|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:02 AM EDT |
I too think he was bending accepted definitions, but bear in
mind that it is a matter of language when something is
dynamic and what a symbol is.
Dynamic resolution is usually taken to mean resolving at
runtime, but you can see that a jury could get stuck on the
point of whether what is effectively a linking process, is
dynamic or not. In one sense it is, because it's a program
running against data; the data being another program. But I
agree 100%, that's not the accepted usage of dynamic.
With regards to symbolic - again, it's definitions. Numbers
themselves are symbols for abstractions, so you could read
that any work with addresses is a symbolic interaction. If
you think about indexes and offsets, they are held in
variables, and aren't absolute addresses, so a jury could
think that these are symbolic, in that there could be a step
to move from an index or offset into an absolute address. We
know that's not necessarily the case, but you can see how
there is a level of symbolism in the idea of an index or
offset. That is not what was meant in the patent though, and
if it's allowed to stand this patent would (stupidly) cover
pretty much all prior art with respect to linkers,
compilers, & most other programs. In which case it would be
invalid, and despite the competition at Sun, it's unlikely
the Sun guys meant to spend the amount of money a patent
takes to acquire on a completely worthless bit of patent
paper. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:16 AM EDT |
Oracle's expert witness is a computer science professor, is he not? I would have
thought that Google's lawyers would have sent a paralegal off to the campus book
store of whatever University that he teaches at, and buy up a copy of every
computer science text that they carry, and then find a book that is used to
teach computer science (preferably a text book from a course that he himself
teaches) with the definitions of both numeric indexes and symbolic references,
and use them to impeach his testimony.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:21 AM EDT |
If you compare weight using balance scales, the fair result
is that the 2kg item shows as heavier than the 1kg item.
If your scale shows the two items at the same weight, then it
is balanced but not fair.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
