|
Oracle v. Google - Oracle Motion for JMOL on Patent Infringement Denied ~mw |
|
Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:20 PM EDT
|
The Court has denied Oracle's motion for judgment as a matter or law with respect to the issue of patent infringement. ( [PDF; Oracle v. Google - JMOL Briefs on Patent Infringement"]) In issuing it order denying Oracle's motion (1201 [PDF; Text]) the Court found Oracle's arguments non-persuasive.
Oracle had argued that no reasonable jury could conclude anything but that Google had infringed the patents. Judge Alsup begged to differ. In his analysis supporting the decision Judge Alsup pointed out that Oracle never raised an objection until trial about the Court's interpretation of the phrase "symbolic reference," an objection Oracle could have raised for more than a year.
Significantly, Oracle's own expert undermined Oracle's position:
Furthermore, the testimony at trial of Oracle’s own expert, Dr. John Mitchell, supports
this mutually exclusive characterization of a reference as either a numeric or symbolic reference.
In his opening expert report, Dr. Mitchell labeled the indexes in the Dalvik bytecode instructions
as “numeric references.” Realizing that this could be problematic to Oracle’s infringement
contentions, in his trial testimony, Dr. Mitchell testified that his report was mistaken and that
those indexes were instead symbolic references (see, e.g., Tr. 3490). This 180-degree change of
opinion proves the mutually exclusive characterization of a reference (within the meaning of the
patent claims): if a reference could be both a numeric and a symbolic reference, then
Dr. Mitchell would not have needed to repudiate his expert report at trial and instead could have
supplemented his report by testifying that the indexes were both numeric and
symbolic references.
At the other end of the spectrum, Google's expert, Dr. August, presented credible testimony supporting Google's position that a reference could not be both numeric and symbolic. That pretty much torched Oracle with respect to the '104 patent.
On the '520 patent the issue centered on the meaning of "simulating execution." Once again, Google's expert testimony, this time from Dr. Parr, was persuasive in establishing that Android does not simulate execution; rather, it relies upon pattern matching. Again, this pretty much shot holes in Oracle's arguments. As a result, the Court denied the motion with respect to the '520 patent, as well.
The Court took one final shot at Dr. Mitchell in its conclusion:
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.
Enough said.
**************
Docket
05/30/2012 - 1201 - ORDER
DENYING ORACLE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW RE PATENT
INFRINGEMENT by Hon. William Alsup denying 1168 Motion for Judgment as
a Matter of Law.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2012) (Entered:
05/30/2012)
**************
Document
1201
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
No. C 10-03561 WHA
ORDER DENYING ORACLE’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
AS A MATTER OF LAW RE
PATENT INFRINGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
In this patent and copyright infringement action, Oracle moves for judgment as a matter
of law that Google infringed Patent Nos. RE38,104 and 6,061,520. For the reasons stated below,
the motion is DENIED.
STATEMENT
The procedural and technological background of this action has already been discussed
(Dkt. Nos. 137, 433). This action began in 2010 with seven asserted patents. In May 2011, a
claim construction order was issued (Dkt. No. 137). Neither party filed a motion for
reconsideration of that order. In January 2012, at the request of the parties, a supplemental claim
construction order for additional terms was issued (Dkt. No. 704).
By the time of trial in April 2012, Oracle had reduced the number of asserted patents and
claims to two patents and eight claims. This was done as an incentive to receive an earlier trial
date and because the withdrawn patents had received “final rejections” in PTO reexaminations.
The issue of infringement was tried to a jury and Google dropped all affirmative defenses,
including invalidity. The parties stipulated that indirect infringement (inducement and
contributory infringement) would automatically follow from a finding of direct infringement
(Dkt. No. 1139). Because Oracle had not disclosed an infringement theory under the doctrine of
equivalents, the only issue for the jury to decide was whether Android literally infringed the
asserted claims in the ’104 and ’520 patents.
