I don't follow how the author dismisses the security patent by judging one flowchart of an if/then statement, and then in the next sentence claims that the dalv

I don't follow how the author dismisses the security patent by judging one flowchart of an if/then statement, and then in the next sentence claims that the dalvik implementation is substantially different. If the patent is truly so simple, then the implementation can only differ by inverting the condition and swapping the if/then blocks. If the dalvik implementation is substantially different, then there's probably more to the patent than that one diagram. From that point on, this analysis stopped smelling objective.