|
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
please mention the mistake in the title of your post. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
For all posts that are not on topic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Great Raspberry Pi review from thereg - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 01:36 PM EDT
- VIA launches $49 Android PC - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 02:01 PM EDT
- Project Glass Augmented-Reality Specs Spotted on Larry Page’s Face - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 02:59 PM EDT
- Off Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 04:10 PM EDT
- Patent extortion underworld exposed? - Authored by: hAckz0r on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT
- Looks like an apology is in order.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- New York legislation would ban anonymous online speech - Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 05:34 PM EDT
- Keller vs. Electronic Arts - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT
- Nokia drops support for Skype app on the Lumia 610 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:28 AM EDT
- ITC judge recommends banning Xbox imports - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 06:34 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
Please mention the news story's name in the title of the top
post.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
Please post transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for PJ.
Please post the html as plain text for easy copying.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 12:34 PM EDT |
Normally i'd say follow my tweets here
https://twitter.com/#!/Feldegast
https://twitter .com/#!/Feldegast/oracal-vs-google-trial
https://twitter.com/#!/GinnyLaRoe might be the only one
tweeting today
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 12:40 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 12:45 PM EDT
- Another note! - Authored by: hardmath on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT
- "Does numeric preclude symbolic?" Google: "yes", Oracle: "No" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 02:13 PM EDT
- Judge: "lawyers no help, I'll have to figure it out on my own." - jury called in - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 02:15 PM EDT
- Judge: "Can't be both" for any given location. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 02:16 PM EDT
- Judge encouraging counsel to explain to jury for 5 min ea. Oracle: yes, Google: No - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- 5 minute arguments - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 02:22 PM EDT
- Jury have 30 minutes left today - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
Is the jury hoping an obstructing juror(s) get dismissed? Because I gotta tell
their questions are starting to repeat themselves.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tce on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 12:50 PM EDT |
While we wait, lets start gathering the references to all the Good Things (tm)
that Oracle has had to say on these subjects... in the past.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 12:53 PM EDT |
The jury was stuck on the API portion, when there was a chance
it wouldn't even matter if it was decided to be invalid. Now
here we are in the patent part with the jury stumped on a
patent that may not even be valid.
As nice as it was to have the lawsuit relatively quick and
time managed, it seems like the courts would have been far
better offer delaying the court date while final judgements
were made on API copyright and the validity of patent 104. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 01:55 PM EDT |
Although it seems to us that some parts of the trial have ended up occurring in
an unfair way..
Just imagine how bad it could have been! Judge Alsup did a pretty good job
nipping some of the nonsense positions in the bud. Imagine if this case had
gone before a different Judge with no knowledge of technology. Imagine if
Oracle had been allowed to proceed with more than seven patents. Imagine if
Oracle's first or second damages reports had been accepted by the court.
This trial is a bit of a mess but might still be salvagable.
But if things had gone differently, it could have been an epic disaster![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
The poor jury is struggling trying to find the answers to a technical question.
The claim construction didn't answer it, and Oracle and Google both presented
experts who made contradicting claims about this subject.
The Judge won't tell them the answer either (although his non-answers seem to me
to have been leaning slightly towards Oracle's position.. but that might be my
own bias, since my technical background tells me that Google's position is the
correct one).
This jury seems too conscientious to just flip a coin, so I now expect they are
going to hang on at least some of the patent claims.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
He appears to be mad at the lawyers, because they keep giving contradictory
answers to the jury questions (Oracle: Yes! Google: No!)
But these questions
all go right to the heart of Google's non-infringement defense, so of
course Oracle says the thing that means Google infringes, while Google says
the thing that means they don't infringe.
Why is this surprising at all?
They can't both be right, but maybe Judge Alsup is unable to tell which party's
story is the nonsense one? Or maybe he thinks the actual truth is somewhere in
between?
In an adversarial system, why would he expect the two legal teams
to agree on answers to these questions, when those answers would practically
dictate a finding of infringement or non-infringement? It doesn't make any
sense to me. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
"existence of numeric ref doesn't preclude symbolic ref" says Oracle.
Funny thing is that if Oracle really wants this patent to be THAT broad, I think
there would be lots and lots of prior art, making the patent invalid.
I assume they use a very different position on USPTO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 02:25 PM EDT |
Actually Judge Alsup's behaviour is very natural. He's like parent angry with
his kids because they're fighting. It doesn't matter who started it and who's
right. He's reprimanding them both.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 03:11 PM EDT |
True, a reference can't be both. But you can have a chain of references, where
one reference leads to another. You can also have multiple references to the
same thing. Obviously, a single reference can't be both at once.
