| « | August 2008 | » | ||||
 |
||||||
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
lazyI think it's important to have a technical view of the stock. So, here's one kept in its own special box as "Technical Trading" in the list of topics to the top of page.
a-okThis is regarding the 20 for 1 split in 2000 that left almost 1billion shares in the float. You might call it a porcupine fish - anything trying to swallow more than half of the thing strangles on the last little bit.
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=217838
| Msg. 217838 of 217839 Jump to msg. # |
| The more I think about MSFT may want to buy a stake in VCSY to get some of their money back. Now we know the float is big so it would take some time for them to get it done. That would mean a lot of buying pressure and steady rising PPS. (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long) |
We all know using paid posters to mitigate public image is something documented among industry players. Is there any reason that should not be true on long message boards?
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=217839
| Msg. 217839 of 217840 Jump to msg. # |
| That might be why the bashers are hanging around. (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long) |
hug meBarstowblues reports Judge in VCSY v MSFT has signed stipulation order.
'STIPULATION ORDER' HAS BEEN 31-Jul-08 10:58 am
barstowblues
GRANTED BY THE COURT IN EAST TEXAS... JUDGE HAS APPROVED & SIGNED OFF ON THE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS. ITS WAS POSTED ON PACER THIS MORNING. SOMEONE ON RB SHOULD HAVE A COPY POSTED SHORTLY. THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOLKS! WE ARE ALMOST THERE! Sentiment : Strong Buy |
----------------
Now we wait for figures and terms on settlement and we await word on VCSY's business plans and prospects.
happyQuack Quack. Smells like a duck. Dinner.
Well worth reading. Puts Settlement + Stipulation quite well.
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=217164
| Msg. 217164 of 217178 |
for what it is worth...
I have been a shareholder since before the split and some of you may remember me from one of the other forums. I have been visiting this site on a daily basis for about 8 yrs now, but I don't think I have posted before. If so, it was a long time ago and probably under a different handle.
Anyway, I thought I might be able to share some insight on the recent legal developments...for whatever it is worth. I am a lawyer in SC and primarily handle civil litigation matters as defense counsel. I confess that in over 10 yrs of practicing, I haven't handled a single patent infringement case. Not much call for that here. However, I regularly handle cases in the US District Court for the District of SC and I have mediated and negotiated many settlements of a variety of types of civil cases.
I am surprised that the questions raised by several of you over the past couple of days have not been answered by another lawyer by now, but I thought maybe I should at least share my experience.
First, let me say that the filing of the mediator's report was wonderful news to me. I have been hoping for a settlement ever since the news broke about the suit being filed. Had this case gone to trial, we would like be several years from a resolution. I've yet to see a defense lawyer walk across the courtroom after a plaintiff's verdict and whip out a checkbook. And the larger the verdict, the greater the likelihood of an appeal. Thus, I am glad a settlement has been reached. In this case, a bird in the hand, regardless the size, is better than two in the bush.
Second, as for the forms, they appear to be fairly standard. The mediator's report typically does not contain any details of settlement terms and is usually brief and to the point. In this case, given the hearing date of 7/25, of it was probably necessary to get the report filed in order to get the hearing canceled. The stipulation of dismissal is also a fairly standard (and brief) document. The fact that it includes the language "with prejudice" simply means that all claims that were brought as part of this action are dismissed with finality and cannot be brought again. Sometimes dismissals are made without prejudice when a plaintiff wants to buy time from a trial roster or may not have the right defendant, but is not certain and doesn't want to extinguish the right to file suit against the same party again. Anyway, it simply means that all parties agree this matter is over.
It is customary for settling parties to pay their own lawyers and costs. However, that does not mean that the settlement figure does not take VCSY's fees into account. The settlement documents might not say it specifically, but I have been in many mediations where I have negotiated settlement figures based upon the estimated net recovery of the plaintiff. Otherwise, what's the point. Until you get to numbers large enough for the plaintiff to pay their lawyers and costs, you are not giving the plaintiff any incentive to settle the case.
Like most of you, I have spent the last several days dreaming about the possibilities and quite frankly, love the idea of early retirement. However, I am trying, though very difficult, to keep some perspective. After all, many of us have spent the last 8 yrs or so thinking about what we could have done with the money if we had only sold at 6 bucks. To be honest, I had serious doubts that days like Monday would ever return. It almost seemed surreal. I hope this is our last laugh, but we need to be patient and let it play out.
