|
Authored by: BitOBear on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 09:47 PM EDT |
Java VM instructions -are- "native" after a fashion. The instructions
are "native" to the "virtual" -machine-.
There is at least one "native java CPU", e.g. a CPU where there is no
"V" in the name.
Meanwhile, should you be reading or responding to this with a computer with an
Intel x86 or AMD (A PC or a later day Mac, but I don't know about the ARM) CPU,
then that CPU is, get this, "interpreting" its "native"
instructions. That is, said computer CPU chip is running "microcode"
in response to almost all of the "native" CPU instructions it reads.
There is no such distinction between "native virtual machine" and a
"native machine".
Further I can, on my linux box, run "qemu" to create and run programs
that were written for "machines" other than my own. Radically
different ones in fact. Such as power-PC chips and (I think) Sparc or something.
I didn't compile -all- the options
The V-word exists only to describe the optional nature of a particular instance
of a machine and doesn't, or shouldn't anyway, offer any specificity to the
USPTO about invalidity as you state above.
Virtual machines are only Virtually Virtual.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|