4 ms·
> they got lots of these things wrong > 1. It was filed in 1996, not 1998. Ok they used 'filed' when they should have used 'issued' or 'granted'. That's tech
by Steko 11y ago
> they got lots of these things wrong
> 1. It was filed in 1996, not 1998.
Ok they used 'filed' when they should have used 'issued' or 'granted'. That's technically incorrect although unlikely to matter to layreader.
> The patent itself doesn't say anything about power efficiency (although perhaps that was argued at trial), so I'm not sure where they got that.
It's argued explicitly in the complaint. Not sure how you count this as something they got wrong since they're right just because it's not footnoted to a level you're comfortable with.
> That may be true, but it's so vague as to be pretty information-free.
It is in fact true and I don't find it vague at all. What information do you think need to be included in an article pointed at the casual reader?
- monochromatic 11y ago> That's technically incorrect although unlikely to matter to layreader. Details are important. Getting them wrong makes a journalist look sloppy and incompetent. > It's argued explicitly in the complaint. Is it? I withdraw this point if so. At a quick skim, the patent doesn't seem to have anything to do with power efficiency, but if it's in the complaint, I can't fault BBC for mentioning it in the article. > What information do you think need to be included in an article pointed at the casual reader? I dunno. Maybe this is the right level of detail for the casual reader. It seems extremely, uselessly broad to me though.