> I was just referencing the Princess Bride.

I see; that makes more sense.

> My point is that the invention we're talking about must include all these elements. Dell computers do not infringe the patent simply because you could use them to create something that potentially infringe the patent.

Yes, of course; that's the "staple article of commerce" doctrine. But we're not discussing whether Dell computers themselves infringe the patent, but whether an infringing system built with purpose-built processors would still be infringing if you used off-the-shelf computers from Dell instead of purpose-built processors.

The answer is that it would. Buying some of the elements of the claim off the shelf is not a defense against infringement, and even if it were, it would be irrelevant when you're being charged with importing or selling rather than making an infringing article.

(It's possible that under the machine-or-transformation doctrine, a process might be unpatentable, and patents on it might be invalid, if it could be implemented by software on a general-purpose computer, because a general-purpose computer is not a "particular machine". Unfortunately In re Bilski and Bilski v. Kappos have not resolved this question, but only left it muddier than before.)

> Obviously, Apple doesn't even build all the parts of their "invention". Why would you think I would be making that argument?

Because you said:

> did you also build "a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory for controlling the execution of the program routines."? No? Then you aren't even nominally infringing the broadest independent claim of the patent.

The key word here is "build". The person you were responding to had said:

> I just recently implemented this exact same functionality for one of my company's internal apps.

It's patently obvious that he was combining his program routines ("internal apps") with a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory for controlling the execution of the program routines. You brought up the fact that he probably didn't build the processing unit, claiming that he couldn't be infringing if he didn't build it. But the presumed fact that he didn't build it is irrelevant.

In another thread, you wrote:

> I'm strongly inclined to believe that no, your infringing product needs to embody a purpose-built device.

These assertions of yours are false and have no foundation in patent law. However, I retract my earlier claim that you already knew that.

> Moreover, to restate a point that you are militantly evading: you don't even know which claim(s) in this patent were found binding.

I wasn't evading it; you just hadn't stated it. Now that you've stated it, it's trivial to demonstrate that it is false. The comment at the root of this thread links to Florian Müller's blog post at http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show-ho..., which shows exactly which claims Apple is asserting against HTC, and which ones the ITC judge found that HTC is infringing: claims 1, 8, 15, and 19 of the '647 patent, and claims 1, 2, 24, and 29 of the '263 patent.

> I am not defending the patent we're talking about. I'm reacting to the guy who creates an "internal app" for his company and believes he is now infringing this patent because it regexes phone numbers.

Rather than just reacting to him by posting the smokescreen of nonsense and bullshit that you did, it would be more useful to collaborate with him by honestly and accurately explaining the actual patent law and accurately analyzing what would be necessary for his "internal app" to infringe it. Whether or not he is manufacturing his own processors is irrelevant to that.