. Podmok 23:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 * That Groklaw article adds nothing new and The Software Freedom Law Center view is already plenty represented within the article. The view that software "cannot be a component of a patented invention" is also a very extreme view, so therefore should not be over-represented within the article. The reason I say extreme is that, if accepted, it would exclude software-controlled ABS (and other real-world physical processes performed by computer programs) from patentability, something which very few people (including the FFII) actually want to see happening (See and  for example).
 * As for the article: it's a mess and may be beyond saving, but is a useful example of how nobody agrees on anything when it comes to setting a dividing line between patentable and non-patentable when it comes to software. It's a shame the article is painted as being a black and white debate (since that falls in the hands of extremists), but hopefully any intelligent reader will still be able to glean that there are many many shades of gray. I therefore say keep the article. GDallimore 10:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A table could be helpful. Podmok 23:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I disagree, this article should stay and it should not be removed, it should be improved. The reason being is that patents in technology is on the rise especially as it relates to software. There are some interesting rulings still to be made by higher courts in the US as well as federal courts in Australia, courts in New Zealand etc. To simply say lets withdraw the article is absurd. I have no issue with providing information in the for and against debate that can be directly attributable to legal argument. Mtukaki 02:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

After taking some time to try and work around the issue, I would like to argue against the maintaining of the majority of this article, and would take the side of removal of it or recreating it using a different focus. The main problem I see is based on the topic itself being turned into a discussion forum for various soapbox attempts. This is not necessarily saying that as an article overall it is not NPOV by expressing both sides, but that the article itself has degraded into an actual debate as opposed to studying the debate itself. There is a large chunk of this article which follows this pattern

 * Software patents may affect open source and small to medium software enterprises (SMEs) that do not have a large defensive patent portfolio.
 * If SMEs are not as inventive as large corporations then society would benefit from their removal.
 * The number of patents filed is not a measure of inventiveness.
 * The value to society should not be measured by inventiveness.
 * Open source and small to medium companies might believe they are inventive in creating new ideas and software, but maybe blocked from doing so by an existing patent on one of the algorithms they desire to use, originally created another person, that ends up blocking all uses without a proper license.

This expresses both sides of the argument, but is in fact an argument itself. It is pushing forward many individual opinions for and against patents and not pulling back to the topic at large. I think this article may still have hope, but don't see large sections of "one side vs other side" as the answer. Instead I would propose that the article takes the form of studying debates and activities dealing with software patent law that has occurred in the past, with more research going towards laws that have changed due to these debates and how various countries have been influenced by the success or failures of the patent system implementations of other countries. Then again, NPOV implies that points of view on a topic should be handled in the main topic itself, and not be forked off into another, so perhaps the issue would be better summarized within the Software Patent article itself, where it may get a more concise, and less opinionated showing.Roadm (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

 * This article, at least the last (Bilski) entry, is very outdated, for example, claiming that Bilski is the last word. There have been several Sup Ct decisions since then (Mayo, Alice) and many CAFC decisions. I would suggest deleting the present Bilski subpart and replacing it with a condensation of and cross-reference to the WP article, Software patents under United States patent law, which at least goes up through 2914 and covers the territory better.

 * That would greatly improve this article and would just be a matter of condensing existing WP material. That would not solve all problems but it would be an incremental improvement.

 * In the alternative, you could appropriately delete the Bilski section and add a subhead Legal issues. Then just say: for a discussion of the US legal issues involving software, see the WP article Software patents under United States patent law. You could make that one bullet. Two more bullets in the same "Legal issues" subhead could refer to two further WP articles: Software patents under the European Patent Convention and Software patents under United Kingdom patent law.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Time and effort to get a patent clearance opinion on a new piece of software
The following speculation was introduced to the article by an anonymous user:

contesting all the patents purporting to apply to a single piece of software could take thousands of man-hours

I removed the speculation and others since it was unreferenced. None the less, can anyone cite a reference that provides data on what a patent clearance opinion typically costs for a significant piece of software?--Nowa 12:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

First Software patent?
The article makes the assertion that software is merely an mathematical algorithm. Does that make this 1840 patent the first "software" patent? ?--Nowa 13:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Does mathematics or algorithms qualify as software? Note that e.g. the EPC excludes software and algorithms, it is not the same.Podmok 23:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Patents cause serious harm to small companies
The article states that one of the arguments against patentability of software is "The U.S. patent system has caused serious harm to small companies in the U.S.". I put a "citation needed" on this because I wasn't sure that this was actually an argument put forward by opponents to software patents. I wasn't questioning whether or not the assertion was true, just whether or not it was part of the debate.--Nowa 11:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I think it is part of the debate, but the immediate comeback is that patents have also benefited small companies and individuals who would have been unable to compete against the big boys if said big boys had been able to rip-off the small company's innovative ideas. Where a fact tag would always belong would be on some assertion that the overall harm was greater than or more relevant than the overall benefit. Many people have opinions on such things, but nobody knows for certain. GDallimore (Talk) 11:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Small companies are often said to be more innovative, but they have less resources to exploit inventions, so they may sell their patent to a larger company (and benefit from the transaction). Admittely, this requires a court system that does not prohibit such transactions due to cost. Rbakels (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * please cite your source. The point is that the application of the patent system to a certain field must be justified by an economic rationale, not the non-application of the patent system. The reason is that the natural state is the free market. Here the patent system by its virtues restricts the free market in order to solve a problem, i.e. market failure. You reverse the burden of proof Podmok 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I think there are references available than can reflect the true nature of the failing of the patent system to protect small business, but i would suggest it is more universal that simply pondering its affects on us business. The use of business method patents which is the patenting of a process that could mean the invention of pretty much anything described in two sentances of less is an example. Real life examples could be the international banking systems. Mtukaki 02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 * It is not software specific, in general the patent system discriminates small companies, economies of scale are the main reason and prohibitive fees. I think it does not really belong to the debate. Podmok 00:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 * References are easy to find here; look for any news article on Vonage. 24.59.104.253 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
I added a.

The arguments FOR software patents are immediately followed by rebuttals. The arguments AGAINST software patents are immediately followed by explanations and elaborations.

Either rebutt in both sections, or elaborate in both sections.

I prefer the elaboration route myself, as rebuttals after each line make wikipedia look like a debaters club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcudmore (talk • contribs)

OK, we need a decision on this page. Currently it's not tolerable. Do we put rebuttals underneath arguments or not? If we do, it should be done more systematically; if we don't, there's a lot to delete. 24.59.104.253 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the rebuttals in the FOR section already exist as arguments in the AGAINST section, I suggest that all the rebuttals be rewritten that way and removed from the FOR section. If necessary the related points in opposite sections could reference each other briefly, i.e by inserting "(however, see...)" immediately after the explanation of the argument. Ecoffey 04:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved the NPOV to the sections - plese to not NPOV whole article next time!--Kozuch (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

List of software patents
The companion article to this one, listing important software patents, has just been nominated for featured list status. Please take a look, see how that article might be improved and leave comments. Let's prove that there can be at least one uncontroversial article on this topic! Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 15:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
It is not NPOV to quote the pro arguments first as it is a common media scheme to refer to the stronger party first (see news articles), that is why the article is biased. I would prefer a table, which also makes it look better. Podmok 23:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tautology
"Organizations should be able to protect their intellectual property" is a non-argument. It assumes that intellectual property exist a priori. It is illogical. There is no patent without a patent system. Podmok 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The statement may be confusing, but it is not wrong, if it is read as "if they have intellectual property, they should be able to protect it". This statement merely presumes that there may be "intellectual property", by whatever standard. But if it exists, it is not illogical to assume that it ought to be protected, if only because it may represent value. Rbakels (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding neturality to this discussion
This page is largely twisted in its view point on software patents. Clearly, for instance every positive argument should not be softened with a negative statement with every negative statement left to stand on its own. The page should not be introduced with an article that attacks patentability and is presented as a fair and neutral analysis. Statements in the negative side are largely obvious exaggerations and unsupported, such as "The U.S. patent system has caused serious harm to small companies in the U.S," (have they, or maybe they have, this statement should be softened) "without producing any real value" (what is value, maybe products would be more neutral), "it is not possible to avoid patented technology, because no mechanism for avoiding patent-related risk exists" (licensing and insurance are obvious mechanisms not mentioned), "his is in large part due to the enormous number of micro-niches in the software field and the relatively limited number of examiners" (really?  no, its due to the amount of patents being filed and the lack of funding in the USPTO right now), "Many leaders in the software industry" (really, who?  many?  how about some?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.40.175 (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article seems to have swung the other way, and is now in favor of software patents. Most pro-software-patent entries have reinforcement, while all the anti-software-patent entries have snide rebuttals. This article needs to be heavily reworked. I say remove the rebuttals from all viewpoints; let the opposite view stand on its own in the other section. Only supporting details should be listed below each entry.

Cjstone618 (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Some might say that having rebuttals for the anti-sp entries says something about the points being made, not the neutrality of the article. Of course this article's a mess. Nobody disputes that, but wholesale removal of content is not going to solve the problem. The content that is there needs sourcing. Only if it cannot be sourced should it be removed. Then the structure can be revisited. You wanna take on that job 'cause nobody else seems to have the time or inclination. GDallimore (Talk) 08:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright: need many more (reliable) sources to justify such a broad claim
Do you want sources to prove the fact (this article is not about facts) or do you want sources to prove the arguments in the debate (this is one argument in the debate).

One impressive demonstration of consequences of the imbalance of exclusive rights protection is documented in Softwarepatente: Programmierer in Sträflingskleidung (Upd.).

Gehring&Lutterbeck describe with reference to Shapiro 2000 the hold-up-problem, violating TRIPS Art 13.

Dr. Christophe Geiger emphasizes the need of balanced protection systems in the view of copyright. He proposes in 5. to view TRIPS in the light of the declaration of human rights. The cited source shows exactly that view of TRIPS.

My question is, what sort of reference do you want, to accept the reference in the article? The fact that it has a broad claim is an argument against its content, which gives to me the impression that you want to suppress this argument from the debate. The WIKI-article is about the debate "as such" (the cited sources contributes to the debate) not about the correctness of the arguments. Swen 09:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." from No_original_research Swen 09:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swen (talk • contribs)

 * It is an argument, but the previous version of the article stated it as widely accepted fact. That was the problem. It is also a common argument, so I'm not attempting to suppress it, but it's an argument from special interest groups which I rarely see supported in more reliable sources. I have tried to highlight this in the article.
 * I'm not saying this is a reliable source, but "Maths You Can't Use", which is often quoted as an anti-software patent paper/book, highlights the vast difference between patent protection and copyright and that copyright is not always sufficient. I recall that it proposes a third way as a solution to the perceived failure of both copyright and patents to adequately protect software. Others see that copyright and patents each have their part to play and that by properly defining the extent of both an appropriate middle ground can be found. None of this is in the article at present so, as a stop-gap, I made sure that the existing argument was toned down to an appropriate level to ensure NPOV. GDallimore (Talk) 09:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * The problem that copyright is not always sufficient has many aspects. "Maths you can't use" calls for a new legislative third way. "pacta sunt servanda" says that the existing legal frame has to be applied in the more general complex of existing intellectual property protection. So I see a substancial difference. To establish an other appropriate middle ground will be a long lasting process, the cii-directive beeing an example. Needed are accepted rules to apply existing legistation in the best manner now. "pacta sunt servanda" makes such a proposal somehow in line with Yu and Westkamp. Wherefore I suppose its reasonable to mention it.
 * The problem to give the article a NPOV is in my view excellently solved with the clear separation of the controverse arguments. To cite controversal arguments in a NPOV you have to cite them as they are. Thats the case. Swen 10:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To your concern about reliability: JurPC is a review publication with emphasize on "legal data processing". Its not GRUR, but in my view reliable enough. Swen 14:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swen (talk • contribs)
 * No, I disagree (with the former statement). The problems with this article and POV are best solved by saying WHO is giving what arguments. This applies to the article as a whole, but I chose the copyright section in particular as putting forward a particularly debatable claim. If you can find a peer-reviewed journal that makes the claim, then it probably wouldn't need the clarification - but you don't find much peer-reviewed stuff on this topic. GDallimore (Talk) 16:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But I remember it from the CII-debate. One prominent person is Michel Rocard who proposed:

Amendement 4, Considérant 6, "(6) La Communauté et ses États membres sont liés par l'accord sur les aspects des droits de propriété intellectuelle qui touchent au commerce (ADPIC), approuvé par la décision 94/800/CE du Conseil du 22 décembre 1994 relative à la conclusion, au nom de la Communauté européenne, pour ce qui concerne les matières relevant de ses compétences, des accords des négociations multilatérales du cycle de l'Uruguay (1986-1994). L'article 27, paragraphe 1, de l'accord sur les ADPIC dispose qu'un brevet pourra être obtenu pour toute invention, de produit ou de procédé, dans tous les domaines technologiques, à condition qu'elle soit nouvelle, qu'elle implique une activité inventive et qu'elle soit susceptible d'application industrielle. En outre, en vertu dudit article, des droits de brevet devraient pouvoir être obtenus et il devrait être possible de jouir de ces droits de brevet sans discrimination quant au domaine technologique. Ces principes devraient donc s'appliquer aux inventions contrôlées par ordinateur, sans pour autant pouvoir porter préjudice aux intérêts légitimes des auteurs de logiciels vis-à-vis de l'exploitation de leurs oeuvres, comme le stipule l'article 13 des dispositions du traité ADPIC, puisque les programmes d'ordinateurs sont protégés par les droits d'auteurs en vertu de l'article 10 de ce traité." Justification: "Il est important de bien distinguer entre le régime de protection par le brevet s'appliquant aux inventions, et le régime des droits d'auteurs s'appliquant aux logiciels. Il est juridiquement impossible, en vertu des dispositions du traité ADPIC, que le régime du brevet puisse empiéter sur des domaines où le régime des droits d'auteurs s'applique déjà." and amandment 35, article 6, "1. Les droits conférés par un brevet délivré pour une invention relevant du champ d'application de la présente directive n'affectent pas les actes autorisés en vertu des articles 5 et 6 de la directive 91/250/CEE, et notamment de ses dispositions relatives à la décompilation et à l'interopérabilité. 2. Les Etats membres veillent à ce que, lorsque le recours à une technique brevetée est nécessaire afin d'assurer la conversion des conventions utilisées dans deux systèmes ou réseaux informatiques différents, de façon à permettre entre eux la communication et l'échange de données, ce recours ne soit pas considéré comme une contrefaçon de brevet."

Justification:

"La préservation de l'interopérabilité suppose la capacité, non seulement de pouvoir le cas échéant effectuer des opérations de rétro-ingéniérie pour déterminer les caractéristiques des protocoles et interfaces de communication avec lesquelles il s'agira de communiquer, mais également de pouvoir réaliser et commercialiser effectivement de tels produits interopérables."

"L'article 6.2, autorisé par l'article 30 des dispositions du traité ADPIC, est nécessaire pour empêcher de possibles graves distorsions de la concurrence sur le marché intérieur du fait que la mise sur le marché de produits interopérables constituerait toujours une contrefaçon des revendications d'un brevet."

"Le texte de cet alinéa 6.2 est la copie conforme de l'amendement 15 d'ITRE, repris en tant qu'amendement 20 de JURI, et adopté en première lecture sous une forme légèrement modifiée en tant qu'article 9." Is that enough? --Swen 20:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The english draft document for the above french version.
 * A modified version with more implipizit TRIPS references from Rocard, Roithová, Buzek, and others. --Swen 05:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Given that the draft directive was rejected as pleasing nobody, it seems reasonable to assume that any arguments raised by Rocard were not accepted as valid by the majority.
 * Anyway, this seems to be going away from the point I was making that the argument that "copyright is enough" is only raised by certain special interest groups. The whole TRIPS issue is completely separate from that as far as I can see. Its mention in this article doesn't need better references (quoting TRIPS doesn't need any reference except TRIPS), it needs an explanation as to what the point that is trying to be made is and a better explanation as to what comments in TRIPS have to do with software patents separate from patents in general. If this can be clarified to show this and to point out that it's an argument that's unrelated to the "copyright is enough" argument, then I see no reason why the argument can't stay in the article.
 * I'm guessing the argument you're trying to make is "software patents are bad because they infringe on a person's copyrights contrary to TRIPS". Now I have to say that that seems to me to be a pretty fringe argument so it's mention in the article should be clarified to highlight who has made this argument so the reader can easily determine how likely it is that such an argument is valid.
 * In summary: I am not trying to remove anything from this article. What I am saying is that there are a lot of arguments that a lot of people disagree with. This is true of arguments concerning the interplay between patents and copyright in particular which is why I have focused on this section. To improve the article, the sourcing of the arguments needs improving so that a reader can get an idea of how accepted the argument is - is it a fringe theory or an argument backed up by numerous independent studies? Truly fringe arguments by random bloggers can probably be removed. Minor arguments with sufficient public profile can probably stay, provided that they are not given undue weight and their minor nature is highlighted by identifying who in particular has proposed those arguments. GDallimore (Talk) 10:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree that it should be made clearer for the uninvolved reader, what was the point of the JURI-argumentation, and I see that I am too much involved to give that outsiders view. As I see it, the argumentation developed that way: First started the identification, that software patents would invalidate any copyright-based property on computer programs. Next step was to identify that this would violate TRIPS Art 13. Third step was to make TRIPS Art 10 and TRIPS Art 27 internal consistent with respect to Art 13 and 30. Last step was to use TRIPS as a lex posterior to define interpretation limits to the EPC as lex prior.
 * I used the words of TRIPS (with my reference to Art. 7) to summarize that. If you know a better short description, I have no problem. I also don't want to say that this is the truth. It is the argumentation of JURI, of FFII, of many small contributors to the discussion. It didn't get the majority in the EP, but neither side did, so it is an argument that is still on the table, but like a very hot potato.
 * I put it under "2. Arguments against patentability, 2.2 Copyright" because I had the impression, that from its development, this is the best place. I also did not see any reason to open a new topic TRIPS. If you think, that's better, why not. --Swen 12:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * The question is it a "fringe argument" would start the discussion. Shall we really do that in WIKIPEDIA?
 * I mean Schricker/Melichar, UrhG 3.A.. Vor §§ 44 aff Rdnr 14a mwN writes: Zu Recht geht dagegen der BGH davon aus, dass das Urheberrechtgesetz die „aus dem Urheberrecht fließenden Befugnisse und ihre Beschränkungen grundsätzlich abschließend“ regelt, eine der urheberrechtlichen Prüfung nachgeschaltete Güter- und Interessenabwägung“ also nicht in Betracht kommt, diese Gedanken vielmehr (nur) zur Auslegung der Schrankenbestimmungen herangezogen werden können (BGH GRUR 2003, 596 — Gies-Adler; BGH ZUM 2002, 636 — Verhüllter Reichstag).
 * Busse/Keukenschijver PatG 6.A. § 1 Rdnr 49:Die Rspr hat (iS eines normativen Technikbegriffs) Programme, die technischer Natur sind, von solchen unterschieden, die untechnischer Natur sind; Programm und Technik sind demnach keine gegensätzlichen Begriffe, die einander ausschließen. Insb bei Anlagen zur Durchführung von Verfahren und bei Anordnungen im Bereich der Regeltechnik können durch eine Aufeinanderfolge von bestimmten technischen Einzelmaßnahmen technische Programme verwirklicht sein, weil sie durch den planmäßigen Einsatz berechen- und beherrschbarer Naturkräfte unmittelbar ein bestimmtes Ergebnis erreichen. Allerdings hat der (für das Urheberrecht zuständige) I. Zivilsenat des BGH alle Computerprogramme nichttechnischer Natur vom Patentschutz ausnehmen und Betriebssysteme, die lediglich der Steuerung eines Computers und der mit ihm verbundenen Anschlussgeräte dienen, als untechnisch ansehen wollen. Dem kann in dieser Allgemeinheit nicht gefolgt werden. Auch im Hinblick auf Art 27 TRIPS-Übk erscheint jedenfalls ein Ausschluss „technischer“ Computerprogramme von der Patentierung bdkl. Der Grundlagenentwurf für eine Revision des EPÜ sah eine Streichung der Ausnahme vor; diese ist politisch umstr, vor allem aus der „opensource“-Bewegung, und von der Diplomatischen Konferenz nicht beschlossen worden.
 * Busse PatG § 1 Rdnr 79: Computerprogramme können urheberrechtl geschützt sein. Die Möglichkeit von Doppelschutz wird insoweit nicht auszuschließen sein. Urheberrechtl Schutz war grds schon vor der Änderung des UrhG auf Grund der EG-RatsRl 92/250 vom 14.5.1991 anerkannt und ist seit 1985 in § 2 Abs 1 Nr 1 UrhG geregelt, allerdings hat die Rspr die Schutzfähigkeit an enge Voraussetzungen geknüpft. with reference to Eichmann GRUR 2000 751, 755 who cites in that context again 91/250 without explanation. This argument is like  patent and copyright on computer programs does not interfere. PERIOD!
 * If two BGH senates contradict each other, German constitution requires to call the BGH GSZ to provide for uniform jurisdiction. Maybe we will see that in the comming years. --Swen 07:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Redundant, wordy bullet in Cost and loss of R&D funds
Removing:
 * Some[who?] say that the cost of obtaining patents and defending against competitors’ patents requires that significant funds be diverted away from research and development. They[who?] state that this is in part an attempt to obtain patents for relatively small incremental improvements in software. Thus this type of patent strategy might require hundreds of patents being obtained and monitored. A prior issued patent could prevent a new product from being made used or sold in the marketplace. However, such minor patents are unlikely to be issued by the United States Patent Office.

First, it just restates, in a very wordy way, the topic of the section. Second, the part about small incremental improvements is unrelated to the rest, and is a criticism of patents in general, not just software patents; if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the "Trivial patents" section. Third, the last sentence contradicts the importance of the statement being made. Emotion chip disabled (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

counter-arguments in lists of arguments
...is really annoying. If you're going to have a heading which announces list of particular arguments follows, I expect the list of arguments that follow to conform to that heading. I thought for a minute that perhaps double-tabbing meant it was opposite time but that formula is not held consistently either. Just segregate the damn arguments right, or else integrate them and put little "check" and "x" icons by them or something. But don't do it halfass. 75.5.101.19 (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Or here's an idea, use the fortunately/unfortunately game: As in "fortunately software patents encourage public disclosure of an entirely different and important class of inventions. Unfortunately the stuff done in that category is all obvious, that's why programmers do it and not engineers". And so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.101.19 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think fortunately/unfortunately is NPOV!93.97.25.15 (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is annoying and misleading. In some cases the point is subtle and it's hard to tell which side of the argument a sentence supports. It appears someone of one view felt they needed to add rebuttal to simple stating of the opposing arguments, making this article read more like a IM conversation than an encylopedia.93.97.25.15 (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideas are not patentable
This article contains a section entitled Ideas are not patentable, but this is not what the section appears to be about. The section seems to be about which ideas are patentable and which are not. Perhaps we could rename the section Certain ideas are not patentable? -- Schapel (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Research And Development
I removed the first bullet pointed argument under this section because it was worded in such a way that it assumed  the consequent of the entire debate over software patents- the economic consequences of  software patents. Specifically it read:

Patenting software inventions promotes investment in research and development.[3]

This is a conclusion, not a supporting argument.

Furthermore, the cited reference is problematic. The cited reference, which appears on the WIPO site, is a brief,  authorless, reference free, bullet pointed list. Authorless materials have a high bar to meet if they are to avoid failing the reliable sources test. A bullet point list, which merely states conclusions without argument or evidence, does not clear that bar. It certainly cannot be used as the  basis for concluding the heart of the matter that this Wikipedia page concerns itself with.

The original author needs to reword the statement so as not to assume the consequent and gather some credible references, preferably from established peer reviewed journals which support his statement. See Wikipedia policy on indentifying reliable sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydee000 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Economic Benefit
Cited this section for Citation Needed since the page it links to is offline and when online was a page at an Office Depot website. Even if that page were still online, Office Depot is not acceptable as a credible reference for a statement of this kind:

"Patent lawsuits ....allow innovative small companies to build a market of their own or at least receive fair compensation for their investment unless they are presenting ".

Which again makes extremely broad and sweeping generalizations which are not themselves specific to software patents while citing decidedly unserious, non-referenced, anonymous sources. Entires have to make some attempt at meeting authoritative, encyclopedia-level sources and to be specifically about the subject of this article - software patents.

It does not serve the interest of the reader to import the broad arguments for patenting generally when this article is about the controversy of one specific area of patenting, software patents. This article can't take up the debate about patents generally without losing its focus and stated purpose which is to cover the software patent debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydee000 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Public Disclosure
One entry under this heading read:

"Patents must disclose how to make and use an invention ..patents are only valid if the inventions they disclose were not known by the public prior to the filing of the patent application, or if the inventions were not obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent application was filed. This is the formal law, and a rule that if violated could lead to invalidation of a patent, so it is followed strictly by patent lawyers."

The final clause of which constitutes original research since it is not supported by the footnote. What's happened here is two different assertions, one a statement of fact, the other an opinion, have been placed together within the same sentence and given a single supporting reference. The supporting reference does not support both assertions; it only supports the first "This is the formal law, and a rule that if violated could lead to invalidation of a patent".

The second assertion is a statement about what does happen in the real world. Specifically, it assumes without proof that non-obviousness is always met just because non-obviousness is a requirement. But this point is what is debated- the other side claims software patents are in fact given for obvious elaborations of common software practice and therefore the patent office is failing to follow its own guidelines.

If the second clause is to be asserted as is, then a reference pointing to some meta-research or study of software patents specifically, which shows that non-obviousness is always met by such patents has to be presented as a supporting reference. Absent that study, this clause constitutes original research, without the research. In other words, it's just an unsupported statement about what does happen in the real world without offering any proof that the real world so conforms.

For this reason, the second clause has been removed. Jaydee000 (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, the wording and conception behind this sentence is amateurish. There is no concept of "informal law" within law, there are only laws. The sentence, if it were stripped of unsupported references to non-obviousness,  the errant concept of "formal law" and gratuitous references to known entities actions: "followed [by] patent lawyers", the sentence would  read something like:

"Disclosure is a requirement upon patents and therefore software patents must meet the disclosure requirements".

Which is a non-debated fact about patents generally and applies only transitively to software patents. Since no one argues that disclosure is NOT required or disclosure is not provide by filing attorneys, the point is moot.

Barring further discussion, I will remove the sentence starting with "This is a formal law.." because it simply does not meet the standards required of encyclopedic writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydee000 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

 * This sentence is left over from the time the article was just a list of arguments and counter arguments rather than being split into two as it currently is. There was an argument that software patents do not provide enough information for software engineers to write a program and this was the counter argument: if they don't, then it is not a valid patent. The public disclosure section doesn't make much sense in isolation and needs to be read together with Software_patent_debate. My view is that both of these section are pretty silly additions to this debate (raised by people who know little about patents or software or both) and could probably be deleted in their entirety, but I wasn't willing to be that bold myself. GDallimore (Talk) 01:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Limitations
GDallimore, please describe in detail what you mean in by saying: "... since the sources do not support the conclusions about patents" and also "and some fail verification altogether" Raymondjo (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One example of several: "Copyright on the other hand only protects the artistic expression of the work and not its technical form (the "idea" itself), nor R&D" was not supported by the Ladas source provided.
 * Another key point which you're still missing (even with this, your second account, which I have warned you against using) is that the sources do not draw comparisons between patents and copyright, thus the key conclusions you make are not supported by the sources. I have moved the most useful content to the copyright article, where it has already drawn attention and I suggest you follow it up there. GDallimore (Talk) 14:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Do you object to the wording, if so would you find it satisfactory if worded to: "Copyright on the other hand only protects the artistic expression of the work and not its technical implementation (the "idea" itself), nor R&D"? Will changing the reference to the Copyright article be satisfactory for you?

 * Regarding drawing of comparisons between patents and copyright, I asked for your suggestions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Copyright_infringement_of_software#Limitations.

 * Finally please clarify what you mean by "(even with this, your second account, which I have warned you against using)": Is the term account used as in witness or version, or as in Wikipedia login? What is the warning you provided? (please link to the discussion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondjo (talk • contribs) 18:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I have no suggestions for sources. If you want to edit the article, you provide the sources. Having provided the sources, the edits must correspond to what the sources say, something which your edits have largely failed to do. And yes, generally, I object to the wording as it is overly verbose and tangential to the topics you are writing about. Take a look at WP:Summary style for some suggestions.
 * Yes, accounts are logins. You are clearly the same person as User:kensystem, despite your protestations to the contrary, since your edits are essentially identical is content and style. GDallimore (Talk) 20:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I asked for your own revisions as a way to illustrate improved writing and to improve the article, but seeing as you don't wish to do this -- or perhaps disagree altogether with the original points, I'll re-submit the points after edits that hopefully will satisfy your general observations.
 * With all due respect, "clearly are the same person" (emphasis on clearly) was an unsafe assertion. We are two separate individuals, not one and the same person. To the extent our edits resemble each other, he and I are exchanging revision & ideas, and I started committing changes after seeing your discussions. A safer assertion would have been saying we share the same ideas and interests, or are business partners. Raymondjo (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Economic benefit: encourage competitors
This sentence: "Patents encourage competitors to research and develop new and improved inventions, as a means of avoiding the licensing fees and restrictions requirements that prior patent holders can impose" flagged as citation-needed by GDallimore:

I suggest that this is so obvious that it needs no citation. Of course, an entity that doesn't want to be subject to licensing or frees, is encouraged to find a newer way that doesn't rely on the patent. That point is even eluded by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Cost_and_loss_of_R.26D_fundsRaymondjo (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 * This is so far from being obvious that it needs more than a citation. It needs a reference to a proper study. Indeed, there are several respectable economists who argue that the exact opposite is true: patents discourage competition and hampers innovation. There are several good arguments for that but the most convincing is perhaps to look at historical data: the introduction of patents in an economy has never been followed by an increase of innovation within that economy. See for example the book Against intellectual monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.71.144 (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Profit / protection
--Copied from my talk page--

Hi GDallimore, you reverted my change to the wording in the 'Software patent debate' article. In the sentence "Organizations should be able to profit from their intellectual property.", you changed the words 'profit from' back to the word 'protect'. Can you please clarify the meaning here of 'protect'? Michael9422 (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi. Thanks for discussing this in a civil manner. Most people wouldn't bother. However, I'm copying this to the talk page of the article in case anyone else wants to comment. GDallimore (Talk) 16:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Profiting" from IP depends greatly on business models and the desirability of your invention, not whether or not you have a patent. Having a patent does not guarantee success - it's the first thing attorneys should tell inventors. Similarly, plenty of people have profited without a patent - it depends on the ease and likelihood of someone copying and undercutting you.
 * "Protecting" IP is the purpose of a patent. cf, for example, The UK Patents Act 1977: "The claims shall ... define the matter for which the applicant seeks protection".
 * Also, the section in which you changed "protection" to "profit" is headed "protection" and includes references to other sources talking about patent protection. Seems pretty clear cut to me that "protection" is the appropriate word. GDallimore (Talk) 16:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi. Sorry, but it is still not clear to me. What is the purpose of the "protection", ultimately, if it is not for profit? Thanks.Michael9422 (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

 * A patent is a right to exclude. You can do that without making a profit. And you might not sell your patented invention anyway, thereby not making a profit such that the protection is worthless. Personally, I think either formulation is problematic. Who says people should be able to either protect or profit from their inventions? Either way it's oversimplifying a very complicated series of arguments. GDallimore (Talk) 20:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Promotes development
The line The basic principles of patent law were developed before computers were invented and have served the US for centuries should be re-written. Why is this written in such a blatantly US-centric way? Patents have been around for over 2500 years. What does a sentence about patents in one relatively new country contribute to the article? 101.169.101.17 (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Need actual source
The article references a great statistic from an economist article ... but the economist is quoting another article. I think we should be citing the original "study" instead of an article quoting the study

I can't find that study anywhere though! any ideas how to find it?

Below is the passage I'm talking about:

"For the U.S. the economic benefit is dubious. A study in 2008 found that American public companies’ total profits from patents (excluding pharmaceuticals) in 1999 were about $4 billion, but that the associated litigation costs were $14 billion"

15 "Patent medicine - Why America’s patent system needs to be reformed, and how to do it". Economist. Retrieved 2011-09-26.

Lansey (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Incomprehensible argument under 'Copyright'
In the section of arguments against software patents, under the Copyright heading, a sentence begins with "Patent protection shall confine exceptions..." Does anyone understand it? Can someone rewrite it so that it is comprehensible?Michael9422 (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Strategic patenting
This morning (European time) I added a section on "strategic patenting" - but it disappeared. Did I make a mistake or was it removed? If someone removed it, please tell me why. Rbakels (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the edit history. Inadequate referencing. Which is true of most of this article, but that doesn't mean it's OK to add more inadequately referenced stuff. Also being written like an opinion piece in a journal article doesn't help. GDallimore (Talk) 13:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Unclear arguments in support of software patents
"Patents can be invalidated if they lack sufficient detail." Why is this an argument in support of software patents? Is there any evidence that this promotes the progress of science or useful arts? J. Finkelstein (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

article is meant to be funny, right?
This article is 90% about why software patents are bad. The title should be "Arguments against software patents (and those few lame arguments in favor)" Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Papers

 * "Intellectual Property, Computer Software and the Open Source Movement", United States Congressional Research Service, March 11, 2004
 * "Patent Reform: Issues in the Biomedical and Software Industries", United States Congressional Research Service, December 14, 2007
 * Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation, by James Bessen and Eric Maskin, Discussion paper, MIT (2000)
 * Software Patents – Boon or Bane for Europe? by Andreas Grosche, International Journal of Law and Information Technology 2006

Articles

 * Musker, David. "The Great Free Beer Debate" Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2007, Vol. 2, No. 12, p799
 * Graham, Paul. Are Software Patents Evil?, March 2006

Other sites

 * Software Patent Index - History and current practice of the USPTO to granting software patents.
 * Software patents under the European Patent Convention explains European Patent Office practice when examining patent applications involving software.
 * Examination Guidelines for Software patents in Japan, Japanese Patent Office

ツStacey (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the problems...
One of the problems in presenting a NPOV is that the debate on software patents is not yet crystallized. That is not reason not to mention it in WikiPedia - an encyclopedia should answer questions users may have - and in this case, users should know that it is still controversial.

In my opinion, one of the problems on the software patent debate is that they are treated as a homogeneous category. My observation is that swpats are very different. Some are just as good as hardware patents, others violate basic rules, but the other patents do so as well. so the focus ougght to be on bad patents in general. Here the problem is that courts play word games with precedents because they don't have a clue about the actual merits or disadvantages of patents, and economists are not of much help either. Rbakels (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Software patent debate


text:
Battle of Awazu

Minamoto no Yoshinaka made his final stand at Awazu, after fleeing from his cousins' armies, which confronted him after he attacked Kyoto, burning the Hōjūjiden, and kidnapping Emperor Go-Shirakawa. During the pursuit he was joined by his foster brother Imai Kanehira and Tomoe Gozen.

During the battle, they fought valiantly, holding off Noriyori's large force of thousands of men for a time. However, in the end, they both died in battle.

Yoshinaka was struck dead by an arrow when his horse became mired in a paddy field. Kanehira committed suicide by leaping off his horse while holding his sword in his mouth.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Battle of Awazu


text:
Electrocyclic reaction

In organic chemistry, an electrocyclic reaction is a type of pericyclic rearrangement where the net result is one pi bond being converted into one sigma bond or vice versa. These reactions are usually categorized by the following criteria:

 * Reactions can be either photochemical or thermal.
 * Reactions can be either ring-opening or ring-closing (electrocyclization).
 * Depending on the type of reaction (photochemical or thermal) and the number of pi electrons, the reaction can happen through either a conrotatory or disrotatory mechanism.
 * The type of rotation determines whether the cis or trans isomer of the product will be formed.

Classical examples
The Nazarov cyclization reaction is a named electrocyclic reaction converting divinylketones to cyclopentenones.

A classic example is the thermal ring-opening reaction of 3,4-dimethylcyclobutene. The cis isomer exclusively yields whereas the trans isomer gives the trans,trans diene:

This reaction course can be explained in a simple analysis through the frontier-orbital method: the sigma bond in the reactant will open in such a way that the resulting p-orbitals will have the same symmetry as the HOMO of the product (a hexadiene). The only way to accomplish this is through a conrotatory ring-opening which results in opposite phases for the terminal lobes.

Stereospecificity of electrocyclic reactions
When performing an electrocyclic reaction, it is often desirable to predict the cis/trans geometry of the reaction's product. The first step in this process is to determine whether a reaction proceeds through conrotation or disrotation. The table below shows the selectivity rules for thermal and photochemical electrocyclic reactions.

For the example given below, the thermal reaction of (trans,cis,trans)-octa-2,4,6-triene will happen through a disrotatory mechanism. After determining the type of rotation, whether the product will be cis or trans can be determined by examining the starting molecule. In the example below, the disrotation causes both methyls to point upwards, causing the product to be cis-dimethylcyclohexadiene.

In addition, the torquoselectivity in an electrocyclic reaction refers to the direction of rotation. For example, a reaction that is conrotatory can still rotate in two directions, producing enantiomeric products. A reaction that is torquoselective restricts one of these directions of rotation (partially or completely) to produce a product in enantiomeric excess.

Woodward–Hoffmann rules

Correlation diagrams, which connect the molecular orbitals of the reactant to those of the product having the same symmetry, can then be constructed for the two processes.

These correlation diagrams indicate that only a conrotatory ring opening of 3,4-dimethylcyclobutene is symmetry allowed whereas only a disrotatory ring opening of 5,6-dimethylcyclohexa-1,3-diene is symmetry allowed. This is because only in these cases would maximum orbital overlap occur in the transition state. Also, the formed product would be in a ground state rather than an excited state.

Frontier molecular orbital theory
According to the frontier molecular orbital theory, the sigma bond in the ring will open in such a way that the resulting p-orbitals will have the same symmetry as the HOMO of the product.

For the 5,6-dimethylcyclohexa-1,3-diene, only a disrotatory mode would result in p-orbitals having the same symmetry as the HOMO of hexatriene. For the 3,4-dimethylcyclobutene, on the other hand, only a conrotatory mode would result in p-orbitals having the same symmetry as the HOMO of butadiene.

Mechanism of photochemical reactions
If the ring opening of 3,4-dimethylcyclobutene were carried out under photochemical conditions the resulting electrocyclization would be occur through a disrotatory mode instead of a conrotatory mode as can be seen by the correlation diagram for the allowed excited state ring opening reaction.

Only a disrotatory mode, in which symmetry about a reflection plane is maintained throughout the reaction, would result in maximum orbital overlap in the transition state. Also, once again, this would result in the formation of a product that is in an excited state of comparable stability to the excited state of the reactant compound.

Electrocyclic reactions in biological systems
Electrocyclic reactions occur frequently in nature. One of the most common such electrocyclizations is the biosynthesis of vitamin D3.

The first step involves a photochemically induced conrotatory ring opening of 7-dehydrocholesterol to form pre vitamin D3. A [1,7]-hydride shift then forms vitamin D3.

Another example is in the proposed biosynthesis of aranotin, a naturally occurring oxepine, and its related compounds.

Enzymatic epoxidation of phenylalanine-derived diketopiperazine forms the arene oxide, which undergoes a 6π disrotatory ring opening electrocyclization reaction to produce the uncyclized oxepine. After a second epoxidation of the ring, the nearby nucleophilic nitrogen attacks the electrophilic carbon, forming a five membered ring. The resulting ring system is a common ring system found in aranotin and its related compounds.

The benzonorcaradiene diterpenoid (below left) was rearranged into the benzocycloheptatriene diterpenoid isosalvipuberlin (right) by boiling a methylene chloride solution. This transformation can be envisaged as a disrotatory electrocyclic reaction, followed by two suprafacial 1,5-sigmatropic hydrogen shifts, as shown below.

Electrocyclic reactions in organic synthesis
An often studied electrocyclic reaction is the conrotatory thermal ring-opening of benzocyclobutene. The reaction product is a very unstable ortho-quinodimethane but this molecule can be trapped in an endo addition with a strong dienophile such as maleic anhydride to the Diels-Alder adduct. The chemical yield for the ring opening of the benzocyclobutane depicted in scheme 2 is found to depend on the nature of the substituent R. With a reaction solvent such as toluene and a reaction temperature of 110 °C, the yield increases going from methyl to isobutylmethyl to (trimethylsilyl)methyl. The increased reaction rate for the trimethylsilyl compound can be explained by silicon hyperconjugation as the βC-Si bond weakens the cyclobutane C-C bond by donating electrons.

A biomimetic electrocyclic cascade reaction was discovered in relation to the isolation and synthesis of certain endiandric acids:

Asymmetric electrocyclic reactions are an emerging field in contemporary organic synthesis. The most commonly studied reactions in this field are the 4π Staudinger β-lactam synthesis and the 4π Nazarov reaction; asymmetric catalysis of both reactions have been controlled by use of a chiral auxiliary, and the Nazarov reaction has been performed catalytically using chiral Lewis acids, Brønsted acids and chiral amines.

title: Electrocyclic reaction


text:
Talk:Ellsworth Air Force Base

 * What happened to the information regarding the German Air Force? [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 21:25, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I never saw anything about the German Air Force. I looked at the history for both Ellsworth AFB and Ellsworth Air Force Base and didn't see anything.  You sure it was Ellsworth?  I know there is a squadron of the German Air Force at Holloman AFB in NM.Mikeb 21:35, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

 * Oh! You're right. Must have confused the two..I've edited too many articles.. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 06:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Red links
Hello. I am removing a red link for "Chief Master Sergeant" in the infobox because this is B-class article which by now should have reached some maturity. OK in advance from my point of view to restore that link. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. The red link was caused by this markup: Chief Master Sergeant . I undid my edit and moved the "Chief Master Sergeant" article to "Chief Master Sergeant (United States)" to match "Colonel (United States)". Hope this helps. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken Landing
Is this significant to Ellsworth Air Force Base? Civilian aircraft landing at military bases is not unheard of; the fact it was a mistake rather than mechanical or weather issues makes it highly unusual, but is it important to the subject EAFB? Tomsv 98 (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed it.Tomsv 98 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Ellsworth Air Force Base. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ellsworth.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/10260/Article/805074/colonel-gentry-boswell.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ellsworth.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/10260/Article/807168/chief-master-sergeant-sonia-t-lee.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
 * Added tag to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ellsworth Air Force Base


text:
Pauline Bewick

Pauline Bewick (4 September 1935 – 28 July 2022) was an English-born Irish artist.

Bewick was born in Northumberland, England on 4 September 1935, and with her mother Alice ('Harry') and sister Hazel, moved many times between England and Ireland, before finally settling in County Kerry where she lived and worked, near Caragh Lake. She claimed to be distantly related to actress Meryl Streep, through her mother. She was a descendant of 19th-century artist Thomas Bewick.

In her teens, Bewick started studying at the National College of Art and Design in Dublin, and after graduation, moved to London. During her time there she illustrated a children's animated television series for the BBC and also produced illustrations for books and magazines. On her return to Dublin she took jobs in singing and acting, and in 1957 opened her first exhibition there.

She married her husband Pat in 1963, and gave birth to two daughters, Poppy and Holly. In 2015, her husband Pat had contracted Alzheimer's disease.

A prolific artist, Bewick painted in oil, sculpted, and worked with cloth, but was most associated with watercolours. For the last decade or so she had been working on her Yellow Man project, a large collection of works featuring a cartoon-like yellow horned figure. In 2006 she donated a collection of 200 works including tapestries, wall hangings, watercolours and sketches to the state, now on permanent display in the Walton Building at the Waterford Institute of Technology, and in the Killorglin Library, County Kerry.

During Bewick's career she illustrated several books and published several books of prints of her paintings. In 2015, at 80 years of age, she published her memoir "80: A Memoir".

Pauline Bewick died of cancer on 28 July 2022, at the age of 86.

title: Pauline Bewick


text:
A. A. Ames

Albert Alonzo "Doc" Ames (January 18, 1842 – November 16, 1911) was an American physician and politician who held four non-consecutive terms as mayor of Minneapolis, Minnesota. His fourth term was marked by multiple prosecutions for political corruption, extortion, and racketeering in a scandal which was publicized nationwide by muckraking journalist Lincoln Steffens in a 1903 article in McClure's Magazine titled The Shame of Minneapolis. Ames was found guilty of corruption, but after a successful appeal and multiple mistrials the charges were dropped. Erik Rivenes, however, has called the downfall of Mayor Ames, "one of the greatest political scandals in Minnesota history."

Early life and military service
Ames was born in Garden Prairie, Illinois on January 18, 1842 to Dr. Alfred Elisha Ames and Martha A. Ames. In 1852, Ames' family relocated to near Fort Snelling in the Minnesota Territory. At this point the area was still largely undeveloped (they were only the seventh homestead claim made in Minneapolis). Ames attended local public schools which were partially run by the federal government. While attending high school in 1857, Ames became employed as a "printer's devil" and a newspaper carrier for the Northwestern Democrat (one of the first newspapers in Minneapolis). After graduating from high school in 1858, Ames pursued a career in medicine. Though he received much of his experience and training by observing and working with his father, he attended some classes at Rush Medical College in Chicago and received his M.D. on February 5, 1862.

After graduating with his M.D., Ames returned to Minneapolis intending to start his career as a doctor. After the outbreak of the American Civil War and tensions with the Dakota people began to flare up, Ames enlisted in the 9th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiment as a private in August 1862. Two weeks later, Ames was transferred to the 7th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiment and promoted to assistant surgeon. He served with the 7th Minnesota during the Dakota War of 1862 and was present at the execution by hanging of 38 Dakota warriors at Mankato on December 26, 1862.

Ames then served in several battles in the western theater of the Civil War. In July 1864, Ames replaced Lucius B. Smith as surgeon of the 7th Regiment, after the latter was killed in action during the Battle of Tupelo. He was promoted to the rank of surgeon major before mustering out of service in August 1865.

Medical career
Following the war, Ames briefly returned to Minnesota to work in the medical field with his father. His popularity among Civil War veterans was such that he was elected to serve in the Minnesota House of Representatives in 1866 on a "soldiers' ticket." In 1868, he decided to move west to California. Once there he joined the newspaper business, becoming managing editor of the Alta California. Ames remained in California until 1874 when he was summoned home due to his father's death.

Ames took over his father's medical practice in Minneapolis and developed a reputation as a kind and sympathetic figure. He was well known for treating the poor at no charge and for answering calls at any time of the day. He also served as a firefighter.

In 1886, when Minnesota's deadliest ever tornado devastated both St. Cloud and Sauk Rapids, "Doc Ames" arrived at the scene in order to treat the injured. This brought him to nationwide attention.

Political rise
Ames became active in the city's Democratic party. He served on the Minneapolis City Council in 1875–1876 and was named the city's health officer in 1878. He was elected the city's mayor three times in 1876, 1882 and 1886. His first term was described as "an indifferent success" but his second and third terms generated accusations of corruption.

Ames was not as successful with his attempts at higher office. During this era Minnesota was heavily dominated by the Republican party and thus Ames faced difficult odds for most state offices. In 1877 he ran unsuccessfully as lieutenant governor. In 1886, he ran for governor but narrowly lost to Andrew Ryan McGill. The narrow margin of victory sparked controversy over who was the actual winner, and the election was contested until Ames decided the effort was not worth the time. He also ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the United States House of Representatives and, at one time, had been under consideration as a candidate for the vice presidency.

Ames was instrumental in the creation of a veteran's home in Minneapolis. He initially promoted the idea at the state's Democratic convention in 1886. Despite losing the election, the Republican administration accepted his suggestions and authorized the construction of the Minnesota Veterans Home. Ames later served there as a surgeon.

After being defeated in an election for park board in 1888, Ames took a long trip to Europe. Upon returning home, Ames gave an anti-Irish and anti-Catholic interview that outraged Minnesota's large Irish-American population and made Ames multiple lifelong enemies. When asked for his, "views about Ireland", Ames replied, "Well, they have changed. When I left I was prejudiced in favor of Home Rule, but now I do not think the people of Ireland are capable of ruling themselves... I have had plenty of opportunity of studying the Irish question, and I am convinced of one thing, that Ireland is priest-ridden... They are bowed down by superstition and ignorance, and this is to be found wherever the priests are. The priest power of Ireland does not want the people to be educated."

After Ames' comments resulted in a firestorm of outraged denunciations by Irish-Americans who had formerly supported him, the Genial Doctor claimed to have received five death threats in letters which promised Ames the same treatment given to Dr. Patrick Henry Cronin. The letters came, Ames alleged, from Roger Vail, the editor of the Minneapolis-based Irish Standard newspaper, on behalf of the Irish republican Clan na Gael organization. In response, the Doctor made a lifelong enemy out of Vail, whose Irish Standard responded by reprinting editorials from Ames' many critics among the Minnesota press, who argued that the letters were almost certainly manufactured, "by Ames & Co."

After losing an independent campaign for mayor in 1898, Ames devised a new strategy. In the 1900 primary election for mayor, he exploited a newly adopted rule which changed the city's primary elections to an open primary (allowing voters to vote for candidates in either party). He campaigned for votes as a Republican (knowing the competition was limited) and narrowly won the nomination. He went on to win the general election in 1900. Between his underhanded election strategy and accusations of corruption in his prior administrations, Ames was described as "damned politically, socially and professionally" when he entered office in 1901.

"The Shame of Minneapolis"
After entering office, Ames consolidated his power over the city's police department (the one area of city government which the mayor had full control over). He fired nearly half of the city's officers and replaced them with his political allies, henchmen, and criminals who purchased their badges. As police chief, Ames appointed his brother Colonel Frederick W. Ames, who despite being "a weak, vacillating individual," had recently commanded an entire regiment of Minnesota soldiers during the Philippine–American War. Norman W. King, a gambler and underworld figure, became the city's chief of detectives. Medical student and confidant Irwin A. Gardner was made a special policeman, worked as the Mayor's bagman, and was also put in charge of the city's vice squad.

Mayor Ames and the Minneapolis police began operating as an organized crime syndicate, extorting protection money and various "fines" from the city's illegal businesses. The money collected was turned over to Ames and only small fees were given to his associates. Minneapolis was promoted as an "open city" to criminals across the country and criminals were released from the city's jail. Illegal businesses such as opium joints, gambling parlors, and houses of prostitution blossomed, many in the Gateway district. It was speculated that women were setting up candy stores to run a legitimate business to children and workers out front, but providing the services of prostitutes in the back.

After a year in office, Ames' organization began to swirl out of control. Ames was drinking heavily and the various police and politicians under him began to fight among themselves, withholding money from Ames or developing their own extortion schemes without his approval. Attempts by the Hennepin County sheriff to crack down on the widespread criminal activities were quashed, but even average citizens were aware of the city's descent into corruption.

Prosecution
In April 1902, a grand jury under the leadership of foreman Hovey C. Clarke began an investigation into the Minneapolis city government and its officials. Clarke was a respected and successful citizen who singlehandedly took on the case, dismissing the county's prosecutor when he was unwilling to attack Ames. Clarke paid private detectives, both locally known men and others from out of town, to investigate. After obtaining enough evidence to indict two of Ames' henchmen, they were convinced to turn state's evidence and provide information on others in the organization. By June 1902, indictments has been made against Fred Ames, Gardner and others. Before he too was convicted, Ames fled the city after announcing he has been hired to run a hotel in West Baden, Indiana. He attempted to stay in power from Indiana, but finally announced his resignation as mayor effective September 6, 1902.

As his former allies were tried and indicted, Ames remained on the run. In February 1903, he was arrested at the house of Episcopalian clergyman Rev. C. H. Chapin in Hancock, New Hampshire. Despite a "strong fight on the part of the fugitive," Ames was extradited to Minnesota and put on trial for receiving a bribe of six hundred dollars from a prostitute. Based on the testimony of his co-conspirators, including his bagman Irwin A. Gardner, Ames was found guilty and sentenced to six years in the Minnesota State Prison at Stillwater. The sentence was overturned on appeal and, after two additional trials ended as mistrials, all legal action against him was ceased.

Personal life
In April 1862, Ames married Sarah Strout, the daughter of Captain Richard Strout, who had helped to raise the 9th and 10th Minnesota Infantry Regiments. Emery Washington, a family friend, later recalled, "Richard Strout's family consisted of his wife and one daughter, the latter a handsome girl. I remember as well as though it were yesterday the day she was married to Dr. A. A. Ames. I was at the house when they returned from church, and I remarked to Capt. Strout that I had never seen a finer looking couple... A few weeks after the wedding Dr. Ames went to war with his company."

Later life
After the end of the final trial, Ames returned to Minneapolis to practice medicine. He died quite suddenly during the night on November 16, 1911. His obituary in the Minneapolis Morning Tribune described Ames as a 33rd degree Scottish Rite Freemason, and a Knight Templar. He was also a member of the Knights of Pythias. After a service inside his home by a Unitarian minister, his body was cremated in Minneapolis's Lakewood Cemetery. He left his widow a sum of $1,410.94 and a sum of $1 to each of his surviving children.

Legacy
More than a century after his death, the crimes committed by Dr. Ames during his last term as Mayor remain a well-known chapter in the history of organized crime in the Twin Cities.

In his memoir Augie's Secrets, Twin Cities journalist Neal Karlen concedes that the power temporarily wielded in Minneapolis by Jewish-American organized crime figures like Kid Cann and David Berman beginning in the Prohibition-era gave a major boost to local anti-Semitism, for which Minneapolis became infamous nationwide. Karlen further argues, however, that the pervasive criminality during Mayor Ames' last term demonstrates that the city of Minneapolis was even more corrupt when Scandinavians and White Anglo-Saxon Protestants were still running it.

title: A. A. Ames


text:
David Harvey (footballer)

David Harvey (born 7 February 1948) is a former footballer who played as a goalkeeper. Harvey is best known for his 19-year playing career with Leeds United, during which he made over 400 first team appearances. With Leeds he won the 1972 FA Cup final and the league championship in 1974. He was a runner-up in 3 other senior cup finals with Leeds. Harvey gained 16 international caps for Scotland between 1972 and 1976. This included three appearances at the 1974 FIFA World Cup, for which he was voted as goalkeeper of the tournament.

Leeds United
Born in Leeds, West Riding of Yorkshire in 1948, Harvey attended Foxwood School (in the Seacroft area of Leeds), and played for Leeds City Boys before leaving school to work in a Stylo shoe factory. He was signed as a professional footballer by Don Revie in February 1965, after having played as an apprentice for two years.

Harvey was the reserve goalkeeper for Leeds United during the late 1960s and early 1970s, and was on the reserves' bench when Leeds won the League Cup and the Fairs Cup in 1968, the League championship in 1969, and the Fairs Cup in 1971. Though he did play four times in each of the two Fairs Cup trophy winning seasons.

In the 1970 FA Cup Final, an error by first-choice goalkeeper Gary Sprake allowed opponents Chelsea to equalise in the first half. Sprake was blameless for the second equaliser, but Harvey replaced him for the replay, which Leeds lost 2–1.

In the 1971–72 season, Harvey played only eleven matches, but was selected ahead of Sprake for the 1972 FA Cup Final against Arsenal, as Sprake was suffering from a knee injury. Leeds won 1–0 with an Allan Clarke goal, and from that point on Harvey was the first-choice goalkeeper.

Harvey played 63 times in the 1972–73 season, and played in both the FA Cup Final and the European Cup Winners Cup Final – ending up on the losing side both times.

Leeds put together a 29-match unbeaten start to the 1973–74 season, winning the League championship and earning Harvey the title medal to which he had not been entitled five seasons earlier.

At the start of the 1974–75 season, Harvey took the last penalty during the shoot-out at the Charity Shield game against Liverpool but missed, thus allowing Liverpool to carry the trophy home. Later in the season Harvey was injured in a car crash. He missed the rest of the season replaced by his understudy David Stewart. Stewart was praised for his bravery and "inspirational saves" beating Anderlecht and F.C. Barcelona in the 1974–75 European Cup. Leeds were beaten 2–0 by Bayern Munich in the final in Paris.

The rest of the 1970s saw Leeds decline after the ageing team Revie built broke up. Harvey left in 1980.

Vancouver Whitecaps
Harvey moved to NASL club Vancouver Whitecaps in 1980. He had an unsteady first season with Vancouver, and even though his form improved in the second season in the NASL, but major injuries from another car accident prevented him from regaining his form and place.

Return to Leeds United
Harvey returned to Leeds in 1983, by which time the club had been relegated to the old Second Division. By the time he left in 1985, he had played under three of his old teammates: Allan Clarke, Eddie Gray and Billy Bremner. Harvey made over 400 career first team appearances for Leeds.