The speed with which technology improves has enabled us to monitor federal court filings in almost real time now. This type of monitoring has only been available for a few years (at least in SC, but we usually get things last). Anyway, back in the day, we would have only heard about this filing if a newspaper or other media outlet reported it by having someone monitoring the filings by actually flipping through them at the courthouse. Now we have that luxury. As a result, we have come to expect information to be released faster than ever before.
It is not unusual for a case to settle at mediation and not actually be "wrapped up" for weeks depending upon the complexity of the terms and the time it takes to get the money. Thus, I have been reminding myself of this fact for the past few days and trying to be patient. The filing of the stipulation could be very significant however. I have never signed a stipulation of dismissal and sent it for filing before the actual settlement agreement was fully executed and I would expect that a case like this with heavy hitting lawyers involved would be no different. Thus, I am expecting and hoping that we will see some news with more specifics very soon.
As for all the speculation, I am not going to engage in that kind of stuff on this board. I have some thoughts and I also hope some of the things I've read on here will actually happen, but I don't see the point in arguing about details we no nothing about. It's funny how some folks on here will take a shot in the dark on some point and if they turn out to be correct, however so brief, they proclaim themselves to be some kind of authority on every other unknown issue of debate.
I have been typing for awhile now and apologize for the rambling. I will leave with this...I am very confident that VCSY came away with something significant from this settlement. I do not believe Niro would have risked his reputation on a "penny stock" without a damn good reason. That said, I would be surprised if VCSY got what some of you have opined would be "full value" for its claims. Settlements are about compromise and evaluating risks associated with trial, both financial and intangible (i.e. media coverage). Hopefully, VCSY had the goods as we all believe and that was enough leverage for it to come away with a significant settlement that is either large enough to put us on the map as a legitimate tech company or configured in such away that we become big fans of MSFT because of a partnership of some degree. While not impossible, it is rare for one party to walk away from a mediated settlement with the feeling that they really stuck it to the other party. Typically, one party pays more than they want to and want party accepts less than they want to...all in the name of avoiding the possibility of verdict that is a nightmare. Money is a motivator, fear is too. When the two are used together, deals can get done.
Good luck to us all. We have already come a long way back. We may not wake up to gapped up price of $5 that spares us from the gut wrenching experience of the roller coaster, but hey...at least we are getting to ride again.
SCDAWGFAN
- - - - -
View Replies »
---------------
Isn't it nice to have the services of an attorney for free by way of socializing technology... also free? Thanks SCDAWGFAN. Remember from the treefort days at programmers heaven. Nice to have old gang post again.
a-okhttp://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=217132
| Msg. 217132 of 217178 (This msg. is a reply to 217130 by beachbumlb.) |
UPDATE: STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL BY COURT IN EAST TEXAS...SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL..SO WE SHOULD GET NEWS THIS WEEK!
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-CV-144 (DF-CE)
§
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, §
§
Defendant. §
§
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
IT IS STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiff Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. and
Defendant Microsoft Corporation (referred to collectively as “the Parties”), through their counsel
of record and subject to approval of the Court, that:
(1) All claims presented by the Complaint, as well as all counterclaims thereto, shall
be dismissed with prejudice as to each of the Parties; and
(2) The Parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Case 2:07-cv-00144-DF-CE Document 65 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 1 of 3
2
DATED: July 29th, 2008
/s/ Eric M. Albritton (with permission) /s/ David J. Healey
John Ward, Jr.
LAW OFFICE OF T. JOHN WARD, JR., P.C.
111 West Marshall Street
Longview, Texas 75601
(903) 757-6400 Telephone
(903) 757-2323 Facsimile
Eric M. Albritton
ERIC M. ALBRITTON, P.C.
P.O. Box 2649
Longview, Texas 75606
(903) 757-8449 Telephone
(903) 758-7397 Facsimile
Raymond P. Niro
Vasilios D. Dossas
Sally Wiggins
Robert A. Conley
Eric J. Mersmann
NIRO, SCAVONE, HALLER & NIRO, LTD.
181 West Madison Street, Suite 4600
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 236-0733 Telephone
(312) 236-3137 Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.
David J. Healey
Lead Attorney
State Bar No. 09327980
david.healey@weil.com
Amber H. Rovner
State Bar No. 09223750
amber.rovner@weil.com
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
700 Louisiana, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
(713) 546-5000 Telephone
(713) 224-9511 Facsimile
Timothy E. DeMasi
tim.demasi@weil.com
Ryan R. Owens
ryan.owens@weil.com
Brian Eutermoser
brian.eutermoser@weil.com
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
(212) 310-8000 Telephone
(212) 310-8007 Facsimile
Anwar Imam
anwar.imam@weil.com
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
(650) 802-3000 Telephone
(650) 802-3100 Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Case 2:07-cv-00144-DF-CE Document 65 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who
have consented to electronic service on this the 29th day of July, 2008.
/s/ Ryan R. Owens
Ryan R. Owens
- - - - -
View Replies »
Todd Bishop looks like the first of the bloggers to make mention of the settlement.
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/144577.asp
« Microsoft huddles with university researchers | Main
Microsoft has reached a settlement in a patent-infringement lawsuit filed last year by Vertical Computer Systems, according to a filing by the mediator in the case: PDF, 1 page. The Fort Worth, Texas, company's complaint alleged that Microsoft's .Net development system violated a patent issued to Vertical in November 2004.
The court docket doesn't reveal financial details or other information about the settlement. I've contacted a Microsoft representative and Vertical Computer's lawyer, and I'll update this post depending on the response.
Here's a copy of the original complaint: PDF, 4 pages. This InfoWorld article from last year has more background on the case.
(Thanks to the tipster who alerted me to this.)
amoroushttp://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=215908
| Msg. 215908 of 216090 Jump to msg. # |
| MEDIATOR’S REPORT A mediation conference was held on July 24, 2008. All proper parties attended. The case has settled and the parties are in the process of circulating documents for appropriate signatures, and to be filed with the Court. Signed this 25th day of July, 2008. /s/ James W. Knowles JAMES W. KNOWLES, MEDIATOR NICE because... VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS...THE BEST IS YET TO COME! RR IMO |
brightI lost my damn glasses so I won't be able to accompany this with my usual cut and paste pâté but I thought all you 50 or so people out there might like to see what a ResponseFlash is about.
http://www.vcsy.com/pands/responseflash.php
Product Description |
ResponseFlash™ provides a unique solution through its "massive affiliation" technology for supporting hundreds or thousands of Web sites that may have complex relationships with each other. The ResponseFlash™ architecture is based on VCSY's underpinning SiteFlash™ , proprietary web technology, which has been proven with an existing installed base of customers in multiple industries for more than five years.
A typical ResponseFlash™ installation will create a main portal site for emergency services and multiple departmental Web sites for related agencies, such as local fire, police, health care and other entities. Each agency or department using the system can have complete control of its own site content, discussion forums, user security profiles, event calendars, look and feel, and structure without being forced to purchase or maintain its own applications for these things. At the same time, the main portal can retain the ability to "flash" emergency content updates to each departmental site if necessary, depending on its relationship with each agency. Individual agencies and departments can also share content and design templates among themselves.
ResponseFlash™ also helps to contain costs and speed development for custom integration requirements by encapsulating application logic as standard components that can instantly be applied to all of the affiliate sites in the system. Each affiliate site can be given the choice of whether they want to use these standard components or not, or may be forced to accept certain components. ResponseFlash™ security capabilities make it easy to restrict access to entire sites, areas within sites, pages within areas, and individual components of a page, such as restricted discussion forums or other content, based on the user's security profile.
Critical Characteristics
The target implementation for ResponseFlash™ is security and Emergency Response applications. The technology was designed in response to government agencies' desire to meet their ideal needs for a communication system specialized in all types of emergencies, including Homeland Security. The final product not only provides a proprietary mechanism for rapidly deploying a large number of Emergency Response web sites with advanced communication capabilities to government agencies, but also incorporates a unique system architecture that allows for the collection and dissemination of information (i.e. web pages, forums, Q&A, e-mail, videos, pictures, voice, etc.) through the Internet to and from many devices (i.e. desktop PC's, laptops, PDA's, cellular phones, pagers, Blackberries, etc.).
Typically, ResponseFlash™ is selected for a number of reasons including the following:
In the government arena, ResponseFlash™ lets each government agency operate as a fully autonomous site, a semi-autonomous site, or a completely non-autonomous site, depending on its unique staffing and budgetary situation. ResponseFlash™ not only allows for the communication up and down the organization, but it provides for communication between organizational units without having to go through the entire organization structure. For example department A can communicate with department W without passing through respective supervisors. The software rules allow for selected groups to enter information for general users or to restrict information to only authorized users; it also allows authorized users to add additional information in response to inquires that will be broadcast to all users that have a need to know.
