|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
Here are the titles of the slides of Oracle's closing statement. When
consecutive slides had identical titles I only included them once in the
following list.
Oracle v. Google
Key Points of Evidence
Google's Infringement: Just Two Questions
Google Has No Defenses
Differences Between Android's Dalvik Virtual Machine And Java Virtual Machine Do
Not Excuse Google's Infringement
Java And Android Are Similar In Ways Relevant To Patent Infringement
Prior Existence Of Virtual Machines Does Not Excuse Google’s Infringement
Prior Existence Of Symbolic References Does Not Excuse Google’s Infringement
Preponderance Of Evidence Means More Likely Than Not
Google Infringes ’104 Patent
Google Disputes Only “Symbolic References”
Google Infringes In Two Independent Ways
Truth Is In Android Source Code: Android Resolves Symbolic References
Dispute boils down to: is field index a “symbolic reference” under Court’s
definition?
Definition Of “Symbolic Reference”
Common Examples Of Symbolic References That Are Numbers, But Not Locations
Google’s Expert Admits That Numbers Can Be Symbolic References
Claim 11 Requires “Obtaining Data” – That Is The Actual Data The References
Refer To
Google Expert Confirms ’104 Patent Obtains Data From Data Object
IGET Is An Android Instruction That Obtains Actual Data From Data Object
Google Hid The Actual Data In Its Presentation About IGET
Google Admits Chart Is Incomplete
Google’s Expert Admits IGET Instruction Obtains Data From Data Object Properly
Shown On Chart
Both Experts Agree: IGET Instruction Obtains Value Of Data From Data Object
Properly Shown On Chart
IGET Obtains Data From Specified Field
Definition Of “Symbolic Reference”
Google’s Expert Admits That Field Index Contained In IGET Instruction Is Not
Numeric Memory Location Of Actual Data
Google Confirms That IGET Instruction Does Not Contain Numeric Memory Location
Of Actual Data
Symbolic References Must Be Resolved But Numeric References Need Not Be
Resolve.c Resolves The Index Contained In The Instructions
Google Admits That Field Index Contained In Instructions Must Be Converted Into
“Numeric Memory Location”
For dexopt infringement, dispute boils down to: is symbolic reference resolution
dynamic?
Google Infringes In Two Independent Ways
Google Admits That Android’s dexopt Resolves Symbolic References
Google Admits That Android’s dexopt Symbolic Reference Resolution Is Dynamic
Calling It “Static Linking” Does Not Change Fact That Resolution Is Dynamic
Google’s Expert Tries To Undo Key Bornstein Admission
Google has no claim construction order ruling that “dynamic” means at “runtime”
Google Admits That dexopt Resolution Is Dynamic
Has Oracle proven that it is more likely than not that Android bytecode
instructions contain symbolic references?
Google Infringes ’520 Patent
Google Disputes Only “Simulating Execution”
Dispute boils down to: does dx tool “simulate execution”?
Truth Is In Android Source Code: Android Simulates Execution
Google’s Stack Argument Is Irrelevant
Google’s “Pattern Matching” Label Is Irrelevant
That Code Other Than Simulator.java Calls ParseArray Is Irrelevant
Google’s “Pattern Matching” Label Is Irrelevant
Google’s Expert Admits Android’s dx tool “Parses” And That Parsing Is Part Of
Simulation Execution
Truth Is In Android Source Code: Android Simulates Execution
Has Oracle proven that it is more likely than not that
Android simulates execution?
[Titleless Slide showing special verdict form Q3 on willfullness]
Willfulness Instructions: Recklessness
Google’s Reckless Path to Patent Infringement
Everyone Who Adopts Java Takes A License
Google Made Java Central To Android
Google Adopted Java Platform Components In Android
Google Admits That Dalvik Is Interchangeable With Java Virtual Machine
Google Uses Java Solutions To Overcome Performance And Memory Challenges In
Android
Google Understands That Speed Matters To Users
Android Relies On ’104 Patent’s Symbolic Reference Resolution To Run Faster
Benchmark Tests Prove Android Runs Faster Because Of ’104 Patent
Google’s Expert Cannot Credibly Dispute Performance Benchmark Results
Google’s Own Performance Analysis Show 20% Speed Improvement For dexopt
’520 Performance Gain Promoted At Google Conference
’520 Performance Gain “Worth Putting In” Google Presentation
Google's Motive to Infringe—750,000 Android Activations Per Day
Google Acted Recklessly And Decided It Did Not Want To Know
Google Knew Or Should Have Known: Google Employs Key Sun Inventors
Google Worries About Its Java Patent Infringement
Google Knows It Needs License For Sun’s Patents
Google Knows Sun Owns Java Virtual Machine Patents
Google’s “Clean Room”—No Defense
Google Chooses Not To Ask About Sun’s Java Patents
Google Knew Or Should Have Known Likely To Infringe
Google Had Three Legitimate Choices
Google Rejects Sun Implementation
Google Rejects Sun’s Specification License
Google Rejects Sun’s “Open Source” Java
“Open Source” Has Conditions And Restrictions
Google’s Actual Choice—Act Recklessly
Willfulness Instructions: Cover Up
Google Conceals Infringement From Sun
Sun Tells Google It Needs License
Google Anticipates Litigation Over Java
Google Decides To Wait For Sun To Sue
Oracle Gives Google Many Chances To Take License
July 20, 2010 - Oracle Tells Google Android Infringes
Google Makes No Changes To Android To Avoid Infringing ’104 And ’520 Patents
Google Knows It Needs A License
Willfulness Instruction: Five Factors
[Titleless slide with special verdict form Q3 (willfullness)]
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 12:12 AM EDT |
0047.24.pdf Source code for Test_newarray.java from gingerbread23 (3 pages)
0047.25.pdf Source code for Test_iastore.java from gingerbread23 (4 pages)
1001.pdf E-mail from Dan Bornstein to Patrick Brady about testing "the
actual
Dx tool for CTS" (2 pages)
1094.pdf E-mail thread involving David Turner, Ben Cheng and Kant Kang
about some issues with DexOpt and long boot times (2 pages)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
