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

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program.

Untitled

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]