The parties also narrowed down the claim limitations in disputed (TX 1106). For
the ’104 patent, the dispute was whether Android met the limitation of having “instructions
containing one or more symbolic references.” Claim 11 is a representative example of the claim
language:
An apparatus comprising:
a memory containing intermediate form
object code constituted by a set of
instructions, certain of said instructions
containing one or more symbolic references;
and
a processor configured to execute said
instructions containing one or more
symbolic references by determining a
numerical reference corresponding to said
symbolic reference, storing said numerical
references, and obtaining data in accordance
to said numerical references.
(TX 1106) (for illustration, the disputed limitations are underlined). All asserted claims for
the ’104 patent contained the limitation that the “symbolic reference” must be in the instructions.
Google stipulated that Android contained the non-underlined limitations in the asserted claims.
For the ’520 patent, the dispute between the parties was whether Android satisfied the limitation
of “simulating execution . . . to identify the static initialization of the array.” Claim 1 is a
representative example of the claim language:
A method in a data processing system for statically
initializing an array, comprising the steps of:
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.
(col. 9). All asserted claims for the ’520 patent contained the “simulating execution” limitation.
After a week-long trial, followed by another week of jury deliberation, the jury rendered
a verdict of non-infringement for all asserted claims. Oracle moves to set aside the jury verdict
as a matter of law under Rule 50.
ANALYSIS
Judgment as a matter of law may be granted against a party if it “has been fully heard on
an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that
party on that issue.” Rule 50(a). “Judgment as a matter of law may be granted only where, so
viewed, the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion, and that conclusion is contrary to
the jury’s verdict.” Wallace v. City of San Diego, 479 F.3d 616, 624 (9th Cir. 2007).
The final charge to the jury was and remains the complete statement of the law governing
the trial issues unless a timely and proper objection to the instructions was made and the Court
now agrees that the objection has merit. The post-trial motions under Rule 50 must be evaluated,
therefore, in light of that statement of the law and not in light of new citations, new legal theories
and/or legal variations. Rule 50 is not an occasion for yet another round of summary judgment
based on new slants on the case law. Of course, an appellate court might later find that an
objection to an instruction was preserved, well-taken and not harmless and so require a new trial.
But until then, this Court is satisfied that the jury instructions were proper and both sides are
bound by the jury instructions as the exclusive statement of the governing law for the
instant action.
3
Where a party does not object to the court’s jury instruction regarding the construction of
claim term, the verdict must be tested by the charge actually given under the ordinary meaning of
the language of the jury instruction. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 658 F.3d 1347,
1355–56 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
[P]arties cannot reserve issues of claim construction
for the stage of post-trial motions. When issues of
claim construction have not been properly raised in
connection with the jury instructions, it is improper
for the district court to adopt a new or more detailed
claim construction in connection with the JMOL
motion. On JMOL, the issue here should have been
limited to the question of whether substantial
evidence supported the verdict under the agreed
instruction. In other words, where the parties and
the district court elect to provide the jury only with
the claim language itself, and do not provide an
interpretation of the language in the light of the
specification and the prosecution history, it is too
late at the JMOL stage to argue for or adopt a new
and more detailed interpretation of the claim
language and test the jury verdict by that new and
more detailed interpretation. The verdict must be
tested by the charge actually given and by giving
the ordinary meaning of the language of the jury
instruction.
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Systems, Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1320–21 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(citations omitted).
1. THE ’104 PATENT.
As discussed, the dispute with respect to infringement of the ’104 patent was whether
Android’s Dalvik bytecode instructions contained “symbolic references.” More specifically, the
question for the jury was whether the field indices and operands in the Dalvik bytecode
instruction stream were “symbolic references.”
A. Meaning of “Symbolic Reference.”
The jury instructions contained the Court’s May 2011 construction of the term “symbolic
reference,” which was defined as “a reference that identifies data by a name other than the
numeric memory location of the data, and that is resolved dynamically rather than statically”
(Dkt. No. 137 at 22; Dkt. No. 1153 at 5). In formulating this definition, the order did not adopt
either parties’ proposed definition. During the May 2011 Markman proceeding, Oracle had
4
argued that the term “symbolic reference” did not need construction and that the plain meaning
meant “a reference by name.”
