|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 03:40 AM EDT |
Or, as I saw it... The lawyer is just rambling on making a show of things
because they know the Jury doesn't really understand what he's saying, so he can
ask any obvious question and spout techno-babble -- Which is exactly what he's
done.
The thing is -- Neither Google's nor Oracle's lawyers REALLY understand what
they're talking about. The witness can calmly answer those questions because
THEY realize there's a specific thing called a "symbolic reference" in
computer science. A name that references a memory address of data or code.
There's no way MACHINE CODE has ANY symbolic references in it. You can try to
misconstrue a look up index as "symbolically referencing" something
else (which Oracle has done), or confuse the difference between
"runtime" and "loadtime", which they have also done... but
to an individual ordinarily skilled in the art as the witness, or I, it's
incorrect, illogical, and ridiculous.
If Oracle wins, it's because the Jury is confused about what's really going on.
The showboating plays to this.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
Oh I think I see what Oracle is after. They have show that each element of the
patents (both of them) are present somewhere somehow in the code. The fact that
these elements are not used together to accomplish the patented function will be
glossed over. And the fact that runtime is not that same thing are running the
phone is also glossed over.
The jury will be instructed to look for each element of the patented claims and
each of them will be found somewhere somehow. Will they be instructed that these
elements must be used together to do the task? Will they be given a clear
definition of runtime? If not then the jury may get the wrong result by
dutifully following the instructions.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
