Now that we bought a deadbolt, the neighbors aren't "dropping in" like they used to.
Mood:
don't ask
Now Playing: Somebody's been sleeping in my bed! - Fairytale ending to home invasion scenarios (adult fantasies)
Topic: The Sneaky Runarounds
Hey everybody! How about a big tepid bowl of ignorant soup?
Now that Microsoft is an ally in protecting the validity of patent 6826744, we can go back to the past and see what kinds of brilliant analysis the software industry had to rely on to protect them from stumbling into a bear trap.
The following comments are from a news blurb April 2007 announcing VCSY had sued Microsoft for infringement of 6826844. I am placing these here because someone on Raging Bull VCSY board posted the article and pointed out some material in one of the posts: http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=226723
I attempted to post all this on Yahoo VCSY board, but the Yahoo board froze up when I tried to post the first segment, so, I thought I might leave this little bag of flaming poo here so everyone will have some idea what it's like to listen in on a gang of thugs disappointed they won't get a chance to break into your house and cart off everything you've worked hard to achieve.
Enjoy!
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/07/04/21/microsoft-hit-with-patent-suit-over-net
>> #1 Posted by Quick Reply on 21 Apr 2007 - 15:55
These definitions are way too vague! Been on notice since February 7? That's plenty of notice, even though .NET framework has been around since 2002! <<
And since the patent was applied for in 1999, plenty had the opportunity to build their own versions of the patent claims to see how they worked. Apparently, Microsoft liked what they saw. I wonder how many are now in the telescopic sights of Raymond Niro and Charles Wade?
>>#2 Posted by noroom on 21 Apr 2007 - 15:56
Booo! Down with software patents! <<
Hissss. Down with people who want to rip off pioneering IP. Give 'em the razzberry!
>>#3 Posted by superhuman on 21 Apr 2007 - 15:57
This is Funny. XML is an open specification. Everyone can use it to build their website. I am not sure why they let them patent it. <<
"Everyone can use XML to build their website." What's funny is you didn't have any idea what that patent said about processing XML. That's why you sound so ignorant now.
>>#4 Posted by ahhell on 21 Apr 2007 - 16:14
MS is going to eat that company for breakfast. <<
Want some bacon with that egg on your face?
>>#5 Posted by chaosblade on 21 Apr 2007 - 16:30
MS is going to buy that company for breakfast <<
Did they leave a tip? Yeah. Here's a tip. Don't talk about things you know nothing about.
>>#6 Posted by +ECEGatorTuro on 21 Apr 2007 - 17:06
MS is going to crap that company out a few hours after breakfast.<<
That was some dump, booboo. Sure you don't need a forklift to get you off that commode?
>>#7 Posted by XeonBuilder on 21 Apr 2007 - 17:12
Are they kidding me?
Everyone wants a piece of Bill pie... How he does buy them and sells them on eBay. <<
But Bill didn't buy them, did he? He settled with them. The day before the Markman Hearing... and you know what that means.
>>#8 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 21 Apr 2007 - 17:33
What a load. They need to line up suits against the entire computer industry. AJAX is a framework, as is Java, Ruby, HTML, and almost every other programming environment ever used. I wish MS could countersue for harassment.
EDIT: Here's Vertical's company description:
"Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (VCSY) is a provider of Internet core technologies, administrative software, and derivative software application products through its distribution network."
Now, everyone that their software is derived from can just steamroll right over them since they opened the door.
BONUS: http://www.vcsy.com/investor/stockactivity.php
Their stock is worth 2 cents! lol
Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 21 Apr 2007 - 17:58<<
That's right. The entire industry. It's what we had been warning you clinks for years before. Steamroll over VCSY? I don't think so, fat girl. That rolling sound is just you dropping your doughnut. I'm sure MSFT dearly wanted to be able to countersue VCSY for harrassment, but that's not how it went for Mister Softee. The judge signed off on the case and therefore cancelled any further discussion with extreme prejudice. Case closed. NEXT!
