Talk:Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.

Untitled
This article was first submitted as part of the IP Law WikiProject. Thanks, Mervin7 (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from Request for feedback tool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2010_October_20#Perfect_Web_Technologies.2C_Inc._v._InfoUSA.2C_Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mervin7 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good but a few comments:
 * Remove space between punctuation and references
 * You have some bare links, for example, the link to google patent Check out Cite Patent
 * I didn't follow why you refer to it as the '400 patent, or '400 patent' Unless that is the standard terminology, I didn't like it.
 * Did you include a link to the decision? If you did I missed it. If you did not, I would expect one in the info box and in the main article. is this it? I can't get it to load at the moment, but I think it may be the right link.
 * The phrase "the presence of a long-felt need" reads awkwardly to me. I'm not quite sure what it means, and I'm not sure it is properly constructed as an example of a factual dispute.--SPhilbrickT 23:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, SPhilbrickT. I removed the bare links you mentioned and included the proper links to the case and patent. The term '400 patent is how the patent is referred to in the actual case opinion. The phrase "the presence of a long-felt need" is also from the actual case. Mervin7 (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)