Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

So maybe they muffed it earlier | 189 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

So maybe they muffed it earlier

Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 10:56 PM EDT

"it would have been in the record that there was no performance gain from
rangecheck"

That is in the record, and Google mentions it in their motion. pem's comment is
saying Google should have argued the additional point that rangeCheck slightly
decreases performance, which I say 1) doesn't really have much significance
compared to the argument that it's presence doesn't improve performance; 2)
isn't in the record, so not applicable to a Rule 50(b) motion.

From Google's motion:

"But Bloch also made clear that not one bit of that performance improvement
is due to rangeCheck, as opposed to the other 900-plus lines of code in TimSort.
RT 814:1-4. In fact, rangeCheck is a “private method” that is “not part of the
API.” Its declaration cannot be called from outside of the TimSort class, only
from within that class, so it cannot have an effect on any other file in
Android. RT 813:12-25 (Bloch)"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

So maybe they muffed it earlier - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 11:13 AM EDT
- So maybe they muffed it earlier - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 07:15 AM EDT
Wari/Mancala? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 05:53 PM EDT

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )