| « | April 2007 | » | ||||
 |
||||||
| 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 | |||||
quizzicalGood Morning Apple Lovers
We have a sale on past date fruit.
What's up with that?
chattySo, Miss Mary Jo, what do you think of this alignment of the coincidental stars now? Shake and bake, little darling. It's shake and bake and I helped!
The people in Apple and in Microsoft are up against some hard realities in the world of the web. They can't get on it because the service road in their neighborhoods are blocked due to, how shall we say... I think in the Bay Area they call it a 'Police Action'. The reality is that Microsoft and Apple have been naughty boys and girls and airing of the truth will be followed by some good old fashioned mouth soaping and butt switching.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=388
So, the story about Apple delaying the Leopard version of Mac OS X from a few weeks ago was half right.
Bootcamp wasn't behind the delay; the iPhone supposedly is. Now Leopard is slated to ship in October 2007 instead of "spring 2007."
Like Microsoft did when it took folks off Windows Vista to work on Windows XP Service Pack (SP) 2, Apple is taking folks off Leopard to work on the iPhone.
If I were Microsoft, I'd launch a "Cupertino, start your photocopiers!" (just like Apple's "Redmond, start your photocopiers!") campaign. Microsoft could say: "Who's copying who now, huh? We thought of the not-enough-engineers excuse way back in 2004!"
Will Microsoft dare to be that creative? No….
No. I think Microsoft is reliving their own life-changing event last Spring by watching Apple Management grapple with a plausible explanation to give for trashing such a remarkable and crucial marketing position.
And Why? For a similarly ridiculous reason, plausible to those in the media and the public who don't know how a software company works; 'not enough people' 'specialty' requirements and ,the one I really like, 'needs more testing'. What is that a deathray or something?
Was it REALLY a hydrogen filled trial baloon that ended up on the barn?
God, that's scary isn't it? XML enabled virtualization is so dangerous and so difficult to do and pull off that moth Microsoft with Viridian and Apple with Leopard are saying to the tech world. 'Yeah, guys, it's really tough but we're going in there slogging and swinging just as soon as we get this niftier thing to working so we can make a telephone call from, like, nowhere.' So Leotardy it is.
No wonder Microsoft pulled back on Viridian as well. Virtualization is a bitch, ain't it? I wonder how in the world VCSY managed to get that patent if it's so damn hard?
mmmm xml hard make rock break hit rock make hand bleed hit rock on head make head bleed let go rock make toe bleed rock not good xml not good mmm
Delay Leopard until October (Apple fiscal year over in September so maybe they might need to announce some'restructuring' and/or some 'investments') THIS close to finishing? Weren't they talking about floating a beta by now? What delayed them? No, seriously. For real this time. What delayed both Microsoft and Apple in the same way like this?
Remember the Exhibit A Exhibit B piece? Think through that scenario and look at an XML virtualized OS architecture in a fresh and unique way; through 'somebody' else's patents namely the Vertical patents on XML Agent and SiteFlash WebOS.
Like I've said ad nauseum (even I am getting tired of saying it), in my view, the join between proprietary and XML and the transaction capabilities and executable sequences are fully covered by the claims of patent "Web-based collaborative data collection system." 7,076,521.
Where do you go from there? It looks like Microsoft introverted into a server self to bury the you know whats in the you know wheres.
That patent was allowed VCSY Wednesday March 29, 2006. Microsoft announced the Vista delay Wednesday March 22, 2006. When VCSY was granted the patent Thursday July 13 2006, Microsoft killed WinFS as a standalone publicly available product Monday June 26, 2006. It's now buried in a box of dotNet tools.
Am I thrown by the apparent ability of Microsoft to 'follow that car' while driving AHEAD of the target? No because I assume Microsoft had prior understanding of the role the patent would play, not just in Microsoft's connections with XML but with ANY company tasked with transacting from Proprietary to XML datastore and from XML to Proprietary datastore. And everything is a datastore in the sense of the word.
So I'm not surprised at all to see Microsoft hitting the breaks to keep from running over those lines. Microsoft lawyers no doubt drive that company as all do and they get paid richly to know precisely those sorts of things. It is up to the engineering departments to exploit those play possibilities until the lawyers say stop. It's the responsibility of the managers to have such advanced information and remain ethical with same.
