[thelema314]

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]

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.

[monochromatic]

The problem is that people aren't willing to pay very much for a patent application, and so the drafter doesn't really have enough time to scrutinize every single word.

It's not at all uncommon to spend 100 times as many lawyer-hours litigating a patent as you spend drafting it.