|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:27 PM EDT |
It grilles to perfection .. lets see how you are doing .. oh. looking a little
bit burnt on that side .. hmm.
Perhaps we shoudl turn you over and grill the other side? ...
Oh dear, it looks like that side is already overcooked too! ... I think, you are
done![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not yet... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT
- No no - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT
|
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
Please post corrections in this thread.
A summary in the title can be helpful.
No fair pointing out all the corrections that Oracle
needs in their pleadings, theory, actions, etc.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:36 PM EDT |
"[...] For this reason, a reasonable jury could have rejected
every word of his testimony."
Ouch, that's pretty harsh right there[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The Judge commenting on Oracle's Dr. Mitchell - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:49 PM EDT
- The Judge commenting on Oracle's Dr. Mitchell - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:07 PM EDT
- Thank you, Judge Alsup - Authored by: mexaly on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:11 PM EDT
- Inducement - Authored by: sproggit on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:17 PM EDT
- The Judge commenting on Oracle's Dr. Mitchell - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:23 PM EDT
- a sensible ruling - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:35 PM EDT
- Aren't that the same words PJ used !! n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:38 PM EDT
- Judge Alsup wields a mighty sharp pen - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT
- "pretty harsh" - Authored by: webster on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 08:20 PM EDT
- The Judge commenting on Oracle's Dr. Mitchell - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 08:40 PM EDT
- The Judge commenting on Oracle's Dr. Mitchell - Authored by: charlie Turner on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 09:12 PM EDT
- Don't get carried away - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:04 AM EDT
- The Judge commenting on Oracle's Dr. Mitchell - Authored by: nuthead on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:22 AM EDT
|
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
Anything not related to the main article (or the news picks on the Groklaw home
page). Please make links clickable.
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- US Bullies EU on ACTA - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 08:22 PM EDT
- Google Chromebook, Chromebox: Visual Tour - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 12:00 AM EDT
- kaspersky antivirus - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 12:27 AM EDT
- IP: inventive parasitism - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 03:13 AM EDT
- SpaceX's Dragon Undocks, Deorbits and Returns to Earth - Authored by: hardmath on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:59 AM EDT
- Mueller Humour... Ferris Mueller's day off? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:03 AM EDT
- Why Kapersky? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:10 AM EDT
- Why law firms are rigged to fail. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 10:15 AM EDT
- Brown Rudnick: "Sky won't fall if Oracle wins API copyright" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:57 AM EDT
- A bunch of articles caught my eye this morning - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 02:21 PM EDT
- "You MUST Pay MS...." - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:55 PM EDT
- I predict - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:23 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:27 PM EDT |
This is one of the most beautifully worded statements I have read
today.
A reasonable jury could have found his many “mistakes” in
his report merely to be convenient alterations to fix truthful admissions
earlier made before he realized the import of his
admissions.
But how can one "fix" truthful submissions? That
expert was obviously lying.
Here's the question: Can that expert
and Oracle's attorneys be prosecuted for lying under oath? They did precisely
this many many times. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:35 PM EDT |
I don't understand the ability of the judge to chop and
change. How can the jury sometimes be reasonable, and
sometimes unreasonable. Isn't it one or the other?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:37 PM EDT |
The Footgun™® which passed from SCO to Oracle seems to have had a
major upgrade to convert it to rapid fire. One more upgrade, to thermonuclear,
and it should be passed on to M$..... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
They say that a good laugh once a day does amazing things for your health.
Beautiful! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hardmath on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 07:04 PM EDT |
The question that divides
us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being
correct.
There appears to have been no question about Prof. Mitchell's
willingness to call his own expertise into doubt by repudiating crucial
conclusions of his submitted report.
But evidently this was simply not crazy
enough. He should have demonstrated thinking further outside the box by
insisting that the report conclusions concerning "numeric references" in indexes
were 100% consistent with conclusions that these were at the same time "symbolic
references".
Perhaps in a quantum state which mixes indiscernibly their
simultaneous numeric and symbolic characters. Yeah, that's the
ticket.
--- "Prolog is an efficient programming language because
it is a very stupid theorem prover." -- Richard O'Keefe [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
Now having seen the claim in question :
compiling source
code containing the array with static values to generate a class file with a
clinit method containing byte codes to statically initialize the array to the
static values;
2
receiving the class file into a preloader;
simulating execution of the byte codes of the clinit method against a memory
without executing the byte codes to identify the static initialization of the
array by the preloader;
storing into an output file an instruction
requesting the static initialization of the array; and
interpreting the
instruction by a virtual machine to perform the static initialization of the
array.
The reference here of "a memory", when taken in context
of the sentence can ONLY mean a memory stack. You have an array, which is a
block of memory, which are always treated as a stack of memory, at a programming
level. The OS may actually handle it different, but it will appear to a program
to be a stack of memory. Unless of course, I'm getting old and senile,
everything that claim states is referring to actions that anyone skilled in the
art would implement as a stack operation because that how it describes it,
albeit implicitly. Sure you could switch it up a bit by using some fancy
parallel process, or multiple threads attacking it in a btree fashion, but those
are all still just treating it as smaller and smaller stacks. As opposed to a
pattern-matching which wouldn't use this tack at all.
An array is
nothing but a linked list with a random access method. A linked list is really
nothing but a memory stack. I'd even be willing to wager that the whole thing is
a typo and was supposed to read "a memory stack". No coder writes like that, "a
memory", what the? "A memory" what. You can have: "a memory stack", "a memory
module", "a memory block", "a memory region", and so on.
Never, ever,
have I ever heard of "a memory" in relation to computers. I have "a memory", a
memory of my first bicycle, a memory of my broken collarbone, a memory of my
first pet, an so on. Computers don't have "a memory". They don't get happy, they
don't get sad, they just run programs.
So while the judge was right "not
all memory is stack", in this case there really isn't any other way to think of
what they are indicating. Basically they said "load an array into a stack,
manipulate the array in the stack, return an answer from the modified
stack". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 07:44 PM EDT |
The Google code really DID pre-optimize symbolic references. The subtly here is
that the patent explicitly uses the term "in the instruction stream."
The symbolic names are indirect references, so they are not "in the
instruction stream." However, they ARE in the "object code," so a
reasonable practitioner, versed in the art, might easily conclude that this
single level of indirection does not prevent dexopt from violating the patent.
Oracle completely missed this, As did Google. Google should have emphasized that
patent claims must be specific, so "in the instruction stream"
specifically narrows the scope, and Google should have shown prior art to
demonstrate why a broader claim ("in the object code" or "in the
object file") would have been rejected by the patent office. Otherwise, a
reasonable practitioner would think that this distinction was lawyerly
logic-chopping, and would find for Oracle.
No reasonable practitioner, however, would think that dexopt operates "at
runtime." Google should have stressed this much harder. It does not matter
that symbols were resolved by dexopt: there is no way whatsoever that this
happened at runtime. Google should have hammered each Oracle expert on this, and
should have driven this point home with every expert of their own. They
apparently failed to convince the jury of this fundamental and blatantly obvious
(to a professional) point.
Conclusion: the jury reached the right conclusion for the wrong reason.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 08:40 PM EDT |
I just had one more thought after reading this juicy quote:
The
foregoing is sufficient but it is worth adding that Oracle’s infringement case
was presented through Dr. Mitchell. A reasonable jury could have found his many
“mistakes” in his report merely to be convenient alterations to fix truthful
admissions earlier made before he realized the import of his admissions. For
this reason, a reasonable jury could have rejected every word of his
testimony.
Does that mean his expert witness career is over? Or
won't future litigants be able to point out information about his last time up?
One would think that something like this written in a ruling would follow him
around and undermine his credibility in the future, but maybe people will not
know about it and will fail to dig it up. Then again, maybe we can make that
quote famous enough that searching for his name makes that quote the first
hit....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
Ouch - Thats got to hurt.
I wonder the opinion of the ppl this chap teaches will be when they see this?
And his colleagues?
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 09:29 PM EDT |
In a case this complex, it was almost pro forma that the
losing party would file a Rule 50 motion. And it was almost
pro forma the judge would deny that motion. Nothing should be
a surprise here.
Except of course the judge taking the opportunity to kick Dr.
Mitchell when he was down. That, I must admit, made my day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 10:57 PM EDT |
There was some speculation after DoJ et al vs MS that some of MS's witnesses
would be tried, but they never were.
In theory they could be prosecuted, the most likely way would be for the judge
to refer their testimony to the State's Attorney, which he probably won't.
