VCSY - A Laughing Place #2

Tuesday, 31 March 2009

Monkey see monkey doo.
Mood:

celebratory
Now Playing: "Spark Plug Polka" Dancers undergo electric shock therapy without commercial interruption (ritual mutilation))
Topic: Pervasive Computing

Take these 10 principles from the manifesto and present them as the opposite stand. That's what Microsoft, Google and Amazon will have to sell to the industry and the market. IBM has a very easy job and has a marketing hammer by which to allow clients and the market to ask the recalcitrants critical questions.

Simply applying a "not" in front of each sentence subject sheds light on the way traditional software companies have done business and how they want to continue operating.

1. User centric systems [DO NOT] enrich the lives of individuals; education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and society as a whole.

2. Philanthropic initiatives can [NOT] greatly increase the well-being of mankind.

3. Openness of standards, systems and software [DOES NOT] empower(s) and protect(s) users.

4. Transparency [DOES NOT] foster(s) trust and accountability; decisions should [NOT] be open to public collaboration and scrutiny and [NOT] never be made "behind closed doors". (The double negative means "decisions... should be made behind closed doors" to the anti-manifesto player.)

5. Interoperability [DOES NOT] ensures effectiveness of cloud computing as a public resource; systems must [NOT] be interoperable.

6. Representation of all stakeholders is [NOT] essential; interoperability and standards efforts should [NOT] not be dominated by vendor(s). (The double negative means "interoperability and standards efforts should be dominated by vendors" to the anti-manifesto player.)

7. Discrimination against any party for any reason is [NOT] unacceptable.

8. Evolution is [NOT] an ongoing process in an immature market; standards may [NOT] take some time to develop and coalesce.

9. Balance of commercial and consumer interests is [NOT] paramount.

10. Security is [NOT] fundamental, [NOT] not optional. (The double negative means "Security IS optional" to the anti-manifesto player.)

Of course, each party will argue they are NOT putting a "[NOT]" against each point. They will argue for more finesse. But, each finessing point will require a rationale made public and arguing against each of these points in public will damage each party's future posture.

IBM must have a large list of notable players already signed on to force these anti players to engage in "negotiations". Negotiations for what? What strength does the manifesto have behind it and how damaging will an anti-manifesto be for these players in the future?

The manifesto is a baseball bat corporations may now use against those who are posturing to build universal platforms but are angling to present proprietary lock-in platforms.

Google and Amazon and Salesforce, to name the top few, have found themselves unwittingly forced into posturing precisely like Microsoft. Not a good thing when you're trying to differentiate yourself for the beginning of a new age.

What do they have to fear from these?

IBM

Sun Microsystems

VMWare

AT&T

Telefonica

Cisco Systems

EMC

SAP

Advanced Micro Devices

Elastra

rPath

Juniper Networks

Red Hat

Hyperic

Akamai

Novell

Sogeti

Rackspace

RightScale

GoGrid

Aptana

CastIron

EngineYard

Eclipse

SOASTA

LongJump

NC State

Enomaly

Nirvanix

OMG

Computer Science Corp.

Boomi

Reservoir

Appistry

Heroku

Plenty.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:51 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Friday, 27 March 2009

From the other side of the mouth
Mood:

accident prone
Now Playing: "Slap Stick" What they used to use on students (history)
Topic: Endorsements

But, seriously, folks...

Who's strong enough to make Microsoft keep a secret?

From http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=18020&mid=18020&tof=1&frt=2

From comments to this:

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/web_services_browser/cloud_manifesto_is_microsoft_afraid_of_rain.html

portuno_diamo :

These are from a "cloud manifesto" on wikipedia:

1. User centric systems enrich the lives of individuals; education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and society as a whole.

2. Philanthropic initiatives can greatly increase the well-being of mankind.

3. Openness of standards, systems and software empowers and protects users.

4. Transparency fosters trust and accountability; decisions should be open to public collaboration and scrutiny and never be made "behind closed doors".

5. Interoperability ensures effectiveness of cloud computing as a public resource; systems must be interoperable.

6. Representation of all stakeholders is essential; interoperability and standards efforts should not be dominated by vendor(s).

7. Discrimination against any party for any reason is unacceptable.

8. Evolution is an ongoing process in an immature market; standards may take some time to develop and coalesce.

9. Balance of commercial and consumer interests is paramount.

10. Security is fundamental, not optional.

As reported by Mary Jo Foley, a Microsoft representative won't comment on whether these points are in the top-secret "cloud manifesto" Microsoft has been asked to sign.

I thought everybody said nobody can keep a secret?

What kind of power is behind a document that prevents Microsoft’s Senior Director of Development Platform Management Steven Martin from speaking?

One would have to ask Steve Ballmer which of these 10 tenets Microsoft finds so onerous. There seem to be quite a few in there that have run counter to Microsoft's demonstrated way of doing things, so I would have to say "all the above".

I would caution Mister Ballmer to use a rare better judgment and sign what he can see.

It's the things one can't see that end up bringing nightmares into the barn.

Posted by portuno_diamo | March 27, 2009 7:56 AM

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 8:36 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Sunday, 22 March 2009

X Marks the Spot
Mood:

a-ok
Now Playing: "Stupid Goes to School" Imposter finds himself surrounded by experts (reality)
Topic: Calamity

Sorry the text rendering on this site is screwed up so, here's a much more readable version:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3810960476663402897&postID=2251760952382393551

We ask that you be patient with us in this transition.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

http://humourvideosonline.blogspot.com/2007/09/stupid-mirror.html

The following text was cut and pasted and didn't do well in the execution:

Poor mirror needs a reason to post on Raging Bull and Yahoo very badly. So he's resorted to chasing Portuno the Great anywhere he can have a chance at getting a response. Mirror intentionally holds a dying view on the new technology era. He must actively ignore and dismiss new developments as only a delusion and marketing hoax. Time has not been kind to Mirror's credibility. Time has crippled the Microsoft shareprice. Mirror's mindset is what is responsible for the Microsoft shareprice. Ballmer was an early proponent of Mirror's views. Time has now shown Mirror lost the argument. Now he's about to lose his job. Those he represents have lost much because the software industry positions they have tried so hard to protect have changed to what VCSY intellectual property predicted from 2000. http://vcsy.blogspot.com/2007/11/lets-do-ragingbull-tos-dance.html August 25, 2008 8:19 AM mirror said... Portuno has been completely discredited by VCSY's own management and has been under legal scrutiny for penny stock pumping. Be careful when reading anything Portuno says. He does not have a technical background. March 13, 2009 6:55 AM mirror said... Portuno has abandoned his delusional VCSY cause and you won't seem him posting about it here, or anywhere. It seems like there has been legal action taken against him for pumping this his favorite penny stock with lies and deceit. You should ignore everything he has ever written. It will all be removed in due time anyway. March 22, 2009 10:33 AM Anonymous said... Portuno says: Poor mirror is desperate for a chatting partner so he can justify his vociferous campaign against VCSY. Mirror missed being able to even understand the significance of the powers in VCSY's IP to predict massive, interoperable distributed computing which came to be known as "cloud" computing circa 2008-2009. Microsoft's entry into the cloud computing era is Azure which Microsoft announced November 2008. Azure matches claims of patent 6826744 quite well. Microsoft's hesitance to move Silverlight 3.0, Azure and Sharepoint as a full-force integrated concept indicates they don't have hold of the 521 patent permission. We see VCSY delaying the court date indicating VCSY is in the middle of negotiations. We see Ballmer talking about all kinds of "future" work but not able to say he's on top. "If I win..." is how he describes the future for him. And Mix09 fritters by with nothing but IE8 being released as a "surprise" that was sorely needed by Microsoft. Here's IBM and Sun about to strip the market share off Microsoft partners and Ballmer still has nothing to power his partners and client into the heart of the internet platforming concept TODAY. But, today like every other day since 2000 mirror has been pushing one view that's been continuously eroded as time marches on. Mirror missed it because he's been dedicated to the same attitude Larry Ellison used to describe cloud computing as a hoax and bogus and "been done before". Mirror's been shown by his own declared ignorance to be a consistent loser in arguments and events. Of course, Larry Ellison has long since changed course and become a cloud computing vendor. But he's very far behind the curve as Fusion shows only limited capabilities when compared against what IBM and Adobe are able to show. Those who believe like Mirror have suffered a serious setback in their ability to match the current track of those who adopted cloud computing concepts. Mirror continues to hold a failed technology view with no-one to debate any technology with him... while the market shows his technology views are all dated and wrong. VCSY's IP predicted the cloud computing age and the delays taken by VCSY in ending the Ross trial shows VCSY could play a card in the Ross trial that may impinge MSFT given the trail MSFT and CDC/Ross took over the years. Remember, the court hearing of March 18 was to show reason why Judge Solomon should not end with a judgment - that judgment being against Ross. Apparently VCSY has some reason to hold Judge Solomon from rendering their verdict. Sounds like a hammer sitting above the head of anyone who thinks they can simply wait and muscle VCSY out of their position. VCSY has all the time they need. Microsoft does not. CDC does not. As they continue, they must show cards to the industry as IBM + SUn and Adobe walk into formerly owned Microsoft territory and replace the costly Microsoft software with Microsoft-like solutions that cover the 95% of Office use cases. The longer Microsoft walks timidly in the web world, they are vulnerable. Mirror knows that. He knows the game is to play the hammering as long as they can to drive VCSY into accepting what Microsoft is offering. Apparently it's not good enough for Wade. So mirror's work is to distort and damage the public conversation about VCSY and the reputation of VCSY and VCSY's management and shareholders. Wade has had to keep things as secret as he can legally do. Mirror adapts to that defense by using it as an offensive weapon. Mirror characterizes the silence as "suspicious"... all the while unable to explain why his excessive time on message is supposed to be not suspicious. As he applies his work in the last few days before this next Ross case hearing of March 28 he has to be wondering who will blink first; Wade or Ballmer. Ballmer has Ozzie's harried and bewildered engineers pounding on him to get Microsoft into the web game before it's all over for Microsoft. Wade has VCSY shareholders demanding answers to questions they themselves can't create. Mirror's future depends on the outcome. I like watching the whole thing, actually. It proves a great deal to me and justifies my time spent writing about VCSY technology.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:13 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 23 March 2009 1:18 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Monday, 9 March 2009

