|
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:31 PM EDT |
Tufty
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- but writing/by writing - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:24 PM EDT
- test for Daubert => test for DILBERT????? - Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:12 PM EDT
- nonsence --> nonsense - Authored by: ankylosaurus on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:16 PM EDT
- To refresh out palates -> To refresh our palates - Authored by: indyandy on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 12:50 AM EDT
- Der Prozess - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 02:26 AM EDT
- Holiness -> Holeiness - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 04:42 AM EDT
- ate your the straw --> ate your straw - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 05:22 AM EDT
- "wrote with give" --> "wrote will give" [n/t] - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 08:55 AM EDT
- with -> will - Authored by: The Cornishman on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 02:27 PM EDT
- with -> will - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 02:51 PM EDT
- resoving -> resolving n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- statistically -> statically - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- "hand me some straw and my horse eats it" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 09:35 PM EDT
- "CL unit" -> "clinit" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 12:18 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:31 PM EDT |
and off tropic
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Dear Judge Alsup: - Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:57 PM EDT
- Washington Post - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:42 PM EDT
- Florian is not brave enough for comments. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:14 PM EDT
- Oracle will pay the ultimate price for this: people - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:20 PM EDT
- Oracle vs. Google hits the patent phase - Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:24 PM EDT
- Java for Fun and Profit - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 04:33 AM EDT
- YALCWS [Yet Another Linux Census Web Site] - Authored by: artp on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 08:50 AM EDT
- Doctrine - switching from LGPL to MIT - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 09:50 AM EDT
- what happened to Dart? - Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- Google's motion for Mistrial - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:02 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:32 PM EDT |
Read all abaaaaarrrt it
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:32 PM EDT |
Pretty Please
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:40 PM EDT |
https://twitter.com/#!/Feldegast -
-- IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:42 PM EDT |
Let alone the fact that using a speed test to prove patent
infringement is as absurd as saying that any fast car
violates the patent on my engine because it goes fast,
darnit, and I want money.
Sigh.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not Hello World but HELLO MONEY - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:47 PM EDT
- Day 2, Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial -- The Most Holy Patents ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:00 PM EDT
- Day 2, Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial -- The Most Holy Patents ~pj - Authored by: shachar on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:57 PM EDT
- Day 2, Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial -- The Most Holy Patents ~pj - Authored by: darrellb on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:18 PM EDT
- Day 2, Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial -- The Most Holy Patents ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 05:11 AM EDT
|
Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:45 PM EDT |
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:46 PM EDT |
I think many software companies do.
Until they stop innovating.
---
---
That's not a law suit. *THIS* is a law suit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:48 PM EDT |
Ethics has never ever been part of any consideration when dealing with Oracle in
any setting. A courtroom is no exception.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT |
I have an idea. Google has said they are not going to
prove the patent is
invalid. Instead, they are going to
prove they don't infringe. Google says
their algorithm is
different. Oracle says it is they same as their precious.
Now suppose Google takes the track that it can't be the
same as
Oracle's code, because Google used a common, well
known algorithm, while Oracle
contends their code is unique.
Suppose Google has really good evidence
demonstrating
their algorithm is well known. This puts Oracle in a serious
bind. After that, they sure don't want people thinking
Google's well known
algorithm is the same as Oracle's. Sound
like a plan? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:20 PM EDT |
PJ, I love you and Groklaw, and I think you've earned your
own place in the open-source Parnassus not once, but
(there's always a "but" in those kind of sentences, isn't
there) I think you've stepped out of your line here. While I
do agree wholeheartedly with all your points here, this is
not something I'd personally say to a wider audience - as
this is too emotional, not substantial, not fact-focused,
not professional enough. And not being professional leads us
straight to the abysses of vulgar florianmuellerness - so
please, please, don't go this way.
Your faithful reader.
PS. And yeah, I know that this comment is the epitome of
everything I advise against - but heck, I'm just an
anonymous commenter.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Day 2, Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial -- The Most Holy Patents ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:27 PM EDT
- Day 2, Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial -- The Most Holy Patents ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:30 PM EDT
- Day 2, Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial -- The Most Holy Patents ~pj - Authored by: nuthead on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:37 PM EDT
- Day 2, Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial -- The Most Holy Patents ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:45 PM EDT
- Day 2, Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial -- The Most Holy Patents ~pj - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:48 PM EDT
- Day 2, Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial -- The Most Holy Patents ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:58 PM EDT
- Concern Troll on Aisle 2.... - Authored by: Guil Rarey on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:02 PM EDT
- Day 2, Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial -- The Most Holy Patents ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:51 PM EDT
- I don't come here to read trash talk. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:17 PM EDT
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:25 PM EDT |
I avoid reading software patents, as all programmers find they must for the same
reason, to prevent some patent from retarding my advancement of the useful art
of programming by making me liable for willful infringement.
That said, every dynamic linker on the planet going well back into the
prehistory of computers (e.g. the seventies) uses "symbolic
references" to do its linking, at runtime no less. Static linkers do their
linking at compile time, also using symbolic references.
Is this some sort of new low? "symbolic reference" is even a basic
term of art in computer science. It's like patenting the phrase "turbulent
flow" with respect to fluid dynamics.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mossc on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:50 PM EDT |
I am fixated on the fact that Oracle distributed GNU Classpath BEFORE
acquiring SUN.
I don't know about the two patents in question but
they certainly did they exact same thing the they now are suing Google over as
far as the APIs.
Did they think they were violating SUNs intellectual
property at the time?
If not how can they claim Google is now?
What
damages could SUN have claimed? Can SUN ex-shareholders now sue Oracle for
those damages?
Chuck
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:29 PM EDT |
I once made a tremendous increase in the speed of one of my most gnarly bash
scripts by re-writing part of it in C. (It was already fast enough, but I just
wanted to see if I could do it). Fair warning: As soon as my patent comes
through, a bunch of you freeloading coders are gonna owe me beellions! If I get
the right patent attorney, every program written in C and operating faster than
its bash equivalent should produce handsome royalties.
Can someone please
pinpoint for me when the Cult of Imaginary Property became a major, world-wide
religion? Oh, for the days when you could actually stub your toe on an
invention!
Maybe I should change my name to Rip van Winkle (if it's
safe to do so without getting sued).
--- -- grouch
GNU/Linux obeys you.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Dymaxion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 04:43 AM EDT
- Dymaxion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 10:41 AM EDT
- The Most Holy Patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 09:12 PM EDT
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:29 PM EDT |
In the spirit of PJ's article I am putting ethics and rationality aside to
specifically not post this in the Off Topics thread. I Googled around for
a more appropriate Hello World in Java example that one could use if one really
did want to run Hello World for a performance test. I found this one as an entry
in an Obfuscated Hello World Speed Challenge, on a site that I can't link to
because the domain name violates the Groklaw comment guidelines. If you really
are interested in finding it, Google is your friend.
I find it quite
appropriate that this speed hog of a Hello World, even though written in the
WORA language of Java, will only run under Windows.
This code contains what
appear to be gratuitous 250msec delays, but they are there to enhance the user
experience by letting you watch as the program goes through its steps. Besides,
if you use this to test the efficacy of the '104 patent, wouldn't it be
impressive to discover that the patented technology can speed up a 250 msec
pause by 9.4%?
