|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 07:32 PM EDT |
They said it was litigation by ambush IIRC. Google complained they couldn't
defend adequately against this argument because Oracle didn't disclose it in a
timely manner. In other non ambush context this objection wouldn't apply.
I was mentioning the doctrine of equivalents because there are people around who
insist the literal execution of the instruction must control the construction of
the claim. Some of these persons will not admit there is room for diverging
views on this topic. I think this is importing a very specific technical
viewpoint into a question of law. This is not necessarily wrong. This argument
could be made and could be accepted by a judge because it has a lot in its
favor. But it does not mean other arguments can't be made and reasonably
supported. I brought up the doctrine of equivalence to raise awareness that
claim construction is a legal question and several views of the same facts can
be reasonably argued by the parties.
I think Dr Mitchell misstated some facts of computer science including what
dynamic execution means. The '104 patent isn't infringed because of the
requirement of dynamic resolution. But Oracle's interpretation of symbolic
reference is one which is open to discussion. I don't say it is right, but I
don't think it is blatantly wrong as some other posters think it is.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 07:47 PM EDT |
Oracle v. Google - JMOL (Patent) Response Briefs, 1169 and Oracle's response
in 1170.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|