&gt; they got lots of these things wrong<p>&gt; 1.  It was filed in 1996, not 1998.<p>Ok they used &#x27;filed&#x27; when they should have used &#x27;issued&#x27; or &#x27;granted&#x27;. That&#x27;s technically incorrect although unlikely to matter to layreader.<p>&gt; The patent itself doesn&#x27;t say anything about power efficiency (although perhaps that was argued at trial), so I&#x27;m not sure where they got that.<p>It&#x27;s argued explicitly in the complaint. Not sure how you count this  as something they got wrong since they&#x27;re right just because it&#x27;s not footnoted to a level you&#x27;re comfortable with.<p>&gt; That may be true, but it&#x27;s so vague as to be pretty information-free.<p>It is in fact true and I don&#x27;t find it vague at all. What information do you think need to be included in an article pointed at the casual reader?