Mood:  a-ok

 Here is a record of a conversation on Raging Bull beginning here: http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=308936

By: moonpunk 07 Sep 2011, 05:09 PM EDT Rating:

Msg. 308936 of 308997 (Reply to 308935 by kaptainwarp) Jump to msg. #

What is good is ending debate on what is "prior art" by declaring the first guy to file for a patent is the law. Anyone saying they had "prior art" before the patent filing will have to prove that prior art was part of a prior patent. No application? Tough luck.

In that point Emily is the first example of a XML based functional program and if nobody likes that Emily was the first applied for. End of story.

By: mrrrfk 07 Sep 2011, 05:47 PM EDT Rating: Rate this post:

Msg. 308939 of 308997 (Reply to 308936 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

"Emily is the first example of a XML based functional program and if nobody likes that Emily was the first applied for. End of story. "

Nope. Emily is just one of many XML-based scripting languages that came out when XML became a standard over a decade ago. Emily is just a specific proprietary extension of XML, that's all. There are loads of XML-based scripting languages out there. The Emily patent doesn't cover the idea of XML extensibility, it just covers Emily, an XML-based scripting language nobody wants or needs. They are a dime a dozen. Just Google "XML-based scripting languages", they were all the rage once XML became a standard over a decade ago.

ps. the Emily patent (all 40 claims) were rejected for the 9th time in case you haven't been paying attention, not that it would matter, Emily is bogus. It was for sale for years, nobody was interested. End of story.

By: moonpunk 07 Sep 2011, 06:02 PM EDT Rating:

Msg. 308944 of 308997 (Reply to 308939 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. #

mirror You're wrong. That's all there is to it. It's a shame you can't show one example of the XML language being used as in a novel sense as a functional language before the time of filing.

The examiner had no problem with that contention. It's not only amazing you think you know more than the examiner it's pathetic you have to play fast foot with wording to trick readers.

Let's debate it if you feel you're right.

We're not talking extensibility. We're talking about using XML properties to describe code and using that description to write applications. Your contention Emily is just a specific proprietary extension of XML would have killed the patent long ago. Show us one place in the patent process where the examiner ever claimed that.

Your turn.

By: mrrrfk 07 Sep 2011, 06:11 PM EDT Rating: Rate this post:

Msg. 308948 of 308997 (Reply to 308944 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

Just Google "XML-based scripting languages" and you will see how common they are, Many of them have hooks (api's) into real programming languages, as does Emily, in order to do any intensive functional programming, and they can be called from XML via XML's extensibility. Emily is just one of *many* ways of doing this. Its no big deal. The patent does not cover the *concept* of extending XML to do this, just one of many ways of doing so. NOBODY WANTS OR NEEDS IT. I question whether it even works since nowhere has it ever been reviewed by any user or developer. It's probably just vaporware at this point.

Hint: zero revenues have been generated by this great product. Duh. It's bogus,until proven otherwise.

By: moonpunk 07 Sep 2011, 06:25 PM EDT Rating:

Msg. 308954 of 308997 (Reply to 308948 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. #

Show me the first use of XML as a functional language. The USE of a scripting language (in this case XML) is according to its first intended use which was and has always been the representation of data as content. Upon that idea the representation of data as form came along later. Upon that idea... there is no flow from data as content and data as form to data as functionality and a semantic trick does not change the fact. You can google "XML-based scripting languages" all you like but the Emily examination has material supplied by the foremost XML practitioners in the art and there was NO evidence of the use of XML to represent functional code prior to Emily being filed.

Nobody cares about your statement like: "NOBODY WANTS OR NEEDS IT. I question whether it even works since nowhere has it ever been reviewed by any user or developer. It's probably just vaporware at this point."

None of that is relevant to the debate. What matters is finding a use of XML prior to 1999/2000 in which XML is used to drive a functional transformation within a processor. No. There isn't.

There is evidence of XML being used to drive the presentation of data from one data representation to another representation. That's transformation of type and covers the obviousness of representation of form. So content and form were obvious. But nobody prior to Davison filing for Emily had shown XML used as a representation of code that would execute in a processor for the purpose of driving the processor functionality. Not the processor contents or the processor configuration (current state of something like XAML even though they CALL it the eXtensible Application Markup Language - more semantic BS from giant players about to be caught in a box canyon of their own making).

Your statement here has no relevance to the debate either: "Hint: zero revenues have been generated by this great product. Duh. It's bogus,until proven otherwise. "

It wouldn't matter if not one line of Emily code was sold although we know it was used to create the distributed agent processing network for the Apollo smartcard per Jerome Svigal's specifications.

