Exactly. They're not redefining "integer", they're saying that in the context of talking about an "integer multiple" of a time period it should be obvious that they mean double, triple, or higher integer multiples.
The part that really bothers me in all this is that, reading the EFF article, I was wondering why they kept going on about how absurd it is to argue that 1 isn't an integer, but then never specified how the patent trolls came to make that claim. It's now pretty clear to me: because if they had explained it, people might actually have thought it to be a reasonable argument.
I held the EFF in pretty high regard before. After this? I'm not so sure any more.
N=1 is hardly an unreasonable multiple to choose for a time interval. If they meant something other than the mathematical definition, they should have properly defined it.
We would never say that the compiler should have known from context that I obviously meant unsigned int when I wrote signed int. Patents are also written in formal language.
No one should have to guess about what they might or might not cover when there are huge financial penalties for being wrong, or even being close enough to being wrong to wind up in court.
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.
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.