This whole thing is ridiculous, however. I think there were names left over,
but that Google didn't even use them, so no, I don't believe they should count.
Any half-competent programmer on the jury would've dispensed with this nonsense
ages ago which is, of course, why they get excluded from the jury. Oracle is
not interested in fairness here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- References - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 05:24 PM EDT
- References - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:43 PM EDT
|
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
Upcoming is a three-day weekend.
National holiday, Memorial Day, on Monday the 28th.
Columbus, Mississippi takes pride in being the starting place of Memorial Day
(which is somewhat disputed). The story goes that after the US Civil War, women
in Columbus made decorations for graves of Confederate dead but also decided to
decorate graves of Union dead in the same cemetery, noting that it was likely
the Union boys had mothers too.
Not sure from the tweets if the judge wanted both Thursday and Friday off (5
days) or if he wants Wednesday also (6 days). Personally, I hope he gets to
spend some time fishing or go to a concert or something.
---
a small fish in an even smaller pond[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
If the jury is hung and a mistrial is declared, would any of the evidence, such
as the 2006 position paper from sun, or Sun's SEC filing regarding the status of
Jonathan Schwartz' blog, become admissible in a re-trial?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- YES - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 04:22 PM EDT
|
Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
Small wonder he was getting grumpy and pee-offed
by the parties.
Maybe he just should call it a day, find for Google,
chew out Ellison personally, and be off to his
grandchildren.
Or am I just being idealistic? If it could just be
this simple (=line from a Woody Allen movie, I think).
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cassini2006 on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 05:28 PM EDT |
The symbolic vs numeric reference problem is just a rewording of the much
older concept of cardinal numbers versus ordinal numbers. Both symbolic and
numeric references have the property that they denote unique values. Numeric
references, like ordinal numbers, have the virtue that they are ordered and
countable: one, two, three, four. However, ordinal numbers are a subset of
cardinal numbers, which essentially are just unique identifiers.
Every
numeric reference must be a symbolic reference, because all numeric references
are unique identifiers. It is just that numeric references have additional
properties, like the ability to add, multiply, and subtract them.
This
discussion also gave me the idea of how extremely old the concept of symbolic
vs. numeric references are. It is the computer science interpretation of the
much older concepts of cardinal and ordinal numbers. The concept of cardinal
numbers dates back to the origins of language, counting and mathematics. Its
stunning that a modern patent would pivot on these concepts. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I disagree - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 05:41 PM EDT
- Reference versu pointer - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 06:44 PM EDT
- Nooooo - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 08:42 PM EDT
- Says you - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:18 AM EDT
- wrong, this is numbers vs variables - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- Not so straight forward - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 05:49 PM EDT
- Cardinal vs. Ordinal Numbers - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 06:23 PM EDT
- Indices are not symbolic references - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT
- Cardinal vs. Ordinal Numbers - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 06:29 PM EDT
- Seeing you guys argue over this stuff makes me smile. - Authored by: sd_ip_tech on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 08:30 PM EDT
- Not really; here are some examples of how the two kinds of references work - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 10:07 PM EDT
- no, but you can have symbolic references using numbers (though it's silly) - Authored by: xtifr on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:12 AM EDT
- Cardinal vs. Ordinal Numbers - Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 11:41 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
What more do you want to have happen before it's clear that the jury is hung?
No blame to the jury, they were given some very muddy waters, including an
expert witness who, in essense, lied to them. (Technical types can see through
that mud, but the jury is not composed of technical types.)
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 06:07 PM EDT |
I believe that Compatibility per se doesn't matter if programs written before
Android can't run on Android phones because they weren't written to run on
Android phones (and may access hardware that isn't found on cell phones). If you
try to run them on Android phones, they may run but there's no guarantee that
you'll get useful results, i.e. they may need to be modified if it looks like
they would be useful to run on Android phones.
----------------------------------------
Copyright phase.
Basically a program language is just a lot of 'API like' rules and
specifications with it's own black box, the language is the (application)
programming interface between the human programmer and the computer micro code.
So, people write programs because they have an objective, to provide an
'application' useful to a user. The objective may be as simple as adding two
numbers to get a resulting total, x = a + b or it may be a more complex
application like a word processor or browser.
For the simple example above, the interface specifications/rules are simple,
that is, create a line of code that specifies the single output field (symbolic
reference "x") to the left of the "=" used to pass the
result back to the program and two input fields (symbolic references
"a" & "b") to the right of the "=" separated
by operators [+|-|*|/](and an output for communicating errors if any occur).
