decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
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

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Apple v Samsung Foreman Gets More Things Wrong ~pj | 307 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple v Samsung Foreman Gets More Things Wrong ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 02:18 PM EDT
Yes, they would, and that was intentional.

It's an example of two *different* implementations using the same 'language', as
contrasted with the earlier example of two *identical* implementations using
*different* 'languages'.

If the patent is on 'a=1+1', then it is infringed by 'Add one and one giving the
result to variable a' despite the different language, but *not* by 'a=1*3'
despite using the same language.

A more specific example in C and VB:
Assume doThis() is a function which adds the variable 'a' to itself, storing the
result in the variable 'a'.
Assume doThat() is a function which adds one to the variable 'a', storing the
result in the variable 'a'.

This is equivalent to a=a+a or a=a+1, depending on the value of a:
if(a)
{
a += doThis();
}
else
{
a += doThat();
}

This is also equivalent to a=a+a or a=a+1, depending on the value of a.
((a) ? doThis() : doThat());


Now onto VB.NET:
This is also equivalent to a=a+a or a=a+1, depending on the value of a:
If(a, doThis(), doThat())
This is the same implementation, in a different language.


This is *not* equivalent to any of the above implementations. It is equivalent
to a=a+a+1:
IIF(a, doThis(), doThat())

It may *look* like the VB 'If' and 'IIF' statements are the same. And in *many*
cases they will give the same result. However, they have one *very* important
distinction. The 'If' construct is a (relatively new) addition to VB.NET which
acts as a true ternary operator. On the other hand, the 'IFF' is a function
call, which must evaluate all of the parameters passed to it before it can be
evaluated.

So, here we have 'different language, same implementation', and 'same language,
different implementation', right along side an example demonstrating that
differences in implementation can be both subtle *and* important.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )