What's prior art when you have a Da Vinci?
Mood:
a-ok
Now Playing: Flaming Furries - Skunks get too close to basement furnace and become frantic stink bombs (awful scenes)
Topic: Growth Charts
Did you ever get through with a conversation and say "gee, I wish I had said..."? Well, the Yahoo posting forum format doesn't allow for much follow up because, when you do follow up, those who don't want you to read can easily bury the comments with their own innane postings.
So, if you can't stomach reading the Yahoo VCSY board (believe me. more sympathetic I could not be.), I thought you might need to see the MVC discussion from Yahoo put in a more capsulated view.
Therefore, I'll chop and paste my words of relevant revelation to the heathen who rage too much.
PLUS, there are things I wanted to say after I had already posted there, so these posts distilled into this post will also have additional verbiage by me and some editorial corrections (also by me - it's all about me, me, me.).
Concerned about authenticity and purity? Read the Yahoo posts associated with the timestamps to see just what is new and what is old.
So, (just imagine you've dropped into the middle of a conversation).
begin thread: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?
m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4155&mid=4155&tof=5&rt=1&frt=1&off=1
pick up @ 14-May-08 02:37 pm
portuno: Can ANYBODY tell us what is "gibberish" about the claims in 744?
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6826744
sw_mail: Yes, 744 is a framework that implements the MVC design pattern, first described by Trygve Reenskaug in 1979. Yet, 744 is dated 2004. The facts hurt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-view-controller
computerguy: I'm a professional Java developer who does a lot of work with MVC in Swing GUIs. I had no idea the pattern was that old. Thanks for the link!
portuno: Notice the "professional Java developer" makes my case all by himself with the words: "does a lot of work with MVC in Swing GUIs".
We're talking about much more than a GUI model controller, "computerguy". We're talking about extending what facility and wonders MVC can accomplish with interfaces into the actual fabric and material of the elements being used to construct the applications.
Read the next post then see if you can understand where you shot whoever sent sw_mail the link before the guy even got out the door.
portuno: MVC
LOL
This is going to be good.
"In MVC, the Model represents the information (the data) of the application and the business rules used to manipulate the data, the View corresponds to elements of the user interface such as text, checkbox items, and so forth, and the Controller manages details involving the communication to the model of user actions such as keystrokes and mouse movements."
If MVC desribes any prior art,m it is prior art already accounted for in the Siteflash patent in the discussion about content management as a prior art.
MVC
A) Model - information (the data AND the business rules - in other words the workflow)
B) View - elements of the user interface
C) Controller - activity manager between the model and the user.
Thus, an interface control mechanism.
SiteFlash
A) Content - information (the data)
B) Format (the form in which the data is presented)
C) functionality (the workflows applied to the data within the format)
Thus, an integrated application.
Very telling the list of MVC implementations is so large, yet, the patent examiner never made any reference to any of those listed. Also very telling, the list of MVC implementation is very large, yet, none of those implementations is capable of creating anything as integrated in all three facets of software construction.
If you haven't noticed, MVC forgets about the "functional program". MVC occupies the space between the modeled program behaviour and the user as an interface controller... not as a functionality integrator.
Siteflash treats the program as simply another component to be integrated with content and format. MVC assumes you already have the program crammed together with the content (and we know that doesn't work in "arbitrary" ways - precisely why all those implementations listed are proprietary programming languages and not capable of handling all components in an arbitrary fashion.
portuno: This: "In MVC, the Model represents the information (the data) of the application and the business rules used to manipulate the data, the View corresponds to elements of the user interface such as text, checkbox items, and so forth, and the Controller manages details involving the communication to the model of user actions such as keystrokes and mouse movements."
Is THAT what Microsoft lawyers are going to hang the company's future on?
So, please explain how this achieves an arbitrated framework for ANY content, ANY format and ANY functionality of an application.
You're dong what even Microsoft did in challenging this patent - you're using easily seen abstracts to blow smoke over the deeper values in virtualization and the arbitrating quality that virtualization has on the components of an application construction.
If MVC were an architecture like 744, there would BE no individual proprietary languages as listed in the wiki article. The need for the incremental refinements offered by those languages would have been swallowed up in one MVC framework capable of presenting all languages as one arbitrated field of commands.
And, if the patent examiner missed that one, you'll have to explain how Microsoft failed to adequately challenge the patent when they tried the first time.
Basically what you've got in MVC is a pattern generator. What you have in 744 is an ecology creator for full development of applications during the entire life cycle as contained in the application. The development ecology IS the application... and you can't get that out of MVC.
Nice try but it's most likely Microsoft is going to be shoveling dirt into the oncoming tide with that stance.
But, we're glad somebody out there is sending you clowns some script material. You've been sucking your own incompetence before somebody came to your rescue.
So, your turn. Demonstrate, please, precisely how and where MVC supercedes what 744 claims to do.
sw_mail: And how does the .net framework violate 744?
portuno: Did I step on your toes?
end thread.
I guess I stepped on sw_mail's fingers. Or else he's trying to find more script from some more relevant engineer.
Here's another conversation.
begin thread @ http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?
m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4186&mid=4186&tof=8&frt=1
pick up at 14-May-08 03:35 pm
sw_mail: And how does the .net framework violate 744?
(me: this appears to be a big question for sw_mail aka computerguy aka vcsy_is_pest).
portuno: Read this: http://www.microsoft-match.com/content/developer/net_35_sp1_changes_your_expression.html
and we'll talk later after you catch your breath.
portuno: BUT of course you really need to know software architecture and understand what you're reading both in a patent and in technical specifications.
That was just a wikipedia article about MVC but it tells the story in a basic way for laymen. Once you do some exploration, you realize why all the traditional procedural languages never advanced into the web-application arena SiteFlash and MLE/Emily occupy.
No wonder it looks "obvious". It looks almost like what they do when they build a GUI. Except, Siteflash isn't a GUI nor a GUI builder alone. SiteFlash is a developmental ecology for applications. It's a creating framework for building other creating frameworks from which operating systems and applications and, yes, even more MVC fashioned languages can be built.
The idea is that you can plug any content you have, any (what the patent is meaning when you read "arbitrary". just say "any" when you read "arbitrary" and you'll beging to see the scope. It's a virtualization platform for any content and format. In other words a Microsoft "Expression" but more. ONE OF THE THINGS Siteflash can do is to act as a content/format manager for any website you want to connect to any legacy equipment you have. BUT WAIT! Content managers or ok but it's been done before. In fact, it's what ALL there is in that "designer" discipline.
Microsoft missed a great opportunity to combine their Visual Studio's development platform with their Expression designer platform. Imagine being able to be a designer AND a developer AT THE SAME FREAKING TIME.
They didn't but SiteFlash can. So we now have the concept of a stylist who can build functionality where before, with the kind of programming environments Java Joe has at his hands, anyone that wants to build an application has to have someone to build the programming code and someone completely different building the content into a formatted web page. If the two of you work well, you can build some pretty fantastic web services - of course Microsoft is going to have to perfect their interoperable capabilities over internet. They can't even demonstrate much of it in their own proprietary ranks, much less doing that kind of thing on the web.
SiteFlash offers, at one level, precisely what any web designer would like to be able to do... without a programmer. Content, format is old hat. That's what MVC represents; automating the display of content. Call it Automatic Television. That's what Microsoft's future is going to be because they can't combine the kind of virtualization architecture to allow them to combine content and format AND functionality.
AND THAT is only the beginning.
I do appreciate the gift sw_mail gave all us VCSY longs since it's the only piece of "prior art" any skeptic has pointed to that somewhat looks like SiteFlash.
But, MVC really doesn't even look like SiteFlash once you actually read the material. And it certainly doesn't do what SiteFlash can do. Those who are passing MVC around as a "prior art" are doing an intellectually dishonest service to those they pass that idea around to, or they really do not know what needs to be done in the software construction arena to meet next-generation needs.
So, now that we know where the "prior art" is, perhaps we can have some real developers (and I mean REAL developers) study the information on the vaunted MVC methodology, then come back and give it to the 744 patent with both barrels.
Come on, guys and gals. ONE of you must have the hot sauce to argue the situation. I mean, you're all betting your careers that Microsoft doesn't need something like SiteFlash.
And, if you're open-source, you're staring at something that could strip your third-party business to the carcass very quickly.
end thread.
There's much more but I'll wait a bit to post since you're going to need time for your little eyeballs to absorb it all.
Posted by Portuno Diamo
at 9:17 AM EDT
Updated: Friday, 16 May 2008 3:26 PM EDT
happy
hug me
caffeinated
cool
don't ask
suave
Microsoft won't have a chance to experience Web 2.0 unless it pays up to use patent 744. The entire computing world, including Open Source, will have to pay up to use that billion dollar patent and only Vertical Computer System has it. 744 has a lock on XML, something that Vertical was smart enough to predict back in 1999.
Anyone who's listened to me for the last 8 years will become RICH beyond their wildest dreams, once Vertical comes out of "stealth" mode and Wade really lets the stock take off!