>> #9 Posted by +azcodemonkey on 21 Apr 2007 - 17:56
LOL I'm completely certain that there is prior art. I worked with a company around the same time that was doing the same thing -- wrapping arbitrary objects or using "pointers" to objects/data for use in a web portal. Who wasn't doing this in 1999?
Everyone working with the current web tech at the time saw a need for this kind of thing and grew their own. I really don't know how they expect to win. The .NET Framework isn't really like Vertical's tech at all. Sharepoint/web parts, on the other hand, seems more like what Vertical has produced. .NET, you still have to do a lot of work to achieve what Vertical's patent covers. Besides, architecture is architecture. Using components in the web was a natural progression from classic ASP inline script or static html. I guess Vertical should sue Plumtree, Sun, BEA and the rest of the world for this one. <<
Everybody? 1999? Are you sure about that, doc? That's funny. There were only a select group of software pioneers aware of XML back in 1999 and you're saying "Everyone working with the current web tech at the time saw a need for this kind of thing and grew their own."? Want a little XML history? http://www.w3.org/XML/hist2002
XML Development History - Historical events in and around the W3C XML Activity include Recommendations:
Want some more?
http://www.itwriting.com/xmlintro.php
Copyright Tim Anderson January 2004
Read the paragraph on Microsoft and XML. Microsoft thought they had VCSY wrapped up.
And, by the way, the aforementioned Charles Goldfarb was among those besides IBM touting VCSY's XML solutions back in the early years. Here's a sample:
SEC Info - Vertical Computer Systems Inc - 10KSB - For 12/31/01
"The .NET Framework isn't really like Vertical's tech at all. Sharepoint/web parts, on the other hand, seems more like what Vertical has produced. .NET, you still have to do a lot of work to achieve what Vertical's patent covers."
Uhhh, you see, the idea is, Microsoft wanted .Net to BECOME what VCSY Siteflash could do. Not the wrong way around as this numbnut saw it. I wonder how he sees it now?
And, yes Virginia. Sharepoint was somwhat like SiteFlash. Now, the idea is to make Sharepoint a whole lot like SiteFlash and become a living software ecology for Windows. Thus Windows 7's humble beginnings.
Keep reading, pilgrim. You'll learn by accident.
>>#10 Posted by NightmarE D on 21 Apr 2007 - 20:25
It's a company that isn't worth a nickel whose desperate for money.
I hate companies like this. They can't make a name for themselves so they'll try to sue another company to make a few dollars.
#10.1 Posted by Ideas Man on 22 Apr 2007 - 01:13
Are we talking about Real here
I absolutely agree. If this was such a big deal, why wasn't the suit done back in 2002? Why is it loosers like this, Real, Eolas and the like wait years before they sue? I reckon there should be some expirary date on these things, because they almost always ask for damages in the millions, and they always sue well after the product is used by the millions, seems wrong to me.<<
Uhhhh, hello dummy. The patent was not granted until 2004. VCSY gave Microsoft a long time to get their act together and negotiate for a settlement.
"and they always sue well after the product is used by the millions, seems wrong to me" That's right. Millions. Seems fair, equitable and right to me.
>>#11 Posted by Jugalator on 21 Apr 2007 - 20:52
Haha, "arbitrary object framework"?
So in other words, they try to enforce a patent about "building websites in a modern programming language"?
Wow, I hope they won't succeed in that... <<
Haha. Haha haha. Haha hahaha hahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahaaaaaahahahahaaaaa. I don't think I'll ever stop laughing at that one.
>>#12 Posted by black_death on 21 Apr 2007 - 21:06
roflmao! this has got to be my second favourite patent infringement suite next to the MP3 one of course. who the hell works at the US patent office, elementary school drop outs? <<
Blah blah blah. The stupid ones are the ones who shoot their clueless foot while it's in their clueless mouth. This has got to be my favorite patent infringement suit (not suite you idiot) next to none.
