Well, I've been unable to post this to the Yahoo VCSY board so I suppose I'll set it here for right now. 

As I've said before, the "technologists" who are blathering their lame opinions are going to be asked for an explanation as to why they didn't see this more clearly. It's all very easy to see IF you bother to read what's available.

The reader needs to be able to explain how Microsoft can suddenly confront issues in .Net and Sharepoint that were such contentious areas only a couple months ago (search "vote of no confidence" + ADO.Net Entity Framework).

Are we to believe MSFT had the fixes available all the time and they suddenly "responded" to customer feedback? Or was there something else allowing these shelved fixes to be put in play so quickly?

So, reader, what "sudden" event can place Microsoft in a position to say "And now, we can do things so much better with .Net."?

Read where .Net got a sudden upgrade in capabilities (I'll place my comments in parens to avoid confusion):

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080811/aqm037.html?.v=60

Microsoft Breaks New Ground in Helping Developers Build and Deploy Client, Web and Data-Driven Applications

(portuno: the title says it all)

"Visual Studio 2008 SP1 and the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 had an extremely positive impact on our ability to develop a Web-based application ...in fact, it helped us boost development speed by 60 percent"

(portuno: "boost development speed by 60 percent". One of the primary advances in SiteFlash [patent 6826744] and MLE [patent 7076521] is very rapid development. Compare MSFT's previous timetables on producing complex solutions with what they are able to do now.)

"new capabilities such as ADO.NET Entity Framework and ADO.NET Data Services meant we didn't have to worry about any of the underlying plumbing and could simply focus on building a highly responsive and interactive experience for users..."

(portuno: read the patents and you will see this kind of elevation beyond nuts and bolts to an abstraction of the workspace.)

"New Breakthroughs for Developing and Deploying Client Applications"

(portuno: where were these things "9" months ago? Heck, where were they 6 months ago when MSFT was struggling to puff itself up enough to scare Yahoo into sellling? These capabilities were available in the patent claims. But! They were not available for MSFT to use in public due to the litigation.)

"...developers can more easily deploy client applications thanks to an 86.5 percent reduction (197 MB to 26.5 MB) in .NET Framework size..."

"Developers now can quickly and simply deploy new and existing rich-client applications to a broader audience."

(portuno: ...as opposed to previous versions of Microsoft development tools and environments.)

"Simplified Development of Web and Data-Driven Applications"

"With .NET Framework 3.5 SP1, the .NET Framework now offers support for ASP.NET Dynamic Data, which provides a rich scaffolding framework that allows rapid data-driven development without writing code."

(portuno: Again, as I have admonished technologists for the past two+ years: read the patents. Those of you who want to treat the patents as a marginal concept with little or no significance are placing yourselves in position to have to explain how MSFT achieved all these new advancements with their existing cache of tools and capabilities. You can't and you might as well be honest with your own denial mechanisms.)

"...via delivery of a single framework for service development that spans enterprise-critical applications and emerging rich, interactive applications."

(portuno: What's the matter, reader? Getting flogged by your own mind? You're not paying attention, are you?

How did Microsoft come up with such brand new functionality while they've been suffering and delayed until only the past few weeks?

Amazing rejuvenation in the works and the MSFT shareprice shows.)

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:40 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 11 August 2008 6:46 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  don't ask

Looks like the beginnings of a new message board(s).

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/corporate/microsoft_resolves_vcsy_patent_dispute.html

http://weblog.infoworld.com/robertxcringely/archives/2008/08/microsoft_bites.html

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 11:29 PM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 6 August 2008 12:09 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  lazy

I think it's important to have a technical view of the stock. So, here's one kept in its own special box as "Technical Trading" in the list of topics to the top of page.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=7777&mid=7777&tof=1&frt=2

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 12:53 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 2 August 2008 1:04 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

This is regarding the 20 for 1 split in 2000 that left almost 1billion shares in the float. You might call it a porcupine fish - anything trying to swallow more than half of the thing strangles on the last little bit.

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=217838

By: mertonoptions0 31 Jul 2008, 09:31 PM EDT

Msg. 217838 of 217839 Jump to msg. #

The more I think about MSFT may want to buy a stake in VCSY to get some of their money back. Now we know the float is big so it would take some time for them to get it done. That would mean a lot of buying pressure and steady rising PPS. (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long)

We all know using paid posters to mitigate public image is something documented among industry players. Is there any reason that should not be true on long message boards?

