Draft talk:Eric John Swanson

Patents, citation data, and litigation under Wikipedia sourcing policy

Patents, by themselves, are primary sources under Wikipedia policy and are not used alone in this article to establish notability.

“Primary sources are original materials, such as patents…” - WP:PRIMARY

Accordingly, patents in this article are cited for straightforward, descriptive facts (e.g., authorship, filing dates, and subject matter). Patent citation counts themselves are not primary sources. Citation counts represent independent evaluation by later inventors, examiners, and third-party analysts, and constitute secondary analysis under Wikipedia policy:

“Secondary sources analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize information from primary sources.” - WP:SECONDARY

This use is the same as academic citation counts, routinely accepted in notability discussions (including under WP:NACADEMIC) as evidence of impact when supported by reliable sources. Similarly, court decisions and litigation outcomes are independent secondary sources. Judicial opinions evaluate technical evidence, prior art, and economic impact, and are authored independently of the subject. Wikipedia policy recognizes court decisions as reliable secondary sources:
“Court decisions… are usually considered reliable secondary sources.” - WP:RS

In this case, Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics was reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and was reported by independent publications. The litigation is cited to demonstrate independent assessment of technical significance, not merely the existence of a patent. The article follows a layered sourcing approach consistent with policy: Patents used for factual description (primary sources), Citation analysis for evidence of influence (secondary analysis), Court rulings and independent press coverage for external validation (secondary, independent sources). This approach avoids original research (WP:OR) and does not rely on primary sources alone. WhaleFarm (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The WP:THREE best sources appear to be:

1. Ladendorf, Kirk (May 12, 2003). "In Search of Tomorrow's Chips: Industry Maverick Develops Ideas at UT, Ponders New Startup". Austin American-Statesman. - I haven't been able to access this so I need to confirm whether Swanson is the Industry Maverick referred to in the headline. If, so this looks promising.
2. Fujino, Laura, ed. (2003). Digest of technical papers / 2003 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference. Digest of technical papers / IEEE International Solid State Circuits Conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. pp. s17. ISBN 978-0-7803-7707-3. and Fujino, Laura, ed. (2003). Digest of technical papers / 2003 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference. Digest of technical papers / IEEE International Solid State Circuits Conference (1st ed.). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. pp. s18. ISBN 978-0-7803-7707-3. - The impact of his work has been recognised by his peers at the IEEE. Since both recognitions are from the same organization, this can only be counted as a single source.
3. None identified

The WP:GNG requires we identify multiple sources so techincally two is sufficient. Three would be more convincing, of course. ~Kvng (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

citations - I fixed the IEEE citations to show that David Robertson and Tom Lee were the separate authors of the two IEEE inclusions. Fujino is the publisher. WhaleFarm (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I also added another Austin American statesman reference WhaleFarm (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Htanaungg, MCE89, Theroadislong, and Aplucas0703: All of you declined this draft citing notability. We arguably have two reliable sources. It looks to me like it has an approximately even chance of surviving AfD. If I went ahead and accepted this, would you take it to AfD and what sort of argument would make there? ~Kvng (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kvng The source in the book (Fujino) is nothing more than a tiny passing mention in a citation. Beyond that, it was written by the ISSCC for the purpose of promoting/celebrating the work for the ISSCC. That makes it not independent. First source does mention him, according to a search for his name at newspapers.com on that date (no full source), but it only appeared to be a few short paragraphs. Most everything else shows little more than passing mentions or being a primary source. Filing lots of patents or a lawsuit does not make one immediately notable. AaronNealLucas (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued discussion. I want to clarify the ISSCC anniversary material and to note that an additional independent secondary source has since been added.

On the ISSCC 50th-anniversary retrospectives:

The Robertson and Lee articles are cited for a narrow, factual purpose: that Swanson is an author on papers explicitly selected by the respective authors as part of a limited set (24–26 papers) illustrating 50 years of ISSCC history in analog and communications circuits. These selections are editorial and are stated by the authors themselves.

On independent secondary coverage:

Since the earlier comments, a long-form Austin American-Statesman business feature (July 25, 1994) has been added. This article independently identifies Swanson by name, quotes him in his role as vice president of technology at Crystal Semiconductor, and discusses his work in the context of patent valuation, litigation, and licensing. This constitutes independent, non-technical press coverage beyond primary sources and conference publications.

I agree that patents alone do not establish notability, and the article does not rely on them alone. The current sourcing reflects multiple independent contexts—press coverage, court decisions, institutional recognition, and peer-reviewed publication history—consistent with WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. WhaleFarm (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)