>><#13 Posted by Jelly2003 on 21 Apr 2007 - 21:16
Step 1) Lets found a company
Step 2) Lets have an idea and patient it
Step 3) Lets stick our head in the sand
... YEARS LATER ...
Step 4) Lets take our head out the sand
HOLY CRAP! Someone has been infringing our patient for over 5 years!
LETS SUE!!!
PS. How pathetic, this company doesn't even deserve the time of day.
What's their excuse? They're a "Global Web Services Provider", how could anyone who develops for the net not know about ASP.net?
Obviously what's happened is that the company has been bought out, and the new directors have suddenly realised that the company has these patients which can bail them out of trouble, because obviously they don't have a clue about the internet, they're not making money from it, so the only way that they can survive is by stealing from those who do know about the internet.<<
Isn't it amazing just how uninformed the loudmouths turn out to be? it's a fact of nature. Loudmouth dumbasses are made, not born.
>>#14 Posted by +Octol on 21 Apr 2007 - 21:20
Quote -
VCSY’s main administrative software product is emPath 6.3, which is developed and distributed by Now Solutions, Inc.. Vertical’s primary internet core technologies include SiteFlash™, ResponseFlash™ and the Emily XML Scripting Language, which can be used to build web services.
I can't wait for Adobe to nail these guys for trademark infringement:
SiteFlash™
ResponseFlash™
Using the "Flash" name, even as part of a compound term, would be no different than using SiteWindows™" or "ResponseWindows™", and we all know how long Microsoft would let them get away with that!<<
Well, now, isn’t THAT an interesting opinion? What’s up with Adobe? Are they deaf? Hard of reading? DO you think Adobe knew what they were doing when they codenamed AIR Apollo?
VCSY: At the Epicenter of the New Truly Global Internet Revolution
All the products sold on the sites will be able to be purchased by major credit card or VCSY'swebsites' Apollo Smart Card with enhanced security and ...
www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-23-2001/0001474662&EDATE= - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
Do you think they got the news yet. Do you think these guys commenting will ever get smart?
>>#15 Posted by water.hammer on 21 Apr 2007 - 21:48
Uber pwnage<<
I wonder if "water.hammer" pissed his leg off? Pure ownership on VCSY's behalf. The rest of you nitwits can line up and take a number. Do the peepee dance if you're in a hurry.
>> #16 Posted by MaceX on 21 Apr 2007 - 22:16
You get 1000 people to solve a problem.
90% of them will solve the problem in some way that would infringe on a patent.
That's the problem with software patents. It stifles development in software because there is so much collusion. <<
Do you mean collusion by those in the software industry who tried to destroy VCSY? That must be what he means. Who else would VCSY collude with to have their patent granted?
>>#17 Posted by neufuse on 22 Apr 2007 - 01:37
too bad the patent doesnt even match how the .NET framework works if you read it...... and they are "Vertical is asking for a jury trial." asking for a jury trial because they know a judge would throw it right out.. they just want to confuse people that dont understand the tech and make them think they are the same
Last edited by neufuse on 22 Apr 2007 - 01:44<<
Too bad neufuse doesn’t know a judge hears the Markman Hearing which determines by law which side of the litigation has rightful ownership of the patent claims language.The jury is just there to determine just how heinous the infringement is for the purpose of apportioning damages.
>>#18 Posted by theh0g on 22 Apr 2007 - 11:53
Don't software patents ever expire? <<
Sure. The Siteflash patent will expire around 2024. Are you going to hold it that long? You'll bust a kidney, you know...
>>#19 Posted by zivan56 on 22 Apr 2007 - 18:15
Wouldn't Java be violating this as well then?<<
Well now, it all depends on what you're doing with Java, Einstein. If you're imitating the claims of the 644 patent with Java then Yes. If not, then No.
(end selections)
-------------------
Posted by Portuno Diamo
at 2:45 AM EDT
Updated: Sunday, 28 September 2008 12:20 PM EDT