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=217839

By: mertonoptions0 31 Jul 2008, 09:34 PM EDT

Msg. 217839 of 217840 Jump to msg. #

That might be why the bashers are hanging around. (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long)

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 9:38 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 2 August 2008 11:58 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  hug me

Barstowblues reports Judge in VCSY v MSFT has signed stipulation order.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=7604&mid=7604&tof=7&frt=1

'STIPULATION ORDER' HAS BEEN     31-Jul-08 10:58 am    
barstowblues

----------------
Now we wait for figures and terms on settlement and we await word on VCSY's business plans and prospects.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 1:30 PM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 31 July 2008 1:43 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  happy

Quack Quack. Smells like a duck. Dinner.

Well worth reading. Puts Settlement + Stipulation quite well.

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=217164

By: scdawgfan 29 Jul 2008, 10:42 PM EDT

Msg. 217164 of 217178

for what it is worth...

I have been a shareholder since before the split and some of you may remember me from one of the other forums. I have been visiting this site on a daily basis for about 8 yrs now, but I don't think I have posted before. If so, it was a long time ago and probably under a different handle.

Anyway, I thought I might be able to share some insight on the recent legal developments...for whatever it is worth. I am a lawyer in SC and primarily handle civil litigation matters as defense counsel. I confess that in over 10 yrs of practicing, I haven't handled a single patent infringement case. Not much call for that here. However, I regularly handle cases in the US District Court for the District of SC and I have mediated and negotiated many settlements of a variety of types of civil cases.

I am surprised that the questions raised by several of you over the past couple of days have not been answered by another lawyer by now, but I thought maybe I should at least share my experience.

First, let me say that the filing of the mediator's report was wonderful news to me. I have been hoping for a settlement ever since the news broke about the suit being filed. Had this case gone to trial, we would like be several years from a resolution. I've yet to see a defense lawyer walk across the courtroom after a plaintiff's verdict and whip out a checkbook. And the larger the verdict, the greater the likelihood of an appeal. Thus, I am glad a settlement has been reached. In this case, a bird in the hand, regardless the size, is better than two in the bush.

Second, as for the forms, they appear to be fairly standard. The mediator's report typically does not contain any details of settlement terms and is usually brief and to the point. In this case, given the hearing date of 7/25, of it was probably necessary to get the report filed in order to get the hearing canceled. The stipulation of dismissal is also a fairly standard (and brief) document. The fact that it includes the language "with prejudice" simply means that all claims that were brought as part of this action are dismissed with finality and cannot be brought again. Sometimes dismissals are made without prejudice when a plaintiff wants to buy time from a trial roster or may not have the right defendant, but is not certain and doesn't want to extinguish the right to file suit against the same party again. Anyway, it simply means that all parties agree this matter is over.

It is customary for settling parties to pay their own lawyers and costs. However, that does not mean that the settlement figure does not take VCSY's fees into account. The settlement documents might not say it specifically, but I have been in many mediations where I have negotiated settlement figures based upon the estimated net recovery of the plaintiff. Otherwise, what's the point. Until you get to numbers large enough for the plaintiff to pay their lawyers and costs, you are not giving the plaintiff any incentive to settle the case.

Like most of you, I have spent the last several days dreaming about the possibilities and quite frankly, love the idea of early retirement. However, I am trying, though very difficult, to keep some perspective. After all, many of us have spent the last 8 yrs or so thinking about what we could have done with the money if we had only sold at 6 bucks. To be honest, I had serious doubts that days like Monday would ever return. It almost seemed surreal. I hope this is our last laugh, but we need to be patient and let it play out.

The speed with which technology improves has enabled us to monitor federal court filings in almost real time now. This type of monitoring has only been available for a few years (at least in SC, but we usually get things last). Anyway, back in the day, we would have only heard about this filing if a newspaper or other media outlet reported it by having someone monitoring the filings by actually flipping through them at the courthouse. Now we have that luxury. As a result, we have come to expect information to be released faster than ever before.

It is not unusual for a case to settle at mediation and not actually be "wrapped up" for weeks depending upon the complexity of the terms and the time it takes to get the money. Thus, I have been reminding myself of this fact for the past few days and trying to be patient. The filing of the stipulation could be very significant however. I have never signed a stipulation of dismissal and sent it for filing before the actual settlement agreement was fully executed and I would expect that a case like this with heavy hitting lawyers involved would be no different. Thus, I am expecting and hoping that we will see some news with more specifics very soon.

As for all the speculation, I am not going to engage in that kind of stuff on this board. I have some thoughts and I also hope some of the things I've read on here will actually happen, but I don't see the point in arguing about details we no nothing about. It's funny how some folks on here will take a shot in the dark on some point and if they turn out to be correct, however so brief, they proclaim themselves to be some kind of authority on every other unknown issue of debate.

I have been typing for awhile now and apologize for the rambling. I will leave with this...I am very confident that VCSY came away with something significant from this settlement. I do not believe Niro would have risked his reputation on a "penny stock" without a damn good reason. That said, I would be surprised if VCSY got what some of you have opined would be "full value" for its claims. Settlements are about compromise and evaluating risks associated with trial, both financial and intangible (i.e. media coverage). Hopefully, VCSY had the goods as we all believe and that was enough leverage for it to come away with a significant settlement that is either large enough to put us on the map as a legitimate tech company or configured in such away that we become big fans of MSFT because of a partnership of some degree. While not impossible, it is rare for one party to walk away from a mediated settlement with the feeling that they really stuck it to the other party. Typically, one party pays more than they want to and want party accepts less than they want to...all in the name of avoiding the possibility of verdict that is a nightmare. Money is a motivator, fear is too. When the two are used together, deals can get done.

Good luck to us all. We have already come a long way back. We may not wake up to gapped up price of $5 that spares us from the gut wrenching experience of the roller coaster, but hey...at least we are getting to ride again.

SCDAWGFAN


- - - - -
View Replies »

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

Isn't it nice to have the services of an attorney for free by way of socializing technology... also free? Thanks SCDAWGFAN. Remember from the treefort days at programmers heaven. Nice to have old gang post again.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 12:04 AM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 30 July 2008 12:32 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=217132

By: RapidRobert2 29 Jul 2008, 09:27 PM EDT

Msg. 217132 of 217178 (This msg. is a reply to 217130 by beachbumlb.)

UPDATE: STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL BY COURT IN EAST TEXAS...SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL..SO WE SHOULD GET NEWS THIS WEEK!

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-CV-144 (DF-CE)
§
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, §
§
Defendant. §
§
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
IT IS STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiff Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. and
Defendant Microsoft Corporation (referred to collectively as “the Parties”), through their counsel
of record and subject to approval of the Court, that:
(1) All claims presented by the Complaint, as well as all counterclaims thereto, shall
be dismissed with prejudice as to each of the Parties; and
(2) The Parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Case 2:07-cv-00144-DF-CE Document 65 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 1 of 3
2
DATED: July 29th, 2008
/s/ Eric M. Albritton (with permission) /s/ David J. Healey
John Ward, Jr.
LAW OFFICE OF T. JOHN WARD, JR., P.C.
111 West Marshall Street
Longview, Texas 75601
(903) 757-6400 Telephone
(903) 757-2323 Facsimile
Eric M. Albritton
ERIC M. ALBRITTON, P.C.
P.O. Box 2649
Longview, Texas 75606
(903) 757-8449 Telephone
(903) 758-7397 Facsimile
Raymond P. Niro
Vasilios D. Dossas
Sally Wiggins
Robert A. Conley
Eric J. Mersmann
NIRO, SCAVONE, HALLER & NIRO, LTD.
181 West Madison Street, Suite 4600
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 236-0733 Telephone
(312) 236-3137 Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.
David J. Healey
Lead Attorney
State Bar No. 09327980
david.healey@weil.com
Amber H. Rovner
State Bar No. 09223750
amber.rovner@weil.com
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
700 Louisiana, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
(713) 546-5000 Telephone
(713) 224-9511 Facsimile
Timothy E. DeMasi
tim.demasi@weil.com
Ryan R. Owens
ryan.owens@weil.com
Brian Eutermoser
brian.eutermoser@weil.com
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
(212) 310-8000 Telephone
(212) 310-8007 Facsimile
Anwar Imam
anwar.imam@weil.com
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
(650) 802-3000 Telephone
(650) 802-3100 Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Case 2:07-cv-00144-DF-CE Document 65 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who
have consented to electronic service on this the 29th day of July, 2008.
/s/ Ryan R. Owens
Ryan R. Owens

- - - - -
View Replies »

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 11:53 PM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 30 July 2008 12:04 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Todd Bishop looks like the first of the bloggers to make mention of the settlement.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/144577.asp

« Microsoft huddles with university researchers | Main  

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 5:09 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 28 July 2008 5:11 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

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