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.”
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.
In any case, the EFF loses credibility when it overstates the position to make someone look more ridiculous than is warranted.
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.
But CW's current filing contains this:
According to the patent, “The MAC-e PDU is sent to the physical layer every n*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.”
In other words, the specification excludes the n=1 case, and the n<1 cases are nonsensical.
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.
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.
[1] https://www.eff.org/files/2015/09/24/core_wireless_claim_con...
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
"Integer" has a defined meaning. They chose that word, but it seems that they don't like the implications of that word.
But this particular paragraph in this particular claim is by no means an abuse of patent law. The patent is about an "integer multiple" of a time period, which obviously excludes 0 and negatives, and arguably excludes 1.
If there's something else going on here, then please add it to the article. But otherwise, consider that when you stretch the truth to support an honorable cause, you are making that cause less honorable.
Anyway, EFF does a disservice by through flame on the issue instead of explaining it clearly. I still have no idea who is suing over over what, and why it matters what "integer means".
Suppose the word integer weren't used at all -- what would it mean if the patent had originally stated explicitly "integer greater than 1" vs "integer greater than 0" ?
Please advance the conversation forward, don't muddy it up with grandstanding rhetoric.
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.
If a patent has some parameter space, and some values of that space infringe on something, where others do not appear to, then it makes sense to exclude those values.
> They chose that word, but it seems that they don't like the implications of that word.
But, out of context, the word has implications of denoting 0, -1, -2, ... those were present and clear when they initially chose the word.
Anyway, how about that C language, redefining integers to be between INT_MIN and INT_MAX! And what to make of these "unsigned integers". That's a total oxymoron; I mean the C constant 5U is positive. Positive is a sign. So, not unsigned! :)
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.
http://www.theonion.com/article/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroe...
