Talk:Globalscape

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of patents[edit]

[Discussion moved here from User talk:intgr -- intgr [talk] 10:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)][reply]

Hi Intgr, I posted on the Globalscape page their two patents and was about to post a patent pending they have in applied for status. Then I saw I forgot to save the patents. Then I discovered, lol, I did indeed save them, but they had been removed tentatively (I see the undo link). I like the shock value. It woke me up. Kind of bummed me out first to think all the time and effort to research it was totally wasted. I vote for Wikipedia to be a little more forewarning to its new editors and not so harsh like a blast of cold wind. I'm sure it may have felt urgent to remove poste haste to whoever did it, but frankly, it's a new site and I'm not sure that anyone has seen my changes other than the group of ten people I invited to see it. I'm just saying a heads up would have been appreciated much more than the shock of thinking I had lost all my effort about their patents. You know, be kind to animals and humans. We're here to have fun at our tasks, I thought. That's my thought on the "jerk it off fast without any warning" etiquette. (Not trying to strike out at someone, just giving honest feedback that would improve relations among real people here. I'm looked at as a very caring person, I'm sure, in the real world, that is, where people actually meet me, see me face to face. I'm used to courtesy given and received like opening doors for women AND men, and having them do it for me, daily, everywhere; of helping others into their cars, to get groceries off the top shelves, and having that type of thing done for me. Daily. There are an enormous amount of kind and appreciative people out there, in my life, every day. So the contrast is great between what I see in my daily life in the city and my few experiences so far with editors and monitors on Wikipedia. I hope I can help a change for the better. (Hope all the detail helps.)

Now, you wrote me that " (We don't want lists of patents, you don't see the IBM article listing their thousands of patents)". I might agree with not posting IBM's patents unless there's a good reason they should be listed. As I understand Wikipedia, that decision would be based on the context and relevancy to the main topic being covered, such that you can indeed have various types of lists on Wikipedia, such as Free software programs, IRC clients, Free online journals, Postal codes, Unusual articles, Numbering schemes, just to get started in the technical space, and are allowed lists in hundreds of other areas on Wikipedia, too, such as Alternative music artists, Ambient artists, Disco artists, Grammy Hall of Fame Award recipients, Hip hop artists, R&B musicians, and Soul musicians. In fact, there are hundreds times more lists on Wikipedia with the full blessing of Wikipedia, but I'm sure there are plenty who could tell you the same thing you told me, that "we don't want lists of punk rockers on Wikipedia". It's like this, to me, One man's trash is another's treasure. You may think the world of punk rock or that mean rapping style some have, and others may find that all disgusting and worthless in their opinion. You may like a math list or star list for your astronomy taste, and I and other computer geeks may like staying up on patents. Patents certainly are a good way of keeping up with, even ahead of, the technology that is out there. Granted, it's not as fun as dancing to your favorite song, but patent study can be fun, exciting and very rewarding.

So I would have this question for anybody on Wikipedia who sought to ban an IBM patent list, Why would you ban an IBM patent list of such fabulous technology but have 10,000 other lists, even "Lists of lists"? Oh, I loved to see THAT one, Lists of lists.

twould like to also get to the point about why I myself put the patent references on the Globalscape page. You see, unlike IBM, Globalscape is very tiny. IBM is a $155 billion dollar giant that everybody knows is credible, capable, complete and certified, so telling people, "And not only that, IBM has 5,000 patents! You can believe they are for real!" But Globalscape, as tiny as it is, with a market value of just $50 million, is just 1/3100th the size of IBM. To me, if you tell me about IBM and I have a question of confidence in them that they are bonifide, I would be crazy to doubt they are highly credible. But way on the other hand and other side of the scale, if I am typical and have never even heard of Globalscape, then I'm going to need some help believing they are a valid, credible, certifiable company, and that means getting everything on the table to see that has ounce of credibility to it, and showing their "gigantic" (I laugh) list of 3 patents, does speak well for them. It's just three, not IBM's thousands upon thousands. I'm not trying to post thousands of patents. IBM doesn't need anyone to show anything to prove with citations that they are qualified and most excellent; but Globalscape, I'm sorry to say, does need that. Now to put to rest this image of so many patents like IBM, let me say that if I was going to list all the IBM patents here, first I would look on the Internet to see if that list was already out there. If not, I might create it myself and put it out there, or if that couldn't be used, I would ask some credible 3rd party to do that, and I could then cite and link to that. But here, Globalscape, which really compared to IBM is vastly in need of credibility which patents would give, especially if those are patents that are currently being used in their software and not just on a disk or in a file cabinet. So bottom line, listing the two patents they have plus the patent they have pending in application status for their Tappin technology is a list of 3 and it goes to their credibility, which as I said and reiterated, Such citations will definitely be helpful to someone who is looking for a credible company with some substance behind them. With IBM, we all know they are credible, but in this case here, with a company 1/3100th the size of IBM, the three patents will help people this little company has put years and a LOT of money (do you know how much a patent costs to pursue for multiple years, just the fees alone at the patent office?) and are using the technology, so it isn't likely they are faking patents to look good to scam people. I'm trying to show they are a decent, valid company that's put and putting an honest day's effort behind their products. That's what the patent inclusions are all about.

I know I wrote a lot. I'm a busy person. But I want to be thorough. I know you have a tough job policing the site with all the people who just don't follow the rules. I've been finding a lot of things obvious to me, like pages with totally 3 year old notices about no citations, just posting their opinions, basically. So I know that has got to get irritating. But believe me, by my attention to detail I have shown, I am paying attention to the rules here, and reading them and the help page regularly. I trust Wikipedia will permit me these three (I haven't posted the 3rd yet) patent citations on the basis it goes to the desperately needed credibility and confidence giving for such a tiny company.

Thanks. MightyMaven (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyMaven (talk • contribs) 00:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MightyMaven: I have moved this discussion from my personal talk page to here, so other editors interested in this article can also take part.
First, I appreciate your efforts to be thorough, but please take the time to think your messages through and write them in a more terse manner. If every exchange with you will result in a 1300-word essay then that makes communication with you time-consuming and difficult.
Disagreements over article content frequently follow this "BOLD, revert, discuss pattern", so don't take the reversion as "jerk it off fast without any warning"; just like you didn't need to ask for permission to add the list, I don't need one to perform a revert. By completing those two steps we've established that we have a disagreement and can start a discussion. I admit I didn't do a good job in justifying in my edit summary and IBM was a bad example to use, so here's a better attempt.
Your goal as a Wikipedia editor is not to convince anyone that it's a "valid, credible, certifiable company" as you say. Your goal is to neutrally summarize facts that are covered in other published reliable sources, per WP:V: "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". For the purpose of verifiability, patent applications are not considered reliable sources. Particularly note "Noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery for businesses. [...]"
So in line with verifiablity, I think the coverage about patents should be limited to what independent published sources say about that company's patent portfolio. For example, the IBM article briefly mentions patents because IBM is well known (and noted in reliable sources) for the size of its portfolio. Motorola mentions patents as the reason for Google's acquisition. But they don't go beyond that.
If you survey well-written Wikipedia articles about technology companies, almost none of them feel the need to list particular patents. Patents in software/technology are mostly treated as weaponry for lawyers and have little relevance to anyone else. Rather, it's more important to cover what the company does and the products it has. -- intgr [talk] 12:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Globalscape. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Globalscape&oldid=1202320139"