[pollen23]

This.

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.

[Natsu]

That doesn't explain whether or not the N=1 case is covered by an "integer" multiple of time steps. I'm not aware of a definition any definition of the term integer which does not include 1, which is what the EFF is mocking here.

Even the patent holder said N=1 was obviously included... until that presented a problem and they decided it was obviously not what they intended.

Why is it the case that people believe that the public, who did not write this patent, should have to guess regarding what it may or may not cover when they're also at threat of millions of dollars in penalties should they guess wrong? And that's neglecting court costs & attorney's fees, which are almost always a sunk cost--you pay them merely for getting sued and you have essentially no chance of recovering any of that, even if you're right, unless they essentially get laughed out of court because it's your burden to prove that the case was exceptionally bad... even though you did nothing wrong.