|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:18 PM EDT |
The greedy planet!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tinkerghost on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:27 PM EDT |
LOL, I remember doing linked lists & reference passing for variables in
Pascal on my C64. Nothing quite like taking that bit of knowledge & trying
to jump into doing indirect referencing (or is that referencing indirect?) in
assembly with it...:)
---
You patented WHAT?!?!?![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
Linkers, dynamic and static, have been resolving symbolic
links (e.g., names) to pointers (i.e., addresses), for over 20
years!![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 04:19 AM EDT |
This is what Oracle opened with:
Initialization of static arrays
by simulating execution and then creating an efficient method. Needed because
the Java bytecode doesn't implement the array initialization well; it's
inefficient. [Uses example of shopping for groceries.]
Dispute is on
"simulating execution". Google says that they parse, not
simulating.
Evidence of infringement: Google programmers stated in
Android that Android resolves "Symbolic references":
Do you see
that? The Java bytecode VM is rubbish at array initialisation. The '104 patent
is an invention that simulates execution of the Java byte code in the Java
Runtime Environment in order to initialise the arrays. Google claim to use the
age old method of parsing the byte code for the symbolic references and using
the results to initialise the arrays.
I can see why you might not find
this obvious, though. You might wonder why not using the JRE simulation is
evidence of using the simulation method in the '104 invention. OK, I suppose
that is rather odd.
Also, if the invention is necessary because the JRE
is rubbish, why would Google want to use it on the much more effective Dalvik
runtime environment? Perhaps it is not the JRE that is rubbish, but the javac
compiler.
But, then, the argument becomes that Google ask developers to
use the JDK with added Android tools in order to reinforce the ecosystem and
that the invention is only necessary because of the faulty proprietary
development platform. How does that chime with the video:
New,
useful, not obvious to one of usual skill in the area.
Can an
invention that makes up for a major failing in one companies proprietary
development tools be generally useful and not obvious to a programmer? Oracle
say that it is a major failing because it destroys the performance of Java SE on
computers of limited resources. If it was a minor failing, it would not be
useful or valuable.
I wonder if Oracle have an expert report showing
the difference on Java SE both with and without the '104 invention? I mean, if
it doesn't do anything for Java, why would it do anything for
Dalvik?--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|