|
| Authored by: FreeChief on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
| I said above (under "broken bold-face tag") that Jacobs was long-winded, but I
guess what he said was correct. So maybe that's good for a laywer. Still, it's
not all that impressive that a lawyer prosecuting an "IP" case can memorize the
words and use them to throw up a smoke screen.
If Jacobs actually improved
upon what the judge said, it was by bringing up the distinction between
interface and implementation, but he didn't say anything about why that might be
important. Whether he didn't say anything because he didn't understand it, or
because it would be bad for his case if it were understood, I don't know, but if
the latter then why bring it up at all?
— Programmer in
Chief
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
The problem is that Alsup gave a concise description of a method, but left out
detail*. Jacobs added additional detail, but his conclusion was that his
definition contradicted Alsup's, which is not correct.
Also note, Jacobs did NOT do what Alsup asked, which was to correct his
definition, he instead tried to substitute his own, even though Alsup's was
correct, but lacking detail.
The extraneous list of packages, interfaces, etc strikes me as a smokescreen, it
has nothing to do with the question at hand.
*If we're talking about earlier low-level languages, like Pascal, BASIC etc, his
definition is completely correct, because the "method signature"
concept was not used. The definition of what arguments a method receives and
returns are an optional feature, Perl for example still doesn't do it. But
since they were talking about Java, the method signature stuff is present.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
