Wednesday, 2 May 2007 - 7:27 PM EDT

Sorry about the test---wanted to make sure you were still previewing these before they posted-----havnt been able to use this app in a while---I thought you permenantly turned it off.  I posted on 3 as anonymous until others chimed in as the same---now on a raft again---miss PH

Have you ever looked at the work of Charlie Northrup?

http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/38695.htm?CFID=510760&CFTOKEN=5749F03B-FEA1-C1E7-9E5C534F589A6074

Thursday, 3 May 2007 - 12:53 PM EDT

Yup. Nope. Comments are not off. There was some sort of glitch in the tripod configuration. The radio button said on but the reality said off. I wondered why it was so peaceful all that time.

The article you give the URL:

http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/38695.htm?CFID=510760&CFTOKEN=5749F03B-FEA1-C1E7-9E5C534F589A6074

for was published in Jan. 9, 2004 - some  11 months before the VCSY SiteFlash patent was granted.

Given Northrup's claims it looks like he's angling toward a web-based router system for state/destination selection at waypoints along the information workflow path. Kind of like a Babbage Engine ttp://www.maxmon.com/1830ad.htm on a distributable scale.

A previous article sheds a bit more light on what is out there.

http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/34967.htm

Here are some of Charles Northrup's patents in play:

5,850,518 December 15, 1998 Access-method-independent exchange

6,397,254 May 28, 2002 Access-method-independent exchange 3  

6,421,705 July 16, 2002 Service provider application program communicating with service provider application process 

I do not find an immediate crossing of these patents with what VCSY is claiming. I do, however, see a complementary role played by the claims of these patents and the two VCSY patents under discussion.

7,076,521  Web-based collaborative data collection system

As I see it, integrated into one operating structure, 6,826,744 provides a means for building virtual computers out of distributed web-pages making up a composite application while 7,076,521 provides the granular engine for building out the distributed actuation to enable and empower the various nodal requirements of the assembled 'virtual' machine.

The Northrup patents appear to build a virtualized network structure upon which the VCSY patents may run on this virtualized network just as hardware network routers and wiring do so in the 'real' world.

Real. HA. What's that to a virtual world? 

Essentially SiteFlash (6,826,744) holds the congregated distributed components together as an aggregated entity. XML Agent (7,076,521) provides the micro-kernels necessary to destroy what cohesive capability any applications may have when deployed from a proprietary position to work on the web.

I know that's a mouthful but since very few are reading I might as well say the whole mouthful. Most will never understand what is happening around them, thus, they will continue working and developing toward VCSY's ultimate caress.

One salient point to notice about these two VCSY patents: These are both issued at a later time than the above Northrup patents and were most likely examined in the light of what those patents teach.

I would not be surprised to find VCSY's patents were given a more solid footing by the Northrup's patents. Any and all who think they have a claim to web-applications and web-base computers should perhaps sit back and take a breather and think through what all these patents say to those so used to proprietary operating environments that they have forgotten the definition between 'hardware' and 'virtual'.

As the concepts stand, Vista could be put on a chip and provide a place for Vista compatible applications to run. Pretty limited purvue if you aks me. If the above patents were put on a chip, they could be anything to anybody. 

Nuff said.

Thursday, 3 May 2007 - 1:57 PM EDT

And to put an even finer point on the discussion, it appears somebody was keen to get to the meat of the matter in early 2006. as they look at

There is an article I came across mentioning patents belonging to Charlie Northrup, who had given an exclusive license to Equinom back in 2004, and the CEO of Equinom then was Tim Negris. He is now with SCO, and they have an edge services product line. Here's the article:

 http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=38695

Reference the timeline and draw your own conclusions.

Note, I've cleaned out the HTML formatting on this as the comments here don't allow HTML (there's just no telling where some things will take one) and if I deleted anything of substance, let me know.

From:
http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/priorart-discuss/attachments/20060320/57f48f02/attachment-0001.htm

In fact, I answered your questions.

The opinion of the sender is irrelevant as to whether one has an obligation to send prior art to the USPTO - that is why I said if the art is material it would be forwarded. Most practitioners, including ours, would send prior art in to the USPTO, regardless of materiality, erring on the side of caution. But the fact is, if the art is merely redundant of what is already of record, there is no obligation or need to send it to the USPTO.

We do not actively refuse or ignore communications. As for mechanisms to receive prior art, every patent application includes the contact information for the attorney of record.

If there is some point to all of this, I suggest you contact me directly as this is not directly relevant to the forum topic.

Manny W. Schecter
Associate General Counsel
Intellectual Property Law
IBM Corporation
schecter@us.ibm.com
Voice: 914-765-4260 (TL 251)
Fax: 914-765-4290 (TL 251)
Assistant: Kathy Koblosh x4106


----------

John M Stec
stec@bytelaw.com
Sent by: priorart-discuss-bounces@lists.osdl.org
03/20/2006 09:03 AM

Please respond to stec and OSS and USPTO prior art discussions

To priorart-discuss@lists.osdl.org
cc
Subject
[priorart-discuss] RE: priorart-discuss
Digest, Vol 3, Issue 13

So, you do not want to or are unable to answer my questions?

