Mood:  amorous

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=215908

By: RapidRobert2 25 Jul 2008, 02:24 PM EDT

Msg. 215908 of 216090 Jump to msg. #

MEDIATOR’S REPORT A mediation conference was held on July 24, 2008. All proper parties attended. The case has settled and the parties are in the process of circulating documents for appropriate signatures, and to be filed with the Court. Signed this 25th day of July, 2008. /s/ James W. Knowles JAMES W. KNOWLES, MEDIATOR NICE because... VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS...THE BEST IS YET TO COME! RR IMO

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 9:03 PM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, 29 July 2008 11:58 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  bright

I lost my damn glasses so I won't be able to accompany this with my usual cut and paste pâté but I thought all you 50 or so people out there might like to see what a ResponseFlash is about.

http://www.vcsy.com/pands/responseflash.php

ResponseFlash™ provides a unique solution through its "massive affiliation" technology for supporting hundreds or thousands of Web sites that may have complex relationships with each other. The ResponseFlash™ architecture is based on VCSY's underpinning SiteFlash™ , proprietary web technology, which has been proven with an existing installed base of customers in multiple industries for more than five years.

A typical ResponseFlash™ installation will create a main portal site for emergency services and multiple departmental Web sites for related agencies, such as local fire, police, health care and other entities. Each agency or department using the system can have complete control of its own site content, discussion forums, user security profiles, event calendars, look and feel, and structure without being forced to purchase or maintain its own applications for these things. At the same time, the main portal can retain the ability to "flash" emergency content updates to each departmental site if necessary, depending on its relationship with each agency. Individual agencies and departments can also share content and design templates among themselves.

ResponseFlash™ also helps to contain costs and speed development for custom integration requirements by encapsulating application logic as standard components that can instantly be applied to all of the affiliate sites in the system. Each affiliate site can be given the choice of whether they want to use these standard components or not, or may be forced to accept certain components. ResponseFlash™ security capabilities make it easy to restrict access to entire sites, areas within sites, pages within areas, and individual components of a page, such as restricted discussion forums or other content, based on the user's security profile.

Critical Characteristics

The target implementation for ResponseFlash™ is security and Emergency Response applications. The technology was designed in response to government agencies' desire to meet their ideal needs for a communication system specialized in all types of emergencies, including Homeland Security. The final product not only provides a proprietary mechanism for rapidly deploying a large number of Emergency Response web sites with advanced communication capabilities to government agencies, but also incorporates a unique system architecture that allows for the collection and dissemination of information (i.e. web pages, forums, Q&A, e-mail, videos, pictures, voice, etc.) through the Internet to and from many devices (i.e. desktop PC's, laptops, PDA's, cellular phones, pagers, Blackberries, etc.).

Typically, ResponseFlash™ is selected for a number of reasons including the following:

• Allows for the fast establishment of websites for all emergency services and provides for easy linkage to existing web sites, so that no prior investments are lost. Furthermore, ResponseFlash™ integrates seamlessly with common computer operating system platforms and databases technologies, allowing adopters to implement ResponseFlash™ with existing infrastructures.
• Allows for secure and public sites within the same communication system
• Establishes various levels of access to sensitive information based upon a users security level and department or group within the secure site
• The content is uniformly presented in the system and does not require a web genius to add content to the web site
• Reduces the load on current phone and radio communication networks during an emergency

In the government arena, ResponseFlash™ lets each government agency operate as a fully autonomous site, a semi-autonomous site, or a completely non-autonomous site, depending on its unique staffing and budgetary situation. ResponseFlash™ not only allows for the communication up and down the organization, but it provides for communication between organizational units without having to go through the entire organization structure. For example department A can communicate with department W without passing through respective supervisors. The software rules allow for selected groups to enter information for general users or to restrict information to only authorized users; it also allows authorized users to add additional information in response to inquires that will be broadcast to all users that have a need to know.

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

So I can't see diddly squat without the glasses. Good thing Mavis taught me to touch type. Anywho, I would like to walk through the ResponseFlash description and compare what 744 says, but maybe later when I find said glasses.

BUT, I did see this: "has been proven with an existing installed base of customers in multiple industries for more than five years."

"Patent troll" my ass.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 2:56 AM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 19 July 2008 3:12 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  caffeinated

I normally won't post things like this because anybody can claim to be anything. RagingBull is a place where you can say you're anything you want to appear to be. Some can back it up. Others can't.

This guy says he'll be at the Markman Hearing so I would suspect he's genuine. But, I leave it to the reader to take what's said for the reader's self.

Either way, the skeptics had the post deleted. I would suspect such fear of information adds more weight to the poster's words than even meeting him at the Markman Hearing.

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=215316&submit=Go&endat=215391&numposts=60

------------------
END

And, because it's my place and I love the attention, I'm posting this here from Raging Bull. Actually, the real reason is I love to read my own writing and I believe it to be worth reading for everyone.