Importantly, Oracle did not object to the use of the term “data” in the Court’s
construction or request additional clarification before the claim construction’s definition went
into the final jury instructions. During the charging conference, the Court specifically asked
whether Oracle wanted to construe the term “data.” Oracle declined.
COURT: No one has asked for any other claim
constructions. If you want me to put in a sentence
that would say as to anything else it has its plain
meaning as used in the patent, I can do that. But I
don’t — you can’t sandbag me at the last minute
and say, Judge, please give us a ruling on what
“data” means. That would take me some time to
sort out. So if — you know, this was the time to
ask me for it. I guess you could — for good cause
you could ask for it later. But, it would have to be
really good cause to say at the last minute you want
me to go research a legal point and do a claim
construction. But I hear you saying you’re happy
with the plain language.
ORACLE’S COUNSEL: We’re happy with the plain
language of the claim and the claim constructions.
(Tr. 3710–11). Oracle’s answer was an unequivocal “no.” Therefore, the ordinary meaning of
the term “data” in the jury instructions controls. See Cordis Corp., 658 F.3d at 1355–56.
Additionally, the jury asked a question regarding the meaning of symbolic reference
during their deliberations. The jury asked whether a reference can be both a numeric reference
and a symbolic reference. Over Oracle’s objections, the Court answered:
You look at whatever is in that little box and you
say, does that identify data by a name other than the
numeric memory location of the data? If the answer
to that is that it identifies a numeric memory
location of the data, then it is not a symbolic
reference; it's a numeric reference. And it doesn't
get transmogrified into a something else on account
of what happens downstream.
But you do have to consider what happens
downstream to find — to at least figure out whether
or not the item that is in that box is referring to the
numeric memory location of the data. You’ve got
to look at least that far downstream in order to see
what it’s referring to. But, once you do that — and
if you decide it’s a symbolic reference, great. If you
5
decide it’s a numeric reference, that’s great, too.
But it doesn’t then change because the computer
marches on to one instruction after the other, and so
forth.
(Tr. 4325–26). To sum up, the Court answered that a reference cannot be a “symbolic reference”
for one datum and a “numeric reference” for another datum within the meaning of the claim
language.
This answer was appropriate and already inherent in the claim construction. Cordis
Corp., 658 F.3d at 1356. Based the patent specifications, a reference cannot be both a “symbolic
reference” and a “numeric reference” within the meaning of the claims. The patent expressly
stated that a reference was either a “symbolic reference or a numeric reference” (col. 2). The
patent described two different subroutines that were invoked, depending on whether the
reference was numeric or symbolic. There was nothing in the patent describing how to first
determine whether a reference was numeric or symbolic with regard to any particular datum.
The only reasonable understanding of the patent was that a reference would be recognized by an
interpreter as either numeric or symbolic but not both. This understanding was inherent in the
Court’s claim construction order, which stated that “[t]he ’104 patent teaches two different types
of data references: numeric references and symbolic references” (Dkt. No. 137 at 20).
Furthermore, the testimony at trial of Oracle’s own expert, Dr. John Mitchell, supports
this mutually exclusive characterization of a reference as either a numeric or symbolic reference.
In his opening expert report, Dr. Mitchell labeled the indexes in the Dalvik bytecode instructions
as “numeric references.” Realizing that this could be problematic to Oracle’s infringement
contentions, in his trial testimony, Dr. Mitchell testified that his report was mistaken and that
those indexes were instead symbolic references (see, e.g., Tr. 3490). This 180-degree change of
opinion proves the mutually exclusive characterization of a reference (within the meaning of the
patent claims): if a reference could be both a numeric and a symbolic reference, then
Dr. Mitchell would not have needed to repudiate his expert report at trial and instead could have
supplemented his report by testifying that the indexes were both numeric and
symbolic references.
