|
|
|
| Authored by: scav on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:33 AM EDT |
Do they not have to duplicate ALL elements of a claim for it
to be infringing?
Resolving symbolic references is not patented. The patent is
for
1. resolving symbolic references
2. that are present in the instructions
3. at runtime (i.e. dynamically) , and
4. replacing the instructions with others that use non-
symbolic references.
dexopt does 1 and 4 but not 2 or 3.
dalvik does 1 and 3 but not 2 or 4.
There is some doubt about whether Java even uses this
patent. I notice that is irrelevant at this stage of the
trial, but might it be relevant to damages?
---
The emperor, undaunted by overwhelming evidence that he had no clothes,
redoubled his siege of Antarctica to extort tribute from the penguins.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardmath on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
Recall that one of the virtues of Dalvik's register based
architecture is that it makes operation of multiple
instances more efficient in the mobile platforms than would
be the case for Java's stack based architecture.
The testimony as I understood it was that the Dalvik VM
might be running on a handset when dexopt was performing its
static optimizations during an installation, but there's no
necessary connection. So I don't see how Oracle can argue
that unrelated Dalvik VM instances make the dexopt
processing more dynamic.
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
