|
| Authored by: hardmath on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT |
Please use the subject line to briefly show the error.
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: hardmath on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
When starting a News Picks thread, please include an HTML link to the
underlying article. The News Picks column tends to scroll off quickly at
times.
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: hardmath on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 11:35 AM EDT |
On-topic posts must be on-color so they blend in with the background.
CamelFlage
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: hardmath on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 11:37 AM EDT |
If you got em, post em.
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 11:51 AM EDT |
Thorn case was about soliciting business by delivering free samples to all of
the patentee’s potential customers.
However, the solicited business was of selling products containing the patented
invention.
Google are not soliciting future sales of Android by giving away free Android
samples. Android always remains free.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 11:53 AM EDT |
I amazes me how the lawyers would KNOW what a reasonable
jury would do. If they know what a reasonable jury would
do, they should just present their evidence, skip the
witness testimony, and sit back, while quietly basking in
their smug confidence in knowing that the reasonable jury
will do the right thing. Perhaps the lawyers think the
jury may be unreasonable even though they chose them?
At least the judge is willing to hear the jury's verdict
before deciding they are unreasonable.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 12:03 PM EDT |
Oh dear, I sincerely hope we don't have another case on our hands from the
Lewis Carroll estate!
Tony[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 01:28 PM EDT |
I love Google's response!
They are simply an
after-the-fact argument developed by Oracle’s counsel to try to salvage its
case.
Ouch! ROFL!
Of course, Google has done it's own
falling down Rabbit holes, with the "not infringing by giving away" tack. I know
it was just a lawyer tit-for-tat thing, making them respond to stupid
motions.
Oracle: Respond to this!
Google: Back at'cha!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
IANAL, so my apologies if this is a basic question.
I'm having trouble understanding the importance of a JMOL, particularly in
relation to what I'm reading about "Rule 50" motions.
I understand that the judge ruled on Oracle's JMOL about the decompiled
Test/Impl class files.
I also understand that Google/Oracle are now filing JMOL motions in the patent
phase.
Does that mean the judge has the right to rule on any of these JMOL motions, and
thus overrule the jury, as he did with the Test/Impl class file decompilation
issue? Why would he do so and what are the implications?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 01:39 PM EDT |
So in essense, it's a scrivener's error again? Funny how BSF always goes to
that when the documents don't support BSF's position...
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: indyandy on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 08:37 PM EDT |
Could this be an accurate and simple explanation of the difference and how BSF
have got it wrong?
With symbolic variables it would be possible to create a memory scheme where
items are stored in locations independent of the variable names. For example if
storage space is allocated in the order that variables are defined then the
value of the variable "Fun" could appear in the same location as it
would if the variable had been called "Boredom" or
"Despair"
On the other hand if the value of a variable is stored at an indexed location in
an array and its index is 01 then its value *cannot* appear in the same memory
location if its index is changed to 02. 01 is therefore clearly not a symbolic
name
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SLi on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT |
So, I understand that a JMOL can be granted when no
reasonable jury could
decide a question otherwise. But what
confuses me is the timing of the
motions.
The motions are being made while the jury is deliberating
on the
very issues. Do these motions have to be submitted
before the case
goes to the jury? Or after? Or it
doesn't generally matter?
If JMOL motions
are submitted while the jury has started
deliberating, what would happen if
they happened to return a
verdict before those motions are submitted? Would the
party
that the jury found for still move for JMOL? Why? Is a JMOL
somehow
better than a jury verdict? Or are all these motions
just backup "in case" the
jury doesn't find for the movant? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SLi on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
I would argue that a reference can in fact be
both numeric and
symbolic, i.e. if the only difference
between the patent and Google's
implementation would be
using numbers as names of variables, I think it could
legitimately be said to infringe.
However, indices are not symbolic
references. Thus
Oracle's claim fails. They probably could be called numeric
references without a stretch. A reference is symbolic if and
only if it is not
an offset or an index, but something that
needs to be looked up - whether it is
a number or a string,
or something else. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: eachus on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 07:22 AM EDT |
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."
The Fit the First, The Hunting of the Snark by Lewis Carroll.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
