|
Authored by: Kilz on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
Please mention the mistake in the title of your post. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
For all posts that are not on topic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The Curious Case of the Nokia Lumia 900 - Authored by: sproggit on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 03:45 PM EDT
- Microsoft wins US import ban on Motorola’s Android devices - Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT
- Microsoft wins US import ban on Motorola’s Android devices - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 11:17 PM EDT
- Microsoft wins US import ban on Motorola’s Android devices - Authored by: frederik on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 11:39 PM EDT
- Microsoft wins US import ban on Motorola’s Android devices - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 02:20 AM EDT
- more double standards - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 03:15 AM EDT
- more double standards - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 04:37 AM EDT
- The people aren't foolish, the laws are. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 05:19 AM EDT
- The people aren't foolish, the laws are. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 05:54 AM EDT
- The people aren't foolish, the laws are. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 06:24 AM EDT
- The people aren't foolish, the laws are. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 07:19 AM EDT
- Bug analysis: USA power structure - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 08:33 AM EDT
- The people aren't foolish, the laws are. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 08:36 AM EDT
- The people aren't foolish, the laws are. - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT
- The people aren't foolish, the laws are. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 11:27 AM EDT
- a quote - Authored by: sumzero on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT
- The people aren't foolish, the laws are. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 12:03 PM EDT
- Right on the nose there I' think - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT
- The people aren't foolish, the laws are. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT
- The people aren't foolish, the laws are. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 07:32 PM EDT
- The people aren't foolish, the laws are. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 07:22 AM EDT
- Americans and hypocrisy - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 07:44 PM EDT
- This is fantastic news for Android!!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 04:28 AM EDT
- Facebook IPO - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 01:52 AM EDT
- Mars rover on the move again - Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Kilz on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
Please mention the news story's name in the title of the top
post.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 12:33 PM EDT |
Please post all transcriptions of comes exhibits here for PJ.
Please post the html as plain text for easy copying.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 12:35 PM EDT |
(All tweets by) Rachel King ‏@ZDNetRachel
Court reporter now reading back transcript of Dr. Mitchell being questioned by
Jacobs. Talking about simulating execution in source code
In line with Oracle's argument, Mitchell said that simulated execution includes
pattern matching.
In cross-examine, Mitchell told Van Nest he doesn't actually know about pattern
matching in the source code of the Android dx tool.
(My comment below)
Hopefully the readback of the cross examination portion of the transcript will
show the jury the actual worth of the testimony.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- why o why! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 10:34 PM EDT
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 12:45 PM EDT |
Since many of the patents have been invalidated, does the Oracle construction of
the remaining claims expand the patent to encompass some or all of the
invalidated claims?
Since I don't know the technology all that well and since we don't have
transcripts to see exactly what the experts testified to, it may not be possible
to tell at this time.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
I think we need to make this a standard post during the
trials as long as
people are tweeting.
https:/
/twitter.com/#!/tqf
t9999/googlevoracle
Here are two from feldegast
Raw
Feed
Only Google-
Oracle
related[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Jury question... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 01:30 PM EDT
- Monday - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 12:24 PM EDT
- Jury Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 12:35 PM EDT
- Monday - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 12:46 PM EDT
|
Authored by: froggie on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
My thanks to those who are posting the tweets. My workplace, unfortunately,
blocks Twitter (probably to protect us), and having to wait until I get home to
check them out is painful.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DeepBlue on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 02:56 PM EDT |
This is why the Jury should have been dismissed once they hung in the first
phase ...
---
All that matters is whether they can show ownership, they haven't and they
can't, or whether they can show substantial similarity, they haven't and they
can't.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: complex_number on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
Ah, the memories. I spent 20 mostly happy years working for DEC and used RT-11
in the late 1970's and 1980's.
The one thing with DEC Software at that time was that you had access to the
sources and this included Customers.
RT-11 and RSX-11 had microfiche doc sets available.
A certain amount of sources came with RT-11 but probably not the Linker but the
kernel did because you build the kernal with the set of drvice drivers that
matched your hardware. I forget the name of the RT-11 process but the RSX-11 was
called 'SYSGEN'. There was always a slight heart stopping moment when you booted
the new kernel for the first time.
