|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT |
>Google's problem is that there is more than one possible construction for
the words of the claim regarding symbolic references.
No. There. Isn't. There is only one possible construction, and Google's is it.
While it is true that in the parsing stage of a compiler, a parser may consider
the source file as a "string" of "symbols" which may be
operators, literals, or variables -- and I think that's how Dr. Mendacious
Mitchell justifies his absurd "a number can be a symbol" assertion,
because it's true in a completely different context -- but when you're ready to
link or load or execute a program, that language is not used. EVER.
In the back end of a compiler or linker, "symbolic reference" is a
term of art. It refers to a string (a series of characters) which must be looked
up in a "symbol table" to see what address that symbol refers to. At
this stage of the process, it DOES NOT EVER refer to a numeric index or
address.
A numeric pointer or address (at execution time there is no useful semantic
distinction between the two--all addresses are in the form base+offset) is not a
symbol. It does not involve looking anything up in a symbol table.
And yes, I have dealt with symbol tables while implementing both compiled and
interpretive languages, for mainframe and minicomputer manufacturers as well as
pure-software companies. I have coded parsers and code generaters (with and
without built-in linkers) and byte-stream interpreters.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eric76 on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 08:33 PM EDT |
Next I don't think Google can argue the claim is poorly written and
reinterpret it. May be there is a legal procedure to challenge a patent on the
grounds the invention being claimed is not the one which has been invented, or
may be there isn't, I don't know. But it is clear this is not the defense Google
has chosen. Patent lawyers deliberately write broad claims to increase the
protection given to their client. This procedure is legal. An argument that the
words should have been different can't be used because the patent has been
reviewed and granted as written. The law is that the words of the claim
control.
I think that if it does not define the terms as it
means them, then the ordinary definition of the terms used in the specific
discipline are to be used. If it is poorly written, then that means that it
does not claim what the inventor intended for it to mean. I think that others
do have the right to interpret it in light of what it actually says, not in the
way that the inventor meant it to be interpreted. So, yes, Google can argue
that it is poorly written and they can interpret it as it is written rather than
what the inventor intended.
IANAL [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 08:57 PM EDT |
If the language can be interpreted broadly, then prior art kills it. If the
language is interpreted narrowly, then Google escapes. But what Oracle is
trying to do is interpret it narrowly at the PTO and broadly in Oracle v.
Google.
MSS2[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