The latter half of my Yahoo posting history
Topic: Notable Opinions

For some reason I can't access my Yahoo posts prior to March 23, 2008.

I'm posting this so the reader can at least thumb through posts from March 2008 and decide for themselves who's who.

http://search.messages.yahoo.com/search?.mbintl=finance&q=portuno_diamo&action=Search&r=Huiz75WdCYfD_KCA2Dc-&within=author&within=tm&off=4001

This is a good place to start:

The skeptic's view:

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=2570&mid=2570&tof=-1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1

and my response:

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=2570&mid=2587&tof=-1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1

Of course, we all know Microsoft settled with VCSY the day before the Markman Hearing of July 25, 2008.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 5:11 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 9 March 2009 5:23 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Monday, 1 December 2008

Driving a nail in the wall.
Mood:

a-ok
Now Playing: Walking on the plank - It's a short walk and a long drop (extreme violins)
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY

I thought I might take this time of boredom and waiting to do some housekeeping. I'm storing some things here to make it easier for those who care to pull things together.

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

ITEM 1

Regarding 237056 http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=237056

It's funny out of the 5 speculative explanations Irule listed for the "confidential" portion of the MSFT settlement, there is only1 that is negative (#4) and that one is not confidential since all has been revealed about that item.

#1 would be knowledge passed on to Microsoft only if Microsoft had a real use for 744.

#2 would be necessary if VCSY would be shepherding and marshalling the use of 744 in MSFT's projects and future uses ("non-exclusivity" indicates #2 would be in place to segment the areas VCSY would allow MSFT to use to prevent conflicts with other future uses VCSY anticipated developing for themselves or other partners).

