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
I totally think the jury will get that... not | 439 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I totally think the jury will get that... not
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:52 AM EDT
As bad as the oracle case is, this issue must be not much
better than a roll of the dice as fas as the jury is
concerned.

Thanks for the explanations btw - I don't mean to imply that
they aren't helpful here.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Description of the 104 patent in terms of this analogy...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:58 AM EDT
I like this analogy too. Lets take the 104 patent and apply it to this
analogy...

Imagine you follow the same path for a week:
(please ignore everything in [brackets])

1) Walk to the local bus stop [B23]
2) Ride the bus to your subway station [S4]
3) Take subway line [U44] to courthouse [Main St]
4) Watch the Oracle lawyers deceiving jurors
5) Take subway line [U44] back to your subway station [S4]
6) Ride a bus back to bus stop [B23]
7) Walk home

Because you don't know the area, you have no idea which buses or subway lines to
take. You bring the list of directions with you. You keep track of which buses
and subway lines were taken and update the directions with the actual
buses/lines/stops. On the first day, its a pain because you had to look all of
this up at each step, but the rest of the week is easy since you already know
what to look for.

The difference between the patent and the way Android works is.. the patent says
you must follow the path and update the directions along the way. Android would
rather do all the work up front - before leaving the house, you look online and
write down all the details up front.

Something that isn't obvious is that the patent requires resolving each symbolic
reference - so steps #2 and #5 both require resolving the subway line. Android
may only have to resolve each *unique* symbolic reference once since it is doing
the work all at once and can remember (cache) each reference and its value and
use it when it appears again.

Oracle would have you believe that just because you took notes about what buses
and subway lines to take using Android that you are violating the patent, but
the patent states clearly that the directions must be updated en route.

These are the symbolic references and the values they point to:
* Local bus stop -> B23
* Your subway station -> S4
* Subway line -> U44
* Courthouse -> Main St


OK, I have to admit I changed my use of the original analogy completely. Rather
than moving to a new thread, I'll leave it here since the original post was the
inspiration for this :)

[ 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 )