decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Yabut | 360 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Several tests
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:25 PM EDT
There are two different legal tests. One test is for infringement. It asks
whether what Google does is what the patent says it claims. The other test is
for novelty. It asks whether there is prior art that did what the patent claims
and is old enough to invalidate the patent. Either test should be good enough to
clear Google if the jury agrees that it is passed.

There are also other tests for obviousness, patentable subject matter,
definiteness, enablement etc which will likewise work for Google if passed (or
failed depending on the point of view). But the tests of infringement and
novelty are the ones which are relevant to your comment.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Yabut
Authored by: greed on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:23 PM EDT
Java doesn't have pointers-to-generic-data like C does.

But all objects are handled by C pointers inside the JVM.

Any data structure which cannot fit in a machine register must be handled this
way. It is a fundamental truth of [nearly] all CPU designs. (Skipping over
register combining....)

So, typically, any data structure larger than the native word-width can only
"passed" by pointer.

Within a given part of the program, some of the elements of the data structure
will be in hardware registers. But when, say, I want to pass that
java.lang.String to java.lang.System.out.println, it works just like anything
else: put the address of the parameter on the stack and jump to the subroutine.
(In Dalvik, you'd put the address of the parameter in a register.)

The reason why we call "high-level languages" high-level is because of
the depth of abstraction between the programmer and the hardware. In C, there's
very little abstraction--that's why it's so good as a systems language. And so
dangerous as an application language. (What, you didn't want to shoot your foot
off? Then why did you aim the destination pointer at an undersized buffer?)

Java is a fairly high-level language. You don't ever get to fiddle with
hardware addresses--even if you want to. Should you need to do so, you need to
call out to a native method via the JNI.

Heck, it's designed to target a virtual machine with a virtual CPU: how much
more abstract from the physical hardware can you get?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )