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
Da Judge | 400 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Da Judge
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 04:20 AM EDT

It is pretty clear that this exchange represents the dispute over whether the Dalvik VM "simulates the execution of byte code" in the context of static array initialization. The expert witness Mr. Parr is claiming to the contrary that "pattern matching" is used instead, and this is not claimed by patent '520. As further evidence, Mr. Parr demonstrates that "simulating" in this context implies the use of stack operations which are absent in the debug trace. But for Oracle, this is irrelevant as Mr. Jacobs focuses on the presence of the word "simulate" in the Simulator class (source code available online). Really, this has absolutely nothing to do technically with the relevant patent, but you know, this is a courtroom, and if a lawyer can weave some fantasy that the jury accepts, then apparently that is all that is necessary.

The Simulator class

While this can all be very confusing to the layman, I assure you that if you take the time to examine the details, you'll see that Oracle's counsel is basically lying in the courtroom to make their case, and it is this behavior that is upsetting me, and I stand by my earlier accusation.

Here's a bit more detail on the relevant patents.

Does Judge Alsup understand what is happening here? He surely has some grasp of the extent of Oracle's abuse of the system, but from what I can see, he is trying to ensure that the plaintiff has little recourse for appeal. I have a lot of respect for him taking on this case, and it appears that he is quite competent. I wish it was easier for those reporting on this case to see how reprehensible Oracle's behavior has been.

[ 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 )