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
What planet you ask? | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What planet you ask?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:18 PM EDT
The greedy planet!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This is like watching Punch and Judy argue about who stole the sausages
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 | # ]

This is like watching Punch and Judy argue about who stole the sausages
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 | # ]

I can't believe how wrong you got that!
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 | # ]

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 )