|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
As others have commented, the ability to run the code as a requirement for prior
art is bogus. But to set the record straight:
Both Samsung AND
Apple use the same processor.
The context for this is looking at
the prior art. So it isn't about what processor is used in current Samsung
devices and Apple devices. Rather it's about what is used in the prior art
device and the Apple device.
ARM code is ARM code. So the source
can be made to execute on either one
If you are going to the
source code, the fact that it is ARM is moot. It could be x86. You just need
the right compiler to produce the right machine code.
But I think he's
talking about source code when he says:
I realized that the
software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior
art and vice versa.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:50 PM EDT |
The foreman's argument had nothing to do with running Apple's code on a Samsung
Phone. His statement was that Apple's code would not run on the Diamond Touch
tabletop touchscreen device that was brought into the courtroom by Samsung in an
attempt to show prior art, and because Apple's software could not run on it, it
could not be prior art, even though the "bounce back" and "pinch
to zoom" features worked almost identically to those on the iPhone.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: soronlin on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 04:10 AM EDT |
The question is whether the Apple iPhone and the Diamond tablet have the same
processors. I suppose they might both use ARM; it's been around for a while.
<blockquote>Guess what. Both Samsung AND Apple use the
same processor.
...
ARM code is ARM code. </blockquote>
Incorrect. For example Ubuntu does not run on ARMv6. The Jazelle instructions do
not run on any ARM without a J in the part number. Then there are Thumb and
Thumb2 instruction sets -- not a few extra instructions like the SSE extensions
to x86 -- entire instruction sets you can write entire applications with.
I have no idea whether the Apple code could run on the processor used by the
Diamond device. It certainly could not run unmodified since the OS, libraries
and hardware would all be different. But of cause it is beside the point,
because it seeks to support an incorrect legal theory.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
