Talk:Illumina, Inc./Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Illumina logo.png

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image:Illumina logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The history section appears to have been lifted from http://www.illumina.com/pages.ilmn?ID=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.234.97.120 (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding a section on Illumnia's market dominace would be useful. https://biomickwatson.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/illumina-destroy-the-opposition-again-almost/ I've seen a few things around suggesting their stranglehold on sequencing is slowing innovation in the market.

Knightrob (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Illumina (company). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090616110221/http://scienceblogs.com:80/geneticfuture/2009/06/illumina_launches_personal_gen.php to http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2009/06/illumina_launches_personal_gen.php

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

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) 18:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Illumina (company). 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) 02:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Czarnik v. Illumina Inc.

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

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.

The result of this discussion was not merged (concluded by User:Indefensible). DMacks (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The article on Czarnik v. Illumina Inc. has an excessive dependence on primary sources (mostly court filings and opinions) and seems to fail the general notability guideline (best source I could find). It is worth noting it is a 13-year-old case so any relevant links may have gone dead; however, even if additional sources were found the case could still be easily covered as part of this article. Article creator has a conflict of interest, which may have led him to overestimate the importance of this case, but has done a commendable job following review processes to ensure his work is neutral. – Teratix ₵ 05:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Researchers interested in Illumina (or the gene sequencing industry generally) will not be particularly interested in the Czarnic case because the case wasn't super important to the company. Researchers interested in the Czarnic case will be doing legal research, not commercial or science research, and thus will not be particularly interested in Illumina per se. I thus suggest keeping the two articles separate because their readership is different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.230.98 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The case may not be incredibly important to the company, but it's relevant enough to warrant a mention in a couple of sentences. The alternative is outright deleting Czarnik v. Illumina, as there's no other merge target I can think of. – Teratix ₵ 13:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't merge – Although the case may not be all that important in the grand scheme of the history of the company, it is notable in the field of patent law. As the article already indicates, it was the first case to hold that reputational harm can satisfy the standing requirement for bringing a 35 USC § 256 claim, which created a district split that is still unresolved. This is a developing area of patent law that is similar to some of Robert Merges's arguments, and Czarnik v Illumina was actually cited in a law review article earlier this year on the topic of courts recognizing a moral right to credit. That law review article is another secondary source that could be added to the article to show notability (I'll add something related to that to the article a little later when I have more time). Inks.LWC (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - The case seems to have standalone significance outside of the context of Illumina, and seems more important to the field of law than to the biotechnology field which Illumina is in. - Indefensible (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose merge I concur with the oppose arguments above. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment - It has been 8 months since this merge proposal was made and it does not seem to have the support to proceed; I think it should be closed soon. - Indefensible (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Removed merge proposal tags as it has been an additional week without comment or objection - Indefensible (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2020 (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.