|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 06:40 PM EDT |
In the long run, I think Google's expert may have dropped the ball on the
explanation. Simulated execution should follow the thread of execution (i.e. it
would follow branches and jumps in a non-linear fashion) whereas pattern
matching would be sequential/linear. Then again maybe Java array initialization
is always linear and doesn't have branch/jump opcodes. Then again, if you added
one and the pattern match failed as a result but it still worked in a JVM... Of
course who knows, maybe the JVM also doesn't use fully simulated execution for
array initialization (i.e. only simulates a subset of Java bytecodes without
support for branch/jump ops) just like it doesn't actually use inline symbolic
references as part of the instruction.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT |
As far as I know in my IANAL limited understanding, if a jury finds that a
patent is invalid (and it holds up under appeal) that does override a PTO
decision that the patent is valid. Can anyone with more expertise verify that?
But even if that is true, what about the partial results leading up to the
decision of the trial, such s the specific claim construction used by the court?
As far as I can tell the re-examination at the PTO did not require that the
instruction being resolved in the '104 patent literally look like LOAD
"y" with a symbol actually being in the instruction.
This might not mean anything in practice. If the rewrite of the iget instruction
is found to infringe because its target is ultimately a resolved symbolic
reference, the the prior art from Gries clearly applies. If the only instruction
that can infringe is one with a symbol in the instruction itself, then no
real-world implementation will infringe anyway, and even the Java VM is not
practicing the patent.
Still, there is the question, are the claim constructions from the trial
applicable in PTO re-examinations?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 03:30 AM EDT |
The Supreme Court opinion in Benson:It is conceded that one may
not
patent an idea. But in practical effect that would be the result if the
formula
for converting BCD numerals to pure binary numerals were patented in
this case.
The mathematical formula involved here has no substantial practical
application
except in connection with a digital computer, which means that if
the judgment
below is affirmed, the patent would wholly pre-empt the
mathematical formula and
in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm
itself.
It may
be that the patent laws should be extended to cover
these programs, a policy
matter to which we are not competent to speak. The
President's Commission on the
Patent System rejected the proposal that these
programs be patentable:
"Uncertainty now exists as to whether the
statute permits a valid patent to be
granted on programs. Direct attempts to
patent programs have been rejected on
the ground of nonstatutory subject matter.
Indirect attempts to obtain patents
and avoid the rejection, by drafting claims
as a process, or a machine or
components thereof programmed in a given manner,
rather than as a program
itself, have confused the issue further and should not
be permitted.
"The Patent Office now cannot examine applications for
programs because of a
lack of a classification technique and the requisite
search files. Even if these
were available, reliable searches would not be
feasible or economic because of
the tremendous volume of prior art being
generated. Without this search, the
patenting of programs would be tantamount to
mere registration and the
presumption of validity would be all but
nonexistent.
Simulated
execution is an abstract idea in the
'toolbox' of practitioners of computer
program writing that is now made illegal
without a licence by the issuing of
patent '520.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
