[kazinator]

Article is a complete strawman. The patent troll's arguments are that a specific integer parameter in question cannot be less than two, not that all integers are not less than two. I.e. that in some specific narrow context, because of other features of the specification, it is to be understood that even though the number is referred to as an integer, that just rules out fractions and real values, and doesn't mean other constraints on the value have gone out the window.

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.