Topic: Notable Opinions
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=255466
Posted by Portuno Diamo
at 3:28 PM EDT
| « | October 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 |
celebratory 13 Oct 2009, 04:46 PM EDT Rating:  | Msg. 255242 of 255243 Jump to msg. # |
| I have been collecting all the email addresses posted here and will be subscribing them to a bunch of sick porn sites. Stay tuned! |
a-ok 24 Sep 2009, 02:36 PM EDT Rating: | Msg. 254149 of 254149 (Reply to 254148 by arthurarnsley01) Jump to msg. # |
| By: dabbler3248 22 Sep 2009, Microsoft did say they would spend $8 Billion to catch up in Cloud Computing. And as we know, Microsoft settled on VCSY's 744 patent which looks to be all that Microsoft's Cloud Computing Platform Azure is. imo http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft-will-spend-8-B-to-catch-up-in-cloud-computing/1220909714 ---------------------------------------- Also at the time Microsoft announced spending $8 Billion on Cloud Computing they got set up to borrow money for the first time in their companies 34+ year history. Why would they want to borrow the money when they always have plenty of cash on hand? I'll tell you! It's because it's VCSY's guarantee that they will get all of the money arranged to come to VCSY. imo In the most recent Microsoft 10-K from July 30th, Microsoft has a credit facility that was taken right after the VCSY settlement which was originally set to expire on March 22nd but had been extended to November 6th, right before the Microsoft PDC.(Coincidentally) "This credit facility expires on November 6, 2009." (So as we see below - $6 Billion + $2 Billion = the $8 Billion that Microsoft claimed that they would spend to catch up in Cloud Computing) and YES VCSY will get that $8 Billion. imo Trixi |
| 01 Aug 2009, 08:50 AM EDT Rating:  | Msg. 250672 of 250686 (Reply to 250667 by mypointz) Jump to msg. # |
| So you don't think there's a connection between the VCSY-MSFT confidential settlement from 1 year ago and a pending MSFT-YHOO partnership??? Here's how I think it's all playing out (IMHO) A year and a half ago MSFT was in hot pursuit of YHOO for their search engine and also at that time, MSFT was also a litigant to a VCSY patent infringement suit. Then, a year ago, a settlement was reached between VCSY & MSFT and MSFT licenses VCSY intellectual property. In the interim, MSFT completes development of BING (one of many new product announcements made by MSFT over the past year). And now, as part of the propsed MSFT-YHOO deal, we learn that MSFT is no longer interested in the YHOO search engine, instead its real interest is to gain market share of the search engine arena. In the proposed MSFT-YHOO deal, MSFT wants BING to replace the Yahoo search engine. In doing so, MSFT achieves a fast grab of 20% of the market by 'buying' access to Yahoo users. In exchange for replacing the Yahoo search engine with BING MSFT agrees to give YHOO 88% of all ad revenues generated from search requests. This new agreement might explain why YHOO is no longer worth $47B since its search engine no longer has any value. BING is now KING! Is it just a coincidence that news of this MSFT-YHOO partnership breaks exactly 1 year from the date of the VCSY-MSFT settlement??? In accepting the confidential settlement, I think VCSY granted MSFT a defined period of time (call it a 'waiting period') to complete development of certain products and get their house in order (i.e. a MSFT-YHOO partnership among other things). I think VCSY also agreed not to initiate any other patent infringement lawsuits over that defined waiting period so as to not interfere with VCSY's future relationship with MSFT. I know VCSY granted MSFT a non exclusive license as part of the confidential settlement but I believe the real objective was to eventually grant an exclusive licensing agreement to MSFT. Active patent infringement suits would have only served to muck up that from happening. Once all the pieces fall into place and the defined waiting period is over (perhaps we just reached it with the 1 year anniversary of the settlement) VCSY will be revealed as a critical player in MSFT future and ongoing business development activities and the exclusive licensing agreement with VCSY will be disclosed. VCSY share price will immediately skyrocket and all of us VCSY longs will look like freaking Warren Buffet geniuses. Did state this was IMHO? - - - - - View Replies » |
if Niro was able to "scam" Microsoft out of $2.8 Million, how come he has NOT rang the door bell at IBM, Adobe, etc.? If Microsoft was willing to throw a bone, why not the others? Vcsy signed a "confidentiality agreement" with Microsoft.....The only thing that Vcsy will NOT comment on is ANYTHING dealing with Vcsy.....if Vcsy has NOTHING to release, that it can talk about, then i am lead to believe that EVERYTHING Vcsy is doing involves Microsoft.....finally, Wade holds 100 million shares of Vcsy....he had to know that agreeing to $2.8 million would NOT change his financial worth...dump that many shares on that kind of a settlement , leads to a crashing of the price in a matter of minutes....Wade had to have had an understanding with Niro about what kind of settlement they would agree to if the offer would come from Microsoft.....(Niro has to talk to clients about this because if Niro tells them to grab whatever is offered, Niro coud find himself being sued by his client at a later date for malpractice)....would Wade have gone through everything he did to NOT go to the markman, not go to trial just to keep his financial position THE SAME as it was PRIOR to the lawsuit? Wade was a CPA with a major firm, he is a bean counter by trade so he knows what is a logical sum to expect before agreeing to go to litigation.....niro is a patent lawyer...he knows the value and future value of the patent inwhich he is litigating over...no surprises occured inwhich Rovner had to sit down with the patent lawyer from chicago and the bean counter from texas and explain that Microsoft will "give" Vcsy some bus fare money to go back home.....we have seen NO other patent infringement lawsuits from Vcsy..we have seen NO malpractice suits filed against Niro from Vcsy...we have heard NOTHING about or from Vcsy after the confidentiality agreement was signed....interesting |
