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
Irrelevant | 439 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Irrelevant
Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:11 AM EDT
The lack of conflict is not the point. The patent calls out a technique that
neither Android nor Java actually implement.

The nature of the machines is not relevant.

The absence of "instructions with symbolic references '-in- them'" is
the sole point because it is the material "taught" by the patent.

See, if the patent doesn't match what you are doing, it doesn't apply. That the
patent filer -wanted- it to apply is also immaterial.

I understand the -intent- of the patent when I contemplate the situation, but
intent is not fact.

Sometimes when I go to the store and stock up on yogurt I grab one of the
flavors I do not like because it was placed amongst the flavors I do by
accident. When I get home, having grabbed 20 yogurt cups in bulk, I discover
that one or more is objectionable. That's -my- fault, and wishing the
"marrion berry" I have (but cannot eat because it contains seed pips)
was the "lime" I intended does not make the cup of yogurt edible to
me.

So, as I pointed out, I have seen first hand, what happens when a lawyer
re-writes a patent to make it "better". The original text may have
said "an instruction that finds and resolves a symbolic reference in the
chain of activity it performs" or some such text, or not. Who cares. The
fact is that the patent as issued says "the instruction stream includes a
symbolic reference", or whatever, is the fact that the court must use to
decide.

[ 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 )