Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th May 2012 07:35 UTC
Legal A bit of a fascinating little surprise in the Oracle vs. Google proceedings yesterday. As it turns out, judge Alsup... Has done, and still does, a lot of programming, and hence, he knows just how silly the whole rangeChek issue is. Addressing Oracle's lawyer, Alsup notes: "I couldn't have told you the first thing about Java before this problem. I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?" Ouch.
Thread beginning with comment 518371
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by s-peter on Wed 16th May 2012 12:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
Member since:

It could be called parellel processing, it could be called efficiency, it is not insane.

I don't know much about the legal aspects, but "speculative execution" [1] (in branch prediction) seems a more appropriate (or more specific) analogy. I think parallel processing is most commonly used to refer to doing two or more "useful" things at the same time, whereas in this case (as with speculative execution) ultimately it is either legal or illegal, so there is a chance that considering it in advance will end up not bringing any benefit. So even though strictly speaking it can be considered parallel processing, calling it so will likely give the wrong impression of trying to "solve two cases" (in different universes) at the same time to some readers.

Heck, given today's news, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that the judge was just doing it to show off his knowledge of computing concepts. ;)


Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by M.Onty on Wed 16th May 2012 14:13 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
M.Onty Member since:

You win!

Reply Parent Score: 2