Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:10 PM EDT |
We aren't in the damages phase yet, as far as I understand
how this malarkey works. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:19 PM EDT |
There are no damages without proving
infringement.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:40 PM EDT |
So they show that after Oracle makes changes to the code it runs slower.
I'm sure that most programmers could make code run slower without too much
trouble. There are plenty of tools to help find bottlenecks and resolve speed
issues. If you rip out chunks of code you would need to retune the remnants to
restore performance. There's numerous ways to do most non trivial tasks, some
are faster, some easier to understand, others easier to maintain, and some will
make it grind to a halt which one you choose depends on your requirements. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 03:05 AM EDT |
The witness stated he disabled the patented technology. This made Android a
whole lot slower.
This implies two things:
1) The patented technology was in there (how can you disable it otherwise)
2) It had a measurable effect.
Given that there is no patented technology in there, the test should have been:
is an unmodified Dalvik as fast as unmodified Dalvik?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|