pretty sure the author is describing how the "runtime reconfiguration" described in the next two sentences of the lawsuit after the one you quoted is a memory allocator, not confused and thinking "dynamic RAM" means "dynamically allocated memory"
> Dynamic ram? Can I poke fun at them for not knowing what RAM is? Yes I can.
He's trying to nitpick about the term "dynamic" in this context, which he has misunderstood to mean "dynamic allocation" (i.e. the alternative to "static allocation"). The phrase "static or dynamic RAM" is basically never used to refer to memory allocation, it refers to the physical construction of the memory. This is especially true if the paragraph is next to a block diagram that includes an ALU... They are five levels removed from any sort of allocator.
The rest of the paragraph doesn't describe a memory allocator, it's describing runtime reconfiguration of a circuit, which you can do (and often do do) using a statically allocated configuration block or even a hard-wired dedicated memory. Again, nothing to do with malloc.
Whether a configuration memory is SRAM or DRAM based is immaterial, but patent language likes to make a point of enumerating the possibilities.
In any case, the fact that SparkFun doesn't even do semiconductor design makes this whole lawsuit even more ridiculous. They put chips onto boards, they don't design ALUs with special configurable control bits!
It's a bit absurd to imagine, but if someone has a patent on a CPU design, which is then used in a radio, which is installed in a car, which is driven by a taxi driver, then the patent holder can in principle sue the taxi driver for using their radio without licensing the patent.
In practice, patent trolls will figure out who they can sue who is big enough to extract $$, but not so big as to run the risk of them fighting back and invalidating the patent.
The fact that someone can sue me over some proprietary implementation of something buried inside a chip I bought where the only way to defend myself is for me to go chase down NXP or ARM is indeed absurd.
The manufacturer of that radio can possibly be downstream sued, sure. That sounds at least plausible if they're assembling said radio without proper license for the parts. But simply using a radio in my car doesn't strike me as something enforceable nor legitimate in any way.
How do you figure a user downstream could be sued for not licensing a radio in a car they bought/rented? You're claiming we're all legitimate targets at this point in the eyes of the law (anyone using a radio in a car) so I'd like to understand this.
IMO you are being much too generous in your interpretation of this trolling.
The claim is that pcDuino is infringing because it has a Cortex A9 with addressable memory. This chip does not have any of the fancy reconfiguration you have in mind, but the trolls believe it implements their patent, so I don't see how they can mean what you think they do.
I'm nitpicking about a nitpick, and I feel kind of bad for derailing the conversation, because the patent assertion is completely ridiculous.
I just think that Nathan shouldn't have made the jab about malloc, because making that kind of mistake detracts from his otherwise very valid criticism.