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
Idea - can Groklaw patent this (could be call it an invention, USPTO would, any bets)??? | 439 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
They will probably get away with redefining their terms
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 04:00 PM EDT
Because the jury will not know any different.

Basically they may as well roll a die to see which expert to
believe, unless they want to go on personalities.

Neither option seems likely to be what the court intended.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

More concisely
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT
If they get away with it, its only because Google hasn't done a good job showing
that they are wrong. We don't have the transcripts, so we may be worried over
nothing.

Btw, running certainly *can* mean that Android is running and dynamic
optimization *can* be applied to the static optimization being performed in the
odex generation (it is dynamic in the sense its different for each phone). The
important point about this is how the terms relate to the patents. Once you
look at the patents its clear to a developer what is meant. The patents are
*not* fuzzy about this at all. Right now I think Google needs to shine a light
on this to make sure Oracle doesn't get away with smoke and mirrors..

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Idea - can Groklaw patent this (could be call it an invention, USPTO would, any bets)???
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT
The courts could have the "court recorder" typing in testimony, and it
at the same time is transcribed into tweets or other (we could invent a court
system "live" system), and then the lawyers on either side can also
get input from those "watching" the case with suggestions as to how to
proceed (where watchers are rating suggestions and the highest rated suggestions
always appear at the top of the list that the lawyers get to see.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

More concisely
Authored by: mschmitz on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 09:28 PM EDT
That appears to be at the core of all the confusion (and I'm fairly sure the
confusion is intentional).

As a term of art in the programming field, the distinction between static and
dynamic is clear and the terms are widely accepted to mean what many have said
they do:

'dynamic' is whenever the internal state of your program (data, addresses, what
part is executed right now, etc.) is known to change under the program's own
control. If the program is not running, in particular, nothing will change even
though your program may already be loaded in memory.

That's why 'dynamic' is often equated with 'at run time'. The reverse does not
hold, though - not everything that is done at run time is necessarily dynamic. A
program might defer actions to happen at run time only that are nonetheless
independent of program state, and will always be done in the same way. Late
binding (or 'dynamic linking') of libraries might be considered such a thing.

'static' is whenever the internal state of your program is known not to change
(under it's own steam, that is).

Dynamic optimization is any optimization that depends on the actual state of
your program at any given time while it's running. Because it does depend on
program state (which is not known up front, and does change all the time), it
cannot be done ahead of time. Only just-in-time compilers can perform dynamic
optimization (because they can observe the program state, and adjust the code
accordingly).

Static optimization is everything that can be done without detailed knowledge of
the program's state. Traditional compilers as well as profiling at runtime plus
later code optimization falls in that category.

Either can happen while the phone is switched on and running. The fact that
something happens only on the phone, at either install or load time, does not
imply it is dynamic in nature. Program run time is not the same as phone run
time.

Regardless of the meaning of 'dynamic' in CS, what really is relevant here is
the definition of 'dynamic' in the patent's claim definitions. If the patent
does manage to define 'dynamic' as broad as Oracle would like to imply, Google
may be found to infringe. If the patent defines 'dynamic' as 'at the program's
run time', Google seems to be in the clear, as their approach is to optimize
before load time, very much like prelinking of dynamically linked binaries
(library symbol resolution before load time).

-- mschmitz

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • More concisely - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:44 AM EDT
    • More concisely - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 10:09 AM EDT
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 )