#3 would restrict MSFT's dissemination of 744 capabilities to partners and would work in conjunction with #2.

#4 is what a whole bunch of very energetic and insistent people appear to want everyone to believe. If it were truly so, why would they not simply sit back and quietly watch the company fall apart and die?

#5 is what Microsoft settlements historically turn out to be and the same bunch energetically advancing #4 with no proof emphatically insist #5 is impossible.

4 out of 5 ain't bad.

looking back to 237024 http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=237034

Irule lists 6 items Irule brands as "speculative". Apparently he doesn't know that just about everything in developing small cap companies like VCSY is "speculative". It reminds me of the scornful way in which Microsoft principals and offical apologists announced as "speculation" the rumor Vista was being rewritten during the first half of 2006. Robert Scoble was one of the most insistent in claiming such "speculation" was unethical. Scoble quit as an offical MSFT blogger when the company failed to back up his righteous indignation. It turned out the "speculative" rumor was correct.

So, the speculative positives are:

#1 could very well fit into the "confidential" definition especially given the scope and difficulty in assessing the true value of something like 744 as it relates to projects and products Microsoft has only recently been able to divulge. I seriously doubt MSFT and VCSY could come to terms with the bulk of what MSFT could be planning on doing with 744 for the future in the few weeks surrounding the immediate settlement for past infringement to be completed before the Markman Hearing.

#2 as Live-Mesh, Silverlight 2.1, Synch, various aspects of Azure inoperability and many other areas (including any emulation of AJAX MSFT might want to build to compete with the rich web-GUI industry built by open-source developers since Google introduced the concept in early 2005) would be a necessary component of a Microsoft web ecosystem, I consider 521 as the shotgun in this wedding. Without 521, Microsoft would be forced to use their own SOAP and SmartClient technologies to build out their web vision. These systems have serious deficiencies which essentially made .Net unfit for large-scale, deterministic transaction frameworks on less than ideal private networks.

#3 the similarities of IBM and Adobe products to 744 and 521 are striking. In fact, it's easier to see overt uses of claims similar to 744 and 521 in IBM and Adobe than were those same claims in MSFT. This would be logical if MSFT were hiding the use of 744 and 521 and IBM and Adobe were confident they would be able to deal with VCSY when the time came.

Regarding recent patent rulings, it would appear Bilski has little effect based on the two criteria of dedicated computer application and innovative data transformation as both are easily expressed by describing 744 and 521 uses. I would think a patent lawyer could argue the easily visible points much better than I've been able... mainly because they would be getting paid to do so and they would be writing the arguments without the distraction of "America's Next Top Model" and the History Channel.... and without the impediment of chili in the keyboard.

#4 whereas NOW Solutions emPath was able to integrate Microsoft and third part applications together for interoperability and place those packages on the web for SaaS deployment long before Microsoft was able to deliver such capabilities (not because MSFT lacks the technology but they could not openly show they were using 744 or 521 claims) I would think NOW Solutions has a very valuable platform made SaaS capable by 744 and 521. I would say emPath is a very valuable asset.

#5 as VCSY has had years to refine ResponseFlash, I would think ResponseFlash could prove to be a very valuable asset.

#6 the fiber optic is "possibly" a monstrously valuable asset given uses far beyond whatever Verizon may find uses for. In other words, if Verizon can make the FO patent work, there are many thousands of potential uses for such a capability for the future.

All told , I would rank the VCSY possibilities to have more substantive information behind the speculation than rumor-mongers had when speculating about the Vista rewrite... and we know what a dirty word is "speculation" in the technology industry.

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

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 1:12 PM EST

Updated: Saturday, 13 December 2008 4:44 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Saturday, 18 October 2008

Mumps and/or Chicken Pox?
Mood:

bright
Now Playing: Dueling Diseases - Disfunctional family contracts a paradox of pathogens (acute itchybitches)
Topic: Pervasive Computing

This Microsoft lawyer can make this statement:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10068367-56.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

"I actually think the war between proprietary and open source is a thing of the past."
--Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft intellectual property lawyer

...because Microsoft now has licensed use of technology that renders all distinctions about platforms and placement "arbitrary". And who better than an intellectual property lawyer to know?

