|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 10:28 PM EDT |
Hmm, good point. Its possible that the full implication of Dr. August's
arguments about the Dalvik VM did not become clear to Google's legal team either
until a few days ago.
Either way, it seems evident now that the '104 patent doesn't cover a Java VM
unless perhaps you construct its claims in a rather unusual way. Oracle still
has plenty of other patents though (which they can use against other companies
besides Google), even if this particular one turned out to be a dud.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pem on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 10:31 PM EDT |
If Java devices practice the patent and weren't marked, poof! go the
infringement damages.
Of course, that was several stipulations ago, so things might have changed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 11:48 PM EDT |
"Why stipulate that the JVM did?" The flip side is, "why bother
arguing about it?"
It doesn't affect the case either way - Google was accused of infringing against
the patent, never mind what anyone else does, right?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|