EFF is being smartass here. I don't know the merits of the case, but the EFF is intentionally mischaracterizing it.<p>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.<p>From the legal files:<p>> 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).<p>> An interval of time between transmissions cannot be negative (which would nonsensically put the subsequent transmission in the past);<p>> nor can it be zero (which would nonsensically make the transmissions occur simultaneously and instantaneously).<p>> 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).”<p>> 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.”
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.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/09/24/core_wireless_claim_construction_brief.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/files/2015/09/24/core_wireless_claim_con...</a>
Article is a complete strawman. The patent troll's arguments are that a <i>specific integer parameter</i> 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.<p>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.
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.<p><a href="http://www.theonion.com/article/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-599" rel="nofollow">http://www.theonion.com/article/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroe...</a>
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.