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 4:11 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 18 October 2008 4:18 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Thursday, 16 October 2008

The Lesson to be Learned.
Mood:

accident prone
Now Playing: Don't c:!###$ With Mother - Nature photog shoots self in lip (focus group)
Topic: Calamity

Mister Frickaseed says "Remember what's been forgotten. You will then own what was never lost."

http://vcsy.com/press/releases.php?year=2000&month=03&day=07&num=00

Luiz Valdetaro, Vertical's Chief Technology Officer, stated, "The Emily Framework should allow Vertical to integrate its international portal linkage without the need for a centralized database."

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20081003_005496.html

"We’re entering the age of cloud computing, remember? And clouds, it turns out, don’t like databases, at least not as they have traditionally been used.

This fact came out in my EmTech panel and all the experts onstage with me nodded sagely as my mind reeled. No database?

No database."

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 4:09 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 16 October 2008 4:13 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Sunday, 12 October 2008

HAAAARRRRRR. Squeeze me parrot and varnish me leg, Thar's a wind blowin' through the riggings, me hearties.

20-Aug-08 02:31 pm by portuno_diamo

The question has been asked: "if the settlement had been substantial, what would MSFT's motivation be to settle?"

Microsoft settled to be able to use the technology that's allowing them to say the kinds of things they say now about their products and plans they couldn't honestly say before.

Without 521 and 744 they won't be able to extend their interoperability beyond COM/DCOM.

Two innovations made skyscrapers possible: Steel structural frameworks and elevators.

The analogy here is 521 allows the construction of lightweight and robust ties between all types of data systems and applications.

The other analogy is 744 allows the developer, user, engineer, governor to extend a functional presence to any place the lightweight framework build can reach.

Without 521/744 Microsoft would still be trying desperately to buy Yahoo to have breathing room until the March 2009 trial.

That's why you need to understand the technology or at least have advisors who understand distributed functional systems instead of "operating systems". "Operating systems" will be obsolete.

The real "killer app" is the ability to build out on the web... not closed proprietary platforms like Windows.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2417

The true "killer app" is the ability to interconnect and interoperate seamlessly across the web. VCSY IP provides the foundation for doing precisely that. NOW Solutions provides the realistic demonstrations for doing precisely that with Microsoft applications - something even Microsoft couldn't do.

That's why the Infinitek news is so important.

$300,000+ drove VCSY to bail the day before the Markman Hearing? That's not even logical.

The bigger question is "why did Microsoft avoid the Markman Hearing if they would have won the claims contest?"

The answer is Microsoft would have lost the Markman Hearing and they would be at risk of a summary judgment and/or injunction.

Microsoft needed VCSY much more than VCSY needed Microsoft.

Now they are partners. Reluctant partners, perhaps. But, MSFT is suddenly able to show and do things they could only talk about for years.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to catch a train toward Palo Alto. Talk amongst yourselves.

Thus Spake Portuno

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 10:09 PM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 12 October 2008 10:35 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

7-Sep-07 01:29 pm by zogdan2

You are PUMPERS.

The technologies you discuss for VCSY have absolutely NOTHING to do with Vista, Silverlight, or any Microsoft technology.

And either you're too stupid to know it, or you know it and you're simply trying to deceive investors.

Which is it? Are you stupid or evil?

As for why you get no responses, it's because no one cares... just like one wouldn't engage the crazy man talking to himself on a NYC streetcorner.

Your own consistent blathering has proved you to been quite a loon... you've undone your own credibility. You need to change tactics if you successfully intend on pumping something in the future... for now, you're probably convincing more people to SELL whatever you support.

