Talk:Infringement

Incorrect Definition

Go here & find even one definition of "infringe" or Infringement" that says temporary, temporary, partial, or transient nature http://www.onelook.com/ -- Minor infringement is not a redundancy User:JimWae at 05:57, 2005 March 13

Delete?

Accuracy aside, the word "infringement" would be better off in a dictionary than an encyclopedia. There is nothing much else to say about the word. If the article is only going to be filled by a list of the ways you can infringe the law it would be so unwieldly that I don't see how it would really be of any use. I'd suggest possibly redirecting this to Law. Any thoughts? -- PullUpYourSocks 15:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No

a) neither a minor nor a major infringement can be confused with a taking, because both minor and major infringements are partial, temporary, or transient violations rather than wholesale confiscations. b) wikipedia has hundreds of legal definitions. You want this one removed because it interferes with your POV. This is a political issue that you want to avoid.Mlorrey 15:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Political issues? You'll have to explain. I don't see what political issues are involved here. Nevertheless, you should not rely on the fact that there are already lots of legal terms, while many of them are well-defined legal principles supported by a signfigant amount of case law and history, others are essentially copy and pasted from law dictionaries and do not have potential to grow beyond that. In the latter case it would be more useful to have them merged with more substantial articles or maybe even moved to wiktionary. On the face of it it does not seem clear to me as to what is supposed to be in this article. Is there something more on the subject that can be added outside of just more examples? Perhaps it's an article naming issue. Is the article a list of different types of infringements? If so, it would help if the title reflected that. Or, on the other hand, maybe it could be a "disambiguation" article, consisting of all the areas of law where the word is used. The article consisting of the title "infringement" with only a short definition and a couple of examples seems vague and too much like a dictionary entry. I am not trying to push any POV outside of a neutral one, I'm only trying to get to the bottom of what should be in this article in order to make it as clear and informative as possible. Cheers! -- PullUpYourSocks 02:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• presentation of 2nd amendment issues belongs in article by that name - not socked away (previously with lots of POV) in what should be a simple dictionary entry--JimWae 02:44, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

This all got started because I found that this definition had been blanked out and autoforwarded to the definition of 'infraction', which in my experience is one more tactic of those who edit legal dictionaries over time to change the meanings of laws. Just because I discovered the malfeasance going on is no reason to slap me with POV. I'm merely trying to correct what the other side obfuscates.

As for definitions I had posted the following elsewhere: ""Infringe" is said 'to break or destroy', but that is an incomplete definition, because fringe is the fragile edge, ergo the more proper definition of 'infringe' is to break or destroy the fragile edge of something. We can see this in property law wrt trespass. Trespass, breaking and entering, vandalism are infringements of ones property rights, they are not outright confiscations or destructions of one's property rights. They are temporary, minor, transient violations, not permanent or total. In legal use, "infringement" is defined as the unauthorised use of anothers right or property, not its confiscation (e.g. patent infringement). As firearms ownership is a right of property, it is clear that government, nor any other party, shall use our property right to keep and bear arms without our authorization. Note: Black's Law says: "Infraction - A traffic infraction is sometimes called a "traffic ticket." Black's Law Dictionary states that an infraction is "a breach, violation, or infringement; as of a law, a contract, a right or duty."" Law.com Dictionary says, "infringement n. 1) a trespassing or illegal entering. 2) in the law of patents (protected inventions) and copyrights (protected writings or graphics), the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty. Even though the infringement may be accidental (an inventor thinks he is the first to develop the widget although someone else has a patent), the party infringing is responsible to pay the original patent or copyright owner substantial damages, which can be the normal royalty or as much as the infringers' accumulated gross profits. See also: copyright patent plagiarism royalty trademark". The WordNet legal dictionary says, "[n] 1. a crime less serious than a felony [n] 2. an act that disregards an agreement or a right; "he claimed a violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment"." Webster's 1913 says, " \In*fringe"ment\, n. 1. The act of infringing; breach; violation; nonfulfillment; as, the infringement of a treaty, compact, law, or constitution. "The punishing of this infringement is proper to that jurisdiction against which the contempt is." --Clarendon. 2. An encroachment on a patent, copyright, or other special privilege; a trespass."

dictionary.com says in·fringe·ment n. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege. See Synonyms at breach

As it is a crime less serious than a felony, i.e. a taking is a felony, a violation or encroachment is an infringement or infraction (infraction, i.e. in fraction, breaking part or portion of law)

Law.com says: "infringement n. 1) a trespassing or illegal entering.

See: entering, not stealing, taking, or confiscating. "Entering" implies that one is crossing a threshold or border, i.e. "the fringe". Ergo, I'm right, you're wrong. Mlorrey 03:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The 2nd Amendment issue is not confined to current meaning of the term but also to meaning at time amendment was written --JimWae 22:26, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

dab

I noticed the dab was removed from this page. I'm still completely at a loss as to why this word needs an article. "Infringement" is a noun that has a variety of meanings a variety of contexts, all of which should be described in their proper article, not here. I would strongly suggest turning the article into a short dab page similar to that of violation and leave it at that. --PullUpYourSocks 14:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)