I wish they would at least do so for Mitchell. A guilty verdict, even a
suspended sentence would make it impossible for him to ever again be an expert
witness. At the moment it doesn't seem likely, but the judges statement for
example, is indirect enough that some desperate plaintiff might still use him.
I'm worried thatnothing happening might come back to harm the FOSS/android
communities,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 11:18 PM EDT |
...how could Oracle have gone to trial with such a weak
case? Well actually,
calling it a weak case would be an
unjustified endorsement. The fact is, they
had no case at
all, based on the facts. How come they couldn't anticipate
the
flaws in their arguments and the strengths in Google's? Even
that quack
Michelle realized Google didn't infringe and had
to resort to quackery in an
attempt to cover up. But why
couldn't they anticipate that the claims
construction
wouldn't work for them? It was obvious to us. Like the judge
said
- he gave them chances to redefine simple words like
"data", and they didn't
take him up on that.
I can't believe they invested all that time and
effort in
hopes of conning the jury, or their prosecution would have
been more
consistent. I mean, how do you explain Michel's
earlier "mistakes"?
I
do believe there was a major screw up. Somebody though
they had a solid claim,
and too late they discovered they
didn't. It was too late to back out at that
point. (From
their perspective, though my personal opinion is that it is
never
too late to admit you have made a mistake.)
So who's head is going to
roll after this? I think Boise
is going down a few notches in the eyes of their
peers at a
minimum. They blew it! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What I don't understand is... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 11:47 PM EDT
- What I don't understand is... - Authored by: IANALitj on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 01:17 AM EDT
- What I don't understand is... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 01:43 AM EDT
- What I don't understand is... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 03:05 AM EDT
- What I don't understand is... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:02 AM EDT
- This is a "Larry Ellison" approach to problem solving - Authored by: jesse on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:53 AM EDT
- It's not about the case... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 10:42 AM EDT
- BSF - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT
- Here's my take - Authored by: BJ on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 12:56 PM EDT
- Thinking Fast and Slow ... - Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 01:19 PM EDT
- Hail Mary - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT
- Hail Mary - Authored by: BJ on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT
- Hail Mary - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:10 AM EDT |
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/05/spacex-release-
splashdown/
Good stuff :-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:37 AM EDT |
From the horse's...umm mouth, andArs
Technica:
"I wouldn't describe it as a patent
case,"..."It's really a copyright case."
...
"We won on infringement,"
...
"The
jury found that Google infringed our copyrights. I don't want to go into a lot
of detail. The important part of the case is about copyrights and
copyrightability of software. When the litigation is over, I'll be happy to talk
about it."
That's nearly one full Jobs of reality
distortion!
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:33 AM EDT |
While there has been speculation that this trial would or should result in less
use of Java, I think the trial shows that if you use Java you're safe even if
the purported owner of the language sues you.
I certainly am not going to decrease my use of Java. However, I'm not going to
use anything that results in revenue to Oracle.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
I'm not at all sure I'd say 'Free'. They guys don't come cheap. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RMAC9.5 on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 01:32 PM EDT |
IMHO, Google's should, after this case is appealed, sort Oracle's and
Microsoft's published patents and then, starting with their weakest patients,
use prior art to file re-examination requests with the USPTO.
Because
"The best defense is a good offense" (see WikipediA), Google should let the
world know that if you EVER attack us with "bogus" software patents, we
will use our search engine resources to defend ourselves and to invalidate
ALL of your "bogus" software patents so as to NEVER have to defend
ourselves from you again! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jonathon on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
Since there isn't yet one, but there have been half a dozen threads that belong
under News Picks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: awkScooby on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
Ginny LaRoe ‏@GinnyLaRoe
Judge Alsup: Structure, sequence and organization of 37 APIs is not
copyrightable.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- YAHOO!!!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:09 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
Reuters
A U.S. judge rejected Oracle Corp's contention
that parts of
the Java programming language can be copyrighted [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 04 2012 @ 01:33 AM EDT |
From Osvaldo Doederlein:
Here's some purely-technical commentary
about the
Oracle/Google lawsuit, specifically the patent '104. It was
tough to
see the bogus technical controversy in court, and
even Groklaw and the tech
press failed to detail the
technical issues appropriately. So here's a Symbolic
References 101 for ya.
More on Google+<
/a> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|