Mood:  on fire

I promised I would discuss what we've seen so far from the VCSY patent claims construction brief to be reviewed by the court in VCSY v MSFT for patent infringement on 6826744.

So, here's a first shot based on what little we've seen so far. 

Many rightly argue “object-oriented” programming (OOP) was a fundamental improvement in the ability to build efficient applications. Describing the subjects of an application’s work as virtual objects allowed programmers to move from “linear code” to more modular ways of assembling representations of the real world.

This ability to describe a real “thing” in a virtual representation allowed programmers to simplify the application concepts into abstracts more easily recognized by non-programmers. Thus, OOP made the act of programming and maintaining the program code more manageable and efficient, while allowing others not skilled in programming a more easily understood view of the program construction and purposes.

The following article is an excellent explanation of object-orientation for the novice:

http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/concepts/object.html

The advantages of OOP over the “spaghetti code” derived from an earlier age of linear programming (having all functionality described within a single application body) are well known and acknowledged.

However, an ability to virtualize code in such a way as to remove knowledge requirements from the programming process means

the advantages derived by certain properties of OOP work may be further extended to build an even higher degree of abstraction with greater resulting efficiencies and capabilities.

In other words, the less you need to know about building something the more you can build while knowing less.

(from the tutorial:

Modularity: The source code for an  object can be written and maintained  independently of the source code for  other objects. Once created, an object  can be easily passed around inside the  system.

Information-hiding: By interacting only  with an object's methods, the details  of its internal implementation remain  hidden from the outside world.

Code re-use: If an object already  exists (perhaps written by another  software developer), you can use that  object in your program. This allows  specialists to implement/test/debug  complex, task-specific objects, which  you can then trust to run in your own  code.

Pluggability and debugging ease: If a  particular object turns out to be  problematic, you can simply remove it  from your application and plug in a  different object as its replacement.  This is analogous to fixing mechanical  problems in the real world. If a bolt  breaks, you replace it, not the entire  machine.

)

So, while the way in which software objects may be made and used may be difficult for the novice to understand, the advantages of object-orientation should be fairly easy to grasp.

The novice may ask "What if we are able to further stream-line the handling of objects in programming tasks? Will the four benefits of OOP itemized above return even greater advantages?"

The answer will be ‘yes’ if the amount of information hidden by the abstraction allows the programmer to know less about the object before it can be used. 

Having a system which is able to handle that information for the programmer brings modularity; the ability to combine the object with other objects without confusing the boundaries between the objects. Modularity brings “pluggability” and makes debugging and adaptation easier. Pluggable modularity allows for code re-use; the ability to use something written once to be used in many different ways without having to modify the object.

How can we improve on the OOP methods? Easy: Hide even more information. Hide the calling values. Hide the returning values. Hide the kind of information traditional OOP requires the programmer to find, learn, and employ without error. Hide it in the infrastructure of the system in which the application is being built.

In other words, allow the programmer to use the object by simply invoking the object’s name. The programmer should not be bothered with the various input and output information the object needs in traditional OOP. The system should be able to handle that information, thus, “arbitrating” the objects for a common use.

If the system can be tasked with accounting for all the values passed to the object by the application, and if the system can arbitrate the object behavior into acceptable performance with all other objects in the application body, the programmer will only need to know the name of the object to embed and actuate the object in the application.

I’ve posted a few gathered snippets from the VCSY brief filed for the claims construction process leading up to the Markman Hearing scheduled for early July 2008: https://ajaxamine.tripod.com/PortPot/index.blog/1814440/pieces/

VCSY’s lawyers say "A critical distinction between the present invention and previous object oriented development systems is the need to know how a function can be called and what to expect it to return, rather than just knowing the function's name." 

We focus here on “…the need to know how a function can be called and what to expect it to return…”

“the need to know how a function can be called”

Each object (an object may represent a kind of functionality as well as a kind of “thing”) has a wide variety of properties and methods necessary to make the object operate properly with other objects. The VCSY patent claims to be able to hide and manage all that information in background layers freeing the programmer to use only the name of the object (or function) to construct the application.

“…and what to expect it to return…”

Just as the traditional OOP programmer needs to be intimately and flawlessly familiar with the parameters to be inputted into the object (calling parameters to be passed from the application to the object), the OOP programmer also must know precisely what the object being used will return (returned parameters derived within the object function to be passed back to the application) after being called or invoked to perform.

With the VCSY 744 patent, these requirements go away. The system “knows” what the objects need in terms of input and output. The system provides for those needs, thus hiding that sort of information from view. The system thus “arbitrates” use of the objects for the programmer, freeing the programmer to select objects and use in an “arbitrary” fashion.

OK, so that’s what one phrase in the patent claims construction describes. “Arbitrary” is the word to be dissected in the claims context. Without paying attention to what that single word says in the patent language, you’re going to be left with a “so what?” attitude that’s showing in the various dismissals written by supposedly expert “programmers”.

They don’t realize the main reason for their skill-evolutions and employment is vanishing.

Where do we go with a system that can free programmers from having to know anything about the objects available in an object library? What can a “programmer” do with such a system? It all depends on what you think can be done with universally accessible virtual versions of “things”.

We will need to examine what kinds of “things” are available in a virtual form in software. Knowing this will tell us if we (with no programming experience or knowledge) would be empowered to build applications using arbitrary objects.

Would you?

Use your imagination. We’ll attempt to discover what “arbitrary” programming brings in the next post after you’ve had a chance to digest this first advantage. And, we’ll see if your imaginations are correct.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:16 PM EDT

Updated: Friday, 23 May 2008 3:34 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink

Mood:  don't ask

There are all sorts of liars in the world but the worst liar is someone who takes your identity and uses it to discredit you.

That kind of person is capable of any kind of lying.

From the comments section of Microsoft-Watch
portuno diamo :

Posted by portuno diamo | May 21, 2008 10:25 AM

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 9:10 PM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 21 May 2008 9:46 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

What ever happened to Windows 7?

http://reddevnews.com/features/article.aspx?editorialsid=2478

I guess we won't know until they figure out how to build it.

Microsoft won't be able to build another one-size-fits-all operating system like Vista because Vista turned out not to fit anybody.

So, Microsoft's most likely track is to build Windows 7 as a modular component operating system... precisely the kind of operating system that runs somewhat like this:

Or, maybe not, depending on whether Microsoft has the intellectual property in house to be able to produce a micro-kernel (more than one if you're going to do a modular OS) like "mini-win".

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 6:09 PM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 21 May 2008 9:09 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

And now some homework for the home schoolin' crowd.

Johnny, get your finger out of your nose.

Please take a bit to see what the "next generation" operating scenario will be (and is not "viable" now). This will be a focal point of a SiteFlash thought experiment I hope to use to demonstrate the simplicity of systems built using the 6826744 and 7076521 patent approaches.

As you can see, the industry took a very long time to come up with these realizations. The Emily/MLE whitepaper in 2000 was written in 1999.

We also will, hopefully, do another thought experiment looking at the pros, cons and value of doing things this way as opposed to the traditional software architectures available in the current monolithic operating system approach.

This excerpt describes an alternate operating system architecture. I believe, were you were able to press Microsoft on details about Windows 7 architecture, (it has to have been architected by now even if it's no more than a paper mache mockup - kind of like their "we own XML" campaign and demos up to 2004) you would find Windows 7 will be modular construction similar to the below article approach.

http://flex.sys-con.com/read/566399.htm

Now, having said all that, I’d like to take a closer look at the alternate approach to having virtualization placed within the operating system.  In this scenario, there is virtualization functionality that sits below the idea of today’s general purpose OS.  For those of you familiar with ESX Server, think of it that way - some sort of bare metal virtualization layer that controls the hardware. From there, a collection of VMs will cooperatively provide the various services that are today provided by the general purpose OS.  This idea is expressed in this article by Ron Oglesby (also linked to by this VMTN Blog entry as well).

In this approach, you might have a networking VM that is responsible for scanning inbound and outbound traffic, managing security policies, interacting with corporate networks and network access controls, etc. You can think of this as the “firewall” component of the general purpose OS (Windows Firewall on Windows, ipfw on Mac OS X, iptables on Linux), but more feature-rich and more isolated (the idea being that it is therefore more secure and harder to bypass or disable).  Likewise, you might have a VM designed specifically for running sensitive corporate applications, a VM for surfing the Internet, and a VM that provides anti-virus services to the other VMs.  Taken individually, none of these VMs could replace today’s general purpose OS; taken as a whole, the collection of VMs provides the services and functionality of a general purpose OS, but with greater isolation, encapsulation, and protection between these “service” VMs.

Is this a viable approach?  Not today, in my opinion, but certainly in the future.

This sort of thing is inherently possible using VCSY technology.

The bare metal "VM's" (Virtual Machines) can be played out by patent 7076521 and VCSY product XML Enabler Agent [most powerful of which is the IBM Data Collector with XML Bridge.]. In fact, the  VCSY MLE method places its own VM's as micro-kernel web servers (talking to local hardware in various ways down to machine language and talking TCP/IP over http as XML) - running on browsers, operating systems or bare metal.

That is granular virtualization. That is transactional virtualization.

In other words, the application doesn't need to know how to work with the document and the document doesn't need to know anything about the application. And yet the application and the document will work together using an agent to do the processing of an arbitrary output from the application rendered to the arbitrary input of the document.

It's the automating processor (the MLE - Markup Language Executive kernel - Emily is the XML dynamic programming language - dynamic from 1999) and the resources (operating code, storage, transactional audit chain and third party storage and maintenance, governance) available via web addresses that will perform the task of the traditional operating system, then, when not needed, disappear from the system to not burden memory or processing speed.

The MLE/Emily patent allows applying an arbitration layer on any legacy code or data, burying the mechanics of action, control, and transaction so only the process' name name is needed to invoke the associated process. Because each arbitrated interface fits the use requirements of the adopting or further arbitrating community... thus, universal use and fit and scaleable abstraction up to single word and complex phrase commands setting off chains of processes, each literally running concurrently on other machines. Because each arbitrated unit fit everywhere, it was accepted and worked with everywhere.

The SiteFlash patent provides this modular transactional/deterministic virtualization property that makes possible complex operating system framworks... today - since 1999. ResponseFlash will be one example of a tailored web based operating system molding the community operating resources into a next generation system.

The overarching coordination and orchestration of an operating framework (an assembly of various operating system functions performed by the VM's) is then architected / created / maintained / governed / decommissioned by facilities based on patent 6826744.

This assembly of diverse distributed agents (744) supervised by a community ecology (744) performs as a web-based operating system managing the resources for storage, processing power, information repositories available across URL's.

So each VM agent acts as a bare metal web-server on the local machine. Each agent is able to essentially provide off loaded processing and local processing to bear upon any situation the local machine is being asked to deliver.

This sort of operating system can grow or shrink in targeted facility and power, allowing a custom OS to be available for any scenerio. A "operating system" dedicated to each application is possible - and desirable. This provides maximum security as one application's vulnerability does not make things worse for any other application as each operating framework is private and applied only to the processing purpose.

Note the author writing about this method says this is not "viable" today... meaning the method exists, but it's not practical for anyone to put it into practice.

I thought the beauty of software was you created it from nothing and it can be banged out once and used anywhere? Why would folks NOT be making this viable already if they write software for a living?

Fascinating. I agree with the author. It's not "viable".

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 1:32 PM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 18 May 2008 9:14 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  bright

I will be taking the claims construction material (as poster intheend101 makes available on the Yahoo VCSY forum)  and leave excerpts from that here for a couple days (unless I feel very energetic) and let you think on the text.

Then I'll provide my interpretations and interpretation of what the claims construction says.