But, and here is the rub, DEC had a 2-5-2 code part number for the sources to
RT-11 and RSX-11-M & M-Plus and even the RSTS/E operating systems.
I certainly used the RSX-11 Macro Assembler and ripped out the guts of it and
inserted the VS-11 Instruction set. This was Circa 1981/82. I simply ordered the
part number and a few weeks later, a 2400ft mag-tape arrived.
One of my colleagues obtained the RT-11 source kit when he wrote the VSV-31
Device Driver. They were just part numbers in the catalogue.
Most customers received the microfiche copy of the source kit.
Them were the days. We actually go on and innovated and didn't care about
patents and copyright.
But still people wrote awful code.
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- DEC -- what is that? - Authored by: BJ on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- RT-11 Linker - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 04:14 PM EDT
- RT-11 Linker - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT
- RT-11 Linker - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 10:26 PM EDT
- RSX-11M - Authored by: Magpie on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 04:33 AM EDT
- RT-11 Linker - Authored by: kattemann on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT
- RT-11 Linker - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 03:09 PM EDT
- RT-11 Linker - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 10:04 AM EDT
|
Authored by: mexaly on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
I start to wonder if some of the jurors understand the technology, and others
don't.
This is like asking lay people if the surgeon knows brain anatomy.
---
IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on high-definition television.
Thanks to our hosts and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
Seems like having all of those items on the verdict form
would make it harder to reach unanimity. Different people might find
differently for each part of the patent but everyone seeing flaws in the case in
one form or another.
Wouldn't it be better to just have one overriding question about each of the
patents?
---
a small fish in an even smaller pond[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Unanimity - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 04:19 PM EDT |
Am I alone in feeling a little apprehensive of what the jury might
decide?
Common sense would indicate Oracle's claims to be outlandish, to say
the least, but common sense can sometimes fly out of a courtroom
window. I
hope the jury find in favour of G primarily because I believe
software patents
to be a "Bad Thing"TM Imagine the chaos if someone
had patented "a method to
demonstrate/confirm the correct functioning
of a programming language"
namely:
10 A$="HELLO WORLD"
20 PRINT A$
I've been following
proceedings from the relative safety of the UK and
thank Groklaw and reporters
for sterling work in keeping us informed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 05:03 PM EDT |
If the jury asked about not being unanimous and _then_ they asked for a replay
of Dr. Parr's testimony, that's a good thing. Hearing his testimony would tend
to help convince jurors that he is correct. If Parr's testimony doesn't change
anyone's mind, the jury is still hung, if it does then Google wins that point. I
would find it more worrisome if the jury was asking for Mitchell's testimony
after asking for Parr's testimony first.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 06:15 PM EDT |
I have been giving this some thought, and remembering the good old days when I
wrote optimizing compilers for a living.
What I am beginning to wonder is, if Oracle may be shooting themselves in the
foot by pushing these definitions. By trying to expand the patent to cover
what Google is doing, will they basically allow additional prior art to show
that what they are doing is not new in any way.
Compilers/Optimizers have been doing these sorts of optimizations since the
60's. I remember back in the days when the computer magazines used to publish
the performance results of competing compilers that one compiler was
disqualified from the report since it optimized the standard test program down
the magazine was using down to a static result (the whole program was simulated
at compile time) and all that was left at run-time was outputting the answer.
By introducing testimony that expands the patent, I would think they make it
easier to invalidate the patent.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 06:50 PM EDT |
It seems to me that confusion over "duelling experts" is the problem
here - and likely was in the previous phase. I've been mulling it over and have
a couple ideas how to modify procedure -- this would be a hard change to make,
but still I think it's the right thing.
1. No more duelling experts. If parties in a case wish to offer experts on the
same area of testimony then the following procedure applies:
2. The court appoints a special master to select the court's expert. The
special master is a lawyer who works for the court, is an expert in evidentiary
matters, and is skilled at identifying and qualifying appropriate experts.
Parties can oppose for good cause but "I don't like what she's gonna
say" doesn't qualify.
3. Parties present the items they wish the expert to testify about - with a
great deal of leeway subject to existing rules of procedure and evidence - to
the special master.
4. The special master conducts the examination of the court's expert. He is
required to elicit testimony on all issues requested by the parties.
5. Each party is entitled to a full cross-examination of the witness.
6. And that's IT. No more of this overpaying experts to suborn perjury - which
is perilously close to what has happened here.
What do you think?
---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
I already said this, but I don't want it lost deep in a thread. What Google
does for static array initialization is a type of peephole optimization. It's
an old, well-known technique and doesn't require one to simulate the execution
of anything. But take a quick look at the current wikipedia article on peephole
optimization:
Implementation
Modern architectures typically
allow for many hundreds of different kinds of peephole optimizations, and it is
therefore often appropriate for compiler programmers to implement them using a
pattern matching algorithm. [2]
(Emphasis added. The
quoted [2] reference is to "Compilers - Principles, Techniques, and Tools 2e,
p560")
Nothing we haven't all said already, but it's nice to have it
written down in an article. And I note that particular quote goes back at least as far as 2008 (though it had a "citation needed"
tag back then). It might well go back further than that, I didn't check. My
only point is that it was written long before this trial and it unambiguously
supports Google's account, while undermining Oracle's expert. Which is exactly
what you would expect from any factual account.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 09:58 PM EDT |
Why/where/how does congress require unanimity in a civil matter?
Criminal trials have to be unanimous.
The jury I was on for civil liability in a car accident had a requirement that
nine out of twelve jurors agreed to the verdict.
Was that wrong or is this different somehow?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 12:45 AM EDT |
I mentioned a little on this subject in a comment a few days back, but I wonder
if it might help with regard to the whole 'a number can be a symbol' bs to point
out that indexed reference (I think using 'numeric reference' was unnecessarily
confusing here) is such an elementary, simple thing to do on a regular basis
that actual real computer CPUs were offering this in machine instructions back
in the 80s. (I don't happen to know the ins and outs of all the various
processors and their instruction sets, but I DID learn 6502 Assembly as a child
-- the 6502 being well known as the CPU for the Apple ][ hobby microcomputer and
the Nintendo Entertainment System)
The 6502 supports for a number of memory-addressing instructions
"X-indexed" and/or "Y-indexed" modes, where X and Y name CPU
registers; The contents of whichever register was automatically added to
whatever address was provided. Thus you can load an index into the appropriate
register from wherever, and then just operate on the address of the beginning of
the data using the indexed version of the instruction.
As noted elsewhere, Oracle's argument that a number can be used as a symbol is
true, but disingenuous; it's like using numbers as keys to a hash table: you
most certainly can do it, but it does NOT become equivalent to an array when you
do, since the guarantees of being ordered and consecutive are out the window.
(I think this is probably the more important dispute since as I also noted
elsewhere 'dynamic' is actually used somewhat ambiguously in some contexts, for
instance the typical form of 'dynamic linking' to shared libraries which is part
build-time and part load-time and thus static by some valid potential
interpretations.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 03:23 AM EDT |
PJ: "as the jurors go home today at 1. I wonder now about the decision to
drop the sick juror who wanted to rest until Monday. It turns out it wouldn't
have made any practical difference. "
I don’t think that is correct.
The jury have had the whole of Friday to use for extra deliberations and
questions.
So hopefully one less day to go for a decision.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: HappyDude on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
OK. I'm pretty quiet on this board, rightfully so. I like to read and listen
more than talk.
Being the sceptic and conspiracy theorist that I am leads me to be suspicious of
a lone holdout juror on these critical decisions.
I distrust people until they've earned my trust generally ... so I smell a rat.
Is it acceptable to do thorough background checks on the jurors to find out if
there was anything withheld, or any non-truths told by anyone during the jury
selection phase?
I'm thinking the questions were designed so either side could weed out the
candidates who may hold beliefs detrimental to their respective causes. In this
day and age though, it never ceases to amaze me the number of people who abandon
morals and ethics to promote their own agendas.
FM is the first to come to mind ... why could one of the jurors not be doing the
same thing?
I'd be digging if I were Google.
Cheers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 01:51 AM EDT |
As I read this all that came to mind was the process that TeX uses when it is
doing its initial initialisation process for all its constant strings and then
doing the save so that the intiatialisation process is not repeated in further
runs of Tex.
Anyone else have a sense of deja vu about this.
regards
Bruce Rennie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|