en.swpat.org is a wiki.   You can edit it.   May contain statements End Software Patents does not endorse.

November 2014: About Microsoft’s patent licence for .NET core

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits


Editing Oracle v. Google (2010, USA)

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in.

Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 355: Line 355:
 
''It looks to me like this is an automatic refactoring at runtime.  There's a piece of bytecode which fills an array with constants; this is detected somehow and replaced with a call to some optimised native routine which fills the array.  That routine might be memcpy() from a pre-filled array, or it might often be bzero().  This kind of facility is built into standard executable file formats, so the only "new" thing may be that it's being done at runtime, in which case it's just a standard function of the JIT, or else a specific example of self-modifying code.  The slightly bizarre thing is that this is clearly not expected to be done at compile time, as any sane engineer would assume.''
 
''It looks to me like this is an automatic refactoring at runtime.  There's a piece of bytecode which fills an array with constants; this is detected somehow and replaced with a call to some optimised native routine which fills the array.  That routine might be memcpy() from a pre-filled array, or it might often be bzero().  This kind of facility is built into standard executable file formats, so the only "new" thing may be that it's being done at runtime, in which case it's just a standard function of the JIT, or else a specific example of self-modifying code.  The slightly bizarre thing is that this is clearly not expected to be done at compile time, as any sane engineer would assume.''
  
== Prior art is difficult to prove ==
+
7ofKNE  <a href="http://vfclrdbnbiqo.com/">vfclrdbnbiqo</a>, [url=http://qzkulrarcyqh.com/]qzkulrarcyqh[/url], [link=http://qbxjxbikskmf.com/]qbxjxbikskmf[/link], http://lyxcsoyjfsfl.com/
 
+
In the above discussion, I very often see terms like:
+
 
+
* ''User-IDs are not Process-IDs''
+
* ''Processes are not Classes''
+
 
+
-> One should know, that computer-scientists learn at the university to '''abstract''' from these. It's basically the same like people having a driver's license. If you learned at driving school to drive to place A you'll probably afterwards be able to drive to place B  on your own. That is because you learned to '''abstract''' from the direction to drive to. That's the same with computer scientists and those patents.
+
 
+
Patent obviousness should really be measured by standard university specialists:
+
 
+
'''An obvious non-invention is''', when computer scientist can come to the same solution if faced with the equal problem by only applying several abstractions and / or transferring knowledge from another problem-domain to the on they are currently faced with -- this is the exact thing that computer scientists are trained for !!
+
 
+
-> According to this, most of above patents ''really are obvious''!
+
  
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==

Please note that all contributions to en.swpat.org are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 (see en.swpat.org:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Templates used on this page: