|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 09:55 PM EDT |
THIS!
This is the crux of it. We have it drummed into our heads
repeatedly that the claims in a patent are ALL that matter.
The lawyers tell us that it doesn't matter one bit what goes
in the abstract or the background sections of a patent
submission, the claims are what decides infringement.
If the claim says "contains", then the symbolic reference
must be within the instruction. A numeric reference to a
symbolic reference is NOT the same thing.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 10:05 PM EDT |
If the instruction contains a reference that must be resolved by string search
somewhere, then the instruction contains a symbolic reference. That the
symbolic reference has been compacted to an index into a string table to
optimize for a single instruction size and make other instructions faster makes
no difference, the reference is still symbolic.
The patent claims should be construed according to how the literal words would
be understood by practitioners skilled in the art, in light of the
specification, which by law must teach the invention being claimed. I'm not
sure how ambiguity (not breadth) should be handled.
Whether or not JAVA practices the patent is immaterial...I would argue that the
inventor was thinking of semi-interpreted systems where the actual value of a
class might not be known until run-time, such as Java reflection classes, which
are used to write debuggers and such. The simple example is a program which
says, in effect:
"Enter the name of a variable" (x)
"Variable (X) has the value of ZZZ"
I stomp bugs....daily....just as my horse stomps flies.
How would the .SO (Linux) or .DLL (Windows) loading process differ?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 10:33 PM EDT |
If it were that simple there would be no such thing as claim construction. I'm
not arguing with you, just saying that the question of whether the claim has to
be construed so literally is a legal question, not a technical one, and IANAL so
I don't know the answer until I see someone with legal expertise chiming in.
Google's lawyers certainly argues that the the literal interpretation rules in
this case. Oracle argues otherwise. Given that those are two opposing lawyers
arguing it, that doesn't help me know what the law actually is. The judge could
have provided insight into this, but the construction of that claim did not get
decided to that level of detail.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
