|
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
So they can be fixed
---
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: feldegast on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 10:40 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
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: feldegast on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT |
Main feed
https://twitter.com/#!/Feldegast
Raw tweet feed
https://twitter.
com/#!/Feldegast/oracal-vs-google-
trial--- 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 | # ]
|
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 10:46 AM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT
- with regard to? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 10:50 AM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 11:00 AM EDT
- Thanks for the feed feldegast - Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 11:29 AM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 01:19 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 01:59 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 02:06 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Plaintiff rests (patent phase) - Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 02:49 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: maroberts on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 09:26 PM EDT
|
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 10:44 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
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: feldegast on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 10:45 AM EDT |
Thank you for your support
---
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 Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
Shouldn't the jury, if they can't understand the claims, be
forced to rule non-infringement due to presumption of
innocence? (That is, if they can't understand the wording of
the patent, then there clearly exists a reasonable doubt as
to whether infringement occurred - confusion should favor
the defendant)
Seems like a case where you need to have technical experts
in the jury... who even then only have a chance of
understanding the legalese descriptions of computer code
comprising the claims. Of course, then you hit a brick wall
with technical experts and the part where they get software
being mathematics.
I am forced to conclude that it should be impossible to
prevail on software patent cases, because the patents are
written incomprehensibly to non-experts, barely
comprehensible at all to experts, and experts are liable to
be stricken from the jury for having strong opinions as to
the patentability of software.
Also, I reiterate my point that a patent that can't be
easily understood by experts has clearly failed the
requirement to disclose the invention and is thus invalid
anyways.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 10:55 AM EDT |
"All programs, however, need not have packages, which are merely convenient
ways to organize the classes."
So their own package heiriarchy is superfluous convenience rather than decades
of creativity?
just askin'
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 11:19 AM EDT |
On the other hand, the instructions to the jury, while clear, do
not anticipate the difficulty this jury (or any jury in a patent infringement
case, for that matter) will have in determining whether every requirement of a
claim has been satisfied by the allegedly infringing product or process. These
"requirements" (or claim elements) are highly technical and will often turn on a
subtle distinction in a definition of a term within a claim or description of
the components of the allegedly infringing product. That is why any patent
infringement trial is a roll of the dice for both parties.
So not
only we have to deal with case law about software patents which are not
connected with reality, but also the rules of procedures ensure that factual
determinations will only have a loose connection with reality?
Can anyone
explain how this help promote innovation? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT |
As the Supremes said in Bilski,
The application in Diehr claimed
a previously unknown method for “molding raw, uncured synthetic rubber into
cured precision products,” using a mathematical formula to complete some of its
several steps by way of a computer.
Diehr explained that while an
abstract idea, law of nature, or mathematical formula could not be patented, “an
application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or
process may well be deserving of patent protection.”
Diehr
emphasized the need to consider the invention as a whole, rather than
“dissect[ing] the claims into old and new elements and then … ignor[ing] the
presence of the old elements in the analysis.”
Finally, the Court
concluded that because the claim was not “an attempt to patent a mathematical
formula, but rather [was] an industrial process for the molding of rubber
products,
” it fell within §101’s patentable subject matter.
Any
activity on Google's part that are abstract ideas which are not “an application
of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process",
cannot, by definition, infringe on a valid patent.
The corollory of the
'invention as a whole' opinion is that infringement only occurs when all the
process steps are employed and not just the old elements that, as with the
claims asserted from the two patents, pre-existed them by decades. The asserted
claims against Google are for old elements in the process which pre-date the
patents by decades.
The USPTO only allows one invention per patent. A
failure to assert all the claims that represent the innovation in the single
invention leaves the high probability that the innovation represented by the
invention as a whole is not infringed. That does not mean every claim has to be
asserted, of course. It may be that the same innovation is represented by
multiple sets of claims. It is merely required that the asserted set must
encompass the invention, as a whole.
Please note that the above
arguments are not about proving the two patents invalid. The patents being valid
or invalid are irrelevant to Google. Google do not infringe on a valid patented
invention as a whole because the only allegedly infringed claims are for
pre-existing and old elements.
Also, they cannot infringe on either
patent because what they do is the application of abstract ideas, a law of
nature or mathematical formula to something which is not 'a known structure or
process.' Whether, or not, either patent is actually the application of an
abstract idea, law of nature or a mathematical formula applied to something
which is a known structure or process is irrelevant to
Google.
There
is also the issue of significant post-process activity. In Bilski, the Supremes
said, As the Court later explained, Flook stands for the
proposition that the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas “cannot be
circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular
technological environment” or adding “insignificant postsolution
activity.”
Nothing of what Google do or incite has any
post-process activity. Certainly, everything that Google do that might be
related to the valid patents stops in the middle of the program compilation
stage. It is all abstract ideas and concepts that never leave the Android
development computer.
As the Supremes said at the end of Bilski,
The Court, therefore, need not define further what constitutes a
patentable “process,” beyond pointing to the definition of that term provided in
§100(b) and looking to the guideposts in Benson, Flook and
Diehr.
Of course, they are not the experts in copyright and patent
law.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: 351-4V on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 12:16 PM EDT |
Sorry, I must have missed it. What is it that Wong and Poore will testify to
actually? That they worked with Android and saw no infringement?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wong and Poore - Authored by: jvillain on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 12:30 PM EDT
- We don't know - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT
- We don't know - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 12:50 PM EDT
- We don't know - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT
- We don't know - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 01:42 PM EDT
- We don't know - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 01:49 PM EDT
- We don't know - Authored by: jonathon on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 01:59 PM EDT
- We don't know - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- We don't know - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT
- Perhaps not, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- Wong's Blog Works Against Oracle's Dalvik VM Assertions! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- Bob Vandette on performance of Android Vs. Java ME - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 07:12 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
So Oracle thinks Hinkmond is the wong man to testify about
Android knowledge
for Google, and would exclude poore Noel as
well. But Oracle introduced these
witnesses, and the jury is
entitled to learn the details their prior
involvement with
Android.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 12:52 PM EDT |
In the instructions to the jury, on the question of indirect infringement, the
judge says that the jury should decide if mobile device manufacturers, mobile
service providers, developers, and end-users of Android have directly infringed
any of the asserted claims, and then if the answer to any of those is yes, to
decide if Google has indirectly infringed by inducing those others to directly
infringe or by somehow contributing to the direct infringement.
But the jury form itself says to only answer the questions on indirect
infringement as to those claims that they answered "Yes" to in
questions 1 and 2, but questions 1 and 2 are asking if Google directly
infringed, not if the mobile device manufacturers, mobile service providers,
developers, and end-users of Android have directly infringed.
I don't understand. This seems to be a serious mistake.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
Google pushes to drop damages phase of Java infringement
trial --- RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT |
Quote:Van Nest stated that all three experts expected to appear in the trial
have estimated the potential damages associated with the '520 patent at under
$100,000, with infringement of the claims in the '104 patent possibly resulting
in damages of up of $4 million.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: steveire on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 03:29 PM EDT |
I was wondering if there were amicus briefs in this case. It seems like Oracle
is aiming for the kind of result that would call for some.
Are the Amici waiting for the appeal before filing briefs?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
I registered a few years ago, but couldn't find my password, so I thought I'd
reregister. Will registrations be enabled again after this trial?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT |
Patent '520 "discloses" what software engineers do on a regular basis whenever
they optimize their code to consolidate work in a single place instead of
repeating actions unnecessarily all over the place.
It's part of refactoring
computations from inner loops to outer ones, and it's part of increasing code
locality to improve cache utilization by reducing page faults.
This has been
normal practice ever since the first paper on optimization was published and
since the first compiler course was given, and it was undoubtedly in use long
before that. I'm referring to many decades ago.
The fact that this
particular optimization is performed at startup time is quite immaterial,
because such refactoring is generic. If X is a mechanism used as standard
practice, I fail to see how "X during initialization" suddenly becomes novel
enough for patent protection.
This patent looks ludicrous to me. It can
only look novel to someone unskilled in the discipline. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: xtifr on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 06:31 PM EDT |
One thing I was surprised--and pleased--to see in Oracle's proposed changes
was the replacement of: ...each statement being a single command
executed by the Java interpreter. with: ...each
statement being a single directive to take some action. Confusion
between Java-the-language and Java-the-platform seems to be entirely in Oracle's
interest, but here they have deliberately suggested a rephrasing to
avoid that confusion!
When spotted that, I thought that I must
have been reading Google's proposed changes, and was shocked to realize it was
from Oracle. I can only assume that this change was included by MoFo over the
protests of BSF. :)
--- Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for
it makes them soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 08:47 PM EDT |
Err, has anyone actually noticed that the '520 patent is
simply meant to solve the problem of static array
initialistation requiring lots of "a[b] = c" statements.
A problem that the Java compiler/bytecode wouldn't have if
it wasn't so brain-dead. Most C compilers do their static
initialisation at compile time and then just blat the data
from the source area to the destination area, although even
_that_ may not be required if the source and destination are
the same area.
Most engineers, when faced with this problem, would go the C
way because of its elegance in removing the problem at its
source. Only an idiot would create a process to fix the
problem after it had occurred.
And only the king of idiots would think this was somehow
useful enough to warrant a patent. I was always under the
impression that patents were meant to advance the state of
the art, not work around problems that can be fixed with a
far better solution :-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 01:29 AM EDT |
Intermediate form code and intermediate form object code: Both
“intermediate form code” and “intermediate form object code” mean “executable
code that is generated by compiling source code and is independent of any
computer instruction set.”
This is a weird definition. Yes, it's
code, but no it's not really executable. I mean, it even says that the code is
independent of any computer instruction set. "Executable" means you can run the
code. Hard to do that when there are no computers capable of following those
instructions.
Hopefully it doesn't matter for anything, but that's not
really correct to call it executable. It never gets run. It goes through
further processing before being turned into executable code.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|