6 ms·

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

47 points by billyvg 11y ago

harryjo 11y ago
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”) 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.”
- cperciva 11y ago
  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.
  - larrys 11y ago
    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.
    - jegutman 11y ago
      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 ...
      - pdpi 11y ago
        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.
        Natsu 11y ago
        Well, the thing about that is that the patent holder first said it covers N=1 and then that it doesn't cover that. N=1 is hardly an unreasonable multiple to choose for a time interval. If they meant something other than the mathematical definition, they should have properly defined it. We would never say that the compiler should have known from context that I obviously meant unsigned int when I wrote signed int. Patents are also written in formal language. No one should have to guess about what they might or might not cover when there are huge financial penalties for being wrong, or even being close enough to being wrong to wind up in court.
    - throwawaykf05 11y ago
      This is not new behavior for the EFF. Some previous comments calling this out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9472613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9472613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7974446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7974446
  - Natsu 11y ago
    So is it obvious that n=1 is included or excluded by this context? The patent holder believed that it obviously was patented by them until they realized that would be problematic. 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.
  - pollen23 11y ago
    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.
    - Natsu 11y ago
      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.
- veraEFF 11y ago
  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 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.
  - gohrt 11y ago
    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.
    - veraEFF 11y ago
      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
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  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.)
- contravariant 11y ago
  They phrased it somewhat confusingly though. They could have just said that while "an integer multiple" technically includes the case 1, 0, -1, etc. those cases are clearly excluded by the rest of the patent. There's no need to change the definition of the word "integer".
thelema314 11y ago
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.org/files/2015/09/24/core_wireless_claim_construction_brief.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2015/09/24/core_wireless_claim_con...
- veraEFF 11y ago
  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 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.
  - thelema314 11y ago
    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.
    - veraEFF 11y ago
      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.
finstell 11y ago
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.
- on_ 11y ago
  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.
joeax 11y ago
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. http://www.theonion.com/article/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-599 http://www.theonion.com/article/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroe...
kazinator 11y ago
Article is a complete strawman. The patent troll's arguments are that a specific integer parameter 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. 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.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

47 points by billyvg 11y ago

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”) 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.”

cperciva 11y ago
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.
- larrys 11y ago
  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.
  - jegutman 11y ago
    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 ...
    - pdpi 11y ago
      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.
      - Natsu 11y ago
        Well, the thing about that is that the patent holder first said it covers N=1 and then that it doesn't cover that. N=1 is hardly an unreasonable multiple to choose for a time interval. If they meant something other than the mathematical definition, they should have properly defined it. We would never say that the compiler should have known from context that I obviously meant unsigned int when I wrote signed int. Patents are also written in formal language. No one should have to guess about what they might or might not cover when there are huge financial penalties for being wrong, or even being close enough to being wrong to wind up in court.
  - throwawaykf05 11y ago
    This is not new behavior for the EFF. Some previous comments calling this out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9472613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9472613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7974446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7974446
- Natsu 11y ago
  So is it obvious that n=1 is included or excluded by this context? The patent holder believed that it obviously was patented by them until they realized that would be problematic. 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.
- pollen23 11y ago
  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.
  - Natsu 11y ago
    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.
veraEFF 11y ago
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 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.
- gohrt 11y ago
  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.
  - veraEFF 11y ago
    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
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
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.)
contravariant 11y ago
They phrased it somewhat confusingly though. They could have just said that while "an integer multiple" technically includes the case 1, 0, -1, etc. those cases are clearly excluded by the rest of the patent. There's no need to change the definition of the word "integer".

thelema314 11y ago

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.org/files/2015/09/24/core_wireless_claim_construction_brief.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2015/09/24/core_wireless_claim_con...

veraEFF 11y ago
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 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.
- thelema314 11y ago
  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.
  - veraEFF 11y ago
    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.

finstell 11y ago

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.

on_ 11y ago
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.

joeax 11y ago

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. http://www.theonion.com/article/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-599 http://www.theonion.com/article/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroe...

kazinator 11y ago

Article is a complete strawman. The patent troll's arguments are that a specific integer parameter 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. 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.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]