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=215392

By: POSCASHFLOW 16 Jul 2008, 10:04 PM EDT

Msg. 215392 of 215393 Jump to msg. #

Classic post (copy and paste) from Portuno! DC- "who wants to discuss the mystery of how the tech and investment worlds have managed to miss the significance of the VCSY patent litigation - as indicated by their lack of interest in buying the stock even at such bargain basement prices - when the world-shaking magnitude of the litigation is so obvious to the relatively less plugged-in denizens of this message board?" You first have to explain whether the claims are bogus or not. If they are not, what you are watching is the grand brainfart of all time on the part of technological journalists. If the standing VCSY patents have are fundamental to the operation of web-based applications, we would doubtless hear such from expert journalists, would we not? I agree. What's wrong? I suspect the only real "journalists" out there are people who work for someone who sells advertising to the larger software houses. Thus... conflict of interest in the editorial suite. It would be akin to the court reporter's journal receiving ads from mafia leaders. It is that level of 'report by report'. Or has VCSY granted stories to journalists already and they are patiently waiting for their promised dated byline? Either way, there's a huge reason why a journalist's editor would act that way. And there's some sort of huge reason a magazine article on MSDN would be written in July 2006 and posted in June 2007. Why have they not written about it? I think every one of the large software houses wished upon hope and plucked four leaf clovers hoping upon wish that VCSY would simply go belly up and the party could begin. (photo right: Nice socks) Any one of them active in XML research who claim they knew nothing of VCSY or their technology are bald faced liars. Not just speak with forked tongue. Got two whole sets of faces, Tonto. Ummm. Me know how fix Buffalo With Four Horns. Make buffalo butt itch. Scratch butt, bleed to death. No scratch butt, make head fall off. I think the big software houses were waiting for VCSY to collapse. LOOK at the damn thing. It looks like they need to go out and collect cans and pop bottles to stay alive. Can you imagine having to try to do your business in the shadow of a billion dollar giant. Hell, One? Let's say at least ten because VCSY technology impacts so many software producers I wouldn't know where to start counting. And that's just their software disruption. And that's just in software. Look at the Fiber Optic patent and think through that one. Do a google of cruz+fiber+optic and tell me the hits don't keep coming. Think a bit and then we can begin to answer your question: why doesn't anybody know? Why? I believe because the reputation of the company was damaged in the early years and very few people believe anything anybody says about VCSY anymore. There are only ~350 loyal readers on the laughing place #2. That's not many people knowing something. Oh wait. We HAD 350 up until a few Wednesdays ago. Then, all of a sudden, there were another 350+ hits on top of that who dropped in on one day to check things out. They were gone shortly after but the bandwidth has gone up. So SOMEbody got curious in a "departmental" sense it would appear. But it's still a very tiny number to have any interest in VCSY at this time when the company had such a spectacular fall from grace in March 2000... when DC and the rest said the company was a scam. Tsk tsk tsk... unknowingly (no doubt) setting the stage for the denuding of company reputation such that with world wide patent announcements STILL a website for VCSY information gets only 350 loyal (and 350+ surprise guests in one day) visitors a day. Peanuts. No wonder nobody believes the story... no money in the bank. No mention of contracts and no PRs saying anybody is even interested. No wonder recy stuck to that line and refused to read anything else. When you read the rest of the story, you see the big smiley face pasted on the bumper of the car about to run the “technology” world down. And what of the rest of the world? Like you say, patents fall on their face every day. They may sound great on paper but flop on the ground. Your own software houses advise engineers and programmers to not read patents so they don't gum up their creative juices. No. Leave that to the MBAs who will decide whether a market is just too tantalizing to pass up even if it means waiting years for an old fart to keel over. Meanwhile, you stall your customers who know SOMETHING isn't right. Especially the software developers called OEMs. Man, when they find out whether those patents are bunk or real, you won't have to worry about us longs screaming bloody murder. Hoooo boy. You're a reasonable guy, DC-Steve. Tepe says the fiber optic patent is bunk. He admits he is a mechanical engineer with no knowledge of optics or electronics. But, he stands on his opinion though he absolutely refuses to read or discuss evidence seen explaining how the Cruz patent can be done. But he says the cruz patent to move whole images through a single fiber of current technology optical class is impossible. The patent admits it's been impossible for a hundred years. But VCSY got the patent on the idea and the activity and the results. And nobody else has. Would the industry stand still for that if the patent were bogus? Look at the googles again and you'll see some of the pinged hits are on things like looking at a moirre mesh through a single fiber to test for power and current and stress. Think about it. No wires from the instrument to the computer. Just individual hairs of glass fiber. Microsopic. Cruz was an automation engineer to begin with and I would think he would have stumbled on this way of looking at images while trying to come up with a way for a fiber end to "see" refractive images in say strain gauge material and "image" it back at the electronic sensor inches, feet, miles away without electricity. I read something tonight that shows me how it's done (it's sitting out in the open like eveery other elephant Wade's been hiding) and it's so god awful easy to see I want to kick MyOwnass for not seeing it sooner. We use the same aberrance correction methods in giving modern adaptive optical telescopes better eyesight. Cruz knows how to do this through an atmosphere of glass. A C:!######## stroke of genius old man. Bravo! $#!@ I'm tingly all over. I wonder how wrong we all are on the software patents. DC-Steve, You're seemingly a more reasonable person and must admit there is a very slim chance the fiber optic patent is workable. I know you called the company a scam some time in the past, but we're not talking here about their business construct or execution. We're talking about technology and its relevance to modern industry. If the VCSY technology (both fiber optic patent and software patents) really is baloney then we've all been wasting our time. But, if it's real, and we see what is predicted by our scenarios, namely that the large Software houses are all sitting there waiting to see if they're going to put out their own versions of the web-application age once Microsoft makes up their mind when they're going to introduce the first "web-applications product"... Here they all are after trying to build those kinds of things (things made real by the patent methods) since 2001 and failing... and all of them are fielding betas since starting last october-november (Microsoft is just now fielding alphas - methinks they thought they could avoid the snare in october-november but it sprang in the spring) and... what's holdign them back? Why aren't they out there elbowing each other in the gut claiming to have the first product out on the street. It looks like horses shoved into stalls waiting for the little guy on top to kick the ribs and lunge out of the gate. Funny, ain't it? There are journalists out there alluding to the tension and the uncertainty and the sheer weirdness of the current web-technology world, but they can't quite put their fingers on "IT". Meanwhile IBM is chugging along just fine and VCSy is waiting quite patiently (given the number of products that violate the XML Agent patent AND the SiteFlash patent showing out in the magazines now). If it's not real then hundreds and may have thousands made a big mistake and we all did the mass-deluded koolaid party of Guyana look like tea with the mad hatter. We was WRONG if those patents are bogus. Harry Truman is said to have remarked he wished he had a one-armed economic advisor on his staff so he wouldn't have to hear "on the other hand". If the patents are real, then, everybody made some huge mistakes over the last seven years and there will be a whole lot of quesions why. Keeping something a secret for so long only acts to strengthen the intoxicating effect like aged wine. This will be rich. Tepe says it's a scam. He says the fiber optic patent is impossible and tells everyone it's evidence Wade is a scammer and a thief. He says we pumpers are stealing from people if they buy VCSY stock. But VCSY didn't steal the patent(s). Some might think VCSY stole the patents but VCSY told the patent office, yep everybody says this is impossible but here's how you do it. And the patent office (not just one lone examiner sat up in his leather chair in the patent office attic poring over dusty volumes. This false image plays toward the cynicism of the 'patents are for losers' crowd and clouds the truth.) said, ok Mister Cruz, you get the one patent everybody else would be willing to swap nuglets for. You people portray the world in the most simplistic way when it fits your purpose. The patent office examination involves many opportunities from all sides with expert opinions on each side. If you folks believe the patent office can grant VCSY a patent for an optical phenomena that folks have theorized can be done using a method of image projection IBM played around with a couple decades ago. Crux was an IBM employee at some time in the past. You employers who have that clause in your "intellectual property" that tells the inventive soul in your employ every new idea he has on your time (hell... even on HIS time) belongs to YOU... you know who you all are. Lemmings that jump off the cliff because your mother says so. You're a bunch of nitwits lead by fools with MBA's. What you effectively do is drive the inventor out of your company to work on an idea you'll never understand until after he's gained venture capital. And you STILL won't know what to do because you're lead in the technology business (or any other vertical) by people who know MONEY but don't know your discipline or vertical. Big deal you say. Big deal I say because YOU get only the story THEY want you to hear... and you on your fat butt (not you DC-Steve, I speak allegorically regarding the various flabby and distended body parts so evident in Mister Technology's spandex and lycra) think you're doing just fine. And then somebody like IBM sneaks up behind you and steals your rabbits in broad daylight and we can all see you now out in the moonlight building cages so the neighbors won't think you were an irresponsible nut for keeping those bunnies in a kiddie pool. I guess nobody told you When it rains, the pool fills up and the rabbits can swim and climb out. They did. Now you're hammering chicken wire and two by fours up on the barn to keep invisible rabbits. Acropolis? Avalon? Going somewhere? Somebody almost got what they wanted from VCSY... or at least it certainly looks that way. I feel quite violated as a shareholder that larger companies wanted to TAKE VCSY... not buy. I didn't hear any cases of Microsoft or Sun or Apple or Yahoo or Google ASKING to BUY VCSY, have you? I would think even the sniff of even ONE of those individual companies asking Doc Wade for a menu and a price sheet would rate a x-K of some sort of filing, wouldn't you? Are you telling me if Microsoft said, 'Hey, Rick. What say you guys put yourselfs up for sale.' and shareholders of a battered penny stock are not told, the CEO could walk away with his skin? Nope. He would have to make at least some noise especially if the 'sale' talk fell through. So somebody wanted to get what they had (you're telling me the top Tech houses did NOT want the patent material? You're not that stupid, DC. You're smarter than that and you know what the patents say the web-applications technologies should look like is getting to be so obvious it's like parading) and somebody tried to make that happen (ask judge Solomon what she thought was going on in the CDC/Ross thing. Shes not a stupid woman. And she doesn't appear cowed as opposed to the bull$#!@ we had to put up with from the very start of that four year trial.). They almost took her down. They still could (at least, that's what it all looks like when you read their listings. I know what all that's about and you know what all that's about because bad competition is bad, okay?) and so we wait each day with word of whether VCSy is going to survive and is there news on who mugged her in her own place of business. Now. IF the technology is bull$#!@ then case closed and VCSY goes away. Now. Prove the technology bull$#!@. Your turn. VCSY has been dying for years because people like Microsoft and Sun and Apple and Yahoo were keeping a death vigil on VCSY in hopes their intellectual property would fall from Emily's unclenched fingers as she breathed her last corporate entity. That's not just an opinion, I think that can be shown using public records aka their very own marketing materials since 2000. Hey, There's no crime in knowing somebody's going to die. You can sit inches from them while they go through the pangs of the last rattle and be the pope the next day and nobody says anything... until they find out you took something from off the person and copied it some time ago and had it stored in a closet... so that would be ready and able to put out in the open as theirs the day AFTER the sickie dies. One BIG problem. She didn't die and blow away and, man, there are some pissed off people out there who would give almost everything (still might) to have their way with the technology. And now? I say they're having to wait for Microsoft to make the deal then they can all be off to the greyhound races chasing the bunny for a big bite of hare pie. Don't like what we're saying? Prove us wrong. The first thing we need to do is prove the technology is pointless or useless and we'll all know. We've all been asking for somebody to do just that and the only ones we've had on this board are a debotched career 'techie' who we don't know who we're talking to who can't get to first base on the first question: Explain how VCSY patent language and VCSY technical language and business are invalid in the current SaaS CaaS Services as a Service world. Do it. We dare you. All we need is a hefty like Walter Mossberg (how C:$!### appropriate THAT name is. I couldn't have picked that name for its irony at this point in the technology "know" state if I had made it up in a fantasized life.) willing to take the patent language apart. Or maybe a mister feeblefritz on one of the science channels take the single image over optical fiber story and dash it to the rocks below. Then we poor deluded minnions of mmmmpphhh will go home and unplug the computers. Well, I'm waiting for the proof. Heck. Just take the patents to an expert and ask them what they think it can do and then tell us what they said. I want to hear every laugh and ridicule word for word so we can gauge how severe is our psychosis. HA. This has been fun. I get the feeling it's about to get more fun. I have only one question: Mister Cruz, what did it feel like when you “saw” the way to do it? LOL I think the question being asked amongst some people is this: How much has VCSY been damaged by being forced to work unknown all these seven years? How many of the big software houses would find our technology valuable? How many of the automation companies would find our hardware technology valuable? How much of the computer hardware market would likely have already been creating the products we're see now back then and flourishing all this time had VCSY been allowed to work without fear of being taken out? I think that's the question that's really on everybody's mind and for some it will be a bittersweet reminder that people who want something badly enough to try to take it will squirm to the end of any opportunity if it buys them one more day of “grace” instead of truth. How much money have we shareholders in VCSY been forced to do without based on a pressure against the company that demanded they do their marketing and business in secret? How many shareholders were convinced to sell VCSY shares because they were told VCSY was a scam and told in very convincing ways? How many here know that now? How many who are not yet here will know that? What will their course of action be as I believe their experience will be simply bitter, having been told to bail out and listening to those voices instead of those who dug into information to demonstrate there was much more value to VCSY than was being portrayed. And who is responsible for driving the audience for VCSY capabilities into the dirt? The shareprice? Or the posters on message boards who charged VCSY was a scam? Both I say. And we should all look in to why the shareprice has been held so low and by whom. My interest (call it a hobby of mind to ferret out this kinds of people and stretching their hides out across the barn door to dry in the Sun, so to speak) is an entertainment and a hobby. One that consumes a lot of interest but I haven't been able to locate a reliable supply of hobby model paints so I am stymied in the construction of my plastic replica of the German Komet. Acht der flamenshtikken est fribenflotzam. So I have time on my hands often to peruse and meditate. I have read a number of very skillful posters who stayed on message day after day week after week month after month year after year since 2000-2001... for what purpose? but to alert everyone VCSY was a scam. Only one problem, the patents alone say this is no scam. And now we wait for DC-Steve to locate an expert in any of the areas (pick one and just prove that is a bust) covered by the patents or even the pending patent which is a language builder to enable building semantic web-languages like mister Tim more than one last name said could be done. Just like DARPA requires but must have enabled. I'm darn glad all these people have finally gotten down to being able to do the enabling. Now we can get down to business. How much is the projected business income for the next generation of software businesses and services? We want a fair portion of that. Now, we're not getting greedy. If Microsoft can pay 7 billion for a second banana, what would they need to pay to cover a banana split? Let's see. A billion shares divided by 10 billion? Or is it the other way around? Any MBAs around here to hep us out? I don't know a whole lot about money. I just know about technology and people's habits. Oh!Oh! The chief 'intelligentsia' of the software world have not spoken so these are all bosh and boobles! I forget about that. They are all so wise. Ohhhh so wise. And they can't figure a way out of the trap. They're trapped DC. That's why you don't hear anyone saying anything. They need to keep their mouths shut and their noses clean and say “yes-sir” when asked do you want to stay in business. Sounds crazy? We have a number of days ahead to dig for clues. There seems to be another every day and things continue to be clear. And the funny part is, the first good PR from VCSY will be “Microsoft settles with VCSY” OR “Microsoft tells VCSY to take a hike”. Either way, the REST of the audience that were convinced by many here VCSY would fade into oblivion will get to watch right here on this board and on the news boards as VCSY turns to the rest of the software houses and say “Microsoft is feeling frisky.” OR “Microsoft feels lucky.” Either way, I don't think EVERY CEO out there is stupid. Just a handful of bad apples and cracked nuts. I got a jolt tonight when I finally “saw” how the fiber optic patent can work beyond conjugate waveform synthesis (which I believe could be used to “see” three d with only one fiber given the nature of the method I believe is being used – THIS is an exponential expansion of the fundamental “see the image through a single fiber' concept and is not at all difficult to breadboard once you understand what's being attempted. Why struggle? Buy a license and hook up you're “image sensing” applications and you can drop all the imaging chips and image processing electronics. Boom. Another slam on the chip making industry. Also another incredible opportunity for synergy and idea creation. Surface could do tactile imaging unimagined right now.). The fiber optic patent is so incredibly easy decipher now I am hesitant to tell what I think as it makes it possible for teenage kids familiar with laser techniques to cobble together ideas on their own. But, isn't that what innovation is? And innovation may be destructive or regenerative. So let the kids play as ideas will make the cruz fiber an incredibly useful invention I would compare to the transistor or the laser in potential impact. At the same time, there are a set of hurdles and knowledges the average teen would have to acquire and THAT is what is precious and what separates the men from the noodles. Those hurdles certainly do not face the fiber and microscopic imaging field as the techniques indicated in my scenario of the Cruz patent theory are extremely simple to implement in today's component technology. Now I understand why it doesn't use electrical power. It only needs sources of light to illuminate the object being looked at (if it's microscopic, you can shine a light on if from the fiber optic hair illuminated at the “viewing” end. If it's big as a house or a spaceship, you need more light, but you can still see it easily enough. Today there are telescopes that shine a reference layer into the atmosphere to build a “star” image in the sky. Looking at that star image and adjusting the shape of the collecting mirror at the astronomer's end per every variation of the reference star projected on (through actually) the atmosphere above the astronomer's head, allows the lighted image from the other end of the atmosphere (before the light from the reference laser reaches into vacuum) to be seen clearly. Mister Cruz has likely conquered the aberrated medium of glass fiber in essentially a manner akin to the way astronomers have de-burred the aberrations of the atmosphere. Now, that may not be the way it's actually done, but, because we have a thought model to pick over and debate in technological terms, the FO patent is a reality whether folks choose to believe it or not. And if it is a reality, it also means it doesn't need the kind of sensor-end complexity first imagined when thinking through a workable solution based on no information. If my scenario is correct, we should see the ability to find sensors comprising a single fiber to a spot to be monitored or analyzed or measured and see the ability to convey complex information from the sensor to the monitoring equipment. We start seeing just such items when we look at a few of the hits on google Cruz+fiber+optic. Light the image at the other end with lasers from the observing end with a reference laser to measure the aggregated distortion, subtract that information from the received waveform and presto bingoo you have yourself a reflective image transported through an aberrated media. Throw in conjugate waveform generation (you only need four lasers for any of this stuff – 1 reference, 3 variable 'color') Now, at the 'looking end' of the fiber, put a piece of polarized plastic. Glue a couple points on the plastic to the machine and you now have a spot-on stress analysis sensor. The stress could be heat induced mechanical motion. The heat could be induced by power loss in a circuit, do a bit of fourier analysis on the data the image of the strain gauge represents and you can measure for voltage and current (power) on anything from transformers to chip substrates. I'm waiting for only one individual to provide a convincing view that the fiber optic patent is a hoax. If you're waiting on tepe to supply references and referential information, hold your breath... and try not to laugh. Ask yourself, Why would Microsoft make this video poking fun of themselves? The tide is turning! Imo (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 10:04 PM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 16 July 2008 11:04 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  lucky