To me it's all like Newman when the cops showed up for nabbing the dog. The little mutt had to run all the way back to mom's to scratch on the door for shelter... so it took at least that much time for them to get the news.
When Newman said to the cops 'What took ya so long?' he was obviously waiting because he knew they would arrive eventually.
Mens rea, I believe they call it.
I like to watch stuff I don't have to think about, you know?
a-okI thought I would post this to show Microsoft is not alone in the disrespectful ways paid to journalists, bloggers and researchers.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=451
Last summer, when I wrote "Vicious orchestrated assault on MacBook wireless researchers," it set off a long chain of heated debates and blogs. I had hoped to release the information on who orchestrated the vicious assault, but threats of lawsuits and a spineless company that refused to defend itself meant I couldn't disclose the details. A lot has changed since then: Researcher David Maynor is no longer working for SecureWorks, and he's finally given me permission to publish the details.
more at above URL
a-okAnd here's a handy URL you might use to track Apple Leopard rumors that never exist. The table is a sample per March 30, 2007.
http://realitymarkets.com/index/8/Mac-OS-X-Leopard-Ship-Dates
Upcoming Apple products and Apple product rumors.
| Stock | Prob. | Last | Day's Change | Volume | ||
| Apple OS X Leopard Ship May | 32.24% | 18.04 | -0.54 | (-2.91%) | 50000 | |
| Sectors: apple macosx computers technology | ||||||
| Apple OS X Leopard Ship Apri.. | 16.81% | 9.40 | -0.03 | (-0.32%) | 880 | |
| Sectors: apple macosx computers technology | ||||||
| Apple OS X Leopard Ship June | 10.30% | 5.76 | 0.33 | (6.09%) | 100000 | |
| Sectors: apple macosx computers technology | ||||||
| Apple OS X Leopard Ship Octo.. | 8.89% | 4.97 | -0.30 | (-5.65%) | 300000 | |
| Sectors: apple macosx computers technology | ||||||
| Apple OS X Leopard Ship Augu.. | 8.77% | 4.91 | -0.02 | (-0.47%) | 1910 | |
| Sectors: apple macosx computers technology | ||||||
| Apple OS X Leopard Ship Sept.. | 8.76% | 4.90 | -0.02 | (-0.45%) | 1660 | |
| Sectors: apple macosx computers technology | ||||||
| Apple OS X Leopard Ship Marc.. | 7.33% | 4.10 | -0.02 | (-0.39%) | 1250 | |
| Sectors: apple macosx computers technology | ||||||
| Apple OS X Leopard Ship July | 6.90% | 3.86 | 0.00 | (0.00%) | 0 | |
| Sectors: apple macosx computers technology | ||||||
BIG isn't it?
suaveGreg Hunt Published on: Friday, 30th March, 2007
Almost ten years ago Bill Gates’ Microsoft lent a helping hand to Apple. Apple was heading for the commercial landfill that Microsoft had so diligently flattened. Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple Computers Inc as it was known then. The joke was that Gates had told his advisers to buy a ton of Snapple but they had misheard him.
more at above URL
accident prone'DING DAMMIT!'
It's time to pull the cookies out.
Check the time of the recent frittered nose-over (March 27) and the date of our enshrined post previous. Add salt.
bright| http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/viewreplies.cgi?board=AAPL&reply=199250 |
By: danfl_11
27 Mar 2007, 01:00 PM EDT
Msg. 199250 of 199305
(This msg. is a reply to 199242 by lucky_limey.)
Jump to msg. #
lucky_lime that is interesting. Desktops are headed toward think clients (thin clients with access to intelligence) and that means there's a foreseeable end to operating systems like what Apple and Microsoft make.
Jobs sees this and is migrating and evolving toward the iphone concept with the Apple pcs becoming servers for interconnective interoperability for the user/owner.
Others will hook their iphones as they choose to web services and never need a computer at home have more power than what can fit on a pc and do it for less and is spent on the 'home server' concept.
Funny Apple is headed outward from the PC with the iPhone and Microsoft is headed in the closet. Could it be that somebody knew the day of reckoning would soon be upon them and they knew to flee early? The one who flees late gets fleas and has to scratch out in the open.
That would be a brilliant tactical move on the early guy's part would it not? In one swell foop you avoid being caught out in the open where all your products will be torn apart in the newspapers looking for the offending IP and you will have prepared yourself a cave in which to hide so you may use the offending IP beyond scrutiny as you apply a 'proprietary' tag. If you think about it it's the perfect setup.
