
Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One - billyvg
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/09/our-broken-patent-system-work-patent-owner-insists-integer-does-not-include-number
======
harryjo
EFF is being smartass here. I don't know the merits of the case, but the EFF
is intentionally mischaracterizing it.

The original patent used "integer" in a place where the mathematician's Z
can't possibly be what they meant, and the dispute is over whether the patent
covers the "n=1" case or only the "n>1" case.

From the legal files:

> Here, the “integer multiple of transmission time interval” (or “n times
> TTI”) describes the interval of time between subsequent new transmissions of
> packets (called “MAC-e PDUs” in the patent).

> An interval of time between transmissions cannot be negative (which would
> nonsensically put the subsequent transmission in the past);

> nor can it be zero (which would nonsensically make the transmissions occur
> simultaneously and instantaneously).

> According to the patent, “The MAC-e PDU is sent to the physical layer every
> n times TTI, instead of once every transmission time interval (TTI).”

> If the integer were to be 1, the MAC-e PDU would be sent to the physical
> layer once every TTI, which is expressly excluded by the specification.”

~~~
veraEFF
hi there! no intentional mischaracterization at all. I posted below but I'll
mention it again. The patent owner actually originally, at the outset of the
litigation, included "1" in their definition of "integer." Later, they changed
it to be only "n>=2."

[https://twitter.com/vranieri/status/647179711563431940](https://twitter.com/vranieri/status/647179711563431940)

I've seen this before (on BOTH sidees, to be clear): someone changes a plain
meaning of a term to avoid losing. Not sure that's what's happening here, but
it looks like it.

edit to add: Because of some confusion about the purpose of this post. It is
to point out the flaws with the current system.

Words in patents are twisted "like a nose of wax" in order to arrive at a
particular outcome (and as I mentioned, both patent owners and alleged
infringers do this on occasion). A patent system that allows this then
completely undermines the public notice function of patents. A patent should
tell the public not only what the patent owner claims to own, but also what is
free for others to use.

That failed here. Someone who wants to avoid infringement, on reading this
patent, can't tell what they can and cannot do.

In the end, parties are spending thousands (likely millions) of dollars to
figure out what "integer" means. Why? Because the patent owner, who was in the
best position to tell the world what she invented, used a word that has a very
precise meaning when other words could have avoided all of this.

~~~
monochromatic
If they changed their position, that seems more telling to me than the "hurr,
durr, they think integers start at 2" tone of this article. (Although it may
simply have been that it wasn't given much thought initially.)

In any case, the EFF loses credibility when it overstates the position to make
someone look more ridiculous than is warranted.

~~~
voltagex_
Whoever's writing the articles over there has been doing that more and more
recently.

The EFF does great work, but they need to dial the clickbait-o-meter down a
bit.

------
thelema314
This is quite exaggerated; looking at the actual document [1], it's clear that
they're claiming that in the context of the specification, "integer multiple
of transmission time interval" doesn't include negative multiples, or 0 or
even 1 * transmission time interval. As much as I don't like patent trolls, I
see pretty clearly that the intent is 2, 3, 4, etc. times the transmission
time interval.

[1]
[https://www.eff.org/files/2015/09/24/core_wireless_claim_con...](https://www.eff.org/files/2015/09/24/core_wireless_claim_construction_brief.pdf)

~~~
veraEFF
Hey there,

Thanks for the comment. While I agree that the negatives and zero would not
make sense, the interesting case is "1" in particular.

Although it's not in the post, the patent owner actually originally accused
n=1 as being part of the infringing apparatus/method. I don't know when/why
that changed, but presumably it was because they realized they wouldn't win if
that was true. It is this sort of game playing that is problematic.
[https://twitter.com/vranieri/status/647179711563431940](https://twitter.com/vranieri/status/647179711563431940)

"Integer" has a defined meaning. They chose that word, but it seems that they
don't like the implications of that word.

~~~
strommen
There are lots and lots of ridiculous patent and patent claims occurring in
the US. I'm glad that the EFF is fighting against them.

But this particular paragraph in this particular claim is by no means an abuse
of patent law. The patent is about an "integer multiple" of a time period,
which obviously excludes 0 and negatives, and arguably excludes 1.

If there's something else going on here, then please add it to the article.
But otherwise, consider that when you stretch the truth to support an
honorable cause, you are making that cause less honorable.

~~~
Pyxl101
I don't think it's obvious that an "integer multiple" of a quantity
necessarily excludes 0 or 1. I could accept that it excludes zero if from the
context that would make no sense. But to _presume_ that it excludes 1 is a bit
too much.

I'm not sure if I agree with the EFF's position completely, but I see where
they're coming from.

Let's say that I was implementing linear backoff. I do this by multiplying my
base delay time by an iterator i, where i starts at zero and count upwards.
Sleep time = delay + delay * i. So after the first failure, we sleep "delay",
and after the second failure we sleep "2 * delay", and so on. If I was
describing this in words, I might say that I was multiplying the delay
constant by the integer multiple i. In this context, it clarifies that the
number is a whole number as opposed to a fraction.

------
kazinator
Article is a complete strawman. The patent troll's arguments are that a
_specific integer parameter_ in question cannot be less than two, not that all
integers are not less than two. I.e. that in some specific narrow context,
because of other features of the specification, it is to be understood that
even though the number is referred to as an integer, that just rules out
fractions and real values, and doesn't mean other constraints on the value
have gone out the window.

Evidently there is a history of some waffling in that 1 had been included
previously (probably because the 1 case turned out to infringe on something,
so they wanted to exclude it). Regardless, they had excluded zero and the
negative values from the beginning, it appears.

------
joeax
It makes sense that the patent troll would skip past 1 as an integer when
claiming infringement on its patents. Microsoft already patented 0s and 1s.

[http://www.theonion.com/article/microsoft-patents-ones-
zeroe...](http://www.theonion.com/article/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-599)

------
finstell
So sick of patent trolls. But at the same time I am very angry with big
companies who managed to pull through lawsuits when they got sued. They should
strike back and crush those low-lifes to pieces.

~~~
on_
This sentiment is quite common, but the reality is that patents trolls are
simply a few pieces of paper (IP, Articles of Incorporation, Short term
contracts for rent and consultants) and thus a difficult target. If you were
to challenge and destroy their IP in court, you would prove it worthless and
they would disband, recapitalize, acquire more IP and reincorporate.

