Now Playing: Part 1
Raging Bull has made all posts of VCSY posters unavailable from November 24, 2011 back.
For that reason to archive information presented on RB I'm going to post various posts here:
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313261
By: moonpunk  29 Nov 2011, 07:02 AM CST Rating:  | Msg. 313261 of 314204 Jump to msg. # |
| How simple can you get? And how complicated is Interwoven trying to make things... and why? Why? Because Interwoven is stuck in the web of common computer skills. Words mean things to people who know computers. You don't have to treat them like idiots and children. The term "skilled in the art" is what is going to stop Interwoven. Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-1 Filed11/28/11 Exhibit 1 "Vertical believes that only one term, "arbitrary object," needs construction and proposes the following definition for "arbitrary object":" "Arbitrary Object" "An object that can be created independently by individual preference and that can be optionally accessed solely by name, the object being an entity that can have form, content or functionality or any combination of form, content and functionality." "However, Plaintiff, Interwoven, Inc. ("Interwoven") has proposed additional terms for construction. Vertical requests that the Court give those additional terms their plain and ordinary meaning to one skilled in the art. Should the Court decide that those additional terms require construction, then Vertical proposes the following definitions for those terms:" The '744 Patent: Computer application Host system Arbitrary object framework Separates Content Form Functionality Arbitrary objects Arbitrary names Corresponding arbitrary names Object types Object library Design framework Web site Text file pointers Binary file pointers Compiled executables Shell commands Remote procedure calls Global variables Cached executables Cached database queries Local variables Revision tracking Rollback Container page Caching objects Some elements of an arbitrary object Dynamic elements Static elements Profiling User Accessing Personalization Syndicated The '629 Patent Computer application Host system Arbitrary object framework Separates Content Form Functionality Processor A memory operably coupled to said processor Configured for storing a computer program executable by said processor Executable instructions Arbitrary objects Arbitrary names Corresponding arbitrary names Content objects Generating said content of said computer application Form objects Defining said form of said computer application Function objects Executing said functionality of said computer application Each arbitrary object being separate from each other arbitrary object Arbitrary object library Design framework Web site Object types Text file pointers Binary file pointers Compiled executables Shell commands Remote procedure calls Global variables Cached executables Cached database queries Local variables Local objects Global parent objects Said local objects are capable of overriding said global parent objects Overriding Said local objects are capable of inheriting data from said global parent objects Inheriting Deploying arbitrary objects locally Revision tracking Rollback Swapping Swapping arbitrary object of one type with an arbitrary object of another Arbitrary object Caching objects Some elements of an arbitrary object Dynamic elements Static elements Programming language that is compatible and supported by said host system Container page Instructions to access and deploy arbitrary objects into said design framework using corresponding arbitrary names Using corresponding arbitrary names Callable by name only Independently modifiable Without corresponding modification being made to any other arbitrary object Interchangeable "Vertical has attached a copy of the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, cited above. Vertical also cites to Webster's online dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/, for the plain and ordinary meaning of the various terms above." ================== Interwoven made a huge mistake by taking the side of plaintiff here. As plaintiff they are tasked with presenting clear concise and unambiguous accusation of wrong against the defendant. But in trying to argue the definition of all these terms Interwoven shows their true colors; pusillanimous nitpickers intent on clouding the court's perception with technical effrontery (aka baffle 'em with bull****). The complaint Interwoven has used to make a motion to strike Vertical's response has to do with definitions. We see now what has Interwoven so upset. Vertical is taking Interwoven's deceitful intent as gleaned from the negotiations and presenting that behavior to the court by way of reductio ad absurdum; the art of taking your opponent's arguments to their inherent ridiculous logical conclusion... and ridiculing the conclusion. So Interwoven argues with every word that might be used by a person of ordinary skill in the computer arts. Vertical on the other hand need define only one word: "arbitrary" and their case is done and won. Goliath is arrayed in armor to exaggerate his size. David has only a stone in a sling... and a pocket full of rocks for Goliath's brothers. Naturally there isn't an end to this argument. It's only just begun. But we can now see how worried and insecure is Interwoven by Vertical's approach. Interwoven took the opportunity yesterday (November 28 with Exhibit K and L) to supply the court with a reminder of their previous claims construction as though they fear the court will forget what they said ... playing right into Vertical's hands. (to be continued) That's right folks. I'll be here throughout the holidays. Don't forget to tip your waitress. - - - - - View Replies » |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313264
| By: moonpunk 29 Nov 2011, 09:29 AM CST Rating:  | Msg. 313264 of 314205 Jump to msg. # |
| Exhibit 1 covered here in post 313261 located here: http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313261 Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-2 Filed11/28/11 Exhibit 2 (... is Interwoven's claim construction from August 22, 2011) -------------------- Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-3 Filed11/28/11 Exhibit 3 (... is the list of "Agreed-To Terms" as a result of Interwoven/Vertical negotiations.) --------------------- (As you will see in Exhibit 4 Interwoven's great complaint resulting in a move to strike comes from a controversy about two words: "content" and "form".) --------------------- Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-4 Filed11/28/11 Exhibit 4 (... is the body of email from Interwoven to Vertical complaining that Vertical has changed (shortened) their definition of "content" and "form".) (excerpt) We received Vertical's opening claim construction brief on Thursday, as expected. However, we are very concerned that Vertical has improperly changed its proposed definitions for two key terms, "content" and "form" outside of the Patent Local Rule procedures and with no notice to Interwoven or attempt to meet and confer. As one who regularly practices in this district, we are very disappointed to see such major deviations from the Joint Claim Construction Statement. Vertical's actions are problematic for three reasons. First, Vertical has now, for the first time, adopted a new position on these key terms that is different from the positions Vertical advanced in the course of the Patent Local Rule 4-2 (proposed constructions) and 4-3 process (filed claim construction statement). As you will no doubt recall, Vertical's P.L.R. 4-2 Proposed Preliminary Claim Constructions were as follows: Content -- "Data, including information, photographs, illustrations, articles." Form -- "Formatting including graphic designs, user interfaces, graphical representations." Vertical's P.L.R. 4-3 proposed constructions for these terms were unchanged. Vertical now argues that these terms should be defined as "data" and "formatting" respectively. Vertical's belated change in claim construction position is in contravention of the Patent Local Rule procedures, and prejudices Interwoven's ability to respond to Vertical's claim construction brief. Second, Vertical in addition to these revised positions, Vertical now proposes to the Court a second, alternate construction for these terms. Interwoven's ability to respond to Vertical's claim construction brief is impaired by Vertical's attempt to argue two different constructions for these key terms. (These two constructions are in addition to the construction Vertical proposed in the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, and that Interwoven expected to respond to in its claim construction brief.) Interwoven has long maintained that these terms are likely to be case dispositive, and Vertical's advancing two (or three) different positions is not only severely prejudicial to Interwoven, but also incredibly burdensome for the Court, which now will have to hear arguments regarding multiple constructions for these terms from each party. Finally -- and perhaps most egregiously and damaging to Interwoven -- Vertical takes the position in its claim construction brief that it is Interwoven's claim construction position that has required Vertical to take these changed and alternative positions. This extremely disingenuous statement is easily refuted by the parties disclosures in the case thus far. As you should recall, Interwoven's Proposed Preliminary Claim Constructions for these terms were: Content -- "data that appears in the computer application or on the web site which is not form or functionality" Form -- "structured format or appearance of the computer application or web site which is not content or functionality" Interwoven's Proposed Preliminary Claim Constructions, served August 22, 2011, did not include any identification of examples such as "photographs, illustrations, [or] articles." Rather, during the meet and confer process, it was Vertical that proposed these be included in an agreed definition. Interwoven agreed to amend its proposed construction, in a good faith effort to reduce the number of terms presented to the Court for construction. Nevertheless, despite Interwoven's concession, Vertical ultimately decided to propose its own construction. We are very disappointed that Vertical's brief appears to blame Interwoven for a position Vertical proposed. To make such a misrepresentation to the Court in Vertical's opening claim construction brief is indefensible. This argument is improper, disingenuous, and extremely prejudicial to Interwoven, not to mention in violation of P.L.R. 4-7. Please present us with a proposal by noon Pacific time on Monday explaining how Vertical will remedy this situation. If we do not hear from you, or Vertical's proposal does not adequately address Interwoven's concerns, Interwoven will file a motion to strike Vertical's claim construction brief for falling outside of the local rules. ----------------- Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-5 Filed11/28/11 Exhibit 5 ... is the body of email from Vertical to Interwoven in response to the email in Exhibit 4. (excerpt) We disagree with your assessment of our brief. In preparing it, we reassessed our definitions of the two terms you identified. We stated that we made a mistake by importing examples from the specification. We did not impugn Interwoven whatsoever. You seem to think that claim construction is a static process, where you take a position and hold it through the trial court process and into appeal. That is not what we agreed to do in the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement: The Parties reserve the right to identify further terms as case or claim dispositive as fact and expert discovery progress, and they further reserve their rights to amend or revise their proposed constructions and supporting evidence as may be appropriate during the continuing claim construction process. This is the first full paragraph on page 2 of the statement. The goal is to reach a proper construction. That is what we tried to do. Our general position, however, has always been the same: that the terms, form, function and content are not ambiguous and that the court should not construe them. They should have their plain and ordinary meaning. Your arguments regarding notice are also less than genuine. You have had access to Vertical’s positions in the Microsoft case as well as the correspondence and discussions we have had in this case. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, Vertical does not plan to take any corrective action because there is nothing to correct. If you feel you need to explain something to the Court, you have your response brief with which to do that. If you would like to meet and confer on this matter, please let us know. --------------- (Looks like Interwoven has a bad case of the boohoo baby bippies. Exhibit 6 is an excellent read on how the court views such a controversy.) --------------- Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-6 Filed11/28/11 Exhibit 6 PULSE ENGINEERING, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, vs. MASCON, INC. dba ATW SECURITY, a Massachusetts corporation, Defendant. CASE NO. 08cv0595 JM (AJB) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7632 February 3, 2009, Decided February 3, 2009, Filed As with the reference and expert testimony disclosures, Pulse learned of the alternate construction more than two months before the claim construction hearing, and will have every opportunity to evaluate and address the proposed construction during briefing. Because Pulse has failed to make a showing of prejudice, and in the interest of addressing matters on the merits, [*12] Pulse's motion to exclude Mascon's alternate claim construction from the court's consideration is DENIED. ---------------- (The following document - Exhibit 7 - provides an insight into the issues and considerations embodied in a Markman hearing. It is a useful way to measure the arguments provided between Interwoven and Vertical and is well worth the read. I include the following 3 items as examples similar to the Interwoven/Vertical case:) ---------------- Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-7 Filed11/28/11 Exhibit 7 RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. (Numerous "Manufacturers"), Defendants. No. C-05-00334 RMW,No. C-05-02298 RMW,No. C-06-00244 RMW UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 569 F. Supp. 2d 946; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107149 July 10, 2008, Decided July 10, 2008, Filed (excerpts) (the following is similar to the complaint by Interwoven that Vertical changed definitions as discussed in Exhibits 4 & 5) 1. The Manufacturers' Compliance with the Patent Local Rules As a preliminary matter, Rambus points out that the Manufacturers' proposed constructions of various clocking terms are not the constructions they proposed in their joint claim construction statement. 13 [*980] Indeed, the Manufacturers' revisions to their constructions of "external [**91] clock signal" and "sample" trickle down and affect their construction of 42 of the 72 disputed terms in this case. Rambus therefore requests this court to strike the entirety of the Manufacturers' responsive brief on claim construction. Meanwhile, the Manufacturers claim that they "revised some proposed constructions . . . in an effort to narrow the issues in dispute and also for clarity." Rambus's proposed remedy -- striking the Manufacturers' claim construction brief -- is too harsh. Nor is the court willing to ignore the Manufacturers' arguments if they help the court to construe the claims in dispute. Yet the Manufacturers' conduct is not conducive to the orderly progress of this case, and the court disapproves of it. (I include this section for it's similarity to Interwoven's typical use of limitations not expressed in the patent) Claim term: Rambus's Construction: "internal clock A periodic or gated periodic signal signal" generated in a device to provide timing information for internal operation. Claim term: The Manufacturers' Construction: "internal clock An internally created clock signal that is aligned with the signal" midpoint of the early clock and late clock from the external clock signal. 17 In the joint claim construction and prehearing statement, the Manufacturers proposed that an "internal clock signal" was "an internally created clock signal that is aligned with the midpoint of the external clock signal as sampled at two separate points along the bus clock line by the device." The Manufacturers' proposed [**108] construction of "internal clock signal" turns on the court's adoption of their construction of "external clock signal" as requiring early and late clock signals. The court has rejected that construction, and therefore the Manufacturers' construction of "internal clock signal" must also fail. (I include the following concerning the word "data" as an instructive example for Interwoven/Vertical arguments.) 3. "Data" "The dispute turns on whether "data" refers to any bit of information, or whether "data" refers only to bits of information written to or read from a memory array. The court previously declined to construe the term "data," (citation) and it is not clear why the term must be construed here as no motion for summary judgment of non-infringement or invalidity turns on the construction of the term "data."" "...the asserted claims predominantly use the term "data" as a noun and in those contexts, the Manufacturers' construction seems more precise. Accordingly, the court adopts the Manufacturers' construction of "data," namely, as "one or more bits written to/read from the memory array" where the term appears as a noun. The court is mindful, however, that it is being asked to interpret "data" without the context of any invalidity or non-infringement arguments. In the event that this construction of "data" conflicts with the context of a specific claim, the court will revisit the issue." "There is scant case law applying section 112, paragraph 2. Where it has invalidated a claim, the claim contradicted the specification and the patentee "admit[ted] as much." (citation) This court has interpreted Allen Engineering as holding that a claim is invalid if the claim cannot be logically reconciled with the specification. (citation) Applying this standard, the Manufacturers' motion must fail. The Manufacturers point to nothing in the claims that logically contradicts the specification. Instead, the Manufacturers emphasize that Drs. Farmwald and Horowitz repeatedly referred to "the present invention" in describing certain embodiments. This