veraEFF

7 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by 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 w
2. 2.▲
   by 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
3. 3.▲
   by veraEFF 11y ago

   In a patent, what matters are the claims at the end. These are what defines what the inventor claims to have a right to exclude others from doing. If a patent claim covers X, Y, or Z and it turns out that yes, X was known in the art, then y
4. 4.▲
   by 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." La
5. 5.▲
   by 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