Authored by: darrellb on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 08:05 PM EDT |
I am software development career professional, but maybe not a reasonable one. I
do not consider something to be in the instruction stream by virtue of being in
the object module.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- claim 11 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 08:36 PM EDT
- claim 11 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 09:31 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 08:10 PM EDT |
The '104 patent covers <i>dynamically</i> resolving the reference
and replacing the bytecode (i.e. while the program is running).
Google's implementation only does that optimization statically (in dexopt,
before the program is run).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT |
That is the danger of giving up the affirmative defense of invalidity. The
accuser could try to get the meanings of phrases to be a little bit too broad.
Oracle would probably have lost these patents if this was their argument and
Google presented the state of the art in Optimizers from over 20 years ago.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
The "versed in the art" phrase only shows up in terms of
obviousness of patents (ie, when evaluating their
patentability). Once you _have_ a patent (assuming it doesn't
get tossed for other reasons), the claims are king. If a
claim says "in the instruction", it has to be in the
instruction. There is no way around this. We have it drilled
into us time and time agian, every time we submit a patent:
Do the claims cover _every_ aspect of the invention? If not,
do 'em again.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
Um. They didn't miss it. It would be impossible
legally to argue it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|