Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One
1–10 of 43 posts
Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One
#2EFF 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.”
Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One
#3This 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...
Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One
#4So 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.
Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One
#5EFF 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”) desc…
Exactly. They're not redefining "integer", they're saying that in the context of talking about an "integer multiple" of a time period it should be obvious that they mean double, triple, or higher integer multiples.
Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One
#6This 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.o…
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
"Integer" has a defined meaning. They chose that word, but it seems that they don't like the implications of that word.
Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One
#7This 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.o…
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…
It seems clear that they used the word "integer" to clarify that only whole number multiples were allowed, and not 1.5, 2.7, etc. As to whether 1 is allowed, that's not determined one way or the other by the use of the word "integer".
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.
Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One
#8It 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...
Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One
#9So 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.
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.
Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One
#10EFF 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”) desc…
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
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.