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
It's the lookup. | 400 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Smalltalk also does it.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT
Message sends use a selector (a symbolic reference). You can send any
selector to any object, and it will look up the appropriate method
dynamically, using the selector. Objective C borrowed this mechanism
from Smalltalk.

But Java uses it for dynamic binding, not for dynamic dispatch. Java VMs
usually implement method invocation using vtables (the same as C++),
they just build the vtables at runtime instead of compile time.

In Java the symbols are generally "resolved on first use". (Different
from
the Smalltalk message sends, which would be "resolved on every use").

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It's the lookup.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT
Hard to tell what the full implications will be, but honestly I'm pretty
encouraged that the judge actually spontaneously suggested a simple optimization
method; that's a definite indicator of a pretty critical base level of 'getting
it'.

Out here those with real understanding of computer science are screaming about
the true obviousness of purportedly novel solutions. Most people just don't get
what's being argued over well enough to judge, so they have to look for some
kind of objective criterion (like whether similar language to all the claim
elements exist in prior patents). Being able to spontaneously suggest an
optimization shows exactly the right kind of mindset for being able to recognize
the possibility of a solution being obvious once presented with the appropriate
problem.

This part of the case may well turn on the ability to establish a critical
meaning difference that destroys the applicability of the claim language, but it
certainly doesn't hurt to have it recognized that the space the claim has carved
out to claim novelty is fairly arbitrary and such novelty is probably
questionable.

[ 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 )