All you seem to have done is to reiterate the statements that you made that spawned my questions. Perhaps you missed my points, so I will repeat them.

1. What would IBM's patent department do if it received a communication that advised it of prior art that the sender believed to be material to a particular pending application?

2. Does IBM have a mechanism to receive such art? Or does IBM have a policy to actively ignore or refuse such communications?





-----Original Message-----

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:09:31 -0600
From: John M Stec stec@bytelaw.com
Subject: [priorart-discuss] Question on IBM's policy on the receipt of
       
unsolicited prior art

What would IBM's patent department do if it received a communication that advised it of prior art that the sender believed to be material to a particular pending application? Does IBM have a mechanism to receive such art? Or does IBM have a policy to actively ignore or refuse such communications?

-----Original Message-----

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:59:42 -0500
From: Manny W Schecter schecter@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [priorart-discuss] Re: A question about prior art
To: OSS and USPTO prior art discussions
       
priorart-discuss@lists.osdl.org

You can generally do as you propose, but it is not really satisfactory.

If you send the prior art to the inventor, they are indeed obligated to notify the USPTO - assuming the prior art would be material to examination of the patent application (if, for example, the prior art is merely redundant of prior art already of record, there is no olbigation of citation). However, one would need to keep record of having sent the art to the inventor to later prove one did so should the inventor not in fact cite it to the USPTO. In addition, citation by the inventor will not necessarily explain to the patent examiner the full significance of the prior art and the patent examiner might not appreciate same. That's why pending legislation calls for third parties to be able to submit prior art directly to the patent examiner, including commentary as to relevance (which today is not permitted).

I suppose you could copy the USPTO, but why? If you are going to copy the USPTO, why not just send directly to the USPTO and omit sending to the inventor? And you still have the problem I refer to above - you cannot explain the relevance of the prior art to the patent examiner. Any such explanation is removed by the USPTO.

Manny W. Schecter
Associate General Counsel
Intellectual Property Law
IBM Corporation
schecter@us.ibm.com
Voice: 914-765-4260 (TL 251)
Fax: 914-765-4290 (TL 251)
Assistant: Kathy Koblosh x4106




------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:24:53 -0800
From: Pamela Jones pj@groklaw.com
Subject: [priorart-discuss] Re: a question about prior art
To: priorart-discuss@lists.osdl.org
Message-ID: 441DE844.2020904@groklaw.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

I am aware that this is what the community patent project will be doing. But there are patents right now that need addressing, in my view. And I would like to address them before they are granted.

Apple for example has apparently just applied for a couple of patents that seem to cover some aspect of RSS.

And there are some patents that might be in some way becoming part of the SCO story, via Tim Negris and the Me Inc stuff, having to do with web services. These are already granted, I think.  There is an article I came across mentioning patents belonging to Charlie Northrup, who had given an exclusive license to Equinom back in 2004, and the CEO of Equinom then was Tim Negris. He is now with SCO, and they have an edge services product line. Here's the article: http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=38695

*******************************

Equinom now has an exclusive license to Charlie's PDCX protocol ...which it's renamed PeerEdge. PeerEdge is a networking platform that melds the concepts of P2P, grid computing and web services into a single broadband network services environment for SMS, VOIP, transactional web services and systems and applications integration.


Equinom CEO Tim Negris points out that... With PeerEdge, the content stays with the owner. It doesn't get stashed on some server somewhere....
*********************************

Published January 9, 2004


That's the kind of patent that some prior art at the application stage might have been worthwhile to bring up.

PJ



priorart-discuss-request@lists.osdl.org wrote:

 Today's Topics:

  1. Re: A question about prior art (Pamela Jones)
  2. Re: Re: A question about prior art (Manny W Schecter)
  3. Re: Re: A question about prior art (Marc Ehrlich)


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 Message: 1
 Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 06:57:09 -0800
 From: Pamela Jones pj@groklaw.com
 Subject: [priorart-discuss] Re: A question about prior art
 To: priorart-discuss@lists.osdl.org
 Message-ID: 441D7145.40801@groklaw.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed


 I have a question about using prior art to invalidate a patent application. While we are waiting for everything to get set up and  begin running, if there were a patent application filed and one knew  about prior art, would it not work to send a letter to the filer telling him about it?

 Is the filer then not legally obligated to mention it to the PTO?

 If it would work, would it be worthwhile to cc the patent office, or do they ignore things like that?

 PJ

 ------------------------------

 Message: 2
 Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:59:42 -0500
 From: Manny W Schecter schecter@us.ibm.com
 Subject: Re: [priorart-discuss] Re: A question about prior art
 To: OSS and USPTO prior art discussions
         priorart-discuss@lists.osdl.org
 Message-ID:
         OF815264B7.F035A958-ON85257136.004BA5CC-85257136.004CE048@us.ibm.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

 You can generally do as you propose, but it is not really satisfactory.

 If you send the prior art to the inventor, they are indeed obligated to notify the USPTO - assuming the prior art would be material to examination of the patent application (if, for example, the prior art is merely redundant of prior art already of record, there is no olbigation of citation). However, one would need to keep record of having sent the art to the inventor to later prove one did so should the inventor not in fact cite it to the USPTO. In addition, citation by the inventor will not necessarily explain to the patent examiner the full significance of the prior art and the patent examiner might not appreciate same. That's why pending legislation calls for third parties to be able to submit prior art directly to the patent examiner, including commentary as to relevance (which today is not permitted).

 I suppose you could copy the USPTO, but why? If you are going to copy the USPTO, why not just send directly to the USPTO and omit sending to the inventor? And you still have the problem I refer to above - you cannot explain the relevance of the prior art to the patent examiner. Any such explanation is removed by the USPTO.

 Manny W. Schecter
 Associate General Counsel
 Intellectual Property Law
 IBM Corporation
 schecter@us.ibm.com
 Voice: 914-765-4260 (TL 251)
 Fax: 914-765-4290 (TL 251)
 Assistant: Kathy Koblosh x4106





 Pamela Jones pj@groklaw.com
 Sent by: priorart-discuss-bounces@lists.osdl.org
 03/19/2006 09:57 AM
 Please respond to
 OSS and USPTO prior art discussions


 To
 priorart-discuss@lists.osdl.org
 cc

 Subject
 [priorart-discuss] Re: A question about prior art


 I have a question about using prior art to invalidate a patent application. While we are waiting for everything to get set up and begin running, if there were a patent application filed and one knew about prior art, would it not work to send a letter to the filer telling him about it?

 Is the filer then not legally obligated to mention it to the PTO?

 If it would work, would it be worthwhile to cc the patent office, or do they ignore things like that?

 PJ

 -------------- next part --------------
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL:
http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/priorart-discuss/attachments/20060319/be5fd1
ff/attachment-0001.htm

 ------------------------------


Message: 4
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:35:33 -0800
From: Paul E. McKenney paulmck@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [priorart-discuss] Re: a question about prior art
To: OSS and USPTO prior art discussions
       
priorart-discuss@lists.osdl.org
Message-ID: 20060320053533.GA2079@us.ibm.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 03:24:53PM -0800, Pamela Jones wrote:
 I am aware that this is what the community patent project will be doing. But there are patents right now that need addressing, in my view. And I would like to address them before they are granted.

 Apple for example has apparently just applied for a couple of patents that seem to cover some aspect of RSS.

 And there are some patents that might be in some way becoming part of the SCO story, via Tim Negris and the Me Inc stuff, having to do with web services. These are already granted, I think.  There is an article I came across mentioning patents belonging to Charlie Northrup, who had given an exclusive license to Equinom back in 2004, and the CEO of Equinom then was Tim Negris. He is now with SCO, and they have an edge services product line. Here's the article:

 http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=38695

Interesting, in the Chinese sense...

Does anyone know of a careful analysis of these patents? I come across cases where there was much less than met the eye, especially when there is such a long examination period. In any case, it is easier to find prior art given a good analysis of what a given patent really does and does not cover.

Thoughts?
    
Thanx, Paul

 *******************************

 Equinom now has an exclusive license to Charlie's PDCX protocol ...which it's renamed PeerEdge. PeerEdge is a networking platform that melds the concepts of P2P, grid computing and web services into a single broadband network services environment for SMS, VOIP, transactional web services and systems and applications integration.


 Equinom CEO Tim Negris points out that... With PeerEdge, the content stays with the owner. It doesn't get stashed on some server somewhere....
 *********************************

 Published January 9, 2004


 That's the kind of patent that some prior art at the application stage
 might have been worthwhile to bring up.

 PJ

End of priorart-discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue 13
 

Thursday, 3 May 2007 - 10:13 PM EDT

Thanks for the thoughtful insight---disregard when you weary of this

 Related to where I have been pondering

2000---

http://www.bootstrap.org/dkr/ohs-dev/att-0516/01-WinGnome.txt

http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2000121302004NWBZDT

And earlier on Apache and ---David Korn

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/199712.mbox/%3C3.0.3.32.19971207194640.00962c20@localhost%3E

I think this is some of the material he is referencing in the post script.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6078929.html

And---to the theme of cooks (too many ghosts) in the kitchen.--a must recipe for the well rounded cook

http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/aix/

Your mission--should you choose to accept it -is MAKE SENSE--as "in a row" of these ducks

 in light of VCSY..................

This message will self destruct in 20 seconds.