|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:15 AM EDT |
I like this analogy a lot. Whats amazing to me is that the lawyers are allowed
to misrepresent the facts like this. Using this analogy, surely Oracle knows
that they are wrong when they argue that the car with no engine was driving all
over town unlicensed. It is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts and should
not be tolerated.
More specifically, Oracle and Mitchell know perfectly well that an index into a
table isn't a symbolic reference. The patent doesn't try to portray this
falsehood, but the Oracle lawyers have no problem trying to twist the facts in
order to deceive the jurors.
Can numbers be symbolic? Yes.
Can indexes into a table be considered symbolic? Maybe.
Does the patent describe either of these scenarios as a symbolic reference?
Absolutely not.
Is Android an example of a running system? Yes.
When the odex file is produced, is the application running? No.
Does the patent describe a running application or a running operating system in
regards to the time when the optimization occurs? It is quite clearly
describing a running the *Application* that is being optimized.
The lawyers and Mitchell know perfectly well that this is the case and yet they
purposely try to deceive the jury. They try to widen a patent's scope
artificially and there must be plenty of legal precedent to fall back on to
fight this off.
The amazing thing is that you'd expect this sort of thing from patent trolls or
even SCO playing with Microsoft's money. I am still shocked that a once
respected company like Oracle would be using these shady tactics knowing
perfectly well that the developers who choose them over Microsoft are the same
ones who they are double crossing in this suit. They must know that they are
abandoning their customers.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
I was in a collision that wrecked my motorcycle. I registered
it PNO (planned non-operation) for a reduced fee. When I got
the paperwork back, it said the vehicle could not be "operated,
parked or towed" on a public street unless the full fee was paid.
So maybe they COULD give you a ticket for towing an unregistered
vehicle around. I got to wondering what values of "towed" would
not be permitted. Obviously the old "hoist one end and drag it on
two wheels" is Right Out, but what about a flatbed tow truck that
carries it completely off the road?
I did take a chance, and haul it away inside my van for an insurance
estimate. Might have been illegal, but how would anybody know?
------------------------
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 06:47 AM EDT |
The Dalvik car has an engine. Google says the ignition was
off during
towing, and the engine was only run while in the
garage to charge the battery
so the taillights could be
powered by the battery to warn other drivers during
towing.
Oracle says that because the taillights are powered from the
battery
which was charged by the engine, then the car was
technically powered by the
engine while being towed.
That is how subtly they twist the words.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|