This sounds very similar to what has to be done to use an API, but since it's
'built into' the language, it's not called an API. It's built into the language
because it's 'used a lot' (= reusable code!). It has rules that must be followed
or it won't work either correctly or at all.
Obviously there have to be one or more other lines of code that fill the
variables "a" and "b" with values. And there also have to be
one or more more lines of code to do something with the result "x"
(display | print | Display & print) that satisfy the objective. And likely
one or more lines to examine the values to verify that they are valid for the
objective and reject and notify the user if they are not.
If the language doesn't provide 'built-in' keywords for some more complex work,
then we can create what we call APIs, with their own 1) set of
specification/rules and 2) code as external, reusable mini-programs (black
boxes), stored outside the source program and outside the language program. As
the someone else said, we do that to extend the 'reusable code' of the language.
The fact that some APIs will be used more than other APIs doesn't matter, we
create APIs because the reusable code will be used in more than just a single
program.
These external APIs, through their own specific rules, require the programmer to
specify input (if appropriate) and output (if appropriate). I added the
condition 'if appropriate' because the code of the API (the black box part) may
not need input, it may only provide output (time of day). Or it may need input
but not provide output back to the program which calls it, (it may store the
result 'somewhere else'. Etc. Etc.)
What did Google do? Google chose to take advantage of the large pool of Java
programmers that might be persuaded to write programs for Android phones rather
than write a new language and all that that would entail. Google wrote all the
code in the Android black boxes in a clean room meaning that they did not copy
the black box code from Java (just a tiny bit, inadvertently). But the rules for
using the Android black boxes had to be the same as the rules for using the Java
black boxes to facilitate the dependency on the Java programmer pool resource.
Therefore the names of the APIs had to be the same, the input and output specs
had to be the same UNLESS Google created a new API that didn't exist in Java,
then they could do whatever made sense. Names can't be copyrighted.
Since the names are the same, the packages, classes, methods and where they all
resided had to 'be the same' to the extent that everything needed for Android
was included. The 'sequence' is simply a common sense by product of what a
sensible person would expect, to facilitate the use of the APIs.
Sun said Java was free to use, meaning to create source code, bytecode and run
the bytecode on a JavaVM. The Android programmers will 'freely' write the code
in Java and create the Java bytecode. Since there's no requirement that Java
bytecode must only be run via a Java VM, there's no foul. The fact that the Java
bytecode gets read by dex and is translated to a different bytecode doesn't
matter.
So no infringement of Copyright.
-------------------------------------------
Does Android's black box infringe '104'? I read the claim as requiring the
'translation' from a 'symbolic reference' to a 'numeric location in memory' to
be done dynamically, meaning that the translation occurs when a user runs a
program, via a VM and the VM does the translation, even if only once per run,
but it does it every time the program is run by the VM.
Google's dexopt does the 'translation' statically i.e. only once (or, more
precisely, every time the program is changed including newly created, but
essentially only once if never changed) before it's run by the VM. The DVM does
not do the translation dynamically, i.e. when the program is run by the user via
the DVM.
So no infringment of '104
-------------------------------------------
The '520 claim is static initialization of arrays using 'simulation'.
Simulation means pretending to run the code and storing some results.
Pattern matching means reading the code to determine if the code matches the
pattern for something, in this case, for 'initializing a static array', and if
matched, storing the results.
Dex is looking for 'x' lines of code which say 1) an array should be created, 2)
it should be filled with static values and 3) provides a 'path' to the stored
static values that will be placed into the array. In any static array, the
values could be 'anything required' to meet the objectives of the program and
e.g. could be as simple as an array with 26 constants filled with "a",
"b", "C",...."z". There could be other lines of
code where the static value of "a" is used.
Initially the 'compiler' makes a pass through the code and finds all static
values and creates a table, storing the unique value only once, with as many
cells as there are unique static values. It also changes the source by replacing
the "a" with a numeric index of the table cell containing the static
value "a". Until that's finished, dex can't calculate a specific
numeric memory location of the cell.
In a subsequent pass through the modified source code dex looks for a pattern.
If for example there are normally 4 lines of (Java bytecode)code to meet the
above criteria and dex finds exactly 4 lines of bytecode that fit the 'pattern
for initializing a static array', then dex translates the numeric indexes to
numeric pointers and optimizes the code to create the static array without any
interaction with the DVM. If there are other than 4 lines of code or the pattern
is not the one for the 'initialization of a static array' as dex knows it, dex
does not translate it, dex just 'copies it'. Dex does not pretend to run the
code.
