decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Sorry about that. I mixed up the '104 and the 520 patents. | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Sorry about that. I mixed up the '104 and the 520 patents.
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 05:52 AM EDT
The 520 patent was all about Oracle's rubbish compiler. I think 104 is all about evaluating symbolic references at run-time. Oracle's definition of run-time is any time from 1997 to this day. Google point out that it means during or just leading up to the execution of the code in the Java Runtime Environment (or Dalvik, in their case) on a Java phone. I think the judge still has a question outstanding from the claims construction phase about what the term 'runtime' means in the patent.

I think that '104 is what Mitchell was claiming that dexopt does. Just in case you forgot, Mitchell cites the two Java programs that call dexopt. Thing is, Dalvik does not run Java. Those programs have to be run under the JDK on the developer's machine. On the Android website, Google prohibit the use of dexopt in a production Android device.

Anyway, on a production 'phone it would not be the dexopt that Mitchell accused because any dexopt on an Android 'phone only runs on the Dalvik VM. Did I mention that Dalvik is not Java?

Google incite the 'method and apparatus' patents to be used, if at all, by the developers in the Sun Java Development Kit. The apparatus is the developer's computer once the JDK, dx and dexopt have been installed on the computer (Microsoft v. AT&T). None of the accused phones has the cited apparatus invention installed.

Oracle have to show that the developer's infringing apparatus is in the US or was imported into the US. Have any developers' computers been accused in this case?

Similarly, the method is only employed on the developers' computers. Have any developers in the US jurisdiction been cited in the case?

And, of course, in their opening statements Oracle have explained why Google do not infringe on either of the patents. Not that I think Oracle understand that.

So, what about all those Android registrations that Oracle complained about? Why is that relevant to developers' computers? Well, looking at the Diehr patent for a process to make cured, precision, rubber components, supposing someone used the unlicensed process to make millions of rubber ducks. Would the infringement entitle Diehr to a proportion of the profits on the rubber ducks? On the other hand, Google's Android profits were not from selling Android.

So, if Google had infringed, would Oracle have been entitled to profits from things done with things made using the inventions? And, what is the proven link between the inventions, the number of Android phones registered and the revenue Google make on advertising via internet browsers on all mobile phones and other mobile devices?

I don't think the patent case is anywhere near as strong as the copyright case. Perhaps Google ought to concede infringement of at least one patent to get a level playing field. No, it doesn't help, does it?

Of course, the final clincher is that Oracle say this:
Compare with Android Platform Components: Java App source code gets compiled by a java compiler. "Go to the Oracle website and download a Java compiler"

dx tool is bolted onto to bottom of the Java compiler. The dx tool converts Java bytecode to "dexcode." Load onto Dalvik VM. Dexopt (optimization), and bytecode interpreter.
They are absolutely correct: that is what Google require on the Android website as the prerequisite for development.
104 patent, 520 patent, developed by Java developers back in the 1990's. Solved the same problems, speed and memory utilization.
As Oracle say, the two inventions are essential for the Java platform to run at all well on mobile devices. The Java versions must be included in the JDK. That's why the marking is such an issue because infringement can only be from 2010 when Oracle threatened to sue.

Before the JDK can be downloaded, developers have to get an Oracle licence for the use of the JDK with any of the software they develop.

If the two inventions are Java inventions and solve a major drawback with the Java platform, they must be licenced along with the rest of the JDK for use on developers' software. That would include Android developers getting a JDK licence and downloading the JDK just as Oracle explain they must do. Oracle don't prohibit the use of third party tools. They are an essential part of the ecosystem. Over the last few days, many developers have highlighted just how important they are to the ecosystem.

So, the developers have a licence to use the two patents with Android. Not that they need them. Dalvik is not Java and Google don't need the two inventions.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Software patents are stupid
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:29 AM EDT
Microsoft's C++ compiler, for at least 4 years (and probably more like 7)
has been able to simulate execution of constructors for global variables
and if there are no side effects other than initializing the fields, it can
elide
them and emit an already-initialized object into the data segment.

I wonder if this is prior art? Or infringing?

...the simple fact is this is an OBVIOUS IDEA to anyone skilled in the art
of compiler construction. I had the idea myself before I ever noticed that
Microsoft's compiler can do it.

The U.S. patent system is hopelessly screwed up if it allows companies
to patent such an OBVIOUS IDEA and then sue each other over it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )