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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Dr. Mitchell's Testimony | 89 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Dr. Mitchell's Testimony
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:41 PM EDT
They do not have transcripts.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I am pretty sure they don't have transcripts in the jury room
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:42 PM EDT
I am pretty sure they don't have transcripts in the jury room, otherwise they
wouldn't need it to be read back to them

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Dr. Mitchell's Testimony
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:50 PM EDT
I think you are optimistic. They may want to rehear Dr Mitchell testimony to
make sure they understand what he said.
Or there may be a specific point two jurors don't recall the same and they try
to determine who is right.

These are two possibilities. I am sure there can be many more. The plain truth
is we don't know what is in their mind except that they have questions about the
key issue and are actively working to get answers.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Dr. Mitchell's Testimony
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:50 PM EDT
That could be the case, but it is also possible that someone remembers something
from that testimony but others do not recall it and want clarification. It
could be either positive or negative.

I recently served on a jury on a criminal trial. The very first thing presented
was a transcript from a previous hearing. We were NOT given the transcript for
reference at deliberation time, but some of us had taken good notes of that
portion of the case. The verdict did, in fact, end up hanging on that very
evidence.

After the verdict, the attorneys came in for a brief post-mortem (with our
assent) and someone asked why we weren't given the transcript. The prosecutor
said he did not even consider it because he did not think the defense attorney
would agree (I forget the reason he said it could/would be disallowed). The
defense attorney said she would not have objected - although given that we came
in with a verdict of guilty, largely based on that evidence, she may well be
inclined to object in such a situation in the future.

I have no idea if we could have asked for it to be read back to us; that never
came up.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Dr. Mitchell's Testimony
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 06:16 PM EDT
I hope what they ask to be read back includes the cross examination by Google
too.

I'm a bit more optimistic than PJ about how much of it will make sense to the
jury. From their questions they seem to be able to focus in and can tell which
are the important details even if they don't have a technical understanding of
it. For example, they may not know the technical arguments about whether a
symbolic reference can be indirect, but they were able to realize that for the
purpose of the patent case it might have to be direct only and that they could
tell if it was direct or not in Android's instructions. That is a result that a
techie might not reach because of preconceived notions of the meaning of
"instruction contains a symbolic reference".

Reading over Mitchell's testimony vs Parr's and trying to keep the mindset of
not knowing what "simulation" and "pattern matching" really
mean, Mitchell does come across as trying to stretch the semantics a bit too
far. In particular his supermarket example doesn't work for me. He gives an
example of pattern matching in every day life to show that it is a form of
simulating. But people don't think of what they are doing when they plan their
trip through the aisles as "running a simulation". If anything, the
example shows how what people do is the simpler thing called "pattern
matching" and it is not the complicated-sounding thing called
"simulating".

On the other hand my optimism or someone else's pessimism or doubts will not
influence the jury decision one way or the other.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Dr. Mitchell's Testimony
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 06:23 PM EDT
Maybe this is what they're looking for:
Looking at the Ď520 patent, claim 1.

Google: Fair to characterize the executable code as pattern matching?

Dr. Mitchell: Not exactly.

Google: There are patterns that appear in the dex bytecode that is analyzed?

Dr. Mitchell: There is a reputing pattern of four instructions.

[Shows the Java bytecode for those four instructions. Dr. Mitchell argues that they arenít a repeating pattern.]

Google shows the next four lines and they are the same, just the arguments incremented by one. It repeats another few times just in this slide.

Google: Could this be analyzed using pattern matching?

Dr. Mitchell: Potentially.
-- nyarlathotep

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Here's an interesting quote
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 08:38 PM EDT
Mitchell's testimony
Oracle: Do Dalvik instructions contain symbolic references?

Dr. Mitchell: Yes.

Dr. Mitchell: What are they?

Dr. Mitchell: The field indexes.

Oracle: But those are numbers, does it matter?

Dr. Mitchell: Not at all, a number can be a symbolic reference.

I must have missed that one before. It should be a clear and simple issue of whether these indexes are memory offsets, or if they are like hash lookups.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The jury want's to make sure Dr. Mitchell never teaches again
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 11:11 PM EDT
I think the jury is on to Dr. Mitchell. By asking for a read back, his
intellectual dishonesty gets highlighted for the world to see.

[ 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 )