Later career
Harvey played 6 league games for Bradford City in 1985. This was under the management of an ex-Leeds teammate, Trevor Cherry. He then played 3 league games in Scotland for Morton in 1986. He next played non-league football with Whitby Town and Harrogate Town before his retirement from the game aged 37.

International career
Harvey made his debut for Scotland in a 2–0 win over Denmark, selected through his Ayrshire raised father. In his 16 full caps he was part of eight victories, four draws and four defeats. He was selected as Scotland's first-choice goalkeeper for the 1974 FIFA World Cup in West Germany. Harvey only conceded one goal in three games played, but Scotland were eliminated on goal difference after a 2–0 win against Zaire and draws with Brazil (0–0) and Yugoslavia (1–1). He was voted best goalkeeper of the tournament at the 1974 FIFA World Cup.

Honours
Leeds United
 * Football League First Division: 1973–74
 * FA Cup: 1971–72; runner-up: 1969–70, 1972–73
 * Inter-Cities Fairs Cup: 1967–68, 1970–71
 * UEFA Cup Winners' Cup runner-up: 1972–73

Scotland
 * British Home Championship: 1973–74 (shared)

Life after football
He retired from football at the age of 37 years. He managed a public house at Stamford Bridge, near York. He then became a postman, saying, "The sorting office atmosphere was like a dressing room".

In 1994, with his second wife, June (and their five children), he bought a 150-year-old stone cottage with 10 acres of farmland on Sanday in Scotland's Orkney Islands. He again worked as a postman. On 24 December 2009, he suffered a heart attack, from which he recovered.

In July 2020 Harvey relocated to Lochmaben near Dumfries for greater accessibility to his grandchildren in comparison to Orkney.

title: David Harvey (footballer)


text:
Cycloaddition

In organic chemistry, a cycloaddition is a chemical reaction in which "two or more unsaturated molecules (or parts of the same molecule) combine with the formation of a cyclic adduct in which there is a net reduction of the bond multiplicity". The resulting reaction is a cyclization reaction. Many but not all cycloadditions are concerted and thus pericyclic. Nonconcerted cycloadditions are not pericyclic. As a class of addition reaction, cycloadditions permit carbon–carbon bond formation without the use of a nucleophile or electrophile.

Cycloadditions can be described using two systems of notation. An older but still common notation is based on the size of linear arrangements of atoms in the reactants. It uses parentheses: (i + j + …) where the variables are the numbers of linear atoms in each reactant. The product is a cycle of size (i + j + …). In this system, the standard Diels-Alder reaction is a (4 + 2)-cycloaddition, the 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition is a (3 + 2)-cycloaddition and cyclopropanation of a carbene with an alkene a (2 + 1)-cycloaddition.

A more recent, IUPAC-preferred notation, first introduced by Woodward and Hoffmann, uses square brackets to indicate the number of electrons, rather than carbon atoms, involved in the formation of the product. In the [i + j + ...] notation, the standard Diels-Alder reaction is a [4 + 2]-cycloaddition, while the 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition is also a [4 + 2]-cycloaddition.

Thermal cycloadditions and their stereochemistry
Thermal cycloadditions are those cycloadditions where the reactants are in the ground electronic state. They usually have (4n + 2) π electrons participating in the starting material, for some integer n. These reactions occur for reasons of orbital symmetry in a suprafacial-suprafacial (syn/syn stereochemistry) in most cases. Very few examples of antarafacial-antarafacial (anti/anti stereochemistry) reactions have also been reported. There are a few examples of thermal cycloadditions which have 4n π electrons (for example the [2 + 2]-cycloaddition). These proceed in a suprafacial-antarafacial sense (syn/anti stereochemistry), such as the cycloaddition reactions of ketene and allene derivatives, in which the orthogonal set of p orbitals allows the reaction to proceed via a crossed transition state, although the analysis of these reactions as [π2s + π2a] is controversial. Strained alkenes like trans-cycloheptene derivatives have also been reported to react in an antarafacial manner in [2 + 2]-cycloaddition reactions.

Doering (in a personal communication to Woodward) discovered that heptafulvalene and tetracyanoethylene can react in a suprafacial-antarafacial [14 + 2]-cycloaddition. This result was later confirmed and extended by Erden and Kaufmann, who reported the suprafacial-antarafacial cycloaddition of heptafulvalene with N-phenyltriazolinedione.

Photochemical cycloadditions and their stereochemistry
Cycloadditions in which 4n π electrons participate can also occur via photochemical activation. Here, one component has an electron promoted from the HOMO (π bonding) to the LUMO (π* antibonding). Orbital symmetry is then such that the reaction can proceed in a suprafacial-suprafacial manner. An example is the DeMayo reaction. Another example is shown below, the photochemical dimerization of cinnamic acid. The two trans alkenes react head-to-tail, and the isolated isomers are called truxillic acids.

 * [[Image:CinnamicAcidCycloAddition.png|400px|center|Cinnamic Acid CycloAddition]]

Supramolecular effects can influence these cycloadditions. The cycloaddition of trans-1,2-bis(4-pyridyl)ethene is directed by resorcinol in the solid-state in 100% yield.

Some cycloadditions instead of π bonds operate through strained cyclopropane rings, as these have significant π character. For example, an analog for the Diels-Alder reaction is the quadricyclane-DMAD reaction:

In the (i+j+...) cycloaddition notation i and j refer to the number of atoms involved in the cycloaddition. In this notation, a Diels-Alder reaction is a (4+2)cycloaddition and a 1,3-dipolar addition such as the first step in ozonolysis is a (3+2)cycloaddition. The IUPAC preferred notation however, with [i+j+...] takes electrons into account and not atoms. In this notation, the DA reaction and the dipolar reaction both become a [4+2]cycloaddition. The reaction between norbornadiene and an activated alkyne is a [2+2+2]cycloaddition.

Diels-Alder reactions
The Diels-Alder reaction is perhaps the most important and commonly taught cycloaddition reaction. Formally it is a [4+2] cycloaddition reaction and exists in a huge range of forms, including the inverse electron-demand Diels–Alder reaction, Hexadehydro Diels-Alder reaction and the related alkyne trimerisation. The reaction can also be run in reverse in the retro-Diels–Alder reaction.

 * Diels-Alder (1,3-butadiene + ethylene) red.svg

Reactions involving heteroatoms are known; including the aza-Diels–Alder and Imine Diels–Alder reaction.

Huisgen cycloadditions
The Huisgen cycloaddition reaction is a (2+3)cycloaddition.
 * Thermal_Huisgen_cycloaddition.png

Nitrone-olefin cycloaddition
The Nitrone-olefin cycloaddition is a (3+2)cycloaddition.
 * NitrGen.svg

Cheletropic reactions
Cheletropic reactions are a subclass of cycloadditions. The key distinguishing feature of cheletropic reactions is that on one of the reagents, both new bonds are being made to the same atom. The classic example is the reaction of sulfur dioxide with a diene.

 * Cheletropic reaction of butadiene with SO2.svg

Other
Other cycloaddition reactions exist: [4+3] cycloadditions, [6+4] cycloadditions, [2 + 2] photocycloadditions, metal-centered cycloaddition and [4+4] photocycloadditions

Formal cycloadditions
Cycloadditions often have metal-catalyzed and stepwise radical analogs, however these are not strictly speaking pericyclic reactions. When in a cycloaddition charged or radical intermediates are involved or when the cycloaddition result is obtained in a series of reaction steps they are sometimes called formal cycloadditions to make the distinction with true pericyclic cycloadditions.

One example of a formal [3+3]cycloaddition between a cyclic enone and an enamine catalyzed by n-butyllithium is a Stork enamine / 1,2-addition cascade reaction:

Iron-catalyzed 2+2 olefin cycloaddition
IronDiiminopyridine catalysts contain a redox active ligand in which the central iron atom can coordinate with two simple, unfunctionalized olefin double bonds. The catalyst can be written as a resonance between a structure containing unpaired electrons with the central iron atom in the II oxidation state, and one in which the iron is in the 0 oxidation state. This gives it the flexibility to engage in binding the double bonds as they undergo a cyclization reaction, generating a cyclobutane structure via C-C reductive elimination; alternatively a cyclobutene structure may be produced by beta-hydrogen elimination. Efficiency of the reaction varies substantially depending on the alkenes used, but rational ligand design may permit expansion of the range of reactions that can be catalyzed.

title: Cycloaddition