|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 06:30 PM EDT |
Another very important, and fundamentally very simple distinction: Dereferencing
a "symbolic" reference involves a table lookup, Dereferencing a
"non-symbolic" reference involves only an address/offset calculation.
An index in a table is not--and in no rational CompSci major's mind would ever
be considered--a symbolic reference. All pointers and indexes in modern
computers go through the same basic calculation: [root address]+[index]*[size of
datum]. Nothing more.
A symbolic dereference involves a lookup--SEARCH for symbol "ABC"
(considered a string, not a number, although all strings are represented as
numbers). Somehow, look through a table/database to find some entry that has
"ABC" stored in it. And then, take the (numeric) index/pointer out of
that table. Then, as a final step, Do the basic calculation on the index, as
above.
IF THERE'S NO TABLE LOOKUP ON THE SYMBOL, IT IS NOT A SYMBOLIC REFERENCE. IT IS
SIMPLY AN INDEX/POINTER.
No other distinction between symbolic and non-symbolic makes any sense at all in
this context.
The Boies folk made a really valiant effort to avoid this clear fact. They are
liars--so says this compiler writer who HAS done symbolic dereferencing (nearly
always at compile time) on multiple architectures and languages). And no
compiler writer you will find, will say any different.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT |
Even though the specific 6 claims of '104 that are in the case have no mention
of "dynamic", Judge Alsup threw "dynamic" in to the case in
an unusual way - He made it part of the claim construction of the term
"symbolic reference" that is is something that is resolved
dynamically. (See filing #137) That does not match any standard use in computer
science of the term "symbolic reference".
David August picked up on this unusual claim construction to do exactly what
Oracle said they were afraid Google would do. It provided a way to make dynamic
resolution a requirement even in those claims where it is not mentioned. August
never said that symbol reference resolution is only ever done dynamically. He
said that according to the Court's claim construction something cannot be called
a "symbolic reference" for the purpose of the patent if it is not
resolved dynamically.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|