5 ms·

No I'm pretty sure they aren't. The CLR is totally different to the JVM.

by binaryfinery 16y ago

franksalim 16y ago
I would say it is about as different as Dalvik is.
- binaryfinery 16y ago
  In some ways the Dalvik VM is more different. Its register based for a start.
recoil 16y ago
Google aren't using the JVM either, they're using the Dalvik VM. The alleged patent infringement may apply to just about any VM implementation.
- binaryfinery 16y ago
  I know. I also hope they are using process level security, not class level security, which will completely bypass patent #1. Google people aren't stupid.
KirinDave 16y ago
Read. The. Claim. And no, the CLR is not totally different from the JVM.
- binaryfinery 16y ago
  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
And in evidence for the "Pretty Sure They Aren't" statement, here's Miguel de Icaza shitting his pants (not): http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html
- KirinDave 16y ago
  Miguel de Icaza, patent lawyer and prescient predictor. And also: unbiased.
  - binaryfinery 16y ago
    OP: "I'm pretty sure the Mono people are worried. " You are saying that Miguel de Icaza is not one of these Mono people, nor is he representative of them.

No I'm pretty sure they aren't. The CLR is totally different to the JVM.

franksalim 16y ago

I would say it is about as different as Dalvik is.

binaryfinery 16y ago
In some ways the Dalvik VM is more different. Its register based for a start.

recoil 16y ago

Google aren't using the JVM either, they're using the Dalvik VM. The alleged patent infringement may apply to just about any VM implementation.

binaryfinery 16y ago
I know. I also hope they are using process level security, not class level security, which will completely bypass patent #1. Google people aren't stupid.

KirinDave 16y ago

Read. The. Claim. And no, the CLR is not totally different from the JVM.

binaryfinery 16y ago
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

And in evidence for the "Pretty Sure They Aren't" statement, here's Miguel de Icaza shitting his pants (not): http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html

KirinDave 16y ago
Miguel de Icaza, patent lawyer and prescient predictor. And also: unbiased.
- binaryfinery 16y ago
  OP: "I'm pretty sure the Mono people are worried. " You are saying that Miguel de Icaza is not one of these Mono people, nor is he representative of them.