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.”
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.
In any case, the EFF loses credibility when it overstates the position to make someone look more ridiculous than is warranted.
The EFF does great work, but they need to dial the clickbait-o-meter down a bit.
As someone who has ordinary skill in mathematics, (and cperciva above, who has extraordinary skill in mathematics, agrees), I see the use of "integer multiple" here not as a unambigious plain meaning at all. It's akin to saying "This patent covers the use of lasers in blah blah" -- did the patent intend to include a case where exactly one laser is used? The answer depends on context -- real lawyering, not language-lawyering.
But where the issue comes up is if that's not clear. Patents are supposed to put people on notice of what is--and conversely, what is not--free for others to use. Here, by using the word "integer", which has a very precise and definite meaning in math and science, that conveys certain information.
Part of the problem with the current state of our patent laws is that claims are not clear and the public isn't on notice of what the patent owners are claiming. This discussion is a good example of that. If the patent owner was clear in what they meant, would we be having this discussion. Would the patent owner itself have claimed that "n=1" infringes if it was clear that n>=2?
Mathematics precisely defines the term "integer." Mathematics also provides quick and easy ways to exclude "1". None of that was done here, to the detriment of the public's notice of when they were infringing.
Patents, despite how esoteric they have become, are ostensibly written for those with skill in the art. If we're all having problems understanding what, exactly, the patent owner meant (including the patent owner!) there's a problem.
*edited for clarity
But CW's current filing contains this:
According to the patent, “The MAC-e PDU is sent to the physical layer every n*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.”
In other words, the specification excludes the n=1 case, and the n<1 cases are nonsensical.
Then they decided that it obviously was not covered by their patent.
I don't think the courts should play this game any more than your compiler should simply decide it can figure out what you really meant whenever your program contains an error.
Words used in patent claims are always defined by how they are used in the context of the patent description.
You can't read the claims and think you understand what they cover, without reading the description. A thesaurus doesn't matter, wikipedia doesn't matter, the opinion of an math professor doesn't matter. Patent description.
Even the patent holder said N=1 was obviously included... until that presented a problem and they decided it was obviously not what they intended.
Why is it the case that people believe that the public, who did not write this patent, should have to guess regarding what it may or may not cover when they're also at threat of millions of dollars in penalties should they guess wrong? And that's neglecting court costs & attorney's fees, which are almost always a sunk cost--you pay them merely for getting sued and you have essentially no chance of recovering any of that, even if you're right, unless they essentially get laughed out of court because it's your burden to prove that the case was exceptionally bad... even though you did nothing wrong.
[1] https://www.eff.org/files/2015/09/24/core_wireless_claim_con...
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
"Integer" has a defined meaning. They chose that word, but it seems that they don't like the implications of that word.
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.
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.
Anyway, EFF does a disservice by through flame on the issue instead of explaining it clearly. I still have no idea who is suing over over what, and why it matters what "integer means".
Suppose the word integer weren't used at all -- what would it mean if the patent had originally stated explicitly "integer greater than 1" vs "integer greater than 0" ?
Please advance the conversation forward, don't muddy it up with grandstanding rhetoric.
As to the patent owner originally accusing n=1 being part of the infringing apparatus/method, I agree that they shouldn't have done this if n=1 doesn't make sense in the context of their patent. That's more likely the mistake then the current CC.
The point of the article is to show how words--even words with very well understood meanings--are often not clear. This is a problem for someone who reads this patent. How can they be sure whether what they do is in or out side of reach of the patent claims?
The patent owner, if they intended to only claim {n>=2 |n e N}, could have easily and precisely done so. It is problematic that it is not until expensive litigation and thousands of lawyer hours will we know whether n>=1 or n>=2 or even something else or nothing at all.
If a patent has some parameter space, and some values of that space infringe on something, where others do not appear to, then it makes sense to exclude those values.
> They chose that word, but it seems that they don't like the implications of that word.
But, out of context, the word has implications of denoting 0, -1, -2, ... those were present and clear when they initially chose the word.
Anyway, how about that C language, redefining integers to be between INT_MIN and INT_MAX! And what to make of these "unsigned integers". That's a total oxymoron; I mean the C constant 5U is positive. Positive is a sign. So, not unsigned! :)
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.
http://www.theonion.com/article/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroe...