These are excerpts from the text in the previous post: 

And checkback at the edit date at the bottom of this post display. I may be adding excerpts to shepherd along the thinking exercises and you will be able to tell that if the edit timestamp is changed. Or, you can do an RSS subscription and you will get an update with every edit. Of course, all you may get is an update for a spelling correct. Diligence can be frustrating.

A critical distinction between the present invention and previous object oriented development systems is the need to know how a function can be called and what to expect it to return, rather than just knowing the function's name.  

An arbitrary object is simply a program piece that can be retrieved by using only its name.

Microsoft disregards this critical intrinsic evidence and instead selectively collects self-serving specific examples and language to improperly import them into the claims.

The specification includes a large number of examples, descriptions, and words of inclusion for “arbitrary objects:” Those examples include the following:

These arbitrary objects may include encapsulated legacy data, legacy systems and custom programming logic from essentially any source in which they may reside. Any language supported by the host system, or anylanguage that can be interfaced to by the host system, can be used to generate an object within the application. (Column 2, lines 29-34, Exhibit A.)
* * *
Arbitrary objects can include text file pointers, binary file pointers, compiled executables, scripts, data base queries, shell commands, remote procedure calls, global variables, and local variables.

Using arbitrary objects allows the independence and separation that is the central benefit of this invention.

For instance, if a company would like to roll out a  new look or syndicate  its content and functionality to another business, this  can be  easily accomplished using the present invention. Since  there is no application  code resident in a web page itself, the same data can be  repackaged in a  number of different ways across multiple sites.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 2:25 AM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 18 May 2008 10:42 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  celebratory

As intheend101 makes available excerpts from the VCSY claims construction, I'll add things here, then begin picking off areas to expand on:

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4403&mid=4403&tof=2&frt=1

VCSY claim construction brief filed     16-May-08 07:42 pm    
200+ pages. Too much to post. Thought this excerpt was interesting..
____________________________________________

The part of the specification that provides a definition for “arbitrary object” is the following:
Many functions are stored within an object library on an arbitrary object framework such that those functions can be accessed by name arbitrarily.

This is in contrast to a traditional model where the function must be explicitly invoked with all its parameters included. (Column 5, lines 42-46, Exhibit A.)
* * *
A critical distinction between the present invention and previous object oriented development systems is the need to know how a function can be called and what to expect it to return, rather than just knowing the function's name. This means that typically the system administrator calls the name of an object and passes parameters to the object. Any and all variable information or environmental information can be available to every object.

The environment space can be available to all objects executed and an object can arbitrarily take advantage of any of the environmental information, depending on the design of the object. (Emphasis added. Column 5, line 62 to column 6, line 5, Exhibit A.)

The ‘744 patent thus provides a clear distinction between the invention that it describes and claims and the prior art; and in the process provides a definition for “arbitrary objects.”

An arbitrary object is simply a program piece that can be retrieved by using only its name.

Microsoft disregards this critical intrinsic evidence and instead selectively collects self-serving specific examples and language to improperly import them into the claims.

The specification includes a large number of examples, descriptions, and words of inclusion for “arbitrary objects:” Those examples include the following:

These arbitrary objects may include encapsulated legacy data, legacy systems and custom programming logic from essentially any source in which they may reside. Any language supported by the host system, or anylanguage that can be interfaced to by the host system, can be used to generate an object within the application. (Column 2, lines 29-34, Exhibit A.)
* * *
Arbitrary objects can include text file pointers, binary file pointers, compiled executables, scripts, data base queries, shell commands, remote procedure calls, global variables, and local variables. (Column 3, lines 43-46, Exhibit 

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4403&mid=4428&tof=1&frt=1
Re: VCSY claim construction brief filed     17-May-08 11:33 am     Interesting...

Vertical submits that the following two sections of the specification compel adoption of its definition:
More specifically, the present invention provides a method for generating software applications in an arbitrary object framework. The method of the present invention separates content, form, and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified independently.
(Column 2, lines 9-14, Exhibit A.)
* * *
The present invention provides an important technical advantage in that content, form, and function are separated from each other in the generation of the software application. Therefore, changes in design or content do not require the intervention of a programmer. This advantage decreases the time needed to change various aspects of the software application. (Column 2, lines 19-25, Exhibit A.)

