Week 4 Discussion Post 7 Document

Thejudgedecidedthatthepatentwasinfringedbutchoosenotto

finethedefendantbecauseofrulenumberfourofpatents.

AccordingtoDynamicBusinesslawrulenumberfourstatesthatthe

patentmustbesomethingthatisn'tobvious.Whenyouinteractwith

abusinessthereareseveralavenuesfortheinteractiontohappen;

Yougotothebusinessinperson,thebusinesscomestoyouthrough

asalespersonoryouinteractthroughamedium(internet,phoneor

etc).Theplaintiffarguedthatshecameupwiththeideato

rememberingaclient.Lookingatherpatentfromanother

perspective,theplaintiffissuingbecausearestaurantwaiter/

waitressrememberstohaveadrinkreadywhenaregularsitsdown.

Consideringthatherpatentdoesfortheshoeindustryonlinewhat

manyotherindustriesdothroughdifferentmediumstopersonalize

service.Itisa"goodsense"approachtobusinessapproachandnot

somethingthattheplaintiff"created".Mostwebsitescreateaprofile

thatstoresasignificantamountofinformationtoexpeditethecheck

outprocessandrestrictingsimpleconveniencethroughapatentis

likepatentingtheconceptofhavingchairsatashoestore.

DynamicBusinessLaw5theditionNanceyKubasek