is insufficient to show a violation of section 112, paragraph 2. Accordingly, the Manufacturers' motion for summary judgment on this ground is denied. VI. ORDER For the reasons set forth above... The court denies [**156] the Manufacturers' motions for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. DATED: July 10, 2008 --------------------- (There are numerous episodes in Exhibit 7 that remind me of the current situation where Interwoven is claiming non-infringement and invalidity. I'll attempt to cover some of it over the next two weeks as we wait for the Markman hearing scheduled for December 14. If you see something in your reading of any of the exhibits that are of interest or controversy please let me know.) (Exhibit 8 is also useful case history reinforcing the fact that patent language is to be considered from the perspective of someone of "ordinary skill in the art" and not a belabored and tortured contention over easily understood and commonly used terms. This case history also deals with definition changes similar to that argued by Interwoven and Vertical.) (Vertical's presentation seems more surefooted confident and concise. Interwoven appears to be floundering in a dictionary sea of unfathomable depth.) ---------------------- Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document80-8 Filed11/28/11 Exhibit 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEPOMED, INC., Plaintiff, No. C 09-5587 PJH v. LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS (excerpts) A patentee is presumed to have intended the ordinary meaning of a claim term in the absence of an express intent to the contrary. (citation) The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is "the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention." (citation) The person of ordinary skill in the art is "deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim . . . but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification." (citation) Indeed, a patent's specification "is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis" and claims "must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part." (citation). Because the specification must contain a description of the invention that is clear and complete enough to enable those of ordinary skill in the art to make and use it, the specification is therefore "always highly relevant" to the court's claim construction analysis. (citation). In some cases, the specification may reveal that the patentee has given a special definition to a claim term that differs from its ordinary meaning; in such cases, "the inventor's lexicography controls." (citation). The specification also may reveal the patentee's intentional disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope. "In that instance, as well, the inventor has dictated the correct claim scope, and the inventor's intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive." Id. Although the court must read the claim in view of the specification, the claims are not limited to preferred embodiments or illustrative examples appearing in the specification. (citation) The prosecution history "can often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be." (citation) These components of the intrinsic record are the primary resources in properly construing claim terms. ... if the court is unable to resolve a disputed claim term, it may consider extrinsic evidence, such as expert testimony, inventor testimony, and technical treatises and articles. (citation) However, while courts have discretion to consider extrinsic evidence, such evidence is "less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language." (conclusion) D. Depomed’s Motion to Strike Depomed seeks an order striking Lupin’s newly-proposed claim construction for terms (1) and (2). Depomed argues that Lupin’s proposed construction differs from that in the claim construction statement in that it omits the phrase "at least 20%" and adds "solid" to the phrase "swollen polymeric matrix." Depomed also seeks an order striking what it claims is newly-offered evidence to support Lupin’s proposed constructions. As the court indicated at the hearing, neither side’s position in this dispute is particularly meritorious. Lupin’s problem is that the Local Rules are clear that the joint claim construction statement is a final binding document. Depomed’s problem is that it appears to view this motion as providing an opportunity to go through every line of Lupin’s opposition brief - in other words, to permit another bite at framing the arguments in reply to Lupin’s opposition. The court has considered the motion, to the extent discussed at the hearing, and has determined that it should be DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 17, 2011 ---------------- (So it would appear Vertical intends to stand on a single definition that embodies the nature of their invention while Interwoven dances around trying to pick off any possible interpretation beyond a strictly traditional reading of computer science. The thing VCSY longs have going for themselves is that the law will be decided based on the perspective of someone of ordinary skill in the art... namely a nobody like me.) (If there could be any other interpretation of Interwoven's position and claims those others who claim to be in possession of "ordinary skill in the art" would be able to come up with a counter argument. But they can't. Why? Because Interwoven has tortured the poor words to such an extent they are unrecognizable.) (to be continued some more) |
Posts are also being deleted on Yahoo. There's a tremendous amount of information that was posted and is now intentionally made unavailable by those who have been working tirelessly to damage and detour any conversation about VCSY. But those people can't account for the actions available to VCSY longs and that is what will come back to bite those people in the butt.
Until then:
(By Portuno) Interwoven/Vertical claim construction:
From Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document76 Filed11/14/11
Interwoven Claim Construction
page 9
Content
Interwoven: Data, including information, photographs, illustrations, and articles, that appears in the computer application or on the web site, which is not form or functionality.
Vertical: Data, including information, photographs, illustrations, articles.
Form
Interwoven: Structured format or appearance of the computer application or web site, which is not content or functionality.
Vertical: Formatting including graphic designs, user interfaces, graphical representations.
Functionality
Interwoven: Software code that implements logical functionality within the computer application or web site, which is not form or content.
Vertical: Software code.
Again we see Interwoven attempting to use the concept "must" (absolute requirement) when any common sense reader will come to the conclusion Vertical says "may" (available option).
"Vertical’s proposed construction contradicts the record, which prohibits any combination of content, form, and functionality"
Interwoven wants the reader to believe since Vertical is so fired up on keeping content, form and functionality separate the patent intended to preclude any operation that might combine content and form, content and functionality, form and functionality. It's quite easy to thumb through the patent language and see references to the combination of these data object types into compound objects of content/form, form/functionality, content/functionalty which are additionally kept separate as their own composite object qualities i.e. formatted content, content functionality as is practiced by traditional object use. Again relying on previous methods used in a novel patentable way does not preclude use of the previous methods as an available option in use of the method. This is the accepted current ruling per "negative limitations".
Interwoven is desperate to have the court see the case as "must" because Interwoven has been practicing the art of compositing object structure for automating content management (combining objects of content, form and functionality) just as Autonomy has been practicing the art of compositing applications (combining objects of content, form and functionality). We don't know in what manner they've been doing this sort of compositing but it's obvious they haven't presented anything showing they do not use the methods claimed by Vertical's patents.
Therefore, if the judge fails to see things Interwoven's way, there is a cascade effect in all of Interwoven/Autonomy's work that puts everything they've done for the past decade in jeopardy.
That is the impetus for the trick Interwoven is attempting to use to confuse the judge. It's really that simple. But apparently Niro went and stuck a broomstick in Interwoven's spokes so Interwoven is riding into the December 14 Markman hearing with an already damaged steering position.
Now we know Interwoven is going to have to argue the Markman with Vertical's "may" position in place. If the judge does not take up the motion earlier than the January 12 data proposed by Interwoven, Vertical's language will be the dominant position when the Markman hearing is held December 12. But, even if the judge takes the matter before that, the common sense approach and therefore not negatively limited is Vertical's treatment.
The separation of content, form and functionality has been a key controversy throughout software industry history. On one hand, information theory teaches maintaining a separation of each of these quality/type data entities is a more elegant, efficient and productive way of working. On the other hand, human developers continually point to work experience showing the separation of these data entities is not possible.
The 744/629 patent teaches not only is the theory correct but the achievement of the theory is possible by making use of architecture and language designed primarily for the purpose of maintaining an arbitrary use throughout the workflow. As is typical in human work development, an advance seen and declared as impossible as a human employment becomes possible once a machine is designed to accomplish the purpose.
Interwoven is here basing their case on two ideas:
1) Vertical describes their patent as maintaining the separation of content, form and functionality, therefore, there can be no discussion of combined content, form and/or functionality anywhere in Vertical's consideration.
2) Vertical's patent enables separation of content, form and functionality, therefore, a user of Vertical's patent can not combine content, form or functionality.
Yes it's a flimsy position but it's really all Interwoven has. The prior art concepts were hashed out quite thoroughly as 744 was first granted in 2004 and the 629 continuance was granted in 2010 after a de-facto full review of 744.
------------------
So now we get into the concepts embodied in the terms Content, Form and Functionality.
page 12-13
2. Content
Interwoven provides a self contradicting claim:
"The patent specification consistently describes "content" as data appearing in a web site or computer application."
"In contrast, Vertical’s proposed construction is improper, as it merely substitutes "data" for "content".
?????
But Interwoven just said in their opening statement to "2. Content":
"The patent specification consistently describes "content" as data..."
Duhhhh. If Interwoven describes "content" as "data" then who are we (or they) to argue?
Next issue:
"The term "data", used in its ordinary sense without limitation, could have nonsensical meanings in the context of the ’744 and ’629 patents. It might even include the
machine-level 1’s and 0’s that define all information stored in a computer."
Content may be any data as that data (including the 1's and 0's representing the binary code in a computer) may need to be seen and considered by human and/or machine for information purposes. Are we to prevent a human from seeing binary code simply because it appears nonsensical to Interwoven to look at something like that?
This: 0101 * 0100 = 10100 is very informative to a student of computer information. 0001 + 0001 = 0010 informs someone skilled in even the most basic computing art. These are data represented to the human (you) as "content". These are therefore "content" in this container which happens to be called a document (swhich started life in a notepad container and ends up in a web post container).
Are we to then strike the consideration of thousands of lines of information already in textbooks presenting such "nonsensical meanings" as content? Interwoven would have it that way.
Interwoven continues: "This sense of the generic word "data" defies the teachings of the patent specification, because the purported point of the claimed invention is to "separate" content so that writers, photographers, and editors can access it independently without having to deal with computer-level data. ’744 patent col.1 l.21-22, col.2 l.22-23."
But I just showed what "computer-level data" can just as easily be considered by "writers, photographers, and editors".
Interwoven continues:
"Plainly, "data" alone may also refer to "a new look" or "functionality" based on the specification, both of which are independent from content."
The art of demonstrating correctness lies in being able to use your opponents paradigm to explain your own argument. Thus:
"data" in a computer comes in binary form. We humans "abstract" data into data types just as we abstract data into data entities also called data objects. The purpose of human use of machines as a quality multiplier dictates that the human understanding supercedes the more base and non-abstracted machine terminology.
At first glance, as all information can be considered "data" by the machine, Interwoven's adoption of the human programmer paradigm would appear to be correct by saying "everything is data so there is no separation possible".
But the machine is not in control of the language. The human is. And the human chooses to qualify and therefore categorize the raw treatment of data into three particular useful sets to reach a realistic (not dumbed down) language construct:
1) data as data: information as contained and available for consumption from its most raw state to its most transformed processed result.
2) data as data about data: information qualifying the contained information from its most basic containment as raw content to it's most refined presentation as formatted content.
3) data that transforms data and/or data about data and/or data that transforms etcetera (see the code can achieve?): information instructing the machine (and the human capable of reading the machine instructions) to perform tasks intended to transform the data and/or data about data AND/OR data that transforms data, data about data and data that transforms.
Words work because they express being, perception and action and any abstraction must first result from those three qualities.
We can abstract the above 1,2,3 discussion to the following terms to stand in for the above:
from: http://www.etymonline.com/
1) data (from Latin L. datum meaning "(thing) given") = It is what it is.
2) metadata (from Greek meta (preposition) "in the midst of, in common with, by means of, in pursuit or quest of,") = It can be what we want it do be.
3) code (Latin codex, earlier caudex "book, book of laws," lit. "tree trunk,") = It will be what we make it do be.
These three abstractions are closer to machine descriptions than human. So we continue to abstract the terms upward to human understanding as follows:
1) content (Latin contentus "contained, satisfied,") It is.
2) form (Latin forma "form, contour, figure, shape; appearance, looks' model, pattern, design; sort, kind condition,") It appears.
3) functionality (Latin functionem (nom. functio) "performance, execution," noun of action from functus, pp. of fungi "perform, execute, discharge,") It does.
PS You might want to print all this out to stick on your refrigerator so you can be reminded lawyers only play with words. Real people make them live.
Sincerely,
Little Ol' Insufferable Me
url:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=58205&mid=58205&tof=1&frt=2
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313265
| By: moonpunk 29 Nov 2011, 09:59 AM CST Rating: | Msg. 313265 of 314207 (Reply to 313262 by smoothsailing20) Jump to msg. # |
| smooth - Two things. First Interwoven's complaint is so petty and inconsequential and the established law so clear we can be confident that motion will be denied. After that the degree to which Interwoven attempts to manipulate the language of the patent where ordinary skill provides an abundance of understanding already marks Interwoven's effort as disingenuous. |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313266
| By: moonpunk 29 Nov 2011, 10:00 AM CST Rating: | Msg. 313266 of 314207 Jump to msg. # |
| Looks like RB is truncating posts above a certain number. |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313274
| By: moonpunk 29 Nov 2011, 11:27 AM CST Rating: | Msg. 313274 of 314207 (Reply to 313269 by tbacha3030) Jump to msg. # |
tbacha I think the judge will probably consider the motion to strike in the Markman already scheduled. It turns out to be such a small thing - if that's what Interwoven is depending on they're not very smart.
|
Since the battle is against professionals working in Raging Bull and Yahoo against VCSY shareholders I include posts to the prime activist who's been posting against VCSY for over ten years:
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313282
| By: moonpunk 29 Nov 2011, 12:40 PM CST Rating: | Msg. 313282 of 314207 (Reply to 313279 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. # |
| mrfkup No. You haven't even offered a reasonable discussion about the patent language. Anybody can say "bogus". Any pretender that is. An honest person who actually has the experience will explain why they come to a conclusion. In fact they're eager to offer an explanation. You do everything you can to avoid giving any explanation beyond "bogus". That's how we can conclude you do NOT have the experience you claim. Most likely you depend on somebody else to give you talking points and scripts and since you've been pulled off the job you can't get any of those scripts and you have to remain silent. Your silence proves the language in the Vertical patents are easy to understand and therefore valid. |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313314
| By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 12:00 AM CST Rating: | Msg. 313314 of 314207 Jump to msg. # |
| The reason Interwoven won't go through the Markman hearing is the same reason mirror has consistently refused to discuss the patents: common and plain language easily understood by anyone with ordinary skill in the art. Trying to push their convoluted and tortured logic through the judge's ears would be a horror show. Isn't that why you've refused to discuss the patents mirror? They've been in force since 2004 and you've never touched them. Isn't that odd? It's because you either can't because you don't have the knowledge (meaning you don't even have ordinary skill in the art) or you can't because then you would be pushed into a corner trying to defend your lame position (and your employers would be really angry with you). So which is it gang? Is mirror just plain stupid? Or is he just plain dishonest? - - - - - View Replies » |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313343
| By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 02:04 PM CST Rating: | Msg. 313343 of 314207 (Reply to 313321 by beenwaitin0) Jump to msg. # |
| been 313321 Because they think VCSY is failed. They think it's bankrupt. Therefore they think their technology can't possibly play any part. Human nature is to investigate where there is success - not failure. The light is better for looking around success. And when their investigation hit a brick wall they stop because they can't responsibly continue. They can't get a word out of Wade or anyone else from Vertical so all they have is speculation and they can't publish speculation. You and I can talk about the speculations and appearances all we like here. But they can't talk about it in their publications. They have to wait and see. And those who think these guys are "in the know" remain ignorant and thus slough off any discussion about any possible connection with a "failed" company. It's how Wade has been able to maneuver amongst the feet of the giants without inviting a stomp and we all intuitively know it although logic says that's a crazy strategy. So where is the weak point in the industry when it comes to putting the entire puzzle together for "big data"? It's where your analytical packages meet the world of ad hob connectivity at the face of any data resources any where. The Digits reporter gives the typical industry line about the 15% relational data 85% unstructured data (never mind that number was brought forward circa 2002-2003 and the industry has been searching hard for an answer ever since). Where's the problem? The British guy cuts to the chase at 1:25: "Isn't that what big companies in the computing business have been trying to do since... DOS?... you know ... since the 70's... since the space race... Take a ton of data unscramble it make it useful yes sure. And I want a Ferrari too." And off the Digits guy goes on yet another ramble about the fundamental point being that businesses are making decisions based on incomplete information and we need to analyze all that information. That's where the mass mind in the industry stops and glazes over in the "big data" discussion; never able to think beyond to what's really keeping the industry from applying analytical muscle to the systemic problem at hand. The entire piece dances around a central issue typified by the Digits reporter: 2:35 "The whole notion around big data ... there are numerous companies trying to struggle with this...uh...many of them startups using a technology called Hadoop that's an open source thing that kinda grew out of Google (just as Ajax grew out of XMLhttpRequest which Marc Lucovsky took from Microsoft development over to Google in 2004/2005) which I won't go into now (but he knows the history) but it's a big big problem that a lot of companies are trying to struggle with right now and HP's big play is grabbing Autonomy which specializes in software that grabs all this unstructured stuff and makes sense of it and determines meaning from it and combining it..." And here at 3:00 he's interrupted by the woman who demonstrates the ignorance in 90%+ of industry ranks who have no idea what the architects are talking about. She demonstrates that ignorance by saying "but what kind of meaning?..." The 90% can't understand why you ever want to do that sort of thing in the first place. And because they are only now getting serious about thinking the problem through they completely overlook that the critical key to "grabbing" all the stuff BEFORE you can even begin to "make meaning" of it is to be able to GRAB IN THE FIRST PLACE. INTEGRATION of data from ANY source and ANY type to be able to work transparently with ANY source of ANY type is the requirement problem that's kept the industry from pulling this off no matter how many billions they pour into R&D. And not so much the ability to mate with different data but the ability for the machine to do the mating without ever having seen the problem before. Pre-packaged connectivity means somebody wrestled with the parameters and invocation sequences required by the objects (which may not be objects until you're able to treat them that way in the first place) first met. If you have to have a human do any of that you're going to break when it comes time to meet unfamiliar demands during operation. If you can depend on a machine to do that you can operate without a bump. If you can't approach the problem treating data in an ARBITRARY way you can't grab effectively. And if you can't equip the machine to arbitrate the difference between one data as object and another data as object you must employ a human to complete that path. And if you must employ a human to complete that path you now have a scale model of chaos and error built into your solution which will rear its ugly head when your machines demand a larger scale... or when that scale demands mating to unfamiliar resources in unfamiliar circumstances. So out of the 10% who understand how and why you would want to have machines extracting "meaning" out of this jumble of unrelateable data we call "unstructured" data (which combined with structured data we now call "big data") how many understand the critical first task lies within the ability to GRAB the data in an arbitrary way? Around 0.1%. The principal architects and the principal managers ... and you and I and all other studious VCSY longs. The honest ones at least. The "skeptics" are employed to keep the smoke screen as dense as possible for as long as it takes to break VCSY invalidate the patents or come to a settlement. There's a way to test what I'm saying. Ask mirror to explain to you how the industry would be able to grab all data of any sort and employ it amongst any software of any type. Ask Al to say what "arbitrary" means to him. Neither of them will answer. The market writer's job is to continue confusion... never to clear it up. He won't because he can't (because if he could the big industry would have solved all their problems long ago). He won't because he is prevented (because if he did he would discuss how the patent describes grabbing data in an arbitrary way by machine and not requiring the human in the loop). He won't because he knows the moment he starts discussing the patents he ends up having to give definition to the contended words in the patent and he'll give away the obvious understanding available to anyone of ordinary skills in the art... should they bother to read and think. Typical of the 90% who don't know or understand the problem the woman bumbles up to the first inkling as to why you might want to search unstructured data at 3:10: "...is it market research?" The Digits reporter goes deep at 3:20 "An example is INTENT..." Relational data tells us what known general purpose paths the data suggests. Non-relational data made relational in some ad hoc fashion demonstrates the why and when intended. But as mirror once pointed out the methods and software needed to carry off this kind of analysis has been available for decades... true. But the ability to put the data into those analytical packages in a carefree way has NOT existed... EVER. At least not legally. So notice where the vital point is (the Digits guy gives us the clue very simply) at 3:30: "So what HP has done here is created this gigantic platform they call IDOL 10..." and he stumbles around the base of the explanation at 3:40 without ever touching what IDOL10 is supposed to do. (I thought you were supposed to be a journalist Digits guy. I thought you were supposed to educate the industry instead of hiding the explanation.) Ah haaaaa. So the essential point in this entire discussion somehow lies within the tasks done by Autonomy's IDOL! So just what does Idol do? Well according to Autonomy it profiles and processes data for further use in the analytical packages. It pre-processes before the stream is dumped into the processing system. IDOL means "Intelligent Data Operating Layer". So it has to do with a layer between the world of data and the world of operation. "Intelligent"??? Isn't that what VCSY says McAuley as lexicographer in patent 744 could have used instead of "arbitrary" in describing objects handled in a 744 way? And what was the version before IDOL 10? "Autonomy IDOL Server 7". What happened in 8 and 9? And how is 10 suddenly able to do what 7 could never do? And what's the advantage? "From now on you can build apps that natively throw around structured and unstructured information as one item together." Mike Lynch, Autonomy In other words "arbitrarily". Why hasn't anyone been able to do this before? Lawyers; speed bumps to paradise. Patent 744 explains how data can be treated by machine in practical ways the manual world can only describe in theory. Patent 629 describes how that capability can be packaged for machine use in derived software. The current child application continuing 629 desribes how that capability can be packaged in software languages for machines to build their own derived frameworks. Patent 521 describes how those capabilities from framework to language can be packaged for remote/local transformation at any scale. Patent application Emily describes how that remote/local transformation capability can be carried by language to any machine. The woman represents the 90% mirror plays to as baffled by "bogus" "buzzwords" and jaded by incessant "hype" cycles promulgated by an industry always just on the verge of figuring out HOW to GRAB...only to fail at scale and start yet one more expensive R&D effort to solve the same problem: arbitrating between different segments of the scaling monster. The 10% above that 90% know there must be a way and they know the meaning derived will be astounding. But they don't know how because they depend on the best minds in the industry to come up with a solution. Yet they're baffled by why the problem is intractable for so long. We were supposed to be there at Java. But Java failed at scale. We were supposed to be there at Ajax. But Ajax fails at scale. We were supposed to be there at Hadoop. But Hadoop fails precisely at the same point all other methods of arbitrating between different points: at the point where the size of the applied framework overpowers the framework's ability to govern the differences at joints. It's not a muscle problem. These industrial giants and their cherry picked startups have the muscle. It's not a bone problem. The maturation cycles on each of these "next big things" is already old. Those are the two elements everyone considers vital yet they don't understand framework structure. Call it a tendon/ligament problem. Call it the joining material problem. The join we know. The result of the join we know. But how to make sure the join is strong enough to resist fragmentation at super-loaded scale is what the industry has not been able to produce on their own. Build a scaffold out of pipe or bamboo. Make the material of the scaffold as strong as possible (we've employed our best mathematical minds to devise ways of analyzing to make up the structure after all these years - so that work is done and has been done for a long time). Come up with the most ingenius way of lashing the pieces together. Certainly the industry has fiddle farted around with those different methods and each attempt has built their own little industry empire around Java Ajax Comet Hadoop to name only a few). Each has been the industry's salvation only to see yet another attempt supercede the previous. The greater the scale the greater the pressure on the joined parts... where? At the fastener. And where in the fastener? In the way the fastener grips adjoining pieces of the framework. The part that actually creates the mating two different pieces of structure will fail first unless it is perfectly simple and elegant. The entire industry knows the problem. They simply don't know the solution because the prime architects and management are not going to tell newspapers they don't have the solution. They're going to tell them they're "working on it" and the solution is "just around the corner"... "next year for sure". Hadoop was supposed to be their salvation (just like Java was supposed to be their salvation back in the day). But what has come from all this arguing and grumbling? It turns out XML is their salvation. And not just XML but XML used in ways it's never been used (legally) before. Well you see the result of the biggest companies in the world "working on it" for the past decade: Autonomy is ahead of all the rest BUT they say they're using technology from 2006 and "something else". Obviously "something else" or all these others who are hanging their hats (and heads) on Hadoop with "limited success" would not have such "limited" success. Limits indicate arbitration must be accomplished to eradicate each and every limit. So what could possibly be the "something else". I'll show you a quick and easy place to begin looking and nobody will believe you if you tell them (and that's why they won't look): http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/enterprise-search/autonomy-idol-enterprise-search-and-the-improvements-required-25522 Autonomy IDOL (Enterprise Search) and the Improvements Required Rishi Kandel | Jun 21, 2008 "...after being such a great product in the market, there are many things that need to be improved to make this product to little more manageable by normal System Administrators as well as making it bit more marketable. "To start with let's examine the IDOL Server's configuration file which is the bible to the server and core of everything. At first glance, it seems pretty simple and easy, the simple text file with name value structure for the parameters to be passed to the server. It's great!! Looks like anyone can do it. More we understand, it gets more complex. " Now remember where we ended up seeing the first kink in the Android armor that invites developers to begin infringing on 744 - therefore the reason why Samsung and LG are lawsuit targets for Vertical: the configuration file. Not so much that the configuration file can't be in XML. Controlling content and format with XML is prior art. Not so much that XML allows the configuration file to be a central point to controlling the entire operating system or application framework. But in that the configuration file in XML tempts the developer to begin employing functionality centered around a single file rather than a widely scattered set of libraries and functional units. And if the idea in Emily is to empower XML statements with the ability to provide immediate and abstracted functionality at the very locus of the data's existence we can then imagine single configuration files empowered to do all the work traditionally done by elaborate interconnection schemes sewing the seams between operating systems applications systems and platforms. Who's going to believe such a simple problem is standing in the way of paradise? There's much more from there but that is where the 10% can at least begin studying to come to an understanding. The 90% won't understand until they see it being done. The 0.1% are already there... they just need permission from their lawyers to make it public. HP has integrated Vertica and Autonomy in record time if we're to believe HP only started working on the problem when the Autonomy acquisition was closed. If we're to believe lawyers respect patent boundaries HP has been working on this situation for a long time and is only now confident enough to make some announcements. HP either believes they will prevail in the Markman and the Judge will make a summary decision to invalidate or they believe they will not prevail in the Markman and they know they will settle before the event. The entire thing hinges on Al's definition of "arbitrary". It's really that plain simple and uncomplicated. - - - - - View Replies » |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313345
| By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 03:39 PM CST Rating: | Msg. 313345 of 314207 (Reply to 313344 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. # |
| And what is your definition of "arbitrary" mirror? Why can't the industry do what HP wants to do with Autonomy and why IDOL10. You won't touch any of it. But your ego demands you continue posting to rescue some self respect. I believe HP is going to settle before the Markman hearing. Meg Whitman says she needs another "two weeks" to decide webOS. If she felt they were going to go through with the Markman she would have said "by the end of December" as the judge's decision regarding the Markman won't be available in two weeks. So how will Interwoven dispute the definition of "arbitrary" mirror? How do you define the word? - - - - - View Replies » |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313347
| By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 03:49 PM CST Rating: | Msg. 313347 of 314207 Jump to msg. # |
| Basing a future on an unknown such as a Markman hearing outcome is a dangerous thing to do. Is Meg Whitman playing chicken? Or is she letting competitors perceive the conflict run its course while pulling elements together to make a blockbuster announcement January 1? If she knows the outcome of the Markman she knows what here path will be. If she does not know the outcome of the Markman she is taking a great risk at having to delay any announcement in 2012 that could propel HP forward. More objectively playing a risk card at this point would put her entire future with HP in doubt with other principals and the board. If Microsoft can't define "arbitrary" (see Case 2:07-cv-00144-DF-CE Document 52 Filed 06/06/2008 MICROSOFT’S BRIEF ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION) and Interwoven has to work its way around to a definition of arbitrary (see Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document76 Filed11/14/11 INTERWOVEN, INC.’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-5) while Vertical depends on the common and plain definition of arbitrary then how would Whitman et al be confident of a favorable Markman outcome? Answer is she can't. Therefore settling with VCSY before the Markman would allow her to move forward with an announcement she's already made (IDOL10) without fear of Samsung and/or LG and putting her strategy in question. So until somebody can come up with a definitive explanation as to how "arbitrary" can mean anything favorable to Interwoven when it was clearly not favorable to Microsoft (MSFT had to use "arbitrary" to define arbitrary) the question of Interwoven "kicking" anybody's butt but their own is up in the air. |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313354
| By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 04:24 PM CST Rating: | Msg. 313354 of 314207 Jump to msg. # |
| Does he need a shove? -------------------- Case 2:07-cv-00144-DF-CE Document 52 Filed 06/06/2008 MICROSOFT’S BRIEF ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION page 15 Term: arbitrary object Microsoft: Any combination of application logic and data desired by the developer that is interchangeable with another arbitrary object of another type. Vertical: An object that can be created independently by individual preference and that can be accessed solely by name. -------------------- Flaw: Microsoft failed to define "arbitrary" - choosing instead to use the word "arbitrary" in the definition. -------------------- Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document76 Filed11/14/11 INTERWOVEN, INC.’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF page 20 Term: Arbitrary Object(s) Interwoven: Discrete entity accessed by its corresponding arbitrary name, created by the user based on individual preference, used to generate the form, the functionality, and the content of said computer application or web site, that are interchangeable and referenced in a consistent manner within the arbitrary object framework. Vertical: An object that can be created independently by individual preference and that can be optionally accessed solely by name, the object being an entity that can have form, content or functionality or any combination of form, content and functionality. -------------------- Flaw: Interwoven fails in the same way attempting to use "arbitrary" in the definition. -------------------- In both cases Vertical defines the term with unambiguous meaning without having to fudge or blur. Additionally Interwoven is attempting to commandeer the meaning of object limiting the patent claims by inferring the traditional software world's understanding of "object" in order to set up for attack on VCSY's use of content/form/functionality... just as mirror wants to do. In other words while an object in traditional use may be "used to generate the form, the functionality, and the content of said computer application or web site" the 744/629 patent demonstrates objects may be a component of content or/and form or/and functionality by which applications may be built using only the name of the object thus an arbitrary use of an arbitrary name identifying an arbitrary object. Those two things "arbitrary" and "content form functionality" demonstrate the novelty and usefulness of the patent while mirror and Interwoven demonstrate the inherent limitations embodied in their use of the terms. Mirror can't even struggle with content form functionality so how are we supposed to expect him to define arbitrary? LOL Now if you were Meg Whitman would you bet your career the reputation of everyone on the board and the future of HP on winning based on Interwoven's convoluted effort? Or would you bow to the commercial imperative and common sense to buy a license and move forward with outfitting IDOL10 within a webOS environment and a 744/629 ecosystem? I know what I would do because it will cost $X-negotiable before the Markman but could end up costing $Y-unlimited thereafter. - - - - - View Replies » |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313358
| By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 05:01 PM CST Rating: | Msg. 313358 of 314207 (Reply to 313357 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. # |
| "I am not a legal or patent expert" that never stopped you before throughout the past 11 years. "so I don't have a strong opinion on how these issues will be used in court." But these are the only issues that will be used in court and yet you say Interwoven is "kicking VCSY's butt". How can you know then? So you're saying there's no way you can possibly know because you don't understand the context or the content of the issues. "terms like "arbitrary:, 'form", "function", "context", "data", "metadata", etc. are difficult to define presicely." I don't see that you even bothered to try this time around. You certainly gave it a go when it was Microsoft's turn in the barrel. I can come up with a precise definition within a few minutes. Of course I obviously know a great deal more about the English language than you. So in other words your opinion is pointless and mine is more valid. "They are context-related terms the software industry argues endlessly about." Actually no. The industry has already demonstrated they don't know what arbitrary means. Microsoft can't define it and Interwoven can't define it. Vertical uses a dictionary based view of it in the hands of the only lexicographer that matters: the patent inventor who has successfully explained his meaning to the USPTO on numerous occasions. As for content form and function just because you don't know how to use those terms doesn't mean they aren't well defined. "Depending on the situation, they will mean different things." No they will always "mean" the same thing. Different sides will attempt to appropriate their most favorable meaning by use of distortion of the original meaning. "That is what I have learned during 25 years of software development in various corporate IT depts." You mean all three departments ranging a one year experience repeated 25 times? Your "knowledge" shows you have a very shallow level of experience that doesn't measure up to substantive discussions. So all your opinions about VCSY technology can therefore be discarded as unlearned and uneducated. "Personally, I don't think our court system is up to the task" So you've assumed your side is going to lose. Well at least you're a realist even though you have fantasies about your own importance. "I think Interwoven has more on the ball in this type of case." Didn't you say the judge will decide based on the definitions? Interwoven shows they know tricks. But tricks don't work when it comes to language. You're demonstrating that right now. "We'll know soon." As Meg Whitman says we'll know in two weeks. Such a shame you turned out to be such a simpleton and dunce. But I guess if one has to hide one might as well hide under something that's easy to become. |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313372
| By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 07:44 PM CST Rating: | Msg. 313372 of 314207 (Reply to 313371 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. # |
| Seems now you're in a talkative mood mirror. OK Then let's talk. Microsoft could have taken VCSY apart by simply keeping their in-house lawyers on the case for one more day then waited to hear from the judge. By your position you claim Microsoft would have prevailed in the Markman hearing. But that's now what a logical view of Microsoft's actions show. Additionally I don't think Wade would have been responsible letting Microsoft use the technology until others had been brought in to demonstrate ownership and enforcement on the patent claims. We are only now seeing Microsoft begin to show evidence of a new capability they've been unable to show at any time. I consider that evidence the confidential portion of the license from 2008 is being fulfilled and the embargo against Microsoft using the technology is being removed... just in time for HP and others to begin using it as well. So you can couch your language in Al terms but it doesn't add up and you know it. You have really got to be ashamed of yourself for having to weasel and snivel like that while avoiding more substantive matters in front of you. Whitman has drivers Ballmer didn't have to contend with. Ballmer had time and circumstances for cover and camouflage. Whitman does not have that luxury but must now deliver quickly where Ballmer could afford to diddle around and wait and it played into his favor for VCSY to prevent Microsoft from enacting the license provisions until now. - - - - - View Replies » |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313377
| By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 08:00 PM CST Rating: | Msg. 313377 of 314207 (Reply to 313375 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. # |
| All you have is personal opinion and no facts. You like to sling that kind of blanket statement around as though you know what you're talking about but you obviously don't. You claimed Microsoft was going to squash VCSY in the Markman hearing in 2008. They didn't. Microsoft folded. Ballmer has been shown to be the guy in charge at Microsoft in many more ways than one and he owns Microsoft's stockprice chart since 2000. Ballmer was caught between an industry media that ridiculed Microsoft because MSFT couldn't get on the web on one side and Microsoft's own developers who were sick and tired of Microsoft's crippled ADO .Net capabilities. He was forced to settle by those two pincer points. Whitman has the board to mull over decisions and directions. That's even better for us because it doesn't become a personality game but rather a business imperative driving HP. So HP going through this Markman December 14 is a roll of the dice the board is not going to want to make. Your statements make you look like a clueless noob... which is what we've all come to know you as. But your statements are so ridiculously naive they aren't even worth reading. Don't you have any substance at all? |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313381
| By: moonpunk 30 Nov 2011, 08:17 PM CST Rating: | Msg. 313381 of 314207 (Reply to 313379 by mrrrfk) Jump to msg. # |
| Interwoven won the decision to keep the case in San Francisco but it was a huge mistake for them. If they had stayed in Texas they would have plenty of time to maneuver and build a market. But now they are up against a Markman hearing December 14. So congratulations mirror. Your side won and ended up in a huge screw up. I'm sure you've very proud to be so "right". Not only that but they're currently in a high pressure situation that demands their bosses decide immediately how they will handle the case... and Interwoven doesn't get to make that decision. No Vertical did not use the term metadata in their brief but they did use "data" and "code" - both of which Interwoven agrees with. And both use "formatting" which is one of the uses for metadata. Or don't you agree formatting is one aspect of metadata? So of all the different things people might think you would be able to discuss all you can do is try to make points on those two issues: Interwoven is in California court and Vertical didn't use the word "metadata". LOL Glad to see you getting worked up. We might even get you to say something honest by mistake. Do you realize how petty and foolish you look now? So "oh man of posed substance" what have you got to say now? - - - - - View Replies » |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313409
| By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 08:42 AM CST Rating: | Msg. 313409 of 314207 (Reply to 313407 by 13truck) Jump to msg. # |
| 13truck The VCSY/Microsoft Markman was rescheduled two weeks later without objection by VCSY. But the briefs between the two companies were civil to the point of sounding polite and we know after the fact the delay was intended to accomplish negotiation toward a settlement rather than an adjustment period to get ready for the Markman in 2008. I don't think Niro is in any mood to grant any sort of delay based on the tenor of the current VCSY brief. It sounds like they've had enough of Interowoven's attempts to trick both Vertical and the court and at this point any reason for delay would be contested forcing Interwoven to prove to the court the need for delay. Because of Interwoven's actions Whitman now finds herself in a do or die situation. If VCSY decides to force Interwoven to go through the Markman as I feel they should her "two weeks" window for deciding on what to do with webOS gets shifted a third time (she's already adjusted the wait and see a week later than her first announcement) and she then gets a reputation for indecisiveness and uncertainty. A week with the fate of 600 people (the webOS team) hanging in the balance only days before the holidays is a torture the press would love to describe. It would also ##### the consciences (assuming such a thing exists among "the press") of those in the press who probably know the score but can't speak out of turn. |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313410
| By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 08:52 AM CST Rating: | Msg. 313410 of 314207 (Reply to 313408 by mypointz) Jump to msg. # |
| mypoint I agree. What appears convoluted difficult and distorted in the Interwoven brief is demonstrated quite clearly and plainly in the Vertical brief. This section from the Vertical brief shows quite clearly the predicament Interwoven now owns: ---------------------- B. Interwoven Cannot Evade A Full-Blown Invalidity Analysis Interwoven cannot evade a full-blown validity analysis (with all the procedural safeguards of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) by raising the specter of invalidity during the claim construction phase. Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999). "Claims are not indefinite merely because they present a difficult task of claim construction." Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008). "Only claims not amenable to construction or insoluably ambiguous are indefinite." Id. at 1250. Proof of indefiniteness requires "an exacting standard" that is met where the challenger "shows by clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan could not discern the boundaries of the claim based on the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution history, as well as her knowledge of the relevant art area." Halliburton, 514 F.3d at 1249-50. The defendants have not even attempted to meet this burden and standard. In Microsoft v. i4i, the Supreme Court recently addressed the burden of proof for showing invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 282 and affirmed the long standing rule that clear and convincing evidence is required. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (U.S. 2011) ("We consider whether § 282 requires an invalidity defense to be proved by clear and convincing evidence. We hold that it does."). Thus, in order to show that claims are indefinite, an accused infringer must come forth with clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the boundaries of a claim. As the Federal Circuit held in Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co.: An accused infringer must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that one of ordinary skill in the relevant art could not discern the boundaries of the claim based on the claim language, the specification, the prosecution history, and the knowledge in the relevant art - By finding claims indefinite only if reasonable efforts at claim construction prove futile, we accord respect to the statutory presumption of patent validity and we protect the inventive contribution of patentees, even when the drafting of their patents has been less than ideal. 642 F.3d 1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted). A patent claim is sufficiently definite if "one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification." Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "If the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, - the claim [is] sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds." Exxon Research & Eng'g Co., 265 F.3d at 1375. See also, Fernandez Innovative Technologies, L.L.C. v. General Motors Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41537, 26-27 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2008) (adopting plaintiff's proposed construction, concluding that the defendants failed to meet the "exacting" standard of indefiniteness and holding that the term "configuration" was sufficiently definite); and Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27444, 115-116 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2008) (holding that because the inventors provided "a general guideline and examples sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine" whether the measurement zone" limitation is satisfied by an accused device, the '745 claim terms are not indefinite). -------------------- If a nobody moonpunk can rip a hole in Interwoven's contentions (which none of our "skeptics" have been able to sew back together) Niro's people will be able to easily put Interwoven through a shredder. A Markman decision would be an unavoidable newspaper headline and the decision would establish once and for all the enforceability of 744/629. It would also move the prosecution of the 629 child forward in the USPTO and would establish the principles in 521 for enforcement and those being prosecuted in Emily. Then Meg Whitman will have to explain how it is the board put HP shareholders in such a terrible situation because there is no "Interwoven" without having a big smiley HP face sticking out there covered with egg. |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=313412
| By: moonpunk 01 Dec 2011, 09:03 AM CST Rating: | Msg. 313412 of 314207 (Reply to 313411 by choochoo2000) Jump to msg. # |
| chooch A Markman favorable to VCSY would put Interwoven thus Autonomy thus HP under pressure to cancel any plans to put forth any new products which would infringe the claims validated by the Markman. That's another predicament Interwoven now finds due to their success in having the case in San Francisco instead of Texas. If they had gone to Texas they would be sitting pretty along with Samsung and LG and Vertical (and we) would be forced to wait. But now in San Francisco the day of judgement is nigh. - - - - - View Replies » |
To be continued...
Posted by Portuno Diamo
at 12:07 PM EST
Updated: Thursday, 8 December 2011 12:53 PM EST