| 07-17-2009 | A... | Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject | 1 | |
| 07-17-2009 | CLM | Claims | 5 | |
| 07-17-2009 | REM | Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment | 4 | |
| 07-17-2009 | WFEE | Fee Worksheet (PTO-875) | 2 | |
| 07-17-2009 | N417 | EFS Acknowledgment Receipt | 2 | |
| 03-17-2009 | CTNF | Non-Final Rejection | 10 |
From RagingBull VCSY
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=249866
By: dartanyion  15 Jul 2009, 09:21 PM EDT Rating:  | Msg. 249866 of 249866 (Reply to 249859 by seeker666) Jump to msg. # |
| I would agree with ya but the original case was filed and finished in Unites States Tax court docket number 5708-07L and was filed in Washington DC and moved to Maryland, the new case is in eastern Texas federal court with the same judge as the Microsoft case, now this could all be fine but Richardson Texas falls under northern Texas federal court because Richardson is very close to Fortworth Texas and thats northern Texas juristicition... |
A. if microsoft really thought that vcsy had NO merit with its patents, they would have offered NOTHING....$2.8 million in microsofts world doesn't even pay for the gas used in the corporate jets....if the markman was a slam- dunk for microsoft, they would show up....if they have a crack in their defense, more then $2.9 is settled on....B. if you really believe that markman is a slam-dunk and you are well aware of the date of the hearing, why do you need to request an extension of time ? hi, I'm with fish and richardson, one of the biggest firms in the world...we have done this a million times, we are the firm of choice for microsoft....here is this little company that hired a patent troll to go after us.....request for an extension your honor.....C. vcsy agrees to the extension...my point is that if microsoft thought that vcsy had nothing they would have offered nothing.....in the world of microsoft with $25 billion, $2.9 million is not as offer... if i am niro, and i am ready to go to the markman, i do NOT let the other side get more time to prepare to go to battle against me.....if vcsy was a non issue, microsoft shows up and laughs in court... D. again, why no summary judgment request? |
Poor mirror is getting run over by normnowak's simple common sense view of the actual events. Apparently there's more to mirror's interest in VCSY than he claims. He's quite energetic and here he's quite agitated.
by mirrorfuk
normnowhackjob, why don't you send your Niro love letters to Niro's own pr firm, where they'd be appreciated. No one else gives a crap. They made an easy million bux for a few days of work on the VCSY case and for that they can be proud. OK? |
amorousThose of you watching from the parapets should be able to recognize what just happened here.
It's like sitting on the roof in the city and hearing a car crash a few blocks away. You don't have to be sitting on the curb watching to be able to tell what happened.
http://reddevnews.com/articles/2009/07/13/w3c-pulls-plug-on-xhtml-2.aspx
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has halted work on the second version of the Extensible Hypertext Markup Language (XHTML), and has instead redirected its energies to the next version, HTML 5.
"When the XHTML 2 Working Group charter expires as scheduled at the end of 2009, the charter will not be renewed. By doing so, and by increasing resources in the HTML Working Group, W3C hopes to accelerate the progress of HTML 5," states a W3C news bulletin
Version 2 of XHTML is actually a complete rewrite of the markup language, Jones said. "Basically, the vision of XHTML 2 was to start over and fix all the mistakes with earlier versions of HTML," he said. "They were successful in [technical terms], but it never got market uptake. It never got native support in browsers."
...
(more at URL)
----------
"...the vision of XHTML 2 was to start over and fix all the mistakes with earlier versions of HTML..."
You see, once the industry saw something done right the first time, they had to revisit all the stuff they say they would consider "obvious".
It wasn't all that obvious when you blind people felt up the elephant AFTER the Emily language patent application was made. Your consensus didn't come up with a proper dispensation of the novel concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML
And anyone who reads the Emily patent pending information knows Emily is the use of XML as a truly functional and transformative language intended for use with the MLE 7076521 native XML process but uniquely powerful just by itself.
Very interesting timing for the W3C to pack it up in attempting to do what Emily does and they go traipsing over to HTML to see if they can make HTML extensible enough to work around the Emily method.
If anyone would like to argue what I'm saying, please feel free to comment. Better bring your lunch.
