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
Mr. McFadden: Hopefully, 242. [He smiles, but no one laughs] | 400 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Andrew McFadden testimony - zzzzzzzzz
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT
I'm still wondering what that patent does, that isn't part of a decent course
in programming vms.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Mr. McFadden: Hopefully, 242. [He smiles, but no one laughs]
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 07:25 PM EDT


which, being interpreted means: (what a stupid question!)



---
a small fish in an even smaller pond

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Andrew McFadden testimony - zzzzzzzzz
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 07:26 PM EDT
The whole difference of the symbolic referencing is what time does the process
occur. Java does it at "runtime" where runtime is defined to be when
the program is actually running.

Android does it at compile time and possibly while the program is loading.

Oracle is trying to expand the idea of "runtime" to be when the phone
itself is running. Notice all the talk of when the device is "powered
on". Google spent time emphasizing the technical meaning of runtime as used
by programmers. You can see this emphasis in the ReReDirect of Mr. McFadden.

That seems to me to be the critical difference between the two.

P.S. I have not read the patents and I'm not a lawyer. I am a
mathematics/compsci student.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It woke me up! He devastated Oracle's case.
Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 07:26 PM EDT
I was worried about two points in Oracle's case. 1) documentation describing
dexopt optimization that talks about some things that can only be done at
runtime; and 2) the documentation about dexopt as a "back door" into
the Dalvik VM when it is run as part of installation on an Android device.

Andrew McFadden blew away those two arguments completely in his testimony that
(1) is a paragraph describing what possible optimizations dexopt _doesn't_ do
because it doesn't do any dynamic optimizations, and (2) uses the term
"back door" to mean that dexopt accomplishes some things that the VM
does by using some common code without ever running the VM - Hence it is coming
in the "back door" by _not_ running the VM, while the VM running is
what he thinks of as the "front door".

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

But David August - excellent
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 12:46 AM EDT
David August was excellent in his testimony - clear, to the point and just
destroyed Oracle's case

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The "definition" in another court document ruins this defence
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 10:37 PM EDT

From the court's claim construction order (according to todays transcript):

a symbolic reference is a reference that identifies data by a name other than the numeric memory location of the data, and that is resolved dynamically rather than statically

A numerical index into a table of field definitions is arguably not the numeric memory location of the data itself, thus under the courts definition it may be a symbolic reference, even though it is numeric and not textual.

Furthermore the existence of the non-quickened instruction form in the dex "bytecode language" may indicate that the Dalvik VM can execute this directly in case it isn't optimized to the offset form by dexopt, although this was not discussed in court today. If true, that would make the numeric field index reference a symbolic reference under the courts definition.

That little word game might ruin this for Google.

[ 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 )