So no infringment of '502
-------------------------------------------
I'm not a lawyer or a Java programmer. I'm an avid reader of everything Groklaw
and I've tried to express my conclusions after reading (almost) everything about
this case. If what I've written is incorrect, please tell me. Otherwise it seems
that Google should prevail on all counts, including the de minimis copying.
I wish that I was on the jury.
JWC
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
On the issue of symbolic references, I think that both Google and Oracle are
stretching the truth and Oracle is getting dinged by the result. Hold on until I
explain before bashing me, I'm saying this as someone who is thinks Google
should win in a just world :)
From my techie perspective, it is clear that the claims of the '104 patent were
supposed to be talking about a process that the Java VM does when it dynamically
links external symbolic references dynamically in the interpreter at the last
moment when loading and running a class. One honest answer to questions about
what does the claim mean when it says "an instruction containing a symbolic
reference" would be "a Java byte code instruction whose target is a
reference to something that has not yet been through the symbol resolution
process and so still ultimately refers to a symbol that has to be resolved
before running the instruction". Another honest answer would be "The
claim was written badly and what it says does not match what the Java VM does
even if that was the intention. The claim only talks about an instruction that
contains a symbolic reference." If that were the argument it would be an
honest argument that the judge could decide on claim construction or could pose
as a fact question for the jury.
But instead of that argument, Google overreached (I think a little bit) by
saying that if the instruction doesn't literally contain a symbol then it can't
be called an instruction that contains a symbolic reference. The jury has seen
through that and are not ready to accept that extreme view, even without the
technical understanding to know what is wrong with that. I give them much credit
for that.
Oracle, on the other hand, overreached to an even greater degree when they
argued in a way that implies that if there is any string at the end of the
indirections then it is a symbolic reference. They could have avoided muddying
the waters, and simply had their expert explain that for any practical machine
instruction codes, an instruction that would be shown in a simplified diagram as
LOAD "y" would appear in byte code as an op code for LOAD and some
numbers that refer to a memory address that contains the character string
"y", with the referral to that memory address being whatever mechanism
the processor running those instructions is designed to use. Thus an iget
vx,vy,FIELD@CCCC would be an instruction containing a symbolic reference,
because it is designed to be an instruction that has a symbolic reference.
What we have is a jury who have been told by one side that the Sun is in the
east at noon, told by the other side that the Sun is in the west at noon, been
given evidence that includes proof that it is not in the east, evidence that
includes proof that it is not in the west. The jury was selected to be comprised
of only people who are not familiar with Sun, yet their questions indicate that
they do understand what they were told, just can't make sense out of it.
On the other hand, I'm happy for the confusion for one reason: I think that the
limitation that the symbol resolution be dynamic should be fatal to a finding
that dexopt infringes. If Oracle successfully confused the jury into thinking
that installing on different handset configurations makes it "dynamic"
then it is only karma that the jury can't find for them because of unnecessary
confusion that Oracle added to the definition of "instruction containing a
symbolic reference".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oracle, the jury, and you - Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:21 PM EDT
- I think the truth _is_ in the middle this time and the jury can't get to hear it - Authored by: eric76 on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:25 PM EDT
- Baloney - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:44 PM EDT
- I don't think the truth is in the middle this time and the jury can't get to hear it - Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT
- I think the truth _is_ in the middle this time and the jury can't get to hear it - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 08:07 PM EDT
- Dude, you're still wrong! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 08:57 PM EDT
- Symbolic Reference means string search or matching up strings, according to practitioner - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 10:23 PM EDT
- I think the truth _is_ in the middle this time and the jury can't get to hear it - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 11:08 PM EDT
- I think the truth _is_ in the middle this time and the jury can't get to hear it - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 09:00 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 08:17 PM EDT |
Patent expires December 12, 2012. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 11:40 PM EDT |
#define six 3
#define one 2
#define plus -
#define three six plus one
#define black "white"
.
.
.
.
.
printf("6 = %d\t red is %s\r\n",three, black);[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 07:50 AM EDT |
I can't begin to tell you how annoyed I would be to have
wasted 22 days of my life, only to discover that decisions
that we'd made had been overruled, that a bunch of the
thinking, pondering and discussion we'd had were moot by
virtue of the judge owning the decision or quite possibly
pointless given the patent re-exam. And then if I discovered
how thin a piece of string the Oracle theories were held
together with, and the tilting of evidence, well, I'd be
incandescent! Of course there wouldn't be anything I could
do, except tell people how I'd been mislead, and my
experience.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: johnE on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:28 AM EDT |
Jury instructions seem to be of the form "Has plaintiff proved ...?"
Jury response: "I don't know what you are talking about"
Means plaintiff has NOT proved ...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|