|
|
|
| Authored by: Tkilgore on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:56 PM EDT |
What if they bring forth some code which is very similar to what is in Google's
code, and the code which they bring forth was in some source such as in the
K&R book on C? And then say that, well, this is what _we_ are doing. So then
Google might say that either the patent tries to cover this and is thus
obviously invalid or in case the patent claims to be doing something different
then it may be valid, or may not for all we care, but we, Google, are obviously
not doing what the patent claims.
Mind, I do not know anything about the details of this patent, but a patent
relating to "data references" seems highly suspicious. Sounds like a
patent on pointers. The only thing which makes me willing to believe that it
might actually cover something is if it specifically applies to Java. I don't
know anything about Java, but I have some vague recollection of reading
somewhere that Java does not actually have pointers. So it is conceivable that
that Sun wrote a language without pointers, then turned around and produced a
method to smuggle pointers into it by the back door, and patented said method.
But I may be all wet about this, so if I am wrong then please nobody take it
seriously.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Several tests - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:25 PM EDT
- Yabut - Authored by: greed on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:23 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
