7 ms·

You've not looked at them have you (the VMs)? The JVM is entirely a class-focused JVM. The CLR is a general purpose VM. I can access arbitrary memory in the CLR

You've not looked at them have you (the VMs)? The JVM is entirely a class-focused JVM. The CLR is a general purpose VM. I can access arbitrary memory in the CLR, but cannot on the JVM. I write as someone who has attempted to build a byte-code assembly file that would allow direct manipulation of binary arrays for the purpose of efficiently loading OpenGL vertex buffers that mix floats and ints. Cant be done in Java or in Dalvik (at least in 2.1). Easily done in CLR. Also, the handling of security and exceptions is different. I've also read all the JSRs with respect to this problem, related problems, generics, stack-based variables etc, and I'm also aware of the optimizations for stack-based elimination in 1.6 and 1.7. Also, I admit I only read the first patent, but I believe it doesn't apply to Android simply because the Dalvik VM does not apply its security at the object level but the process level, thereby nuking the patent. As for mono, I doubt they would worry since they would simply point out that "class" and "object" have been used for determining security access since at least Windows NT. Or mono can simply turn off object level security and rely on the OS to do it. The whole list is replete with holes and workarounds.

KirinDave 16y ago
> You've not looked at them have you (the VMs)? I've looked at them, along with about half a dozen others. > The JVM is entirely a class-focused JVM. The CLR is a general purpose VM. ... blah-blah-non-sequitur-blah ... They are both VMs with similar overall strategies, similar technologies, and some distinct similarities. They're about as different as any two VMs are. > Also, I admit I only read the first patent, but I believe it doesn't apply to Android simply because the Dalvik VM does not apply its security at the object level but the process level, thereby nuking the patent. Unless they point out that the system handles processes as objects. > As for mono, I doubt they would worry since they would simply point out that "class" and "object" have been used for determining security access since at least Windows NT. Or mono can simply turn off object level security and rely on the OS to do it. The whole list is replete with holes and workarounds. You don't understand how patent trolling works, do you? The point is to make it so expensive and painful for the innovator to continue without giving the patent troll a big slice of the pie that the innovator capitulates and pays off the troll.
- binaryfinery 16y ago
  >They're about as different as any two VMs are. I suggest that these differences are what makes them different as applies to patents. Patents are usually either so broad as to have prior art, or so narrow as to not apply to even "similar" implementations. 6,192,476: Too broad. Applies to any OS since the 70's. 6,125,447: as above. 5,966,702: Too specific (.NET doesnt need to optimize data it creates properly in the first place) and too broad at the same time: it simply describes data normalization. 7,426,720: Unix forks. Either way, .NET does not do this. RE38,104: Not applicable at all. .NET is always fully JITed. 6,910,205: See above. 6,061,520: Specific to JVM implementation detail.
  - KirinDave 16y ago
    Please allow me to reiterate: > You don't understand how patent trolling works, do you? The point is to make it so expensive and painful for the innovator to continue without giving the patent troll a big slice of the pie that the innovator capitulates and pays off the troll.
    - binaryfinery 16y ago
      I have been responsible for patents at a tech startup. My job was not only to find patents that we might infringe upon, but to find patents that a troll could use to extort money out of us, even though they did not apply, and then assign risk. I worked with an excellent patent lawyer. It is impossible to do anything today without infringing on somebody's bullshit patent. However, one can identify patents that can be demonstrated to be bullshit for a reasonable cost. There is also an element of poker. If someone has a bullshit patent, but they have successfully used it, or think they can, then they risk losing that revenue if it is struck down as invalid. They do have something to lose, in addition to legal fees. Trolls live on fear. Don't be afraid. So back to these particular patents: They are bullshit. They are obviously bullshit. I would represent myself if hit with them. I think Google might be able to find a few people better than me to prove it.

KirinDave 16y ago

> You've not looked at them have you (the VMs)? I've looked at them, along with about half a dozen others. > The JVM is entirely a class-focused JVM. The CLR is a general purpose VM. ... blah-blah-non-sequitur-blah ... They are both VMs with similar overall strategies, similar technologies, and some distinct similarities. They're about as different as any two VMs are. > Also, I admit I only read the first patent, but I believe it doesn't apply to Android simply because the Dalvik VM does not apply its security at the object level but the process level, thereby nuking the patent. Unless they point out that the system handles processes as objects. > As for mono, I doubt they would worry since they would simply point out that "class" and "object" have been used for determining security access since at least Windows NT. Or mono can simply turn off object level security and rely on the OS to do it. The whole list is replete with holes and workarounds. You don't understand how patent trolling works, do you? The point is to make it so expensive and painful for the innovator to continue without giving the patent troll a big slice of the pie that the innovator capitulates and pays off the troll.

binaryfinery 16y ago
>They're about as different as any two VMs are. I suggest that these differences are what makes them different as applies to patents. Patents are usually either so broad as to have prior art, or so narrow as to not apply to even "similar" implementations. 6,192,476: Too broad. Applies to any OS since the 70's. 6,125,447: as above. 5,966,702: Too specific (.NET doesnt need to optimize data it creates properly in the first place) and too broad at the same time: it simply describes data normalization. 7,426,720: Unix forks. Either way, .NET does not do this. RE38,104: Not applicable at all. .NET is always fully JITed. 6,910,205: See above. 6,061,520: Specific to JVM implementation detail.
- KirinDave 16y ago
  Please allow me to reiterate: > You don't understand how patent trolling works, do you? The point is to make it so expensive and painful for the innovator to continue without giving the patent troll a big slice of the pie that the innovator capitulates and pays off the troll.
  - binaryfinery 16y ago
    I have been responsible for patents at a tech startup. My job was not only to find patents that we might infringe upon, but to find patents that a troll could use to extort money out of us, even though they did not apply, and then assign risk. I worked with an excellent patent lawyer. It is impossible to do anything today without infringing on somebody's bullshit patent. However, one can identify patents that can be demonstrated to be bullshit for a reasonable cost. There is also an element of poker. If someone has a bullshit patent, but they have successfully used it, or think they can, then they risk losing that revenue if it is struck down as invalid. They do have something to lose, in addition to legal fees. Trolls live on fear. Don't be afraid. So back to these particular patents: They are bullshit. They are obviously bullshit. I would represent myself if hit with them. I think Google might be able to find a few people better than me to prove it.