Without further ado, I present Hello World, in
Java:
import java.awt.Robot;
import
java.awt.event.KeyEvent;
public class HelloWorld {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Robot r =
null;
try {
r =
new Robot();
} catch(Exception e) {
}
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_WINDOWS);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_R);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_WINDOWS);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_R);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_BACK_SPACE);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_BACK_SPACE);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_C);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_C);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_M);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_M);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_D);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_D);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_ENTER);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_ENTER);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_E);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_E);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_C);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_C);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_H);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_H);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_O);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_O);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_SPACE);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_SPACE);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_H);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_H);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_E);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_E);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_L);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_L);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_L);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_L);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_O);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_O);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_SPACE);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_SPACE);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_W);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_W);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_O);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_O);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_R);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_R);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_L);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_L);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_D);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_D);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_SHIFT);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_1);
r.delay(250);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_SHIFT);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_1);
r.delay(250);
r.keyPress(KeyEvent.VK_ENTER);
r.keyRelease(KeyEvent.VK_ENTER);
}
}
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:10 PM EDT |
PJ, I do understand you. There is only so much a reflective and honorable human
being can bear.
But Groklawians go through this, because they have a choice (we could choose to
ignore this pile of ...). The jurors presumably sit through all of this, because
they have a sense of civic duty. Their long deliberation on fair use showed that
they take their job seriously. Because they are jurors they lack the knowledge
to see through this charade at once.
Instead of sitting in court, they could tend to their children, take a nap or
have a walk. But they will have to take Java 101 in 60 minutes in the closing
statement in order to understand that one party has played their tricks on them.
I am really angry. And I am not even a citizen of the US.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:19 PM EDT |
It's input.
Software is the x in f(x). The processor is the f.
A computer is a very, very complicated mathematical function
(specifically, boolean algebra - a processor is logic gates
and a clock, nothing more). Software is the input to the
function that is the processor.
I would hope any judge who saw a patent case over the use of
a specific number (say, Pi/6) in a common function (say,
tangent(x)) would laugh and laugh and dismiss it in a
heartbeat.
That's what patenting software is. You're patenting a
specific arrangement of switches. Not the switches
themselves. Not the physical electronics that manipulate
those switches to a useful end. Just the pattern.
This is like if someone found a car, discovered turning the
wheel while putting the stick in reverse and pressing down
the gas could make it turn, and then filed for a patent on
doing that.
Of course, the functions of a car are commonly understood,
and the various permutations of the inputs.
Finally, I refer to the structured program theorem, which
states that all algorithms can be reduced to a combination
of elementary combinations of existing functions. Recursive
application of the theorem breaks all algorithmic tasks down
to elementary functions.
I believe that this theorem means no software program can be
novel, because every programmer knows, at some level, that
the program exists. Not only do they know it exists, they
know how to find it (that is, a program for any possible
algorithm can be developed using standard processes to break
it down to a combination of existing programs, in a way that
is non-novel).
Then, the only possible room for novelty in software is to
add functionality that isn't already there. But this means
adding a new function at the most basic level, which is
processor operations... which requires modifying the
physical hardware of the processor, at which point we're no
longer talking software.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- au contraire - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:55 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:25 PM EDT |
Have I missed a case where this happened? Is there some legal reason this isn't
being argued? God knows Google has had plenty of opportunities to argue this.
Could someone ask Mr. Van Nest, perhaps after the trial is over, why he isn't
making this argument? I've never seen any lawyer comment on why this never seems
to have been done. Is it not worthy of a real lawyer's consideration? Everyone
seems to be making this argument but the lawyers. Maybe Mark can tell us why.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:32 PM EDT |
Processors can only process binary addresses in memory. They
are physically incapable of doing anything else, as they
have no circuits for it. At some point, the symbolic
reference is converted to a numeric reference. The only
decision is when to do it. As such, I don't see how Oracle
could have argued for non-obviousness (If I have three
colored blocks in some order, a three year old could come up
with the idea of rearranging them!)
Source code is no evidence of when a name is converted to a
numeric reference. You'd have to look at the compiler being
used. Two different compilers could easily produce two
different programs for the same source.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 12:48 AM EDT |
Dynamic references have been resolved in the manner "disclosed" in
this patent since the dawn of time. Almost every serious LISP system that uses
slots and every Scheme system that uses lexical scoping resolves symbolic
references into numeric references in this way.
The symbols are retained in the parse tree or in the tokenized module or in the
symbol table (depending on implementation) so that the symbolic references can
be revisited for reflection or when constructing new functions, because code is
data in languages of the LISP family. But at runtime the symbolic references
are typically optimized out either on first demand-loading of the function
containing the symbol or on first execution of the symbol lookup call.
Without that, interpreted access to any non-global variable would be dirt slow
just like in the original BASIC, which is why only toy languages interpret
symbolic references from scratch on every single access. This isn't novel.
This is NORMAL AND OBVIOUS in the field of language implementation to anyone
skilled in the art and indeed to any reasonable student, and it has been so for
many decades.
People who implement language interpreters aren't stupid, and they didn't stop
optimizing their 1960's code until Sun came along and "showed them
how" in a totally obvious patent. I'm sure that this is true of thousands
of languages, not only those derived from LISP.
Patent '104 is an "invention" in the same sense that the gardener
leaving his shovel stuck in the dirt while he goes for a quick coffee is an
"invention", instead of first putting it back in the shed. Words fail
me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 12:49 AM EDT |
...Oracle claims Google uses simulated execution with Dalvik, while
Google says it doesn’t simulate — it merely parses files.
With the
way things get renamed for no apparent reason (other than to create new buzz
words/obfuscate meaning/sound more impressive than it really is [eg a disposal
operative == garbage collector]), it wouldn't surprise me to learn that to
Oracle the words "Simulate execution" means the same as "Parse" to
everyone else.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hairbear on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 02:16 AM EDT |
PJ ... getting a little worked up. Calm down and relax. Watch the world go by.
Have a nice cup of <insert your favourite relaxing drink>. Mine is
Chamomile tea with a very small dash of Lime. Works wonders.
hairbear
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 02:58 AM EDT |
It had to happen. My scorn, sarcasm and irony tags are all shrivelled due to the
massive demands of this trial.
The two patents deal with initialising arrays and creating a jump table for
(method calls? I am not really sure) during the development phase of compiling
Java programs and converting them to run on Dalvik. Oracle explains in their
opening comments that the two programs, dx and dexopt, are added to the bottom
of the Sun JDK and do the jump table and the initialisation.
The expert engineers claimed to have removed 'the patented Oracle technology in
the Froyo version of the [Android] operating system'.
If the initialising of arrays and the creation of jump tables were removed from
Dalvik, it would not run at all. If the two accused programs were removed from
the JDK development platform, then the 'Hello World' could not be made to run on
Android.
If the *same* 'Hello World' Android program was used before and after the
removal of 'the patented Oracle technology in the Froyo version of the [Android]
operating system' then both the before and after tests have used the accused dx
and dexopt programs and the difference in performance cannot be related to the
two patented inventions.
It is not clear that the 'Hello World' program requires initialisation of
arrays. Strings in Java are, I'm assured, immutable and no string array needs
initialisation.
The generation of jump table is a requirement for both the JVM and for Dalvik.
The patented invention does it by simulating the running of the program on the
JVM and Android does it by parsing the program for [function calls?] and
creating the table that way.
Without the jump table, the program will not run. It is not possible to remove
the simulation of the JVM from Android in any way.
All of which poses the question of what technology was removed from Android for
the before and after tests. A pretrial Google motion explains this. The two
engineers compiled the Dalvik VM both with and without JIT and then ran the
tests.
OK, just imagine my scorn, sarcasm and irony. /scorn, /sarcasm, /irony.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Shrivelled tags - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 04:21 AM EDT
- string[] - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 05:54 AM EDT
|
Authored by: janolder on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 04:27 AM EDT |
To be fair, a simple "hello world" program can be a useful tool for
measuring some aspects of a VM. Java is particularly awful in terms of startup
time and any simple program like this would be a viable metric for that.
A couple years back I wrote a Java-based CLI for accessing an application
server. The time it took to launch and then do very little was so long I was
forced to implement a Python version which then ran circles around the Java
one.
Don't get me wrong, Java is a wonderful development environment - especially on
Eclipse - and its portability is a valuable asset. Java has drawbacks for sure,
the language spec could use a face lift and its GUIs are even more dated. But on
the whole it is still a very useful tool. Whether it will remain that way under
Oracle is a different story.
I have not read any of the patents in suit nor will I ever so your mileage will
vary.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not really - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 07:34 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 04:56 AM EDT |
Invest it all in building an enterprise grade database and
application server, with almost full compatibility (to the
extent allowed by law) with Oracle's, and with extenstive
tools to port data and applications from Oracle to the new
DB / app server.
And then release it for free / GPL, with complete
documentation, big fanfare, advertising across the entirety
of Google's ad network and sites, support contracts for 1/10
of Oracle's subscription costs, and a featured advert on
the home page of google.com.
$6 billion would be a worthwhile investment to put that
company completely and finally out of business, they are a
scourge on both open and closed source development, and they
produce shoddy software.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 05:30 AM EDT |
Why is the Open Invention Network (OIN) not relevant here?
Both Oracle and Google are members. "openjdk" is one protected package
as it is part of the "Linux Environment Component" list.
And each licensee grants each other any patents for use that touch these
components:
1.2 Subject to Section 2.2 and in consideration for the license granted in
Section 1.1, You, on behalf of yourself and your Affiliates, (a) grant to each
Licensee and its Subsidiaries that are Subsidiaries as of the Eligibility Date a
royalty-free, worldwide, nonexclusive, non-transferable license under Your
Patents for making, having made, using, importing, and Distributing any Linux
System;
If the patents are part of the openjdk, they should have been granted to Linux,
should they not? Or is it because they don't use openjdk but recreate a
different component?
Excuse if this has been discussed, if yes I must have missed it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 06:06 AM EDT |
The Playing field is not level between open and closed
source software companys, the situation is actually anti-
competetive.
I am sure that there are some key closed source players that
are benefiting from opensource code with their closed source
products. They should be forced to open thier source codes
to public scrutiny and auditing for infringements. A
prerequisite to receiving copyright or patent protection
must be to open up the code of the applicant for public
scrutiny and auditing.
IMO a closed source software company with a large patent
portfolio and broad product line is far stronger of a
monopoly than an equivalent opensource company, simply
because the opensource companys code can be publically
audited for infringements of anykind; not so with the closed
source company, they are not auditable for infringements,
which is a huge slant in the playing field.
One might actually ask the closed source players the
question: What are they hiding?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 06:48 AM EDT |
Sun Microsystems had patents, yes. Jonathan Schwartz explained how the other Big
Players tried to get Sun to knuckle under and pay royalties. Sun's response was to show that the other Big Players
themselves were just as guilty, and how unwise it would be to pursue the claims
any further.
Sun had patents, but they weren't "in play."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 07:57 AM EDT |
One interesting point about the 520 patent is it is all practiced in the
compiler really. So Google could code around it by just releasing an update to
the compiler to generate the array's a completely different way. The great
thing is no change needs to be done to the android devices that have shipped or
will be shipped in the future. Android/Dalvik code remain exactly the same. As
long as developers stop practicing the patent in the compiler.
The output generated by practicing their patent before (past android apps) may
be an issue but I am not a patent lawyer that would know this really. Anyone
know what happens to goods/services produced using a device that violates a
patent? If I copy a patented saw design and someone else cuts down a tree do
they own the tree's profits now or am I just liable for the saw?
This should all be pointless anyway because hopefully the Jury will find that
they don't practice the patent right now anyway which is Google's defense. But
it does highlight how stupid the whole thing is.
Michael
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 09:20 AM EDT |
uh... like the Google Apps Engine
(https://developers.google.com/appengine/) they started
building years ago (out of beta this year)?
Fortunately they've covered their bases here and support not
only Java but also Go and Python ;-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 09:45 AM EDT |
Before ridiculing things you don't quite understand and
buying into only one side's account, did you ever stop and
think why would smart people run a speed test on Hello
World?
Well, such tests are commonly done precisely because the
program does so (seemingly) little. They're usually done to
measure startup time. When a Java virtual machine starts,
there's a lot that needs to be done before executing user
code. That's actually true for any environment. It affects
the delay you perceive from the time you click the
application icon to the time anything "happens". This is
very important and has a significant effect on how slow or
fast users perceive your system to be. If users had to wait
3 seconds before their app starts on Android, it wouldn't
matter how fast it runs afterwords. They would still
consider the system to be slow.
And while it seems that you find this whole API issue so
ridiculously obvious, keep this in mind: to write a Hello
World program you do need a console IO API, but it doesn't
have to be "System.out.println". Case in point, for GUI
applications (with textboxes and menus and checkboxes etc.)
the Java ecosystem has several different APIs, none of them
compatible with the other in the least. And Android's GUI
APIs aren't compatible with any such API that came before
them - made by Oracle or any other third party, for either
desktop or mobile phone. So for the user interface Google
used a brand new, incompatible API. But for some other
things, they've claimed that they simply had to use Oracle's
API. Now, why is that? (I'm saying this from a Java
developer's perspective, and have no opinion on API
copyrightability).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pem on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 10:25 AM EDT |
If, for some silly reason (e.g. liking Michael Jacobs) the jury feels obligated
to give Oracle something for their troubles, and decides that something
will be '104, surely Google will have no trouble posting the appeal bond and
then dragging their heels until the action at the patent office is over... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT |
Google's horse didn't eat Oracle's
straw before the race, it ate straw
that was selected and organized the
same way that Oracle feeds its
horse with.
--Jpvlsmv, not logged in[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Horse analogy - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 05:09 PM EDT
|
Authored by: The Cornishman on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 02:21 PM EDT |
PJ wrote: Nah. I think [Oracle] bought it.
The Constitution explicitly says that patents are granted to promote the
progress of technology. Once the patent is granted, in exchange for the full
disclosure of the invention, that purpose is served. Why, oh why is a patent
grant a transferable item, a commodity? Inventors should exploit their monopoly
by practising the invention, or by licensing it to others. The nation states
that grant patents are suffering from the trade in those grants more than they
are benefiting from the disclosures. If I had the reins of power for a short
time, I'd make patents non-transferable, preferably with retrospective effect.
If I was feeling just a little more radical, I'd forbid their corporate
ownership. People invent things, not companies.
---
(c) assigned to PJ
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
Just reading tweets from the courtroom.Tomorrow oracle will be
filling their mistrial motion. You can almost see Jacobs
smiling that Oracle now agrees with google,judge A please
order a mistrial before ruling on copyrightability of APIs.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
I just wanted to thank our reporter Mary for the awesome court report.
Absolutely the most detailed report I've seen on Google. Well worth the wait.
Chuck full of useful information. Google doesn't infringe the patent because
they use a completely different model than Java. No wonder it's faster. They use
pattern matching. An AI approach with a logarithmic O vs an array which has a
geometric O.
Log N(O) vs O^N
Unless Java is using a B-Tree or something of like kind against the array. Or
one would hope. Although, I haven't heard any mention of it, and this is one
patent I can't look at. Can't risk infecting myself with such a silly thing. I
use techniques like this. Have not had the need to scale to heuristic approaches
as Google did with Android here. Totally SOA, as I would expect from Google.
If this is all true, Oracle has no prayer of proving infringement, at least to
anyone ordinarily skilled in the art. Perhaps Oracle doesn't have anyone left,
ordinarily skilled in the art.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|