An XML Agent is the immediate demonstration of the use of XML as code and that capability has been shown numerous times in numerous places. Water does precisely that and I know how much you hate to hear that. You'll certainly spout out more irrelevant BS from your hatred but it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

If you would bother to read the examiner's objections you will find he has no problem with the use of XML as code. He has problems with the description of the agent doing the functional processing on the grounds it's a virtual machine. But I believe he's made that consideration in error because the virtual machine is not the thing that is novel and VCSY is not trying to patent a virtual machine. They're trying to patent a novel processing language method and the framework that makes it work as a novel functional processing language.

"Many of them have hooks (api's) into real programming languages..."

There you go killing your own arguments. There is no "real" programming language. API's are nothing more than processing agents which can be considered virtual machines. The language is only "real" if it provides a human the opportunity to instruct the transformational processes of a processor containing an arithmetic and logic facility connected to a memory. THAT is what makes a language "real" and the Emily claims demonstrate a REAL XML functional processing language.

You know you've never won any of these arguments. I'm surprised you're even going to try. To me it shows just how diligent you are in pursuing an agenda and that agenda has nothing to do with you not owning the stock. It has everything to do with the industry realizing they missed the boat and they don't want anyone to find out.

By: mrrrfk 07 Sep 2011, 06:46 PM EDT Rating: Rate this post:

Msg. 308961 of 308997 (Reply to 308957 by johnnnyri) Jump to msg. #

I know johnnny. VCSY's own whitepaper on Emily makes it clear that it comes with a library of C functions and programmers can extend it's functionality by writing more C functions. Just like many XML-based scripting languages, Emily is just one way of extending XML with hooks into a real programming language.
Portuno likes to say that Emily is unique and magical, but it isn't. XML-based scripting/programming languages are easy to create, and nobody needs Emily or Emily's (rejected) patent to do so.

Any big software company (like microsoft) would create their own before considering Emily (what do you think XAML is?), but the fact is that most of the industry is going to continue to use real programming languages to do programming, with hooks into XML for handling XML data. So the Emily approach has already been rejected by the software industry. Developers don't like to program in XML, and certainly have no reason to consider Emily, which is used by NOBODY.

By: moonpunk 07 Sep 2011, 06:52 PM EDT Rating:

Msg. 308964 of 308997 (Reply to 308954 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

mirror I did what you asked and Google teed up this gem from 2000:

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/xml-perl/
XML and scripting languages
Feb 1, 2000
Manipulating XML documents with Perl and other scripting languages
Summary: In this first tutorial of his series on using scripting languages to manipulate and transform XML documents, Binary Evolution's Parand Tony Daruger takes you through the first steps of using these techniques with Perl. You'll see a method for transforming XML to HTML, followed by a simple stock trading application that uses Perl, XML, and a database to evaluate trading rules. You can apply the techniques using other scripting languages too, including Tcl and Python.

--(
Mind if I make a little enhancement?
"xml AND scripting languages"

See there? I kept the content and simply changed the form. But I didn't DO anything with the statement.

Now if I said "XML all scripting languages" I would then abstract every scripting language on earth (including your favorite Javascript) and render their functionality in XML.

In that way I could then either use the XML abstraction to run any script I like using only one language (the XML abstraction) OR I could choose to abstract the resultant XML abstraction into a human syntax and then tell any machine capable of running any scripting language how to run.

See how it's done? Did you or did you not study LISP?
)

And I might as well head you off at the pass with this because you will jump for joy with the thought you can use this for your purpose:

"Function-based substitution

Substitution-based transformations are easy to implement and understand, but don't give us the ability to implement logic. We may want to take different actions based on the contents or attributes of a tag, or connect to a database to compare the contents of the tag with the stored value. We need more than simple, one-to-one substitutions; we need the ability to perform functions for each tag.

XML::Parser provides a method for invoking functions for each tag in the XML document. For each tag, the parsing module calls a function with the tag's name. Thus we can define a set of functions that perform the transformations, connect to databases, and implement our business logic. "

Go ahead and try. I can't wait to exercise my fingers even more. You think substituting "hooks" makes something a functional language. That's why you're wrong so wrong and why Charles Goldfarb showed that there were not XML functional processing language implementations as of 2001. Only "hooks" meaning "tags" which means you're using XMl to represent data as content which happens to refer to other bodies of scripting code.

It doesn't count in the USPTO's eyes.

But go ahead and try it anyway.

By: moonpunk 07 Sep 2011, 06:54 PM EDT Rating:

Msg. 308965 of 308997 (Reply to 308961 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. #

mirror even thought Emily relied on CGI because he was taken in by a lowballing market paper on Emily. He won't read the patent and he won't debate the patent claims. That would deny him his plausible deniability.

You should have seen him perform. It was hilarious. LOL

By: moonpunk 07 Sep 2011, 06:59 PM EDT Rating:

Msg. 308966 of 308997 (Reply to 308964 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

Look at this! Another one:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xexpr/
Abstract
W3C Note 21 November 2000
"In many applications of XML, there is a requirement for using XML in conjunction with a scripting language. Many times, this results in a scripting language such as JavaScript being bound within the XML content (like the tag). XEXPR is a scripting language that uses XML as its primary syntax, making it easily embeddable in an XML document. In addition, XEXPR takes a functional approach, and hence maps well onto the syntax of XML."


Well now mirror you win...wait... almost. Noooooo... Not. Look at the date. VCSY was well over the finish line by the time this appeared.

By the time the patent application hit the street (once it had gone through the 18 month wait from application to publication) EVERYBODY KNEW. But not before. Now you can't find anybody who would testify they're doing that...except Water. I guess those guys and the US Military and MIT are just crazy.

And THAT sweety is the definition of "first to file" in a patent case.

BAAAAPPPP End of debate. You lose. LOL

By: moonpunk 07 Sep 2011, 07:00 PM EDT Rating:

Msg. 308967 of 308997 (Reply to 308966 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

Gee "google XML scripting languages" Whodathunkit?

Thanks for the suggestion mirror. Any other smart moves?

By: mrrrfk 07 Sep 2011, 07:03 PM EDT Rating: Rate this post:

Msg. 308969 of 308997 (Reply to 308965 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

While Emily reles on CGI for some stuff, but they *really* rely on developers writing their own C-functions for extensibility, and even deliver a C function library as part of the Emily package. Nothing magical about that; XML cannot do complex functional programming on its own. This is according to VCSY's own whitepaper on Emily. If you have a problem with it then contact VCSY and tell them that they are liars.

By: moonpunk 07 Sep 2011, 07:07 PM EDT Rating:

Msg. 308970 of 308996 (Reply to 308966 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

Oh wow. MIT. Whodathunk those eggheads would be able to see the value right?

http://www.infoloom.com/gcaconfs/WEB/paris2000/S07-02.HTM

(-- Again June 2000. Still only also-ran over the first to file finish line.

But such a prestigious home for the subject to be studied right? Right.

Want to read some of the discussion? Or is academics just not your thing? Well some of us respect "eggheads" from MIT a great deal more than navel lint so I hope we don't mind if we just ignore what you have to say and read what the experts were writing shortly after Emily was revealed.)

Most XML processing languages are double-level where a program written in a language such as Java produces output in a second language, XML. This is accomplished with formatted I/O or string processing that obscures the structure of the output. In XFA Script output is directly interleaved in the processing program making it easier to write, check, and understand.

Unlike languages where XML support was an afterthought, XFA Script was designed from the start around XML, making it ideally suited for processing XML data. There are however even more important advantages of XML-based scripting.

Most XML processing languages are double-level where a program written in a language such as Java produces output in a second language, XML. This is accomplished with formatted I/O or string processing that obscures the structure of the output. In XFA Script output is directly interleaved in the processing program making it easier to write, check, and understand.
XFA scripts are themselves just XML. This means that XFA code can be treated as data, making it easy to write scripts that manipulate other scripts. XFA Script also can make any XML data into a program by specifying the active behavior associated with each data element type.
The XML community continues to produce ever more specialized XML processing standards. With DTD's and schemas for validating data, XSL and XSLT for rendering and transforming data, and with pointers, links, paths and RDF to connect data, the overall complexity continues to soar. XFA Script is a single simple general-purpose language that can be used for all these purposes.
Although DTD's and schemas allow XML syntax to be formally described, very little has been done on the more important problem of formal specification of XML semantics. Since XFA Script is itself XML and has a clean clear semantics, it is an ideal notation for defining the semantics of XML data. An added bonus is that XFA semantic specifications can easily become executable semantic checkers.


(-- Go ahead. I dare ya. I know you're dying to continue on. Remember you're reading history from June 2000 and you haven't got a clue where it's all gone or even can go from there.)

By: moonpunk 07 Sep 2011, 07:10 PM EDT Rating:

Msg. 308971 of 308996 (Reply to 308969 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. #

The Emily patent claims tell us Emily relies on CGI to retrieve URLs. That's all it uses CGI for. You know that. But your agenda and your bruised ego demand you make yet another play for tricking at least one more reader.

"XML cannot do complex functional programming on its own."

I'm afraid you speak before reading. First read what the expert from MIT says before you show your ignorance.

"Liars"? You mean "market speakers"??? I thought the whole realm of marketing was lying. That's what you said I think. You said marketing material like VCSY's was lies... I guess marketing material like Microsoft's was lies as well... or HP's marketing material... or Oracle's marketing material... or Apple's marketing material... all nothing but lies. Right?

By: moonpunk 07 Sep 2011, 07:12 PM EDT Rating:

Msg. 308972 of 308996 (Reply to 308971 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

mirror You're lying to the readers even as we see your posts pop up. You know the answers. But you have a hidden agenda you can't afford to admit. You know the history but you won't lift a finger to educate one person because your industry demands you hold the party line.

That's why you're going to go down in history as the most ignorant person in the IT world. 'The guy who knew the truth but stuck with the liars.'

By: moonpunk 07 Sep 2011, 07:18 PM EDT Rating:

Msg. 308973 of 308996 Jump to msg. #

So we now find that since 2000 IBM MIT and the W3C have known about Emily and have been working on the concepts.

Of the three two are trustworthy and the other not. I guess when you're a committee tasked with kissing the butt of the next giant player in front of you the issues become... how shall I say it? Cloudy.

Playing games for over ten years. That's what's been going on. And everybody will know about it... that is IF they are willing to read material from the dotcom era and ignore the incontinent fools who rage and hype about their own technologies.

By: mrrrfk 07 Sep 2011, 07:20 PM EDT Rating: Rate this post:

Msg. 308974 of 308996 (Reply to 308972 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

Where did I lie? Emily requires C functions for its extensibility. That's what *they* say. I'm just reporting the info. If you have a problem with that then you are saying that VCSY are liars. But anyone can extend XML to do that kind of thing. It's old technology. Emily's proprietary approach is not wanted by anybody. Even if the 9-time rejected patent application is approved, it is worthless, imo.

By: mrrrfk 07 Sep 2011, 07:27 PM EDT Rating: Rate this post:

Msg. 308976 of 308996 (Reply to 308973 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

Where does MIT or the W3C ever mention Emily? You can find Emily-like concepts everywhere since they have always been obvious. Emily is just one particular implementation of extending XML is irrelevant (patented or not) to the many other approaches that have existed since XML became an text markup standard.
Nobody wants Emily. We know this already. It was for sale for years, but there was no interest. VCSY are nobodies in the tech world. Nobody wants their crap.

By: moonpunk 07 Sep 2011, 07:28 PM EDT Rating:

Msg. 308977 of 308996 (Reply to 308969 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. #

mrrfkr Says "XML cannot do complex functional programming on its own."

Princeton disagrees per this paper written after 2003.

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~agolovin/papers/ias08.pdf
"Abstract. A number of modular robotic systems have been developed over the last decade. Such systems promise increased flexibility and robustness and lower cost over conventional robots; however programming systems with many degrees of freedom is still more an art than engineering. The complexity of programming limits the usage of such systems and the sharing of knowledge within the modular robotics community. We have previously published work on using “Phase Automata” as a programming model for chain-type modular robotic systems. In this paper, we present an XML-based scripting language for describing phase automata and complex behavior compositions."

Oh my that mrrfk sure knows his subject matter doesn't he? <--- sarcasm

By: moonpunk 07 Sep 2011, 07:35 PM EDT Rating:

Msg. 308978 of 308996 (Reply to 308976 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. #

"You can find Emily-like concepts everywhere since they have always been obvious."

Not before the Emily patent application. And that's all that counts. And like I said the examination says nothing at all about the use of XML as a functional language being "obvious" or even "prior art". I think his problem was the appearance of an attempt to patent some virtual machine claims.

Why are you so OBVIOUS in your errors? Don't you even bother to read what's made available to you? Or are you too busy googling trying to find something to prove me wrong? Go ahead. Show us something that says you're right. I have and there's simply nothing there to support your position.

Now I think I could find stuff that at first glance makes it SEEM to support your position. Maybe that's your problem; you simply don't have the experience to know what you're reading. OK. I get it. You're not lying. You simply don't know anything about the subject.

I would have thought you being here every day for ten years you might learn at least SOMEthing about the subject matter. I guess I over estimated you and your motivations.

"Nobody wants Emily." Irrelevant in the USPTO. So why don't you say at least SOMEthing of relevance or importance? Are you going to just sit there and let me completely trash your perceived reputation?

By: mrrrfk 07 Sep 2011, 07:37 PM EDT Rating: Rate this post:

Msg. 308979 of 308996 (Reply to 308977 by moonpunk) Jump to msg. #

Moonpunk, whenever they say "XML-based" they are talking about XML that is extended by real programming languages. XML is a mark-up language, not a programming language. It cannot do functional programming on its own.

By: moonpunk 07 Sep 2011, 07:40 PM EDT Rating:

Msg. 308980 of 308996 (Reply to 308979 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. #

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 9:58 PM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 7 September 2011 10:10 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink