Talk:industry

industry
Rfd-sense: which has been added recently. AFAICS the sense is redundant to the first one: The reference given to the newly added sense seems irrelevant to the sense. --Dan Polansky 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) automated production of material goods
 * 1) Businesses concerned with goods as opposed to services


 * IMO this has to be treated as an RfV. The definition adds "automated", so it is not, on its face, the same. In the context of European patent law, this might actually be used. If it is used attestably in this sense beyond the document cited, it would be includable. Other approaches, such as putting "especially automated" in the first sense, don't seem likely to succeed. In that particular case, I don't think it would accurate with respect to normal usage, at least not over the whole period of usage. And handicraft production might well be excluded from the European patent law sense. DCDuring TALK 19:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There might be a very particular reason for the narrow definition of industry given in this law. There seems to be a particular effort to differentiate "industry" for purposes of patent law from ordinary definitions. See . We have been taking legal definitions relatively seriously, despite their narrow context (usually not narrower than the context of, say, linguistics). DCDuring TALK 19:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The definition seems to be wrong. The European patent law does not limit the term industry to mean "automated production of material goods".
 * ''Under Art. 52 of the Convention, patents are granted to inventions which: are new; involve an inventive step; can be applied in industry.
 * ''* Novelty - an invention is new if it does not form part of the existing state of the art in technology. The state of the art is anything that was disclosed to the public prior to the application date in oral or written form, through use or in any other way.
 * ''* Inventive step - an invention is said to involve an inventive step if, with respect to the existing state of the art, it is not obvious for a person skilled in the art. The inventive step requirement is designed to prevent the patenting of obvious solutions, which would slow down the development of technology.
 * ''* Industrial applicability - this requirement is met if the subject matter of the invention can be manufactured or used in industry of any kind, including agriculture. --Hekaheka 21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems that I was too quick. The software patent directive does contain this strict definition. This is because the European legislators have wanted to limit the patentability of software, and therefore "industry" has been more narrowly defined in this directive than in patent law in general. --Hekaheka 21:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Boy! That is a narrow context. It is now so indicated. Do you think it is attestable? I would expect there to have been some nattering about this over the last ten years. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus. Looking at the debate an RFV may be in order than than a second RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)