Module 4 Discussion No 2

.docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

307

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by BaronNeutron3360

Hi Professor and classmates. In order for a patent to be valid, it must be patentable, novel, useful, and non-obvious (Kubasek et al., 2020). While the plaintiff did have a patent on her business concept (process), which meets the first requirement of the patent process, it was found lacking in other areas. When she initially created this process in 2001, the internet was still relatively new, and online shopping was not widely accepted yet. Another classmate mentioned that it was used more for social networking and research than shopping. The internet had to overcome a major hurdle related to online security before consumers accepted and utilized it the way it is today. On the other hand, the internet offers tremendous advantages for comparison shopping, value, and convenience. So, for the plaintiff to have had the forethought to streamline her online shopping platform to add more value and convenience to her customer's shopping experience was a useful idea at the time and therefore met the third requirement of the patent process. However, she failed to thoroughly research other shopping platforms to determine if any of her competitors or other online e-tailers were using similar processes, which resulted in the process not being novel or non-obvious in the judge's opinion. Data mining and customer profiling are not new nor novel ideas. They are part of offering excellent customer service. I think Amazon is the king of this process, followed by Walmart. Their platforms not only remember your online searches but also provide suggestions for similar products they think you might like based on your search history. Numerous retailers are using this concept in both her niche market and others. I think it would only take a relatively short time for another e-tailer to come to the same conclusion when seeking a competitive edge over their competition. As the internet continued to grow and become ever more popular, the benefits she once enjoyed at first were severely impacted by the influx of more and larger competitors entering the market and, therefore, could not have been directly attributable to the plaintiff. The judge decided that the plaintiff's patent was infringed upon because the defendant's process, by his own admission, was basically the same as hers. However, the judge didn't believe the patent was valid because it failed to meet the requirements of being novel or non-obvious. Finally, after considering the arguments and facts of this case, the judge ruled that the plaintiff's patent was invalid, and the defendant did not have to change his business practices. I agree with the judge's decision because, based on patent requirements, the plaintiff's process is neither non- obvious nor novel and, therefore, should not have qualified for a patent in the first place. Regards, ***** Reference Kubasek, N. K., Browne, M. N., Dhooge, L. J., Herron, D. J., & Barkacs, L. L. (2020). Dynamic Business Law (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Hi, I agree with your description of the facts in the case. In 2001, as referenced in the videos, the idea may have been novel and non-obvious, but fast forward 20 years, and it is definitely an obvious process. Almost every shopping website I visit will have some type of algorithm available for the simple purpose of helping me to buy more stuff. Makeup websites have it set up to not only remember my color preferences but also suggest colors and items that I may have previously viewed or are similar to those I purchased. Even though she does acknowledge that other websites have something similar to her process, she seems more bothered that a competitor has a similar approach and is taking business from her, not so much in the idea that other types of sellers are using a similar process. Regards, ****** Hi, I agree that, as it stands, the patent would not be considered valid. There are too many similar processes on so many different shopping websites, and today they even go so far as to suggest items that you may or may not have considered based on previous viewing habits. The process is clearly for trying to lure in today's consumers. For example, let's take a makeup website; I will log in, and the site already has my color preferences but also has a photo of me that I can "look at" to inform me of what colors I could consider. That is a very similar process to what Gardner had; even though it may not pertain to makeup, it is still a similar setup in today's website access, which is totally obvious. Regards, *****

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help