:)

-Zog

7-Sep-07 01:57 pm by portuno_diamo

Absolutely NOTHING? Oh, come now, zog. You can be more realistic than that. I agree the patents 6068744 and 7076521 have absolutely nothing to do with Vista, Silverlight, or any Microsoft technology in public now, but could you please tell me how Microsoft intends to get an XML processing runtime on the local client (like Silverlight) to act as a web application (like 7076521) and be governed in a web-based ecology (like 6826744) so .Net 3.0 in Visual Studio, Expression and Silverlight may act as one entity?

I do agree MSFt has the things segmented artificially to achieve various ends such as marketing and discipline and vertical lock-in, but to say the 744/521 patents have NOTHING to do with what Silverlight+Expression+.Net need to go is like people saying Eolas had nothing to do with Silverlight in the first place.

That is flat wrong and, by studying the structures described in the patents you will find Microsoft has to go that direction eventually or your segregated designers and developers will fall prey to a more integrated approach like Adobe's AIR/Flex.

Now, I know you guys have DLR which could perform the kind of robust application platforming that Silverlight can't provide (as Silverlight is intended just for automating GUI apps) so what will you use to link Silverlight environed GUI apps with DLR based web applications most people refer to as "programs"?

Thanks in advance for your response.
the real portuno

PS – This thread is useful for finding out who knows what. You will find it has a variety of posts such as this little gem:

7-Sep-07 03:26 pm by portuno_diamo
Let's get this right, OK?

From your post in response:

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks...

to my questions as to why MSFT can't integrate their packages to make them easier to use, better interoperation and more productive.

Which I also replied to in two parts here:

and here: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks...

and here: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks...

----

You said the following from your post (my comments <<>>):

<< why they can't (won't?) bring the various pieces together to provide a designer+developer construct so one person can take hold of a web application without having to learn many different pieces as MSFT has segmented what they have.
>>
Answer: because that would be stupid.
Microsoft segmented them because the people who use the tools are completely different. Trying to come up with a single tool that is applicable to both is a BAD IDEA and will fail.

Is that what VCSY has done? Sheesh... no wonder they're in the crapper.

---
So what you're saying is Microsoft COULD integrate their packages and extend their usefulness and capability to look and act perform as well as 521/744 BUT, it would not be advantageous to the Microsoft business plan.

I see. So, the MSFT way is to lock in clients with segmented applications that don't interoperate except to move files from one discipline user to another discipline user. Thus "interoperation" is actually a dirty word to MSFT because it allows others to work (collaborate) on projects and perhaps sidestep the requirement to buy their own version of the Microsoft products to do their work.

Stupid? That would be stupid? To allow people to work with less complexity, less complication, greater productivity and less expensive would be, in your words as a Microsoft adherent and, I would assume, employee, "stupid"?
Uhhh... You do realize, of course, that all this is public and the CEO's of corporations and journalists and various voices who know are going to read your words, right?

Would you like a chance to rephrase what you've said as you've very succinctly demonstrated how MSFT intends to sidestep patents 7076521/6826744 by keeping the different pieces that need to work together segmented and functionally separate?

That's very interesting and helpful. Thank you very much. You've been honest with a sincere desire to help... unlike the others who want to kill the messenger and extinguish the message.

Thank you. the real portuno

Plenty more where that came from folks.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 1:07 AM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 12 October 2008 1:41 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:

a-ok

8-Sep-07 01:18 pm by hross_bjorn

> Most of the technology people who read this board know what
> a startup tech company is like in stealth mode.

I AM a "technology person." VCSY.OB is not a startup tech company anymore. It *was* a startup tech company at least 8 years ago. Now it's just a washed-up has-been trying a Hail Mary Pass(tm).

VCSY.OB's current operation is not "stealth" mode--it's "we're going broke and have nothing to lose, so throw everything at a wall and see what sticks" mode. I've seen it many, many times, and I've seen the relevant companies basically dissolve in 99% of all cases. Trying to characterize its behavior as a "startup in stealth mode" is either dishonest or clueless on several levels.

8-Sep-07 11:18 pm and 8-Sep-07 11:30 pm by portuno_diamo

Well, gee, hoss - I thought I had not seen another mind quite so closed as mtgmark1, but, low and cornholed, I do believe another contender for chumpion has come into view.

I saw an article recently (on RB - maybe one of the Longs at RB can dig it up) saying a handful of startups that had their stocks collapsed or lost investing capital and went unlisted back during the dotcom bust (circa 2000 in case you weren't aware at that time) find TODAY a perfect storm for technology startups. So, how is it there is a time limit on running stealth OR startup?

But you see a failure in VCSY after reading all the extraneous information that's been dug up on the public internet for the past years.

Do tell.

But... what if?

If you knew today you could become a billionaire in ten years by remaining in secret operating posture (as long as a public company meets filing requirements to inform shareholders, I don't remember any rule saying a company has to feed the PR machine) would you (could you? Really?)?

Let's say you had a choice of putting your technology for sale to the public at a time when the largest competitors could take what you had (let's say you were waiting on a patent or two) so you could then move forward with protection of the law... (let's say you suspect said competitor was a crook and would steal your trade secrets [what they are if not patented] at first opportunity and bury the stealing by burying you in articles and advertising)... would you keep your operations secret?

And let's say you have people who want to use your technology but want to make sure you really own the stuff and can prove it by a court case or a settlement by your largest competitor... would you let them try, test out, develop their own work with your patent pending intellectual property? Would they want to pay? Or would they want to work with it on a 'pay you when you prove it's yours' basis (whatever your lawyer wants to call that kind of agreement)? Would you go along with that kind of plan?

And, if you could work it so not just one but several people who you can build a relationship with and trust will make the same agreement with the understanding that none of them can actually sell the stuff (they can field secret test versions as alphas and betas) until you do prove it's yours... would you?

If you could become a billionaire in 10 years by agreeing to that? Would you?

Or would you stay in your silly little trading job in the sweatshop while trying to make a few bucks in the “marketing” department dribbling out the swill the cue cards and scripts tell you to write about XYZ stock on message boards?

I think I would and could be as quiet as a mouse peeing on cotton. Cotton socks on giant feet.

And if you did make that sort of deal with companies with a relationship and they continued working with their products incorporating your technology on an evaluation and development basis, don't you think you would hold all of them to the same reveal date? And don't you think that, just to be fair, you would treat your biggest competitor and your biggest competitor's partner differently so the courts wouldn't view your efforts as anti-competitive?

You know, I have a bit of a problem with Apple and the way Apple is postured.

Sun has ZFS and so does Apple but Apple has a read only version of ZFS and Sun has a read/write version. And Sun and Apple are only fielding test versions of the products.

And then, Apple has a virtualization technology and Microsoft has a virtualization technology called Viridian and the odd thing is that both Apple and Microsoft delayed their operating system virtualizations on the same day... here's a timeline:

April 12, 2007 Apple Leopard delay to October announced
[Apple admits]

April 12, 2007 Microsoft Viridian delay to October announced
[virtualization]

April 13, 2007 Sun buys SavaJe IP
(which went dark in unexplained circumstances last year see Oct 17 2006)

April 18, 2007 VCSY sued Microsoft for infringement on US 6,826,744

So what do we see? Coincidence? Or a plan? An agreement for evaluation (of which nobody legally has to say a peep) and a wait for the property to be validated as to ownership?

Beats me. Mtgmark1 is supposed to be the financial whiz but I guess he's never heard about development on spec.

And I guess hoss forgets what a "five year plan" is. I guess he also requires all companies in secret development for longer than X days months years to give up on the day after his ... limit (gee, "hoss" how long should a company work before giving up? Hmmmm, sweety? Can you give us a figure? Can you give us a clue as to how you arrive at your conclusion?).

So, whatever you say recy. Yeah you right. Rage on, bro. Rage on. Just, do me a favor, will ya? Hang around until the day after VCSY proves ownership of the technology so you can be around for me to laugh in your face. Then you can drop dead or disappeared or de@#$%d. I don't give a flying frappe'.

sincerely,
the real portuno

In memory of recy43. RIP

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 12:14 AM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 12 October 2008 1:40 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older

«	March 2009					»

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31