6
B. Sufficient Evidence to Support Jury’s Verdict.
There was sufficient evidence at trial to support the jury’s finding of non-infringement.
At trial, the Dalvik bytecode instruction was the focus of both parties’ arguments. In particular,
the parties focused on the IGET instruction. The IGET instruction retrieved a piece of data out
of an instance field object (Tr. 3221). The IGET instruction contained an operand —
field@CCCC — also known as the field index (Tr. 3221). Android resolved class, method, and
string indices in the same way as the field indices and both parties agreed that the field index
example was dispositive for all indices.
Oracle’s theory of infringement presented to the jury was that the field indices —
operands in Davlik instructions — were symbolic references. In defense, Google argued that the
same field indices were not symbolic references but were instead, numeric references, because
they were pointers to table entries from the Field ID tables (a table in the constant pool of
Android dex files). The jury sided with Google’s argument.
There was ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict of non-infringement. Google’s
expert Dr. August testified that the term, “data” from the Court’s claim construction of
“symbolic references” would have been understood to include data from Field ID tables in the
dex files. Dr. August illustrated with an example of Android’s IGET instruction “52 01”, which
instructed the computer to go to entry 01 in the Field ID table. Dr. August explained that the
operand (“01”) for the IGET instruction qualified as a numeric reference because it referred to
data by a numeric memory location: entry 01 in the Field IDs table. That is, the operand “01”
identified data (the value at entry 01 in the Field ID table) in the constant pool by the numeric
memory location, entry 01.
Q: The premise being that the certain of
said instructions containing one or
more symbolic references.
And you’re saying that — well, what
is “01”? Is that, in your view, a
symbolic reference?
Dr. August: No. “01” is a numeric reference
because it gives you an actual
numeric memory location. Right
7
here (indicating). This is the
location, 01.
There’s no resolution, no search.
Nothing – nothing expensive about
figuring out what that instruction is
referring to when it goes to the field
ID table.
(Tr. 3865). His testimony took Android’s operand “01” out of the plain meaning of the Court’s
“symbolic reference” definition, and thus, the claim limitations of the ’104 patent. The jury was
reasonable in crediting Dr. Parr’s testimony.
Oracle’s argued (and continues to argue) that “data” in the claim construction and claims
themselves referred narrowly to “the ultimate data to be obtained or used after symbolic
reference resolution is performed” (Dkt. No. 1189 at 1). This argument was reasonable rejected
by the jury. The values in the Field ID table in the Android dex file were “data” in the ordinary
sense of the word. The jury was reasonable to adopt this understanding of the term “data” and
reject Oracle’s expert Dr. Mitchell’s opinion that “data” was restricted to “ultimate data” in
Android. Google’s Dr. August persuasively explained that there was no limitation regarding the
type of data being referenced in the plain meaning of the Court’s claim construction. He
explained on cross-examination (Tr. 3955):
Q: Now, just to clean up a few other
things. You labeled this ‘data,’ but
this is actually the constant pool;
true, sir?
Dr. August. Constant pool is data.
Even adopting Oracle’s belated effort to construe “data” to mean “the ultimate data to be
obtained or used after symbolic reference resolution is performed,” a reasonable jury could still
find that Android did not infringe. Dr. August testified that the field data in the instance object
referenced by the operand (Oracle’s definition of a “data” in Android) may itself be a reference
to other data. For example, that data may reference another string in the string data table.
Q. What can be in this instance object
by way of data?
Dr. August. Well, it could be a symbolic
reference. It could be a numeric
8
* * *
Q. Let’s talk about in Dalvik. Is the
data at these entries always nonreference
data, as we talked about in
your technical tutorial?
Dr. August. No, it’s not.
Q. How do you know that?
Dr. August: Because I write programs. And you
can write programs that contain
references in instances of objects.
