Banner - Evan Brown - Legal Filings

Affidavit of James M. McCarty

Beginning of Legal Text

CAUSE NO. 199-596-97

DSC COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

v.
EVAN BROWN,
Defendant.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS


219TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared James Michael McCarty, who, being by me duly sworn, on his oath stated as follows:

  1. My name is James Michael McCarty. I am over the age of 18 years, have never been convicted of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude, and am competent to make this Affidavit. The matters and facts stated herein are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct.

  2. I am currently employed as a Staff Software Development Engineer for Alcatel USA, formerly known as DSC Communications, Corp. In that position, I am familiar with the operation of computers and the way in which computer software is written and interpreted by computers. I am also familiar with the software tools that are currently available for converting high-level computer code to assembly code and object or machine executable code. Such software tools are typically referred to as compilers, assemblers and linkers. I am also familiar with software tools known as reverse compilers, which convert lower level computer code, such as object or machine executable code, to a specific higher level code, such as C++.

  3. I am a member of the DSC Disclosure Team in connection with the above-referenced lawsuit. In that capacity, I have seen and reviewed the documents titled Defendant's First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories (the "Interrogatory Response").

  4. I am aware that Evan Brown claims to have invented a "method of converting machine executable binary code into a high-level source code form using logic and data abstractions". The Interrogatory Response does not fully and completely describe a method of converting machine executable binary code into high-level source code form. Rather, the Interrogatory Response appears to provide a very basic overview of what the component parts of the conversion process are, without providing any description of the components themselves, what they do, how they work or the sequence in which things are accomplished. In other words, the Interrogatory Response identifies in generic terms the basic steps that would need to occur to complete a code conversion, but omits any description of what is done at each step, how that work is accomplished, or the order in which the steps occur.

  5. The most relevant part of the Interrogatory Response is contained on pages 7 and 8 of that document, which presents a very high-level overview of a software program used to convert executable object code into a source language. A similar description could be expected from almost any competent third year Computer Science student at a major University. No new or unique information, techniques, or approaches are presented in the Interrogatory Response is document, beyond those currently known and already in use in the software industry.

  6. A full and complete disclosure must contain details and description that are not presented in the Interrogatory Response. Some of the details and description that need to be included are set forth below:

    1. Items 1), 2), and 3) on page 6 and item 4) on page 7 reference techniques that are not described in the document. To describe the Solution, the Interrogatory Response must include a full and complete description of each of these techniques.

    2. On page 7, in paragraph 2, the term "machine executable binary code" is used. To describe the Solution, the Interrogatory Response must describe what this term means, and whether the "memory image" or "link/loader control codes" are present in the "machine executable binary code."

    3. On page 7, in paragraph 3, "an CPU/ALU instruction simulator" and a "dependent hardware" simulator are referenced. These kinds of programs are not new and are susceptible to various meanings, making it impossible to understand what is being described in this sentence. Specifically, while this portion of the Interrogatory Response implies that some program modifications must be made, which modifications depend on the particular machine being used, and the kinds of modifications which must be done are not specified. No detail or description is provided, and the Interrogatory Response must provide enough detail to ensure a complete understanding of the intended facilities. Detailed descriptions of the features, characteristics, and operation of the intended simulators are also required in order to gain even a superficial understanding of the Solution claimed by Mr. Brown

    4. On page 7, in paragraph 4, sentence 1, "a target dependent processor" is referenced. This kind of program is not new and is susceptible to various meanings. Enough detail must be provided to insure a complete understanding of the intended facility. Again, detailed descriptions of the features, characteristics, and operation of the processor are required in order to gain even a superficial understanding of the Solution claims by Mr. Brown.

    5. On page 7, in paragraph 4, sentence 2, "A function/subroutine library ... to provide equivalent functionality for instruction sequences not supported by the specific target language" is referenced. These kinds of programs are not new and are susceptible to various meanings. No detail or description is provided, and the Interrogatory Response must provide enough detail to ensure a complete understanding of the intended facilities. Again, detailed descriptions of the features, characteristics, organization, and operation of the function/subroutine library are required in order to gain even a superficial understanding of the Solution claims by Mr. Brown

    6. On Page 7, paragraph 5 provides an overview of the instruction simulator operation. However, several critical pieces of information have been omitted, including but not limited to: (1) whether the instruction simulator processes from the beginning to the end of the "machine executable binary code" without interruption or does the instruction simulator recognize and execute the control transfer when processing branch, jump, and call instructions; (2) how the instruction simulator discriminates between instructions, data, jump tables, etc.; (3) what happens when a branch, call, or jump instruction is recognized besides "saving system state information"; and (4) what is the "operation instruction sequence list table". As with the above described issues, a detailed description of the features, characteristics, organization, operation, and uses of the "operation instruction sequence list table" is required in order to understand the Solution claims by Mr. Brown.

    7. On page 7, in paragraph 5, sentence 6, a "volatile table" is referenced. A detailed description of the features, characteristics, organization, operation, and uses of the "volatile table" is required in order to understand what is meant by this term

    8. On page 7, in paragraph 5, sentence 7, reference is made to an instruction simulation process being "repeated." The Interrogatory Response fails to describe how many passes the instruction simulator makes through the machine executable binary code, and what actions are performed on each pass, which information is necessary in order to understand how the Solution actually works.

    9. On Page 8, paragraph 1, the Interrogatory Response provides that "identical instruction sequences and duplicates are removed." In order to understand what is meant by this phrase, the following details are required: (1) how are identical instruction sequences recognized; (2) does this mean that duplicated instruction sequences are removed; and (3) are duplicated instruction sequences actually erased from the table at this time or simply identified as being duplicated.

    10. On page 8, in paragraph 2, "machine dependent attributes" are referenced. In order to understand what is meant by this phrase, the Interrogatory Response needs to describe the following details: (1) when and how are "machine dependent attributes" defined; (2) where are "machine dependent attributes" saved; (3) how are "machine dependent attributes" used.

    11. On page 8, in paragraph 3, the term "memory mapped I/O hardware dependencies" is used. In order to understand what is meant by this phrase, the Interrogatory Response needs to describe the following details: (1) when and how are memory mapped I/O hardware dependencies defined; (2) where are memory mapped I/O hardware dependencies saved; and (3) how are memory mapped I/O hardware dependencies used.

    12. On page 8, in paragraph 4, the term "logical expression sequence" is used. A detailed description of the features, characteristics, organization, operation, means of generation, and uses of the "logical expression sequence" is required in order to understand this feature.

    13. On page 8, in paragraph 4, the term "logic flow structure" is used. A detailed description of the features, characteristics, organization, operation, means of generation, and uses of the "logical expression sequence" is required.

    14. On page 8, in paragraph 4, the term "data reference" is used. A detailed description of the features, characteristics, organization, operation, means of generation, and uses of the "logical expression sequence" is required.

    15. On page 8, in paragraph 5, a "data table list" is referenced. A detailed description of the features, characteristics, organization, operation, and uses of the "data table list" is required.

  7. Throughout the Interrogatory Response, Mr. Brown omits any description of the actual techniques used to accomplish the task being described. For example, where the Interrogatory Response states that "duplicate sequences are removed," there needs to be a definition describing what a duplicate sequence is, how it is recognized, and how it is removed. Similar descriptions are needed for virtually every verb/object pair contained in the Interrogatory Response; all such detail was omitted from the Interrogatory Response.

  8. In addition, the Interrogatory Response fails to describe the order in which the various processing steps are accomplished, the number of times each step occurs, and how the steps are performed. Such information is necessary in order to understand the Solution claimed by Mr. Brown.

  9. In conclusion, the Interrogatory Response does not provide a full or complete description of the Solution. The information contained within the Interrogatory Response is not sufficient to understand how the Solution works or whether it works.

FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME by the said James Michael McCarty, on this 7th day of May, 1999.

[Seal]

JERETHA C PEARSON
NOTARY PUBLIC
State of Texas
Comm. Exp. 10-15-2002

End of Legal Text

Scales of Justice - Symbol to go back to Legal Page Back to Legal Page

House - Symbol for Home Page Back to Evan Brown's Home Page

webmaster@unixguru.com
URL - http://www.unixguru.com/affidavit/jmmccarty.html
Page last updated 2 November 2003

Small Banner - Evan Brown - Legal Filings

Copyright © 1997-2003 Evan Brown. All Rights Reserved.