|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 01:52 AM EDT |
Mm, while I don't have detailed enough knowledge to evaluate the optimization
decisions being made by Google engineers, it really does look like Google was
aware of this patent, and deliberately coded around it. The specific absence
seems kind of glaring.
The Oracle argument here is basically one of trying to eat and have cake: we got
this patent on the 'novel' idea of combining these two techniques together as an
optimization, so we want a cut because people are using either technique. It's a
matter of playing around with scope again, because we're supposed to look at the
fact that both these techniques are used in the same program, regardless of the
fact that they aren't used in concert. It's disingenuous precisely because the
limit Oracle wants the jury to ignore is likely the very excuse for why the
USPTO can imagine this is somehow novel, as I understand the general practice
is, if there's a risk of something being thrown out for prior art / not novel,
you add qualifiers until it's more specific than precisely what the prior art
covers...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 07:35 AM EDT |
| Just wanted to say that I appreciated this explanation. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