Even greater affirmation patent 6826744 is a foundational work. Thanks to baveman.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 12:52 AM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 12 July 2008 1:42 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  hug me

I'm posting this on Yahoo so readers will have other things to read besides the juvenile antics being perpetrated by Al and his cohort kalafella aka tepe on Raging Bull VCSY. You'll see the thing played out over there, I'd rather not sully the place with trashy things and intentional ignorance.

To wit:

One of the things in Rapid Robert's 50+ reasons to buy VCSY. This was back when it was about 47. No, I won't post them in their entirety... all at once. 

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=186098

The press release BY VERIZON on the importance of web hosting by NOW Solutions 'emPath' is noteworthy for another reason, IT IS THE FIRST CLIENT OF VERIZON. The list is rapidly growing NOW.

"Verizon Business Powers 'Software-as-a-Service' Business Model for NOW Solutions Inc.

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=173593

"NOW Solutions Rolls Out Web-Based HR Software Suite, Supported by Verizon Business Data Center Services With Built-In Security and Reliability

BASKING RIDGE, N.J., Jan. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Verizon Business Data Center Services are supporting NOW Solutions Inc.'s rollout of a new Web-based human resource management software service designed to help businesses perform key personnel functions including payroll, performance reviews and benefits administration. Verizon Business services are providing round-the-clock access and a secure, robust environment for delivering NOW Solutions' new delivery model of its emPath(R) portfolio of human resource software services.

The NOW Solutions software is now built on an increasingly popular model known as software-as-a-service (SaaS) in which the applications are hosted by the vendor, rather than the customer, and delivered as a service over the Web to help control set-up and operational costs. When delivered as an SaaS service, the emPath human resources management system (HRMS) helps to minimize the strain on companies' internal information resources and infrastructure capacity."

AND, InfoWORLD even mentions NOW Solutions in their story about Verizon:

http://weblog.infoworld.com/realitycheck/archives/2007/01/how_verizon_saa.html

"The fact that Verizon Business Data Center Services, a division of Verizon Communications, announced a hosting contract with Now Solutions, a software as a service [SaaS] provider for human resources solutions, probably went unnoticed by most people."

http://www.canadianprivacyinstitute.ca/clients.html

"Canadian Privacy Institute
The Canadian Privacy Institute offers information, tools and education alternatives to help meet the practical challenges of the privacy and security of information.

A private organization, the Institute is an information resource to all organizations conducting business in Canada."

http://h71000.www7.hp.com/partners/index.html

"HP OpenVMS Systems
Following is a list of featured OpenVMS partners. This list includes partners that have ported their applications to HP Integrity servers (Integrity ready) and partners that have submitted certification letters (Integrity certified).

For a comprehensive list of all known OpenVMS applications, see the OpenVMS Application Status Report."

And, HP updated their website for their PARTNER NOW SOLUTIONS, and 'emPath'.

http://cms.eservices.hp.com/PrintableVersion/1,2921,,00.html?TARGET=%2Fdspp%2Fmop%2Fmop_partner_product_detail_IDX%2F1%2C1331%2C18417%2C00.html

(more at URL)
------------

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 10:01 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 7 July 2008 10:13 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Well, congratulations to the patent pending process for Emily. A Method and system for providing a framework for processing markup language documents going through a renewed review by the patent examiner as submitted May 19, 2008. The citations you see below are typically noted by the patent examiner for each application and provide information relative to the application under review.

I believe such citations downstream give affirmation to the defineable advancements embodied in the claims of  Emily. A Method and system for providing a framework for processing markup language documents.

Patent citations can be informative...
http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/support/patents/dwpiref/reftools/searchtips/searchtip_oct
What is a citation?
In the context of patents, a citation is a reference to a previous work which is relevant to the current patent application. These citations are to be found in the search reports which the patent office examiners produce when they check that a particular invention really is new. And because it is the patent office examiners who have made the connection between new ideas and existing ideas we know that the connection must be valid - after all, the examiners are unbiased and they are experts in their fields.

Citations can be existing patents of course - but they might also be non-patent publications such as journal articles, conference papers or trade literature. If you can find a list of citations associated with an invention you already know about then you have, in effect, found a good quality reading list.

...and valuable.
http://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ecinnt/v14y2005i5p375-393.html
Patent citation data are used in a growing body of economics and business research on technological diffusion. Until now, there exists little evidence on whether patent citations are a good measure of knowledge flows.

Thanks to stillwtr19 for posting the following:
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/viewreplies.cgi?board=VCSY&reply=214843

By: stillwtr19 
06 Jul 2008, 01:59 AM EDT
 Msg. 214843 of 214848
Jump to msg. #  
Five patents referencing patent pending Emily. A Method and system for providing a framework for processing markup language documents. Last up date...05-19-2008 Date Forwarded to Examiner

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/REF20030037069.html

1) 7349916 Information organization using markup languages
The presentation of information in HTML files is desirably en hanced by the use of one or more separate scripting Javascript™ files, referenced from the HTML file, which uses information...

Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation (Armonk, NY, US)

2) 7349905 Local client database for remote support
A layered message architecture has been described that communicates status data from a client computer to a server through a remote support network. A database interface layers isolate the...

Assignee: Everdream Corporation (Fremont, CA, US)

3) 7299414 Information processing apparatus and method for browsing an electronic publication in different display formats selected by a user. An formation processing apparatus that performs language translations, wherein content data includes text data having the same meaning, written in a plurality of languages, and enclosed by...

Assignee: Sony Corporation (JP)

4) 7219339 Method and apparatus for parsing and generating configuration commands for network devices using a grammar-based framework. A method of automatically parsing a network device configuration and generating a representation of one or more configuration commands for a network device that uses a command-line interface, using...

Assignee: Cisco Technology, Inc. (San Jose, CA, US)

5) 6862588 Hybrid parsing system and method
A system and method are provided for parsing a markup file. The present system includes a hybrid parser that employs both a lightweight parser and a heavy weight parser to parse a markup file. The...

Assignee: Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (Houston, TX, US)

(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long)
 
----------

And this bit of treeforter mail I thought the reader should see. Think through what you see when you see these things. By the way, there is information linking VCSY to both Infinitek and Netriplex.

Hey Morrie!
Hope you and the rest of the longs had a great 4th of July! I hope Mr. Wade adds to the fireworks that I saw last night! I went to the Adobe site and clicked on the partner portal link just to see if the VCSY picture was still there. It is! But I noticed the same picture( I had not noticed this before) of the lady in the glasses on Adobe's link here:

 https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/partnerportal/index.cfm

As the picture that shows up on the InfiniTek. biz site here:

http://www.infinitek.biz/

Is that not interesting? It cannot be a coincidence. Remember too that this lady is on the Netriplex site also:

http://www.netriplex.com/network/technology.aspx

Many have tried to explain items such as these matching photos and other matching photos on Verizon and NOW Solutions and Adobe as "clipart coincidence".

The only problem is, I don't think anyone's been able to find other examples of such clipart anywhere.

I also find it incredible these companies would allow such similar branding collateral given obvious speculation about the relationship between these companies and VCSY. How would their attorney's explain away such coincidences?

What do you think?

UPDATE

Remember the nice lady on infinitek? She's not there now. http://www.infinitek.biz/

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 11:17 PM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, 8 July 2008 9:12 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  don't ask

This is what "the other side" thinks about the information VCSY longs have tried to present to the public. This is a loud and clear statement claiming VCSY is nothing more than a sham and the VCSY longs are boiler-room crooks milking anyone stupid enough to buy the stock.

Would we not be in jail at least by now?

If you think through the chains of logic that necessarily flow from these attitudes, you realize somebody has to suspend belief to a far greater extent than the theories, speculations and opinions we offer. Your version might be believable in the case of a stock that's been around for a year or less. Maybe. But, to ask the readers to believe a wad of professionals would hang to play this fraction of a penny rodeo with the volumes seen and add on top the incredible claims backed up with references and information found by ongoing searched by a wad of amateurs learning the social web and mining the internet for all the corners.

Another thing; most things called "conspiracy" are little more than arrogant game players screwing the pooch and letting pieces of information become available about just how good it was. An intellectual property as valuable as VCSY's is going to bring out the worst in people who don't own it. Conspiracies? I would say, planning for the wrong outcome. Being had? I would call it picking up the soap at an inoportune time.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=5892&mid=5892&tof=1&frt=1

Doesn't it see a little strange to you, Portuno_diamo, that the very moment a website mentioning Siteflash, eMpath, or some other vcsy "product", patent or alleged "partnership" is constructed, one of your subservient minions finds it instantaneously? Out of the BILLIONS of websites created every day, they seem to find websites that stay online for mere hours? And doesn't it seem strange that as soon as you or your minions mention it and provide a link on a bulletin board or your various blogs, that website "mysteriously" disappears? It's happened more than once.

It REEKS of fraud. It might go like this....

There's nothing going on in vcsyland worth talking about and the trops are getting restless, so one of your obedient followers or one of your bosses constructs a one-page website and makes up a fake name for a company. This website contains just enough information to make it appear there's some connection to VCSY. It might turns up as a Brazilian website (wonder who's located there??). Something like this takes a very effort and a small amount of time to do. Even a caveman could do it.

Next, you or one of your puppets is somehow informed of this website and multiple messages appear on various bulletin boards with links to that website, and you place a link in your many vcsy-related blogs, announcing a newly found "partner" or customer to vcsy.

Suddenly, there's "news" and everyone gets excited and jubilant, and in a flurry of activity they begin fabricating all sorts of scenarios by which vcsy is going to get famously rich. The pumping and hyping continues, then others try to access the website....but it's suddenly taken down, never to be seen again.

Now the conspiracy theories develop. Theories such as "vcsy didn't want anyone to know they were working in stealth with this company". "Vcsy wasn't 'ready' to announce this relationship just yet". "The SEC and NSA 'officially requested' that this website be taken down so as to not blow their investigation". "MSFT made them do it to hide the grand plan".

The problem is, the company who supposedly owned this website is phony. The website is phony. It's all designed to stir up even more questions about vcsy, to perpetuate the mystery. It will never end. You will never let it end, even if vcsy is no longer an operating entity, should that ever happen.

If/when vcsy loses the MSFT case, I'm sure you'll make up some intricately woven story that claims vcsy and MSFT agreed to make it APPEAR that they lost the lawsuit, but now they have a super-secret development agreement in place and the product will be available sometime in the future, as in "soon". Or you will claim that the judge was paid off by MSFT in an illegal attempt to "crush" vcsy so it can't dominate the world of software and fiber optic communications. I'm sure there will be more dots to connect. You and your crew will invent those dots. It will go on and on and on and on....just like it has for almost a decade so far.

You're very transparent....you and all of your cohorts.

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

I just wanted to place this here as a historic marker. Kind of like having a gargoyle in the baby's room to remind junior what kind of things people can say about you without any available reference information to support what's said. It's a practice honed by the Gestapo in early 20th century Germany.

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

Well, now, this looks significant.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080707/media_uncertainty.html?.v=4AP
Uncertainty aplenty as Web, media leaders convene
Monday July 7, 6:01 pm ET
By Jeremy Herron, AP Business Writer Media, Internet moguls meet at Idaho luxury retreat, most seeking more online revenue

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, a perennial at the Allen conference, won't be joined by CEO Steve Ballmer. But he is bringing the company's top dealmaker, Henry Vigil, Microsoft's senior vice president for strategy and partnership.

(More at URL)
--------------------

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 10:37 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 7 July 2008 9:24 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

Some things you should be familiar with if you want to be able to chart MSFT's course from here out. You should take the time to read the articles pointed to by the hyperlinks in each of these articles.

February 8th, 2008
Microsoft Kool-Aid and the cloud
Posted by Phil Wainewright @ 4:46 am

March 17th, 2008
Ozzie signals Microsoft’s surrender to the cloud 
Posted by Phil Wainewright @ 3:57 am

June 25th, 2008
Is Bill Gates a secret cloud convert?
Posted by Phil Wainewright @ 2:40 am

Well, hell, this can't be good.

UHHH OHHHH Who made a doody?

ADO .NET Entity Framework Vote of No Confidence

The signatories of this letter are unanimous in expressing concern for the welfare of software projects undertaken in the Microsoft customer community that will make use of the forthcoming ADO .NET Entity Framework.

We collectively urge Microsoft customers to seriously consider the concerns of a group of experts that Microsoft has called, “the technical community’s best and brightest,” and who share a deep commitment to community and a willingness to help others. We have been building entity-based applications since the initial release of .NET using both Microsoft and non-Microsoft tools, and have accumulated a tremendous amount of experience in general best practices for entity-based applications as well as best practices for entity-based applications with .NET.

Because of the technical misgivings with the Entity Framework’s current design and implementation, and the potential future risk they pose to Microsoft customer projects we respectfully submit a Vote of No Confidence for the ADO .NET Entity Framework in its current state and for the on-going challenges with the expert community feedback processes.

We urge Microsoft customers who will be considering entity architectures for their software application projects to be aware of the following unresolved issues with the impending first release of the ADO .NET Entity Framework:

Well, of course, I'll post them one at a time and see what we can see in the technological entrails, but, as a wise farmer once told me, you don't eat a prize winning hog like that all at once.

http://efvote.wufoo.com/forms/ado-net-entity-framework-vote-of-no-confidence/
"INORDINATE FOCUS THE DATA ASPECT OF ENTITIES LEADS TO DEGRADED ENTITY ARCHITECTURES:

While entities are data objects from the perspective of data storage and data storage technologies, entities are more significantly behavioral objects from the perspective of entity-oriented applications."

Read the VCSY claims construction and you will remember the explanation VCSY gives of the arbitrary object - an object which acts to keep itself informed as to maintain an always ready interface as an arbitrarily used object.

The MVP's here are complaining they do (or "did") that kind of work with Microsoft. What's up with that capability being yanked out of ADO.Net? What's up with that?

"The Entity Framework’s focus is on the support the data storage aspects of entity objects at the expense of the primary use case for entities in software applications, which is to govern business rules and business logic. Without recognizing this key architectural enabler and distinction, the ADO .NET Entity Framework team has built only half of the story into the framework..."

Uhhh ohhhh. I don't know this was designed this way by these people or this is one colosal booboo but these guys are clearly outing Microsoft's claim construction, showing Microsoft engineers know about this kind of architecture and they want to advance in it.

This reminds me of portuno's law of multiple modal opportunities: something doesn't just happen; something is caused by the something that happened before. So this one event deserves some in depth delving. I don't want to treat this one too tritely. I think we have the crack in the Microsoft dam that was bound to happen to any old, creaky and never tested bulwark.

Meanwhile, a closer look at the issues by Tim Mallalieu:

Tim Mallalieu's Blog.

Just a PM's random musings on data, models, services...

Vote of No Confidence

So,

It's been a long, long time since I have posted anything on my blog. Reality is I tried to maintain a blog where I thought I could come up with wonderfully profound things to share with the world but clearly that was not the case.

(worth the read at the URL for the technical side of the issues stated in the petition)

Sigh. You can almost hear the disappointment in the guy's heart. To have thought you were working with the world's greatest software company thinking you were going to be on the team to bring a new generation of real software advances... only to find you were a sandbag in the business of trying to get what didn't belong. That's a shame.

These are the reasons the MVP's signed the Vote of No Confidence in Microsoft's ADO.Net Entity Framework. Each of these is a description of the bottleneck encountered when you try to build an arbitrating object framework. This is the problem with traditional procedural methods in software. VCSY's patent does not block this road of development, thus is not too broad. VCSY's patent demonstrates a way to get around these bottlenecks... leaving traditional procedural software methods to do whatever they can.

Providing an advanced capability is not "unenforceable" because the advances provided by 744 stick out like a sore thumb when you don't use them.

From http://efvote.wufoo.com/forms/ado-net-entity-framework-vote-of-no-confidence/

INORDINATE FOCUS THE DATA ASPECT OF ENTITIES LEADS TO DEGRADED ENTITY ARCHITECTURES:

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:23 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 28 June 2008 2:57 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  accident prone

Dear God it must irk the jerkins out of Microsoft engineering to sit back and watch (literally because I see not one of them breaking ranks. They will all go down in flames together because not two of them make up a whole story and they believed the "besieged meshiah" act MSFT principals are building as a temple to corporate philanthropy made profitable.) while a once proud company is made to look like a blithering fool to avoid getting the socks put on the rolls of quarters Microsoft is about to get hit with. I feel it coming. I can't believe MSFT made a lame attempt to dump on McAuley's reputation in a claims construction! Is that desperation? or stupidity?

What's fair treatment from the bench, do you think?

Microsoft is fielding some pretty swell stuff. Let's just say city level is loud and clear level for the simplicities.

In other words, brother, you're overplaying the part like a hasbeen Burlesque Queen giving the garters another tug and an invitation to coochie coo. Wear a shiny suit. The locals love that kind of stuff.

Anyway, it was bound to happen. As long as Microsoft lawyers run the company (does anybody suspect this is "marketing's" fault? What marketing? It's as though they're embarrassed to have these projects stuffed away in some "knownothing" bunnybunker without a decent codename) you're bound to hit a wall (could engineering be lame enough to actually build this kind of response on purpose? or do we have an engineer trying to sever his arm off with his antique sliderule to get to a payphone to call a journalist) where people simply aren't going to buy the "XML and http is hard" duffus act (Hey Morrie. I need an Alfred E Neumann head looking like Gates.) especially when they see how you hounded the XML standards committees like Pepe' in heat back in the day.

You know the "We own XML" period Microsoft went through - the "We own XML" patent statement that used to be a result on Google but try that string now and the internet is strangely quiet and suddenly devoid of any past Microsoft XML talk.

Suddenly we're Miss Lilly Whitelies of the Easternmost Hamptons. What a crock.

Ray Ozzie. If you can't field anything on the web today, you failed your constituents just as surely as a doctor would hold back a vaccine for sick developeers. How long does it take to work on XML projects and then have the world hear "We don't and never did know $#!@ about no Standards. No Sir." and then realize all you've worked for is on a lawyer's ballpoint and the wrist is wiggled by some nitwit in accounting?

I wonder. I guess I won't get to feel that tug of power. Power comes with permission. Without permission, you're one of the help. Enjoy living in the mansion. Living in a bungalow with some pride has its joys.

.Net isn't supposed to be like that. But it is. In fact, given the current none-state of Microsoft presence in the web world, I would be inclined to buy the "we stink at XML and http and any other standards stuff, like" bit from recent principal as though the whole of Microsoft was unaware there even WAS a set of standards out there to think about, golly gee whiz.

But, then, I remember how every good lawyer would right about now kick in a credible Plan B to curtail discussion of assets or periods of infraction that may have benefitted Microsoft in the way of the "standards" based business they did while VCSY was unable to fairly market what they had and what it could do.

What does that lawyer think VCSY is going to do? Hell, you should take a look at the stack of 2000+ XML hype and bull$#!@ and demos this and whatchadoin hodowns that is stuffed away in the wayback machine alonoe.

Goodness. It now appears Microsoft can't achieve anything remotely capable within the confines of VCSY technology. Read the 6826744 and 7076521 patents first if you're going to take me on on whether I'm shmoozing or telling it in school. These guys are disappointed with Microsoft .Net.

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

“The unfortunate reality is that these are scenarios that we care deeply about but do not fully support in V1.0. I can go into some more detail here. One point to note is that the choice on these features were heavily considered but we had the contention between trying to add more features vs. trying to stay true to our initial goal which was to lay the core foundation for a multiple-release strategy for building out a broader data platform offering. Today, coincidentally, marked the start of our work on the next version of the product and we are determined to address this particular developer community in earnest while still furthering the investment in the overall data platform.”

As Frank Costanza would say "What the hell does that mean?" 

This is the subject of the Tester's distaste.

----------------------------- 

Now, see there, class? I used the technology of the hypertext to take the user from the string that's underlined. The colors for fresh and loaded hypertext states are available via JAVA scripts.

Plus, the hypertext, once written can be copied and pasted (and the string can be changed to suit your description).

If you get the idea you might be able to tell machines to Do Something Until I Get Back Then Let Me Know what happened with the Something. Where Something is a web application taking care of routing comments from colleagues into folders and distributed for meeting requirements in global reach context.

I know. These underlined words didn't do anything. That's because you can be faked out by a text editor.

HOWDIDOIT?: (I selected the underline tool off this wysiwyg editor [see how you can string together words that stand for websites, resources, computing systems, shopping ecologies, game malls... and more but not really unless you can apply a layer of functionality under that word. Siteflash and MLE allows for putting unlimited resources at that word. It's where you would expect to see traditional procedural technology of the 20th century placed in a situation where it can't put up when told to shut up.]  and you can fake out the web user until they won't trust anything you put out after that.)

While Microsoft is acting like it never touched "standards", the rest of the world is marching on. What is today a search textbox or any kind of textbox will before long be offered as a command line able to call ultimate web resources into automation and play for very specific meanings to those words.

That is what an arbitrary framework allows for and that is what 744 is. Not only that, it's a framework for making arbitrary frameworks and etceteras to populate that paradigm.

Think I'm bull$#!@ing? Easy enough to remedy. Try me. Let's talk. I'll let you in on your own special comment line and we can talk about this new architecture and how plain the language is supposed to be. The VCSY lawyers make sense. The Microsoft lawyer sounds just like a lawyer.

It was so nice to read the VCSY brief. It sounds to me like a description from a home country I never visited. Eight long years of waiting to see what McAuley and Davison cooked up should end now.

Microsoft sounded throughout their brief like a muddled legal clerk. They openly contradict their own definitions. They attempt to portray McAuley's understanding of "computer" words as a bumkin's grasp. And that "WebOS" slam was dirty bacon. I wouldn't let these lawyers make my breakfast IF you know what I mean...

WebOS is the highest achievement of procedural software as evidenced by the work invented in the 90's (not being done now - WebOS is irrelevant). SiteFlash can build on top of WebOS. And the Microsoft lawyers fail to understand what's being said. That's what will hang Microsoft. Well, of course. Theyhave to "understand" it this way. They've convinced themselves their definitions of arbitrary content, form and functionality are going to stand in the face of what VCSY can demonstrate those words mean.

I think the consensus is in. I think you will see MSFT throwing out everything anybody ever said concerning "standards" which is shorthand for XML and http to begin with. How did they do SOAP without XML/http? And why did they send up a sandbag in OOXML? What was in Longhorn that made all the demos run and what was Vista supposed to be? What's the game here? Seriously.

By the way "WebOS"? That's SiteFlash "prior art"? Uh... no. It was research done in the nineties that epitomizes the peak of traditional procedural computing. WebOS is what Siteflash can build as a simple demonstration of Siteflash capabilities; not WebOS capabilities.

It's almost like somebody on the legal team got a "hot tip" Siteflash was also called "WebOS". Well, if they didn't do their due diligence, they got taken. WebOS is something you can build and it can be done with either current procedural tools or with Siteflash. But, with SiteFlash you can bind multiples of these together on any resources. So where does the diagram show that? LOL

Seeing the WebOS diagram in the first Msft responses after the lawsuit was filed is what convinced me Microsoft has a weak case. The VCSY brief confirms my view resulting from reading the Microsoft brief. Obvious attempts to direct the thinking and remove thought processes from context - always a bad sign the speaker is trying to wrestle words to mean something. 

The WebOS thing buys nothing but potential disdain and possible sanctions from this Judge who has a reputation for no nonsense. What NIMROD put that in? Whoever did should lose their position.

And if I can see that with no law experience, what will a Judge be able to see?... and say?

