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 | # ]
|