The prosecution history also includes these statements in highlighting the benefits of the invention. Using arbitrary objects allows the independence and separation that is the central benefit of this invention. Therefore, the only meaning can be Vertical’s construction.

The invention of the ‘744 patent includes creating and using arbitrary objects which enables the separation of form, content and function. But, the invention does not compel this separation every time. Neither the ‘744 patent nor its prosecution history requires that the method perform this separation all the time. In fact, quite the contrary, the large number of descriptions for arbitrary objects make certain that an arbitrary object can contain these three components separately or in any combination. Thus, Microsoft’s definition and its “Disavowal” statement do not find any support in the internal record or elsewhere. 

From an email source:

For instance, if a company would like to roll out a  new look or syndicate  its content and functionality to another business, this  can be  easily accomplished using the present invention. Since  there is no application  code resident in a web page itself, the same data can be  repackaged in a  number of different ways across multiple sites. [Emphasis  added.] The examiner of the '744 patent did just that when  comparing the claims with  the prior art in an office action dated April 3,  2003

( would be interested in knowing if any other references to that April 3, 2003 event are available)

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 11:13 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 17 May 2008 5:16 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

An article by Phil Wainewright at http://blogs.zdnet.com/SAAS/?p=522

When you understand what Wainewright is saying here, you will understand why the old paradigm technologies will be scrapped in due time.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:48 PM EDT

Updated: Friday, 16 May 2008 4:06 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Did you ever get  through with a conversation and say "gee, I wish I had said..."? Well, the Yahoo posting forum format doesn't allow for much follow up because, when you do follow up, those who don't want you to read can easily bury the comments with their own innane postings.

So, if you can't stomach reading the Yahoo VCSY board (believe me. more sympathetic I could not be.), I thought you might need to see the MVC discussion from Yahoo put in a more capsulated view.

Therefore, I'll chop and paste my words of relevant revelation to the heathen who rage too much.

PLUS, there are things I wanted to say after I had already posted there, so these posts distilled into this post will also have additional verbiage by me and some editorial corrections (also by me - it's all about me, me, me.).

Concerned about authenticity and purity? Read the Yahoo posts associated with the timestamps to see just what is new and what is old.

So, (just imagine you've dropped into the middle of a conversation).

begin thread: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?

m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4155&mid=4155&tof=5&rt=1&frt=1&off=1

pick up @ 14-May-08 02:37 pm

portuno: Can ANYBODY tell us what is "gibberish" about the claims in 744?
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6826744

sw_mail: Yes, 744 is a framework that implements the MVC design pattern, first described by Trygve Reenskaug in 1979. Yet, 744 is dated 2004. The facts hurt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-view-controller

computerguy: I'm a professional Java developer who does a lot of work with MVC in Swing GUIs. I had no idea the pattern was that old. Thanks for the link!

portuno: Notice the "professional Java developer" makes my case all by himself with the words: "does a lot of work with MVC in Swing GUIs".

We're talking about much more than a GUI model controller, "computerguy". We're talking about extending what facility and wonders MVC can accomplish with interfaces into the actual fabric and material of the elements being used to construct the applications.

Read the next post then see if you can understand where you shot whoever sent sw_mail the link before the guy even got out the door.

portuno: MVC

LOL

This is going to be good.

"In MVC, the Model represents the information (the data) of the application and the business rules used to manipulate the data, the View corresponds to elements of the user interface such as text, checkbox items, and so forth, and the Controller manages details involving the communication to the model of user actions such as keystrokes and mouse movements."

If MVC desribes any prior art,m it is prior art already accounted for in the Siteflash patent in the discussion about content management as a prior art.

MVC
A) Model - information (the data AND the business rules - in other words the workflow)
B) View - elements of the user interface
C) Controller - activity manager between the model and the user.

Thus, an interface control mechanism.

SiteFlash
A) Content - information (the data)
B) Format (the form in which the data is presented)
C) functionality (the workflows applied to the data within the format)

Thus, an integrated application.

Very telling the list of MVC implementations is so large, yet, the patent examiner never made any reference to any of those listed. Also very telling, the list of MVC implementation is very large, yet, none of those implementations is capable of creating anything as integrated in all three facets of software construction.

If you haven't noticed, MVC forgets about the "functional program". MVC occupies the space between the modeled program behaviour and the user as an interface controller... not as a functionality integrator.

Siteflash treats the program as simply another component to be integrated with content and format. MVC assumes you already have the program crammed together with the content (and we know that doesn't work in "arbitrary" ways - precisely why all those implementations listed are proprietary programming languages and not capable of handling all components in an arbitrary fashion.

portuno: This: "In MVC, the Model represents the information (the data) of the application and the business rules used to manipulate the data, the View corresponds to elements of the user interface such as text, checkbox items, and so forth, and the Controller manages details involving the communication to the model of user actions such as keystrokes and mouse movements."

Is THAT what Microsoft lawyers are going to hang the company's future on?

So, please explain how this achieves an arbitrated framework for ANY content, ANY format and ANY functionality of an application.

You're dong what even Microsoft did in challenging this patent - you're using easily seen abstracts to blow smoke over the deeper values in virtualization and the arbitrating quality that virtualization has on the components of an application construction.

If MVC were an architecture like 744, there would BE no individual proprietary languages as listed in the wiki article. The need for the incremental refinements offered by those languages would have been swallowed up in one MVC framework capable of presenting all languages as one arbitrated field of commands.

And, if the patent examiner missed that one, you'll have to explain how Microsoft failed to adequately challenge the patent when they tried the first time.

Basically what you've got in MVC is a pattern generator. What you have in 744 is an ecology creator for full development of applications during the entire life cycle as contained in the application. The development ecology IS the application... and you can't get that out of MVC.

Nice try but it's most likely Microsoft is going to be shoveling dirt into the oncoming tide with that stance.

But, we're glad somebody out there is sending you clowns some script material. You've been sucking your own incompetence before somebody came to your rescue.

So, your turn. Demonstrate, please, precisely how and where MVC supercedes what 744 claims to do.

sw_mail: And how does the .net framework violate 744?

portuno: Did I step on your toes?

end thread.

I guess I stepped on sw_mail's fingers. Or else he's trying to find more script from some more relevant engineer.

Here's another conversation.
begin thread @ http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?

m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4186&mid=4186&tof=8&frt=1

pick up at 14-May-08 03:35 pm

sw_mail: And how does the .net framework violate 744?

(me: this appears to be a big question for sw_mail aka computerguy aka vcsy_is_pest).

portuno: Read this: http://www.microsoft-match.com/content/developer/net_35_sp1_changes_your_expression.html
and we'll talk later after you catch your breath.

portuno: BUT of course you really need to know software architecture and understand what you're reading both in a patent and in technical specifications.

That was just a wikipedia article about MVC but it tells the story in a basic way for laymen. Once you do some exploration, you realize why all the traditional procedural languages never advanced into the web-application arena SiteFlash and MLE/Emily occupy.

No wonder it looks "obvious". It looks almost like what they do when they build a GUI. Except, Siteflash isn't a GUI nor a GUI builder alone. SiteFlash is a developmental ecology for applications. It's a creating framework for building other creating frameworks from which operating systems and applications and, yes, even more MVC fashioned languages can be built.

The idea is that you can plug any content you have, any (what the patent is meaning when you read "arbitrary". just say "any" when you read "arbitrary" and you'll beging to see the scope. It's a virtualization platform for any content and format. In other words a Microsoft "Expression" but more. ONE OF THE THINGS Siteflash can do is to act as a content/format manager for any website you want to connect to any legacy equipment you have. BUT WAIT! Content managers or ok but it's been done before. In fact, it's what ALL there is in that "designer" discipline.

Microsoft missed a great opportunity to combine their Visual Studio's development platform with their Expression designer platform. Imagine being able to be a designer AND a developer AT THE SAME FREAKING TIME.

They didn't but SiteFlash can. So we now have the concept of a stylist who can build functionality where before, with the kind of programming environments Java Joe has at his hands, anyone that wants to build an application has to have someone to build the programming code and someone completely different building the content into a formatted web page. If the two of you work well, you can build some pretty fantastic web services - of course Microsoft is going to have to perfect their interoperable capabilities over internet. They can't even demonstrate much of it in their own proprietary ranks, much less doing that kind of thing on the web.

SiteFlash offers, at one level, precisely what any web designer would like to be able to do... without a programmer. Content, format is old hat. That's what MVC represents; automating the display of content. Call it Automatic Television. That's what Microsoft's future is going to be because they can't combine the kind of virtualization architecture to allow them to combine content and format AND functionality.

AND THAT is only the beginning.

I do appreciate the gift sw_mail gave all us VCSY longs since it's the only piece of "prior art" any skeptic has pointed to that somewhat looks like SiteFlash.

But, MVC really doesn't even look like SiteFlash once you actually read the material. And it certainly doesn't do what SiteFlash can do. Those who are passing MVC around as a "prior art" are doing an intellectually dishonest service to those they pass that idea around to, or they really do not know what needs to be done in the software construction arena to meet next-generation needs.  

So, now that we know where the "prior art" is, perhaps we can have some real developers (and I mean REAL developers) study the information on the vaunted MVC methodology, then come back and give it to the 744 patent with both barrels.

Come on, guys and gals. ONE of you must have the hot sauce to argue the situation. I mean, you're all betting your careers that Microsoft doesn't need something like SiteFlash.

And, if you're open-source, you're staring at something that could strip your third-party business to the carcass very quickly.

end thread.

There's much more but I'll wait a bit to post since you're going to need time for your little eyeballs to absorb it all.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 9:17 AM EDT

Updated: Friday, 16 May 2008 3:26 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  hug me

I know it's like sticking your face in the diaper pail, snookywookums, but you should do a bit of reading on the Yahoo VCSY board for giggles.

You can read, can't you?

One of the "lerkers" (rhymes with "jerkers") decided to teach old daddy portuno about "architecture" and pulled out something somebody had scripted out for him.

LOL Ho, what a belly laugh that was. Have you ever heard of "MVC" The Model View Controller concept? No? Well, apparently other "professional developers" haven't either.

MVC is what much of the traditional software crowd can thank for allowing them to be able to push buttons and tweak textboxes in their "applications".

Some numbnuts think it shows prior art to invalidate the Siteflash patent. Just the other way around; the Siteflash patent shows just how limited and primitive MVC is. Unfortunately for those VCSY haters, patent 6826744, which they all hate with a passion - much more than the company, no doubt, supercedes the MVC concept in so many ways, it's difficult to know where to start the description.

But, I will attempt to more fully describe why MVC is not what 744 is or was or ever hopes to be. 744 can build MVC's. MVC's can not build 744 derivatives.

Now, I know reading the Yahoo VCSY board is not pleasant. There are hooligans and know-nothings "lerking" there who are tasked with making life unpleasant for anyone who shows the slightest interest in VCSY.

So, I'm making things a bit easier for you here. This is a post that has all the thread URL's: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4221&mid=4221&tof=1&frt=1
Discussion about MVC 14-May-08 04:51 pm by Portuno_Diamo

and these are the individual threads in case you prefer navigating on your own.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4155&mid=4155&tof=5&frt=1
"An arbitrary object framework" for XML. 14-May-08 01:06 pm

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4186&mid=4186&tof=8&frt=1
I'll bet there's some furious script writing... 14-May-08 03:29 pm

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4205&mid=4205&tof=6&frt=1
So, ultimately, Siteflash supercedes MVC... 35 minutes ago

Not to worry if the messages aren't there. I can reconstruct the scene whenever. I'll probably do just that in a follow up post here just so we all know the score as the VCSY v MSFT case Markman Hearing marches near.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 5:59 PM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 6:56 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  amorous

Some legalese:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
VERTICAL COMPUTER
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.§

Civil Action No.
2-07-CV-144 (DF-CE)
THE PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION FOR MODIFICATION
OF THE AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER
Plaintiff Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (“Vertical”) and Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) jointly request a modification of the Court's Amended Docket Control Order to provide for the parties to submit technical tutorials to the Court in advance of the Claim Construction hearing.

The Amended Docket Control Order currently provides for a Pre-hearing Conference and technical tutorial, if necessary, on July 9, 2008, and a Claim Construction hearing on July 10, 2008.

The parties respectfully request that the Court vacate the technical tutorial and pre-hearing conference and set a deadline for submitting technical tutorials on CD-ROM by July 2, 2008, so that the Court will have an opportunity to consider the tutorials in advance of the Claim Construction hearing on July 10.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Vertical and Defendant Microsoft respectfully request that this Court modify the Amended Docket Control Order as outlined above.

and more legalese:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
VERTICAL COMPUTER
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.

Civil Action No.
2-07-CV-144 (DF-CE)
ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION FOR
MODIFICATION OF THE AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER
The Court, having considered the Parties’ Joint Motion for Modification of the Amended Docket Control Order and finding good cause supporting it, finds the Motion should be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the
Parties’ Joint Motion for Modification of the Amended Docket Control Order is hereby GRANTED in its entirety, and that the Pre-hearing Conference and technical tutorial currently scheduled for July 9, 2008, shall be vacated and replaced with the following modification of the Amended Docket Control Order: Action Rule Date Deadline to submit technical tutorials to the Court Wednesday, July 2, 2008  

and opinion:

Now that's an interesting situation. No doubt the SiteFlash patent and all that can be derived from it can be complex and difficult to understand to people skilled in the art of software. It's a different way of doing things in software - a different architecture - and, as such, much of the novel value made available by this method of creating software will escape the comprehension on the first or even second pass.

In this particular architecture, what may at first appear to be massively complex interactions as theory soon appears as simplified abstracted enhancement to existing tools as well as Siteflash and MLE tools.

A tutorial will better prepare the court to hear the words in the patent claims from a much different prespective.

Now, that's from VCSY. What Microsoft will be doing is trying to demonstrate the parts and pieces of Siteflash have all been done before. It's the tactic most first and second time readers of the patent try to use to prove the patent(s - both of them share this quality) invalid based on prior art and obviousness.

I don't disagree there are examples of programming and software development prior art within the patent. But, as a bicycle is a collection of screws and bolts and wheels... all of which have been done before, the assembled "bicycle" invention is a much more useful machine than a boxed set of all these parts.

The traditional parts in patents 6826744 and 7076521 are assembled in such a way to build an integrated software system that does things much better, more wholly and more efficiently than any collections of any prior art.

So, the tutorial on VCSY's side will be much more productive as it will describe the way Siteflash uses all those currently existing software to build ecologys which, in turn, are used to build software frameworks in which businesses may function.

Try that with FrontPage - the "prior art" avowed by Microsoft to invalidate what Siteflash does. LOL

I would love to watch just these two tutorials. What a treasure trove of material with which to confound and befuddle the likes of dlkjla (a throwback poster on the Yahoo VCSY board - I thought I might help him build a fanbase here as he appears to be enamored of attention.)

PS - Yes. I know it's petty. I'm a petty little man. Who else would have a "new baby" freebie site on Lycos dedicated to chronical surmisings about the current industry state and Microsoft and their nemesis VCSY?

If you want to see the original source of the above posts (like you're making a anthropology exhibit for the science fair and all) you can look here, but, I should warn you. Put a q-tip soaked in pine tar in each ear and push firmly. That's the only thing that can innoculate you from suffering the torment of actually reading through the garbage you wade through to get those freegan goodies.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 12:27 AM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, 13 May 2008 1:13 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink