Patent Owner Insists the “Integers” Do Not Include the Number One • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by pollen23 » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 1:30 AM UTC

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.

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.

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

#42

Post by Natsu » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 5:01 AM UTC

pollen23 wrote: post #41

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. 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.

That doesn't explain whether or not the N=1 case is covered by an "integer" multiple of time steps. I'm not aware of a definition any definition of the term integer which does not include 1, which is what the EFF is mocking here.

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.

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

#43

Post by Natsu » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 5:11 AM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #31

veraEFF wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> Yes, as you'll see in the post, we note that patent owners can redefine words, and that's ok. They can do that in this case if their only use of the word "integer" in the entire spec is in reference to this parameter, and if it has been otherwise clear all along (at least "to someone skilled in the art") that it doesn't make sense for the parameter to be less than two. If I write a spec in which some number occurs…

> there is no harm with later adding a glossary item

When are you adding this? If you do that when obtaining the patent, all is well and good.

If you do that in court, after saying otherwise, as has been done here, there's quite a lot of harm. People have a right to know what is and is not patent infringement, as they're on the hook for big money.

If you can just change what your patent does and does not cover, on a whim, when fishing for money in court, there's quite a lot of harm in that. Millions of dollars worth of harm. Nobody had any way of knowing what idiosyncratic definitions of words you were using and yet everybody else was responsible for not infringing upon your patent.