|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
Thanks for that bit of info.
And thanks for all of your reporting efforts, we all greatly appreciate it![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Thank you - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:49 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:15 PM EDT |
If you guys could restate here in your comments
what you explained about this topic in earlier
articles, so people understand what they are
talking about, that's be great. It's fundamental
to whether or not Android infringes the patent,
which has one kind of tech and Android doesn't
use that kind of tech. That is what it's about.
If you even repost, that's fine, and then I can
link to your comments.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
| Virtual machines like real machines have an instruction set.
Actual set theory is
clearly unrelated to these patents.
The question of whether the Dalvik
instructions may have symbolic references is crucial to these patents. It is
easy to show that none of the instruction may have a symbolic reference,
therefore symbolic references cannot be resolve dynamically because they are not
present. I think Google's experts made precisely this argument. And yes
"dynamically" mean at run-time, during the execution of the instructions.
Statically means prior to the execution of the instructions. This is the
ordinary meaning of these words in computer science.
If Jacobs have said
what he seemed to have said, he is clearly wrong. And there is no such phrase in
computer science as "instruction set theory". This phrase denotes a branch of
mathematics with no direct relation with virtual machines. I suspect Oracle is
making up stuff here because if they don't they lose.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
I'm just reading this now. This is so ridiculous... There's no way he
understands set theory at all. If someone wants to test him, ask him if he
knows who Weierstrass is. Even a poor undergrad should at least remember being
unable to spell his name correctly.
I have a degree in mathematics. I have studied computer science. In NO way and
at NO time does "set theory" have anything to do with whether an
operation is static or dynamic. It just doesn't.
To be honest? I doubt he was misquoted. I've heard enough of their goofy
definitions to believe that they're going for a pure snow job here. NONE of
their definitions are correct, they're saying whatever they think will make
Google infringe upon the patent.
And this ought to be like Exhibit A in why software patents are a bad idea:
even if you design your own thing that doesn't infringe, the lawyers will try to
change the meaning of all the technical words on you to manufacture infringement
out of thin air.
Absurd. Truly absurd.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
