Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 43 posts

Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One

#11

Post by AnimalMuppet »

harryjo wrote: post #2

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”) desc…

Sounds like they had to exclude n=1 due to prior art. (In a patent, "Do Y instead of X" sounds like there's prior art for X, and Y is what's different with this patent.)

Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One

#12

Post by gohrt »

veraEFF wrote: post #6
thelema314 wrote: post #3

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.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…

When a patent covers X, Y, and Z, (or, 1,2, and 3) and it turns out that X (=1) is unpatentable, would that make Y and Z unpatentable?

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.

Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One

#13

Post by gohrt »

veraEFF wrote: post #10
harryjo wrote: post #2

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”) 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…

Thanks for clarifying. The point that matters here is, word games aside, what is the legal difference between "the integer can be 1, 4, ..." and "the integer can be 4,..." (excluding 1)

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.

Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One

#14

Post by veraEFF »

gohrt wrote: post #12
veraEFF wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When a patent covers X, Y, and Z, (or, 1,2, and 3) and it turns out that X (=1) is unpatentable, would that make Y and Z unpatentable? 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 stat…

In a patent, what matters are the claims at the end. These are what defines what the inventor claims to have a right to exclude others from doing.

If a patent claim covers X, Y, or Z and it turns out that yes, X was known in the art, then yes, the patent will be invalid.

In plain English: Suppose someone claims to have invented doing a thing once, twice, or three times. That patent would give them the right to exclude anyone from doing that thing once, twice, or three times. But if people have been doing that thing once for years, the patent owner is attempting to exclude people from doing things that people already do. That's invalid. The court will not rewrite the claim to save it to being only 2 or 3 times--there may be other ways to do it, but the court is not that way.

Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One

#15

Post by larrys »

cperciva wrote: post #5
harryjo wrote: post #2

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”) 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.

This is actually pretty scary. It's as if they are stretching the truth for their own political purposes. Kind of like politicians do all of the time. Kind of like Rolling Stone does when playing loose and fast with the facts. It's unfortunate (assuming you and the gp comment are correct I didn't read the documents) that EFF is doing this type of thing.

Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One

#16

Post by veraEFF »

gohrt wrote: post #13
veraEFF wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for clarifying. The point that matters here is, word games aside, what is the legal difference between "the integer can be 1, 4, ..." and "the integer can be 4,..." (excluding 1) 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…

Yes, as you'll see in the post, we note that patent owners can redefine words, and that's ok.

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

Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One

#17

Post by jegutman »

larrys wrote: post #15
cperciva wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is actually pretty scary. It's as if they are stretching the truth for their own political purposes. Kind of like politicians do all of the time. Kind of like Rolling Stone does when playing loose and fast with the facts. It's unfortunate (assuming you and the gp comment are correct I didn't read the documents) that EFF is doing this type of thing.

N is an integer multiple of N. The integer multiples of N are ... -3N -2N -1N 0 1N 2N 3N... much like the integers are ... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 ...

Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One

#18

Post by pdpi »

jegutman wrote: post #17
larrys wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually pretty scary. It's as if they are stretching the truth for their own political purposes. Kind of like politicians do all of the time. Kind of like Rolling Stone does when playing loose and fast with the facts. It's unfortunate (assuming you and the gp comment are correct I didn't read the documents) that EFF is doing this type of thing.

N is an integer multiple of N. The integer multiples of N are ... -3N -2N -1N 0 1N 2N 3N... much like the integers are ... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 ...

Out of context? Sure. But given this amount of context, while I still feel inclined to disagree with their reading that n > 1, in my mind it's now gone from completely preposterous to a reasonable discussion.

The part that really bothers me in all this is that, reading the EFF article, I was wondering why they kept going on about how absurd it is to argue that 1 isn't an integer, but then never specified how the patent trolls came to make that claim. It's now pretty clear to me: because if they had explained it, people might actually have thought it to be a reasonable argument.

I held the EFF in pretty high regard before. After this? I'm not so sure any more.

Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One

#19

Post by veraEFF »

thelema314 wrote: post #7
veraEFF wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thei…

Yes, the problem is for whether 1 is allowed or not -- do you infringe if integer includes 1?

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.

Re: Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One

#20

Post by strommen »

veraEFF wrote: post #6
thelema314 wrote: post #3

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.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…

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.

Post reply on HN