Imagine if you will this scenario. Dates are given as a dipstick indicator to demonstrate the time scale inherent in this type of caper.
Let's just say:
1. Exhibit A owns intellectual property under development (circa 2001).
2. Exhibit B knows about Exhibit A methods and starts duplicating development.
3. Exhibit C sees the development effort by Exhibit B and 'reverse engineers' the methods.
4. Exhibit C searches
a. does not see any Exhibit B intellectual property material
b. does not know about Exhibit A
c. assumes property is out there for the taking due to prior art
5. Exhibit B competes with Exhibit A in development work required to build out the property assuming Exhibit A will not survive the climb to maturity inherent in any startup life-cycle.
6. Exhibit D (patents) are granted giving Exhibit A legal ownership of significant architectural segments of technology.
7. Exhibit B upon hearing the Exhibit D news halts production and proceeds to extract offending intellectual property.
8. Exhibit C does not see or regard the Exhibit D news and continues competition with Exhibit B using methods copied from now Exhibit D elements.
8. Time passes (circa 1 year)
9. Exhibit E (the market) matures and Exhibit C begins preparing product for sale unaware of Exhibit A's intellectual property ownership granted in Exhibit D.
10. Exhibit B is notified by Exhibit A Counsel and begins negotiations with Exhibit A.
11. Exhibit C is notified by Exhibit A Counsel and begins negotiations with Exhibit A.
12. Exhibit C upon being notified by Exhibit A Counsel halts production and proceeds to extract Exhibit D property if negotiations with Exhibit A are not successful.
14. What should be evident is that:
15. Exhibit A is not responsible for the lead regardless the length in time and knowledge advancement Exhibit B took over Exhibit C.
16. Exhibit A furthermore is not responsible for financial losses and business image losses incurred by Exhibit C due to Exhibit D involvement as the burden of due diligence in the discovery of like prior art or claimed property falls on Exhibit C and is not mitigated by:
a. the smallness of Exhibit A
b. the early petition for patent status by Exhibit A
c. the 'unknowable' natures of technology intellectual property development
17. Exhibit A expects Exhibit B and Exhibit C to find some means of circumventing the licensing process further expecting legal opinion to respect the competitive nature of business and the difficult nature of roof in 'intent'.
18. Exhibit A would thus be concerned by prior and continuing reported and recorded efforts at purloining intellectual properties within both Exhibit B and Exhibit C and would petition to have activities by both Exhibit B and Exhibit C examined for both intellectual property infringements and the levels of early knowledge evidenced.
19. Exhibit A would per proper governance petition to facilitate discovery toward civil and possible criminal events and natures concerning the parties and the properties.
20. Therefore a concerted effort to encourage Exhibit B and Exhibit C toward successful license negotiation regarding Exhibit D with Exhibit A would be to Exhibit B and Exhibit C benefit and could be considered an altruistic offer allowing Exhibit B and Exhibit C to avoid the possible 'absorption' level renderings in judgment possible and projected regarding indicated abusive intent against Exhibit A and Exhibit D per Exhibit E delays induced by unfair competition practices by Exhibit B against Exhibit A and Exhibit D.
21. Resolved: Knowing business mindsets these days in the technological industries we assume and expect a certain degree of hard contact competition. Prior events indicate small entities require various protections from much larger entities known to wait out or starve out competition. Increased diligence over Exhibit A and Exhibit D appears needed and Exhibit A would petition for various protections from various governmental and judicial agencies. As for the nature of early knowledge had by Exhibit B one can assume we're all adults and Exhibit B and Exhibit C can discuss amongst themselves how to resolve the early knowledge or 'skunking' issue.
Indications are they both need to get cleaned up and ready for the health inspector. Kind of like pickled pilfered property pork skins. Not necessarily a skins game. More like a never ending meal.
There's my twenty+ questions to Ray Ozzie and Steve Jobs both. I wonder how it will all get answered?
See how easy it is to 'sound' legal without actually 'being' legal? I know the law like I know jet engines. I don't. I can act like I do and sound like I do but like with every unfounded thing in this cold and getting colder Universe everything somebody like me says is classified in legal circles as a 'rumor'.
You guys know from 'rumor' right?
(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- No Position)