(Tr. 4002–03). Thus, the jury was reasonable to believe that the operand “01” in Android’s
instruction stream did not identify the “ultimate” data within the meaning of the claim language.
Oracle also argues Android’s operand “01” must be a symbolic reference because it was
resolved and only symbolic references had to be resolved. Even if this construction were
adopted, the jury was still reasonable to find that Android did not infringe. There was testimony
that Android’s field indices were not resolved. As Mr. Andy McFadden explained:
Q. And are indexes in this process being
resolved?
Dr. August. No.
Q. Why do you say no?
Dr. August. Well, resolution implies something is
unknown, something is ambiguous.
If you have an index, you know
exactly where you’re going. You
have the location. For symbols, you
don’t know where you're going and
you won’t know until you have
resolved the ambiguity. So it doesn’t
really make sense to say that you
“resolve an index.”
(Tr. 3650–51).
Therefore, Oracle’s motion for judgment of infringement of the ’104 patent is DENIED.
2. ’520 PATENT.
Oracle argues that Android SDK’s dx tool infringes claims 1 and 20 of the ’520 patent as
a matter of law. At trial, the only dispute with respect to infringement of the ’520 patent was
9
whether Android’s pattern-matching technique in its dx tool was encompassed in ’520 patent
“simulating execution” process limitation. There was no dispute that the dx tool used a
technique called “pattern matching” that looked for a repeating sequence of instructions used to
initialize static arrays (Tr. 3800–01). The jury was reasonable to credit the testimony of
Google’s expert, Professor Terence Parr, who testified that Android’s pattern-matching
technique was not simulating execution because it did not go through the steps required to
produce output showing what the static array would look like if the Java byte code instructions
were performed.
A. Meaning of “Simulating Execution.”
Neither party requested construction of the term “simulating execution.” Neither party
sought to clarify the term in the jury instructions. Therefore, the verdict must be tested under the
ordinary meaning of “simulating execution.” Cordis Corp., 658 F.3d at 1355–56.
The purpose of the ’520 patent was to efficiently create an instruction for static
initialization of an array for the Java virtual machine, a stack-based machine. The specification
discussed static initialization only through simulating actual Java virtual machine operations:
manipulation of a stack by pushing, popping, and replacing values from the top of an operand
stack. Thus, the ordinary meaning of “simulating execution” is the simulation of actual Java
virtual machine operations. Google’s expert, Dr. Parr, also testified that this was the plain
meaning that would have been understood by those skilled in the art (Tr. 3794).
B. Sufficient Evidence to Support Jury’s Verdict.
It was undisputed that Android did not manipulate a stack to identify the initialization of
an array. At trial, Professor Parr confirmed this by looking at the source code and also
performing multiple experiments. As an experiment, he inserted an extra piece of bytecode that
put a zero into the zeroth entry in an array — where a zero already existed at the inception of the
array. Such an extraneous piece of code, when run through a program that simulated execution
of byte code instructions, would create an efficient instruction with no problem because the
useless instruction would end up having no effect on the eventual result (Tr. 3810). However, in
his experiment, the dx tool failed to create a proper instruction when it was fed that extraneous
10
code because it failed to find a particular sequence of instructions through pattern matching (Tr.
3809–10). The jury was reasonable to find that the dx tool code did not simulate execution of
the byte code within the meaning of the claim limitation.
In its Rule 50 motion, Oracle argues that the limitation of “simulating execution” must,
as a matter of law, encompass Android’s dx tool because the dx tool “examines the bytecode
without executing them.” This belated construction of “simulating execution” is rejected. The
jury was free to reject Oracle’s evidence that Android’s pattern matching was within the plain
meaning of “simulating execution.” The plain meaning of “simulating execution” does not
encompass pattern matching, and there was no mention of pattern matching in the ’520 patent
itself (Tr. 3521; TX 4011).
Therefore, Oracle’s motion for judgment of infringement of the ’520 patent is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
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.
For the reasons stated, Oracle’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of infringement
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 30, 2012.
/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|