> That's technically incorrect although unlikely to matter to layreader. Details are important. Getting them wrong makes a journalist look sloppy and incompete

> 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.