&gt; It then goes on to describe what products the patent covers, when the patent was filed, what it does, what other companies have been sued infringing, what the outcomes was, what the likely outcomes is going to be in this case and the factors that are likely to have an effect.<p>Oddly enough, they got lots of these things wrong. Here&#x27;s the patent in question: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;patents&#x2F;US5781752" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;patents&#x2F;US5781752</a><p>1. It was filed in 1996, not 1998.<p>2. 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>3. The article says it &quot;relates to use of the technology in the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus - but an additional lawsuit making the same claim against Apple&#x27;s newest models, the 6S and 6S Plus, has also been filed.&quot; That may be true, but it&#x27;s so vague as to be pretty information-free.<p>The whole article reads like it was written by someone who doesn&#x27;t know anything about patents, doesn&#x27;t care to learn, and just uncritically copied information he read elsewhere. That isn&#x27;t journalism.