I'm not trying to be obtuse at all, this is grade school level sentence structure break down.
The details are contained in the patents. The tweet explains some of the high level concepts (but not the details - after all, it's a tweet). Neither - honestly - are written to leak anything (like trade secrets).
The tweet goes on, saying if you want more information to hire them. It's a pitch for their consultation services, since they believe this tech will mature in the coming decade and, don't ya wanna get on the base floor?
You are asserting, groundlessly and with the intent to impugn the author and Apple, that they filed patents in a way which elided useful information. You are assigning a nefarious motive which is simply not justifiable. Assume good faith.
By definition, patents don’t include trade secrets. They’re patents. If you publish something in a patent, it ceases to be a trade secret.
And of course patents are written carefully to choose what to disclose. And the things that they don’t disclose remain trade secrets.
All the author is trying to do in their statement is to make it clear that the only details they plan to include in their tweet are those which have already been disclosed via patents, and therefore none of the content could possibly be an Apple trade secret.
That’s not because they are carefully trying to conceal anything from you.
It’s because they are carefully trying not to get sued by Apple for disclosing trade secrets.
What are we reading? A tweet.
What does it contain? Details.
What details? Ones that are publicly available in patents.
How have they been written? Carefully, to not leak anything.