And his point was basically that any VM implementing any bytecode language might very well violate the patents in question. Anyway, Dalvik does not even claim

And his point was basically that any VM implementing any bytecode language might very well violate the patents in question. Anyway, Dalvik does not even claim to execute Java bytecode, but its own language. Does that not mean that it is in pretty much the same legal footing as, say, the Python bytecode interpreter? And there exists plenty of prior art on the VM, all the way back to 1966 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-code_machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-code_machine ), so I am not so easily convinced that the patent is going to survive the trial.