|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|