At the very least, at the end of the day, MST will have to explain how MSFT's version of this interpretation fairs against VCSY's example. I think allowing positive examples of McAuley's work would be fair recompence to VCSY's standing in the hearings as the court and the defendant were not able to foresee the abrupt and pointless introduction of totally inappropriate material within what was understood by all adult participants to be a claims construction and not a prosecutorial venue nor a witch-hunt.

And when we test Microsoft's entry for meaning, it's either a muffed marketing act (self saboutage? having this be public is suicide for MSFT's image - is somebody blowing the booby hatch to float to the surface in Rolling Stone some time later?) or some engineer is held hostage and this is a scrawled 'help' note in SOAP on a Highway 101 restroom mirror (hell, that could be anything from Fred's Notso Good Taqueria or the latest Condo ecopartments). Oh, and some lipstick on the mirror, too.

MSFT will have to explain how their interpretation doesn't measure up. Why can't MSFT technology even begin talking about the kinds of things allowed by 521/744? The rest of the industry seems to have no problems. It's obvious to me MSFT is held in Lawyerly constraints until the risk of loss is near. Meanwhile Mom's holding the baby so tight to keep it from making a peep, the little tyke is suffocating. Going blue now. Go bye bye.

Meanwhile, the rest of the industry either has some form of permission to test market the claims or they are overtly using the claims as the only way left them to compete with Microsoft's touting of next-generation capabilities they could not deliver on. 

Bill. Wake up and straighten up your house before you leave. Finish what you started or be consigned to fulfilling portuno's predictions. And you won't like what portuno can think, and it would all begin and end with those two stupid patents everyone assured everyone would be "taken care" of long long ago.

But, tonight, a more pleasant thought for us all.

What can we think about with 521/744? Ultimately, with 744/521, we're talking building systems that allow any user to treat the "search" textbox as a command line attached to their very own __unlimited__fill_in_the_blank__ computing resources. Want to imagine what that will be like?

Want to bet you won't see that in a Microsoft product any time soon if Microsoft continues to fight?

Remember the first DOS or Unix command line you punched in? Remember what you realized you could do because you knew how to write commands and build pipes and procedures? I remember. My first was on an RCA 1802 development "platform" graduating to CP/M - PL/I - Intel Multibus multi-board processing development tools in an automation shop in a once-household-name factory.

It's all in what you want to do with a computer. If you're the kind of person that wants to take a screwdriver to everything they get so you can feel more "involved" in the process, by all means stay with the desktop paradigm.

But, for those who want less machine between me and thee but can't seem to let go of the lust for power and speed, the oh so personal computing appliance on_always-on cell broadband will always be just a finger flick away nestled in the pocket or purse... whatever you call that thing you stuff things in.

When you've thought of a computer as something you bang on until a prettier model comes along, your thinking is quite dull and rather stunted.

When you get a chance to treat a computer like a closer extension of your way of doing things, you begin a special relationship with the way you think.

And then... sniff sniff, there's the children.. sniff sniff. (In fact, I think I smell diaper right now. But, that could be SnookyWookums here. Yeah, that's right; the ugly kid. Ain't he, though? His Mama's supposed to be right back with the TV Guide.)

Anyway, the children will grow up never knowing what you and I see as "the internet". That archaic concept is going to evolve and absorb into communities of control and mayhem. Some by professionals but most by the same kind of folks who emerged when browsers allowed the average 14 year old kid to build websites for large corporations on a computer in the family garage. Innovators will emerge. They aren't home grown. They collect around ideas. And, if you're not interested in immersing yourself in the culture and the community, you never get the real thrust of ideas.

It's why Microsoft has such a problem coming to the point of realization as they rumble past opportunity after opportunity to reduce damage and slow the engine to be able to make the change without flying to pieces. They don't know the next generation languages or platforms so they don't understand what happens when you can't replicate that behaviour and production. They have be shown and told. And still you have to say it much louder than that.

So they slide past the chance to limit the tragedy like an eighteen wheeler on ice through an intersection. There is no turning before going through the lights. You just hope the lights line up for that instant.

Once the age of procedural languages is shown to have run out of steam never having achieved building a really credible WebOS that could scale in widespread distribution, Microsoft, out of all the industry players, as far as I can see, will have the most to explain should they not be able to use 521 and 744 in public and thus suffer more disappointed MVPs.

The children will work with granular and macro virtualization patterns that can absorb any software components whole or parts into working applications that provide very highly abstracted functionality with any content presented in any format requested.

(Can't do that with Java, Johnny. Leaves a sweat stain on the old Stetson. Sweat don't leave a mark on white as long as the hat's clean.)

Turn off the TV and go to bed Jilly.

But Mama, Darlene wants to watch the rest of Jack Parr. I can't pry her off the floor until Jack Parr is over with.

Now, newly minted generations will be able to take the computer where nobody ever wanted to see it go. Enjoy. And build some neat $#!@. There's literally hell to pay.

Oh, well, enough reminiscing. Sniff sniff. Sorry to drip snot on you there on your back in the crib, SnookyWookums. Just remembering way back when I got into the digital business with thoughts that people were ethical and righteous and wouldn't lay a hand on the deacon's reputation.

Then I finds through life they got their hands on more than the deacon's reputation. I kinda blubbered there for a couple minutes thinking about the old instrumentation gang and how they never did manage to blow themselves up. At least I don't remember reading about it in the paper and... yeah, I would have read about that in the paper.

Old portuno's getting a might long in the bone. Eight long years... delayed and bumped every step of the way. Eight long years.

A lot's changed. The treefort way of seeing things is becoming a dominant view throughout most of the industry but the change is slow, measured and seemingly choreographed. The treefort way of seeing things does not show up in MSFT's current image and it's disappearing from old files about them. Weird, isn't it? Well, let's face it, Google would certainly like to see 521/744 stopped and helping Microsoft would be a good strategic move.

So, a whole lot's changed. Google didn't exist when VCSY brought out the XML Enabler Agent. Hailstorm came and went. It's probably coming around again.

I'm a little more stooped (stupid, get it? now, if I have to explain a joke, how is it a joke?) than usual. Dancing around like an idiot having to discuss the never ending inane crap written by those "skeptics". What drivel. This is certainly been a zen of much rancour. Such self discipline! Such commitment! My ass hurts. But it's more in the image of Abram driving the vultures away from his sacrifice as he waited for the fire to fall from the Almighty.

It ain't entertaining the folks while the popcorn is heating up, don't ya know... They're such ignorant dolts it's a wonder most of them don't drown in their own spittle whilst asleep.

I've changed a lot over the years, Snooky. My hands are bonier. My knees stick out more. Ears bigger. More hair there than where one would want hair there. Creaky bones and a diminished glow, but I'm kicking back and cruising now. Going to let the gardener clean up the back yard now from now on. They know what they're chopping down and what they're trying to nurse. And YOU have a diaper changing coming up. When's your mama coming home?

Dear Ma. Today we discussed the following:
Microsoft was unaware there even WAS a set of standards out there to think about, golly gee whiz.
disappointed with Microsoft .Net.

Tomorrow. The World.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 9:20 PM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 25 June 2008 2:24 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  amorous

Now that you have it mostly available in the original order as copied on RB VCSY at http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=214278 (see the social structure at work? Now, we have a copy of the original post to see on another site even though this site changes. Think how many times you're able to do that and you now have an audit trail available - pretty neat and simpe... and free$$$) I thought I would put this copy into context. All of it will be in black font so from here we can mark for nuances in replicated and derivative arguments. 

---

VCSY View on previously submitted Microsoft Brief on Claims Construction VCSY v MSFT: 

(HERE is a complete posting of the VCSY brief)
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=214390

I. INTRODUCTION
Microsoft’s brief on claim construction is replete with misleading statements and misplaced arguments. It ignores material parts of Vertical’s definitions and the ‘744 patent itself. It provides an analysis that is purely result driven to either obtain claim constructions that would invalidate the claims of the ‘744 patent or allow Microsoft to avoid infringement of those claims. It incorrectly conducts a construction in light of the accused products and the prior art. Microsoft’s analysis is simply wrong.

The proof that Microsoft’s analysis is improperly result driven and out of context appears throughout Microsoft’s brief. On page 2, Microsoft alleges indefiniteness under 35 U.S. §112, paragraph 2. On pages 4-6, Microsoft appears to make another invalidity allegation, improperly suggesting that the invention of the ‘744 patent was on sale more than one year before the filing date of the application for the ‘744 patent. Both of these arguments not only fail because they do not have any legal or factual support, but they do not have any place in this analysis. Microsoft cannot evade the rules associated with summary judgment with these allegations.

In the first page of its brief, Microsoft appears to frame the issues of this claim construction while at the same time arguing that Vertical has construed the contested terms “in an abstract context based principally on alleged ‘ordinary meaning’ ….” Vertical has done no such thing. Vertical has supported its claim constructions exclusively with the intrinsic record -- the ‘744 patent itself, its words and its prosecution history. A simple review of Vertical’s opening brief on claim construction proves that Vertical followed the mandate of Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and used the internal record; and that record firmly supports Vertical’s constructions.

VCSY's response to Microsoft's brief;

II. MICROSOFT PRESENTS AN INCORRECT
BACKGROUND FOR THE ‘744 PATENT
(VCSY response to Microsoft claims construction assertions)

Response - WebOS not '744

II. MICROSOFT PRESENTS AN INCORRECT
BACKGROUND FOR THE ‘744 PATENT
The discussion in Microsoft’s brief regarding the WebOS product, although misplaced, shows that Microsoft fails to appreciate just what the invention of the ‘744 patent is and how it differs from anything that preceded it. The prior art WebOS product is an example of procedural programming while the present invention is an advance on conventional object oriented programming developed a long time after the appearance of procedural programming.

Procedural programming, of which WebOS is an example, appeared in the 1950’s along with the appearance of computers. It is a rigorous approach to programming where the programmer writes the programming code in sequential steps, including subroutines that perform some function or provide some needed information. This type of programming proved unusable in many modern applications because as more people worked on a procedural program the sequence of steps became too long and unmanageable.

In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, programmers developed a new way of programming called object oriented programming. This type of programming allowed programmers to separate the development process into modules called “objects” that interfaced with each other to provide the overall program. The program also could reuse the objects at various points in the program. But in this type of programming, the programmer still had to define the interface between a given object and the rest of the3 program. The programmer had to pass any variables that the object used or needed; and it had to pass them in a pre-determined order.

The invention of the ‘744 patent, as stated in Vertical’s opening brief, is an important advance in object oriented programming. It provides a smart connection or interface between an object and the rest of the program. The program need not pass any parameters that the object needs, because the object will determine those parameters on its own by using available information that it can obtain. If the programmer passes the parameters through the interface, an arbitrary object will use them; if he does not, it will determine them on its own with available information.

Microsoft seeks to improperly connect the WebOS product with the ‘744 patent by arguing that FIG. 5 of the ‘744 patent is “virtually identical” to an old WebOS diagram on another company’s website and by arguing that FIG. 5 shows an embodiment of the invention of the ‘744 patent. cont'd

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

But WAIT!
There's more...
Continued:

II. MICROSOFT PRESENTS AN INCORRECT
BACKGROUND FOR THE ‘744 PATENT  + III. MICROSOFT PRESENTS UNSUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTIONS

But, FIG. 5 of the ‘744 patent, on its own, does not show or
disclose the invention of the claims of the ’744 patent. Also, the fact that the subject website used the word “object” does not, by itself, support any conclusion that WebOS was an object oriented product. The overwhelming evidence shows that WebOS was a procedural program that had absolutely nothing to do with object oriented programming or the invention of the ‘744 patent.

III. MICROSOFT PRESENTS UNSUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTIONS
The ‘744 patent provides a large number of specific examples for elements such as “arbitrary objects,” “content,” “form,” “functionality,” etc. Rather than providing definitions for those terms, Microsoft does exactly what the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit admonishes against – it confines the terms and the associated claims to specific4 examples in the specification of the ‘744 patent. (See, Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323). And, it does not use all the examples – just those that suit its purposes. 

But, a person of ordinary skill in the art rarely confines his or her definitions of terms to the exact representations depicted in the examples and embodiments. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. And, unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, a court cannot confine the definitions to specific examples. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The patentee of the ‘744 patent (Aubrey McAuley) not only did not demonstrate such an intention, he did the exact opposite. For example, with respect to “arbitrary objects,” the specification of the ‘744 patent states that “arbitrary objects”: “may include encapsulated legacy data…” (col. 2, lines 29-34, Exhibit A); “can include text file pointers..” (col. 3, lines 43-46, Exhibit A); and may include any combination of application logic and data desired by the developer.” (col. 4, lines 21-22, Exhibit A). This language clearly demonstrates an intent that “arbitrary objects” not be limited to the specific examples.

In fact, the most egregious example of where Microsoft took a permissive “can be” and turned it into a limiting definition is in its definition for “arbitrary objects” where it took the permissive sentence: “One arbitrary object can be easily replaced with another arbitrary object of another type” (col. 4, lines 40-41, Exhibit A) and turned it into the following restrictive expression: “that is interchangeable with another object of another type” in their definition (emphasis added).Microsoft has engaged in this type of gamesmanship throughout its claim constructions; and Vertical will outline those instances in the following text in the discussions for the specific terms. On page 22 of its brief, Microsoft coins its improper approach as “defining … by example.” Example, indeed.

(more at URL)
---------------

A post by intheend with an article embedded:

Injunctive relief in this .Net infringement suit could have a pervasive effect, including mobile..

Mobile Developers Still Favor .Net and Java, But The Popularity Of Linux And Android Is Growing
Friday June 20, 2:08 pm ET
By Tricia Duryee

One way to look into the future to see which cell phones will be popular is by figuring out what platform developers are building applications for today. Developers tend to pick platforms that are easy to work with and present the biggest market opportunity. Likewise, if developers gravitate to particular platforms, consumers will be drawn to the same ones because they'll offer the greatest choice of applications. Today's favorites aren't surprising, according to Evans Data, which polled nearly 400 developers. The top phone manufacturer is Nokia (NYSE: NOK - News), while the top platforms, are Microsoft's (NasdaqGS: MSFT - News) .Net and Sun Microsystem's Java ME. This is interesting to note because the media is constantly writing about a handset war developing between RIM (NasdaqGS: RIMM - News) or Mac OS, which could indeed be brewing, but on a fairly small scale when you look at these developer figures. Still, it's worth noting that Linux, Android and Mac OS are all on the rise despite the fact that they are either still coming to market, or have relatively small market share.

Here's what the survey found:

-- Leading phone manufactures: 56 percent of respondents say they target Nokia devices, making it the leading handset manufacturer; Motorola (NYSE: MOT - News) and Sony (NYSE: SNE - News) Ericsson (NasdaqGS: ERIC - News) followed in popularity with 33 percent and 29 percent respectively.

-- Leading platforms: Microsoft's .Net Compact Framework and Sun Microsystem's Java ME are the top two platforms targeted by wireless developers today, garnering 42 percent each.

-- Other platforms: Also ranking in the survey were Windows Mobile 6.0 (31 percent); Linux, 25 percent; Nokia Series 80 (22 percent); Symbian (20 percent); Windows Mobile 5.0 (19 percent); Java (18 percent); Palm (NasdaqGS: PALM - News) OS (15 percent); RIM OS (14 percent); Mac OS 10 (8 percent); and Android (7 percent), according to InfoWorld.

-- On fragmentation: To be sure, one thing these figures confirm is that the market is very fragmented, but some platforms have such a large marketshare, it would be difficult for any to rise or fall through the ranks quickly. "Android is less than a year old, and interest in Mac OS for wireless only started with the iPhone, so those two platforms haven't had the same time in market as most," said John Andrews, Evan's CEO. "But both .Net Compact Framework and Java ME are very strong and well entrenched in the wireless development community, so it's hard to imagine any competing platform dislodging either of them any time soon."

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:43 AM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, 24 June 2008 3:45 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink