|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 02:29 PM EDT |
Quite obvious the way the jury is thinking:
Google does not infringe the 104 patent because the immediate instructions do
not contain symbolic references.
Google does infringe the 104 patent because the downstream instructions do
contain symbolic references.
The jury wants someone else to give them the answer:
Does the claim construction cover downstream symbol references, or just the
immediate instruction? The whole case in regards to the 104 patent hinges on
this point.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
Now don't be mean. Dynamic does have different meanings in the context
of
application development. At it heart, it means it changes to the situation, and
Oracle got testimony that suggested the situation could be the particular
phone. That isn't what the patent is about, but a conscientious jury has to
resolve all the testimony, not just the testimony that we on the outside, with
all
our resources and our dialogs, know as the "right" testimony. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: sd_ip_tech on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT |
I agree they have trouble getting their collective brains around these concepts
which are second nature for many. Goes to show that even average or above
intelligence and a willingness to do your best is not enough here. I am not
encouraged as time goes buy. Of course, this was exactly what Oracle wanted to
do by obfuscation. I am not happy that Alsup is upset with Google objecting to
dynamic explanation either. In his defense he's tired and out of sorts.
---
sd_ip_tech[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: YurtGuppy on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 02:37 PM EDT |
It's a bit unfair that Judges get to ask questions of the experts but juries do
not.
---
a small fish in an even smaller pond[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
Dynamic:
Like Oracle, it changes is position one or more times during runtime depending
on the current conditions.
Static:
Like Google, it's position is set prior to runtime and does not change as it was
set correctly the first time.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
Dynamic means resolution at runtime of the application which needs the data.
dynamic does not mean resolution by an optimizing compiler on the code which
will, at some future point in time run itself and do perhaps other resolution.
There in lies the rub. Oracle has done a good job of confusing what dynamic
means, and the judge is bound from telling them so, because it would mean
letting the jury know that one of the experts' testimonial evidence is bunk.
Something that only the finder of fact can do. Hence the judge is crippled y
the
that Catch-22 of American courts.
If you ask me the whole process suck, because Google was entitled to have a
jury
of it's peers and there's not a single programmer on the jury. A nurse is
hardly
the peer of a programmer. I wouldn't want programmers treating me for a medical
condition, and nurse really shouldn't be treating computer related issues. In
the general area. Some nurses probably know how to code and some coders may
know
something about the field of medicine.
But then, I use a much more narrow view of what a peer is than present day
America. It was different 250 years ago, when life was less complicated, and
being a jack-of-all-trades was actually a possibility.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