-------------
So I can't see diddly squat without the glasses. Good thing Mavis taught me to touch type. Anywho, I would like to walk through the ResponseFlash description and compare what 744 says, but maybe later when I find said glasses.
BUT, I did see this: "has been proven with an existing installed base of customers in multiple industries for more than five years."
"Patent troll" my ass.
caffeinatedI normally won't post things like this because anybody can claim to be anything. RagingBull is a place where you can say you're anything you want to appear to be. Some can back it up. Others can't.
This guy says he'll be at the Markman Hearing so I would suspect he's genuine. But, I leave it to the reader to take what's said for the reader's self.
Either way, the skeptics had the post deleted. I would suspect such fear of information adds more weight to the poster's words than even meeting him at the Markman Hearing.
| Msg. 215316 of 215319 Jump to msg. # |
------------------
END
And, because it's my place and I love the attention, I'm posting this here from Raging Bull. Actually, the real reason is I love to read my own writing and I believe it to be worth reading for everyone.
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=215392
| Msg. 215392 of 215393 Jump to msg. # |
| Classic post (copy and paste) from Portuno! DC- "who wants to discuss the mystery of how the tech and investment worlds have managed to miss the significance of the VCSY patent litigation - as indicated by their lack of interest in buying the stock even at such bargain basement prices - when the world-shaking magnitude of the litigation is so obvious to the relatively less plugged-in denizens of this message board?" You first have to explain whether the claims are bogus or not. If they are not, what you are watching is the grand brainfart of all time on the part of technological journalists. If the standing VCSY patents have are fundamental to the operation of web-based applications, we would doubtless hear such from expert journalists, would we not? I agree. What's wrong? I suspect the only real "journalists" out there are people who work for someone who sells advertising to the larger software houses. Thus... conflict of interest in the editorial suite. It would be akin to the court reporter's journal receiving ads from mafia leaders. It is that level of 'report by report'. Or has VCSY granted stories to journalists already and they are patiently waiting for their promised dated byline? Either way, there's a huge reason why a journalist's editor would act that way. And there's some sort of huge reason a magazine article on MSDN would be written in July 2006 and posted in June 2007. Why have they not written about it? I think every one of the large software houses wished upon hope and plucked four leaf clovers hoping upon wish that VCSY would simply go belly up and the party could begin. (photo right: Nice socks) Any one of them active in XML research who claim they knew nothing of VCSY or their technology are bald faced liars. Not just speak with forked tongue. Got two whole sets of faces, Tonto. Ummm. Me know how fix Buffalo With Four Horns. Make buffalo butt itch. Scratch butt, bleed to death. No scratch butt, make head fall off. I think the big software houses were waiting for VCSY to collapse. LOOK at the damn thing. It looks like they need to go out and collect cans and pop bottles to stay alive. Can you imagine having to try to do your business in the shadow of a billion dollar giant. Hell, One? Let's say at least ten because VCSY technology impacts so many software producers I wouldn't know where to start counting. And that's just their software disruption. And that's just in software. Look at the Fiber Optic patent and think through that one. Do a google of cruz+fiber+optic and tell me the hits don't keep coming. Think a bit and then we can begin to answer your question: why doesn't anybody know? Why? I believe because the reputation of the company was damaged in the early years and very few people believe anything anybody says about VCSY anymore. There are only ~350 loyal readers on the laughing place #2. That's not many people knowing something. Oh wait. We HAD 350 up until a few Wednesdays ago. Then, all of a sudden, there were another 350+ hits on top of that who dropped in on one day to check things out. They were gone shortly after but the bandwidth has gone up. So SOMEbody got curious in a "departmental" sense it would appear. But it's still a very tiny number to have any interest in VCSY at this time when the company had such a spectacular fall from grace in March 2000... when DC and the rest said the company was a scam. Tsk tsk tsk... unknowingly (no doubt) setting the stage for the denuding of company reputation such that with world wide patent announcements STILL a website for VCSY information gets only 350 loyal (and 350+ surprise guests in one day) visitors a day. Peanuts. No wonder nobody believes the story... no money in the bank. No mention of contracts and no PRs saying anybody is even interested. No wonder recy stuck to that line and refused to read anything else. When you read the rest of the story, you see the big smiley face pasted on the bumper of the car about to run the “technology” world down. And what of the rest of the world? Like you say, patents fall on their face every day. They may sound great on paper but flop on the ground. Your own software houses advise engineers and programmers to not read patents so they don't gum up their creative juices. No. Leave that to the MBAs who will decide whether a market is just too tantalizing to pass up even if it means waiting years for an old fart to keel over. Meanwhile, you stall your customers who know SOMETHING isn't right. Especially the software developers called OEMs. Man, when they find out whether those patents are bunk or real, you won't have to worry about us longs screaming bloody murder. Hoooo boy. You're a reasonable guy, DC-Steve. Tepe says the fiber optic patent is bunk. He admits he is a mechanical engineer with no knowledge of optics or electronics. But, he stands on his opinion though he absolutely refuses to read or discuss evidence seen explaining how the Cruz patent can be done. But he says the cruz patent to move whole images through a single fiber of current technology optical class is impossible. The patent admits it's been impossible for a hundred years. But VCSY got the patent on the idea and the activity and the results. And nobody else has. Would the industry stand still for that if the patent were bogus? Look at the googles again and you'll see some of the pinged hits are on things like looking at a moirre mesh through a single fiber to test for power and current and stress. Think about it. No wires from the instrument to the computer. Just individual hairs of glass fiber. Microsopic. Cruz was an automation engineer to begin with and I would think he would have stumbled on this way of looking at images while trying to come up with a way for a fiber end to "see" refractive images in say strain gauge material and "image" it back at the electronic sensor inches, feet, miles away without electricity. I read something tonight that shows me how it's done (it's sitting out in the open like eveery other elephant Wade's been hiding) and it's so god awful easy to see I want to kick MyOwnass for not seeing it sooner. We use the same aberrance correction methods in giving modern adaptive optical telescopes better eyesight. Cruz knows how to do this through an atmosphere of glass. A C:!######## stroke of genius old man. Bravo! $#!@ I'm tingly all over. I wonder how wrong we all are on the software patents. DC-Steve, You're seemingly a more reasonable person and must admit there is a very slim chance the fiber optic patent is workable. I know you called the company a scam some time in the past, but we're not talking here about their business construct or execution. We're talking about technology and its relevance to modern industry. If the VCSY technology (both fiber optic patent and software patents) really is baloney then we've all been wasting our time. But, if it's real, and we see what is predicted by our scenarios, namely that the large Software houses are all sitting there waiting to see if they're going to put out their own versions of the web-application age once Microsoft makes up their mind when they're going to introduce the first "web-applications product"... Here they all are after trying to build those kinds of things (things made real by the patent methods) since 2001 and failing... and all of them are fielding betas since starting last october-november (Microsoft is just now fielding alphas - methinks they thought they could avoid the snare in october-november but it sprang in the spring) and... what's holdign them back? Why aren't they out there elbowing each other in the gut claiming to have the first product out on the street. It looks like horses shoved into stalls waiting for the little guy on top to kick the ribs and lunge out of the gate. Funny, ain't it? There are journalists out there alluding to the tension and the uncertainty and the sheer weirdness of the current web-technology world, but they can't quite put their fingers on "IT". Meanwhile IBM is chugging along just fine and VCSy is waiting quite patiently (given the number of products that violate the XML Agent patent AND the SiteFlash patent showing out in the magazines now). If it's not real then hundreds and may have thousands made a big mistake and we all did the mass-deluded koolaid party of Guyana look like tea with the mad hatter. We was WRONG if those patents are bogus. Harry Truman is said to have remarked he wished he had a one-armed economic advisor on his staff so he wouldn't have to hear "on the other hand". If the patents are real, then, everybody made some huge mistakes over the last seven years and there will be a whole lot of quesions why. Keeping something a secret for so long only acts to strengthen the intoxicating effect like aged wine. This will be rich. Tepe says it's a scam. He says the fiber optic patent is impossible and tells everyone it's evidence Wade is a scammer and a thief. He says we pumpers are stealing from people if they buy VCSY stock. But VCSY didn't steal the patent(s). Some might think VCSY stole the patents but VCSY told the patent office, yep everybody says this is impossible but here's how you do it. And the patent office (not just one lone examiner sat up in his leather chair in the patent office attic poring over dusty volumes. This false image plays toward the cynicism of the 'patents are for losers' crowd and clouds the truth.) said, ok Mister Cruz, you get the one patent everybody else would be willing to swap nuglets for. You people portray the world in the most simplistic way when it fits your purpose. The patent office examination involves many opportunities from all sides with expert opinions on each side. If you folks believe the patent office can grant VCSY a patent for an optical phenomena that folks have theorized can be done using a method of image projection IBM played around with a couple decades ago. Crux was an IBM employee at some time in the past. You employers who have that clause in your "intellectual property" that tells the inventive soul in your employ every new idea he has on your time (hell... even on HIS time) belongs to YOU... you know who you all are. Lemmings that jump off the cliff because your mother says so. You're a bunch of nitwits lead by fools with MBA's. What you effectively do is drive the inventor out of your company to work on an idea you'll never understand until after he's gained venture capital. And you STILL won't know what to do because you're lead in the technology business (or any other vertical) by people who know MONEY but don't know your discipline or vertical. Big deal you say. Big deal I say because YOU get only the story THEY want you to hear... and you on your fat butt (not you DC-Steve, I speak allegorically regarding the various flabby and distended body parts so evident in Mister Technology's spandex and lycra) think you're doing just fine. And then somebody like IBM sneaks up behind you and steals your rabbits in broad daylight and we can all see you now out in the moonlight building cages so the neighbors won't think you were an irresponsible nut for keeping those bunnies in a kiddie pool. I guess nobody told you When it rains, the pool fills up and the rabbits can swim and climb out. They did. Now you're hammering chicken wire and two by fours up on the barn to keep invisible rabbits. Acropolis? Avalon? Going somewhere? Somebody almost got what they wanted from VCSY... or at least it certainly looks that way. I feel quite violated as a shareholder that larger companies wanted to TAKE VCSY... not buy. I didn't hear any cases of Microsoft or Sun or Apple or Yahoo or Google ASKING to BUY VCSY, have you? I would think even the sniff of even ONE of those individual companies asking Doc Wade for a menu and a price sheet would rate a x-K of some sort of filing, wouldn't you? Are you telling me if Microsoft said, 'Hey, Rick. What say you guys put yourselfs up for sale.' and shareholders of a battered penny stock are not told, the CEO could walk away with his skin? Nope. He would have to make at least some noise especially if the 'sale' talk fell through. So somebody wanted to get what they had (you're telling me the top Tech houses did NOT want the patent material? You're not that stupid, DC. You're smarter than that and you know what the patents say the web-applications technologies should look like is getting to be so obvious it's like parading) and somebody tried to make that happen (ask judge Solomon what she thought was going on in the CDC/Ross thing. Shes not a stupid woman. And she doesn't appear cowed as opposed to the bull$#!@ we had to put up with from the very start of that four year trial.). They almost took her down. They still could (at least, that's what it all looks like when you read their listings. I know what all that's about and you know what all that's about because bad competition is bad, okay?) and so we wait each day with word of whether VCSy is going to survive and is there news on who mugged her in her own place of business. Now. IF the technology is bull$#!@ then case closed and VCSY goes away. Now. Prove the technology bull$#!@. Your turn. VCSY has been dying for years because people like Microsoft and Sun and Apple and Yahoo were keeping a death vigil on VCSY in hopes their intellectual property would fall from Emily's unclenched fingers as she breathed her last corporate entity. That's not just an opinion, I think that can be shown using public records aka their very own marketing materials since 2000. Hey, There's no crime in knowing somebody's going to die. You can sit inches from them while they go through the pangs of the last rattle and be the pope the next day and nobody says anything... until they find out you took something from off the person and copied it some time ago and had it stored in a closet... so that would be ready and able to put out in the open as theirs the day AFTER the sickie dies. One BIG problem. She didn't die and blow away and, man, there are some pissed off people out there who would give almost everything (still might) to have their way with the technology. And now? I say they're having to wait for Microsoft to make the deal then they can all be off to the greyhound races chasing the bunny for a big bite of hare pie. Don't like what we're saying? Prove us wrong. The first thing we need to do is prove the technology is pointless or useless and we'll all know. We've all been asking for somebody to do just that and the only ones we've had on this board are a debotched career 'techie' who we don't know who we're talking to who can't get to first base on the first question: Explain how VCSY patent language and VCSY technical language and business are invalid in the current SaaS CaaS Services as a Service world. Do it. We dare you. All we need is a hefty like Walter Mossberg (how C:$!### appropriate THAT name is. I couldn't have picked that name for its irony at this point in the technology "know" state if I had made it up in a fantasized life.) willing to take the patent language apart. Or maybe a mister feeblefritz on one of the science channels take the single image over optical fiber story and dash it to the rocks below. Then we poor deluded minnions of mmmmpphhh will go home and unplug the computers. Well, I'm waiting for the proof. Heck. Just take the patents to an expert and ask them what they think it can do and then tell us what they said. I want to hear every laugh and ridicule word for word so we can gauge how severe is our psychosis. HA. This has been fun. I get the feeling it's about to get more fun. I have only one question: Mister Cruz, what did it feel like when you “saw” the way to do it? LOL I think the question being asked amongst some people is this: How much has VCSY been damaged by being forced to work unknown all these seven years? How many of the big software houses would find our technology valuable? How many of the automation companies would find our hardware technology valuable? How much of the computer hardware market would likely have already been creating the products we're see now back then and flourishing all this time had VCSY been allowed to work without fear of being taken out? I think that's the question that's really on everybody's mind and for some it will be a bittersweet reminder that people who want something badly enough to try to take it will squirm to the end of any opportunity if it buys them one more day of “grace” instead of truth. How much money have we shareholders in VCSY been forced to do without based on a pressure against the company that demanded they do their marketing and business in secret? How many shareholders were convinced to sell VCSY shares because they were told VCSY was a scam and told in very convincing ways? How many here know that now? How many who are not yet here will know that? What will their course of action be as I believe their experience will be simply bitter, having been told to bail out and listening to those voices instead of those who dug into information to demonstrate there was much more value to VCSY than was being portrayed. And who is responsible for driving the audience for VCSY capabilities into the dirt? The shareprice? Or the posters on message boards who charged VCSY was a scam? Both I say. And we should all look in to why the shareprice has been held so low and by whom. My interest (call it a hobby of mind to ferret out this kinds of people and stretching their hides out across the barn door to dry in the Sun, so to speak) is an entertainment and a hobby. One that consumes a lot of interest but I haven't been able to locate a reliable supply of hobby model paints so I am stymied in the construction of my plastic replica of the German Komet. Acht der flamenshtikken est fribenflotzam. So I have time on my hands often to peruse and meditate. I have read a number of very skillful posters who stayed on message day after day week after week month after month year after year since 2000-2001... for what purpose? but to alert everyone VCSY was a scam. Only one problem, the patents alone say this is no scam. And now we wait for DC-Steve to locate an expert in any of the areas (pick one and just prove that is a bust) covered by the patents or even the pending patent which is a language builder to enable building semantic web-languages like mister Tim more than one last name said could be done. Just like DARPA requires but must have enabled. I'm darn glad all these people have finally gotten down to being able to do the enabling. Now we can get down to business. How much is the projected business income for the next generation of software businesses and services? We want a fair portion of that. Now, we're not getting greedy. If Microsoft can pay 7 billion for a second banana, what would they need to pay to cover a banana split? Let's see. A billion shares divided by 10 billion? Or is it the other way around? Any MBAs around here to hep us out? I don't know a whole lot about money. I just know about technology and people's habits. Oh!Oh! The chief 'intelligentsia' of the software world have not spoken so these are all bosh and boobles! I forget about that. They are all so wise. Ohhhh so wise. And they can't figure a way out of the trap. They're trapped DC. That's why you don't hear anyone saying anything. They need to keep their mouths shut and their noses clean and say “yes-sir” when asked do you want to stay in business. Sounds crazy? We have a number of days ahead to dig for clues. There seems to be another every day and things continue to be clear. And the funny part is, the first good PR from VCSY will be “Microsoft settles with VCSY” OR “Microsoft tells VCSY to take a hike”. Either way, the REST of the audience that were convinced by many here VCSY would fade into oblivion will get to watch right here on this board and on the news boards as VCSY turns to the rest of the software houses and say “Microsoft is feeling frisky.” OR “Microsoft feels lucky.” Either way, I don't think EVERY CEO out there is stupid. Just a handful of bad apples and cracked nuts. I got a jolt tonight when I finally “saw” how the fiber optic patent can work beyond conjugate waveform synthesis (which I believe could be used to “see” three d with only one fiber given the nature of the method I believe is being used – THIS is an exponential expansion of the fundamental “see the image through a single fiber' concept and is not at all difficult to breadboard once you understand what's being attempted. Why struggle? Buy a license and hook up you're “image sensing” applications and you can drop all the imaging chips and image processing electronics. Boom. Another slam on the chip making industry. Also another incredible opportunity for synergy and idea creation. Surface could do tactile imaging unimagined right now.). The fiber optic patent is so incredibly easy decipher now I am hesitant to tell what I think as it makes it possible for teenage kids familiar with laser techniques to cobble together ideas on their own. But, isn't that what innovation is? And innovation may be destructive or regenerative. So let the kids play as ideas will make the cruz fiber an incredibly useful invention I would compare to the transistor or the laser in potential impact. At the same time, there are a set of hurdles and knowledges the average teen would have to acquire and THAT is what is precious and what separates the men from the noodles. Those hurdles certainly do not face the fiber and microscopic imaging field as the techniques indicated in my scenario of the Cruz patent theory are extremely simple to implement in today's component technology. Now I understand why it doesn't use electrical power. It only needs sources of light to illuminate the object being looked at (if it's microscopic, you can shine a light on if from the fiber optic hair illuminated at the “viewing” end. If it's big as a house or a spaceship, you need more light, but you can still see it easily enough. Today there are telescopes that shine a reference layer into the atmosphere to build a “star” image in the sky. Looking at that star image and adjusting the shape of the collecting mirror at the astronomer's end per every variation of the reference star projected on (through actually) the atmosphere above the astronomer's head, allows the lighted image from the other end of the atmosphere (before the light from the reference laser reaches into vacuum) to be seen clearly. Mister Cruz has likely conquered the aberrated medium of glass fiber in essentially a manner akin to the way astronomers have de-burred the aberrations of the atmosphere. Now, that may not be the way it's actually done, but, because we have a thought model to pick over and debate in technological terms, the FO patent is a reality whether folks choose to believe it or not. And if it is a reality, it also means it doesn't need the kind of sensor-end complexity first imagined when thinking through a workable solution based on no information. If my scenario is correct, we should see the ability to find sensors comprising a single fiber to a spot to be monitored or analyzed or measured and see the ability to convey complex information from the sensor to the monitoring equipment. We start seeing just such items when we look at a few of the hits on google Cruz+fiber+optic. Light the image at the other end with lasers from the observing end with a reference laser to measure the aggregated distortion, subtract that information from the received waveform and presto bingoo you have yourself a reflective image transported through an aberrated media. Throw in conjugate waveform generation (you only need four lasers for any of this stuff – 1 reference, 3 variable 'color') Now, at the 'looking end' of the fiber, put a piece of polarized plastic. Glue a couple points on the plastic to the machine and you now have a spot-on stress analysis sensor. The stress could be heat induced mechanical motion. The heat could be induced by power loss in a circuit, do a bit of fourier analysis on the data the image of the strain gauge represents and you can measure for voltage and current (power) on anything from transformers to chip substrates. I'm waiting for only one individual to provide a convincing view that the fiber optic patent is a hoax. If you're waiting on tepe to supply references and referential information, hold your breath... and try not to laugh. Ask yourself, Why would Microsoft make this video poking fun of themselves? The tide is turning! Imo (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy) |
luckyEven greater affirmation patent 6826744 is a foundational work. Thanks to baveman.
Abstract
The present invention enables the creation, management, retrieval, distribution and massively large collections of information that can be shared across a distributed network without building absolute references or even pre-existing knowledge of the data and data structures being stored in such an environment. The system includes the following components: (1) a ‘flat’ data model wherein arbitrarily complex structures can be instantiated within a single memory allocation (including both the aggregation arrangements and the data itself, as well as any cross references between them via ‘relative’ references); (2) a run-time type system capable of defining and accessing binary strongly-typed data; (3) a set of ‘containers’ within which information encoded according to the system can be physically stored and preferably include a memory resident form, a file-based form, and a server-based form; (4) a client-server environment that is tied to the types system and capable...
Abstract
The present invention enables the creation, management, retrieval, distribution and massively large collections of information that can be shared across a distributed network without building absolute references or even pre-existing knowledge of the data and data structures being stored in such an environment. The system includes the following components: (1) a ‘flat’ data model wherein arbitrarily complex structures can be instantiated within a single memory allocation (including both the aggregation arrangements and the data itself, as well as any cross references between them via ‘relative’ references); (2) a run-time type system capable of defining and accessing binary strongly-typed data; (3) a set of ‘containers’ within which information encoded according to the system can be physically stored and preferably include a memory resident form, a file-based form, and a server-based form; (4) a client-server environment that is tied to the types system and capable...
