|
Authored by: jbb on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 11:01 PM EDT |
Here is a recent
post by Bugstomper where he
concludes:
The rejection of claims 11, 39, 40, and 41 as being
anticipated by Gries makes
it clear that the re-examiner did accept that an
instruction containing a symbolic reference could have an indirect reference to
a symbol. That would allow the Java VM to be considered as practicing the
claims, but still leaves Dalvik not practicing them on the basis that Dalvik
instructions indirectly reference numerical references, not symbolic
ones.
I have not double-checked his analysis but I have to say
that this feels right to me. IANAL but it I think the main question should be
whether Dalvik accesses the text symbols or not. This other thing about a
reference to a symbol in the code versus a symbol embedded in the code just
seems like a cheap and unworthy trick.
--- Our job is to remind
ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|