Talk:Invention

Artistic invention

This article is completely disproportionate. The "Artistic invention" section fills about 80% of the page. In particular the timelines are extremely partial and incomplete, and shouldn't be on this page at all. I suggest removing them entirely.Drilou (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the text on the legal aspects (see below). I would not dare to remove the text on artistic, social and similar inventions but I agree that they are very confusing. I guess the word "innovation" is more appropriate here. Innovation is not a legal concept, but reflects a social process. Which is eactly what is meant here, I guess. Rbakels (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

A lot of this page is discontiguous and nonsensical, as others have pointed out here. Specifically the opening on "novelty" and not clearly separated out from other definitions of the word. This may be a better fit for multiple pages in a disambiguation (e.g. Invention (Arts), Invention (Cultural). In any case, I've added a contradicts template until this gets resolved.

Dissent and editing

I see that there is a ton of dissent on this page about small tiny changes. However, the article has been tagged for copy editing for over a year. It has also been tagged for a lack of continuity and because it is confusing. It seems to me that there are two competing themes on the page -- invention as a technical term used in technical/engineering applications and invention used in the more creative broad sense. These things can be discussed on the same page, but I think some kind of acknowledgement of this left brain/right brain split might help everyone happy.

so I am going to try and do a major copy-edit and re-organize the article to bring about these changes. I understand that there may be some discussion or disagreement about this, but I am hopeful everyone will like what I have done to make the article tighter and more readable. Comments are welcome! Gofigure41 04:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)

White inventors

What would be a good list of White inventors or Ethnic European inventors to put in here or link to another article about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.219.2 (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please could you explain this comment. Why would one want a list of "white inventors" or "ethnic european" inventors? This sounds like white supremacy to me and I object to any such list. Harriett Potter (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Invention From A Lawyer View

This article is a lot of BS written from the POV of patent lawyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.46.47 (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Inventions are not inherently novel

The article makes a typical mistake by associating inventions with novelty. This is both legally and conceptually incorrect. For the grant of patents, statutes require that applications refer tot subject-matter that is 1) an invention 2) novel 3) non-obvious 4) useful, or susceptible of industrial application. These are cumulative (independent) requirements. Patents are said to protect inventions, but none of the inventions protected by patents is novel, since the grant requires prublication that makes the invention part of the state of the art - whilst novelty is defined with respect to the state of the art.

In common parlance, we do not say that the steam engine, the light bulb or the transistor is a "former" invention. No, they are still called inventions, despite being perhaps centuries old. Rbakels (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

After dinner, I thought that the lemma must be updated, so I did that. I wrote a PhD on the invention concept, so I am more than aware that it is utterly confusing, even ignoring the alleged "social" and "cultural" inventions. There is a tendency, especially in the US, to consider all valuable knowledge potentially an invention. so it deserves to be mentioned that an invention ins basically a trick. Yesterdays trick is still a trick, so novelty is mot part of the equation. But mere facts are no tricks. Water boils at 100 centigrade, but that is not something you can do.

I guess strict Wikipedians may be tempted to remove my text, but I'd suggest them to think twice. Rbakels (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

My text was actually removed, and I received almost rude comments on my talk page. I was blamed for having a "US-centric" view, but I am a European, and if anything, I may rather be blamed for having a European-centric view - which is that inventions do not just involve valuable knowledge, but actions that can be executed. The famous German textbook by Kraßer refers to a "Lehre zum Handeln", a teaching how to act. I was blamed for using the word "trick" as a popular designation for explanation for lay people. A "trick" can be executed.

I am aware that the word "invention" may be used in different meanings, but I guess that for most people the legal invention concept is most important, and it is actually close to common parlance. As I explained above, inventions are not inherently novel, nor advanced. We still speak about the invention of fire, thousands of years ago, not about the "former invention". Patents are said to protect inventions, not "former inventions".

Could anybody help me to resolve this issue? I have no time to waste in edit wars. Rbakels (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I would have reverted any edit that described an invention as a trick. What we need is WP:Reliable sources since this is what Wikipedia reports. WP:Original research does not have a place here, but if your viewpoint has been put forward in independent publications, then it deserves at least a paragraph. The first two paragraphs of the current article require references. The OED defines invention as "The original contrivance or production of a new method or means of doing something, of an art, kind of instrument, etc. previously unknown". I don't know whether that helps. Dbfirs 12:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I expect from an encyclopedia an explanation which gives a concise explanation to laymen. I did not say that some sources say that inventions are tricks, it it juust a summary in my language of an explanation that would require many more words. I know that in legal texts possibly every word should have a footnote, but this is an explanation for laymen. Yes, I know that Wikipedia forbids "original research", but does it forbid original language for clarification purposes?

I am not sure, but perhaps the comment is that the word "trick" is substantially wrong too. The essential element of a "trick" is that it can be executed, and that matches the statement in the standard German textbook by Kraßer and Ann that says that an invention is "eine Lehre zum Handeln", a teaching that says how to act. That excludes mere facts. Don't blame me for using a German text. I am not German, but Germany happens to be the center of European patent law.

Is it because of the resistance against the word "trick" that my entore contribution was thrown away, with really rude comments? The present text is almost a literary essay about the "essence" of the invention, but the word "invention" is primarily a "technical" legal concept. An unexpected aspect of the legal "invention" concept is that it implies neither novelty nor non-obviousness (advancement) - but that is also true in common parlance. Thousands of years ago our ancestors made the invention of fire. It is still considered an invention, thousands of years later.

A final comment on the prohibition of "original research" is that some (authoritative) sources claim that it is impossible to give a good (legal) definition of the invention concept. Could one imagine that an encyclopedia says: this is a legal concept but we don't tell you what it means since lawyers say that it is impossible to define it? There is at least a colloquial definition, which may not answer all questions in court cases, but certainly help laymen to get the answer they were looking for when they consultend WikiPedia. Or is WikiPedia aiming at satisfying professionals? That would require dozens of pages of text. For that purpose, I would refer to the Benkard-Bruchhausen handbook - but that is in German again (which incidentally is a foreign language for me as well). Anyway, the present "essay" does not satisfy the needs of lawyers either.

I find it highly disappointing that a single critic can throw my carefully drafted text away. If Wikipedia depends on voluteers, they should not be discourageed let alone offended. Rbakels (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The OED definition is not helpful. I makes the usual mistake of confusing the invention concept with novelty. As I said, both in law and in commonparlance inventions are not inherently new. We talk about the fire, the wheel and the steam engine as inventions, not "former inventions".

I am afraid there is a methodological issue here. In some academic disciplines, the approach is to have as many ctations as possible, and choosing one is probably objectionable because it may be considered "original research". But is an encyclopedia really an academic reference book? It seems to me that an encyclopedia should inform (educated?) laymen about the essence of a topic. This requires explanations that may not have references - but still are no "original research". A teacher must find creative explanations that clarify complex topics to laymen - but an explanation is no "original research". The topic "invention" is particularly cumbersome since the meaning of this concept is controversial. Whilst a strictly academic approach may require a comprehensive overview of existing conceptions, such an approach will be utterly confusing for laymen looking for a basic explanation. The purpose of Wikipedia is to make knowledge available in as many languages as possible - which confirms that an academic reference book is not the prime purpose. Rbakels (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The OED defines invention as "The original contrivance or production of a new method or means of doing something, of an art, kind of instrument, etc. previously unknown". I don't know whether that helps.

The word "trick" may have a derogatory meaning in English. For me, it was a nice and concise way to explain to a laymen the idea of an invention. 1) tricks end inventions are knowledge 2) both can be executed by any "person skilled in the art" - there is not another invention needed for that purpose. This is not "orginal research" but a summary of the German Kraßer/Ann textbook. They refer to "Lehre zum Handeln" = a teaching how to act. Which (among other things) excludes mere facts, and mere ideas. Of course this is a summary for education purposes. For a full explanation, read my 263 page PhD thesis.

I started this comment by the remark tha an invention is not inherently new or "non-obvious", both legally and in common parlance. We stil refer to the invention of the steam engine, not the former invention of the steam engine. So the convention concept itself has nothing to do with "advanced". Rbakels (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Rbakels (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Animal-inspired inventions

FYI: I am a newcomer and this is my first wikipedia edit, as prompted by an online MOOC on social media.

I think animals do not generally get the credit they deserve when it comes to their importance in human lives. Recently, David Attenborough said that our natural world is under assault. This is likely do to the under-appreciation of animals. Animals serve as inspiration. They also generate technologies/advances themselves (spider silk, antibiotics on platypus). Let's honor our natural world and its animals. A reference to this article would be a start: http://mentalfloss.com/article/22702/10-technologies-we-stole-animal-kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.32.26 (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Gadgets

1. invent

1. inventing

1. eventingsf

1. www.eventsingsf@#inventingsf

1. makkemak@markblumeschmidts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makkemak5 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Hearing no objection, I merged the pages. Cnilep (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Inventor is a short stub describing "a person who creates or discovers [...] an invention." Since these are clearly closely related topics, and since Invention is the more elaborated article, I think that Inventor should be merged into it. Opinions? Cnilep (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contradicts

@Jakesyl: You added the template {{contradicts}}, but did not specify which other articles 'Invention' contradicts, nor how. Could you (or other editors who see the contradiction(s)) please comment here about what problems you see? Thank you, Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed the template, as it was not clear what, if anything, contradicted other information on Wikipedia, and there did not appear to be any action forthcoming. Cnilep (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

MathMathematics

Hei 2405:204:A095:D424:3856:EFB6:E65D:48AB (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Invented (album) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)