Squeezing the Lemons to Make Wine. Mood: cool Now Playing: Watching Watching - Small town peeping tom's get new binoculars (modern mockups) Topic: Ultrasounds
Here ya go pooky pie. You need to go to school.
...if you intend to be able to find and follow what's going on in software and information processing in the future, learn about semantic processes.
Patents 521 and 744 are important because they allow for a foundation upon which to build semantic processes and infrastructure by building a bridge between disparate proprietary operating systems and computing resources across TCP/IP networks.
I hope that will make things a little more plain and easily understood for those of you trying to come up to speed.
The article (page 5) says adoption will be over a five to ten year period but I disagree. The kind of productivity and usability offered by semantic technology will become its own adoption driver.
The Markman Hearing That Didn't Happen Mood: accident prone Now Playing: Historic Markers - Whiteboard incident turns into national monument (Cartoons) Topic: Announcements
(Me: I'm glad to see Microsoft talking more openly now but we should remember exactly why and how they found their tongue.)
Lawyers representing Vertical Computer Systems and Microsoft will gather in federal court here Friday for a pretrial hearing in the patent infringement lawsuit Vertical has filed against the computer giant.
Known as a "Markman" hearing, Friday's session will allow the judge to hear testimony from both parties on the appropriate meanings of the relevant key words used in the claims of a patent, the infringement of which is alleged by Vertical, the plaintiff.
To hold a Markman hearing in patent infringement cases has been common practice since it was determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1996 case of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., that the language of a patent is a matter of law for a judge to decide, not a matter of fact for a jury to decide. Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham will preside over the 1:30 p.m. hearing.
Vertical Computer Systems, based in Fort Worth, is suing Microsoft for patent infringement related to Microsoft's .Net framework for building Windows-based software.
Vertical filed suit on April 18, 2007, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Microsoft has infringed on its Patent No. 6,826,744 for "a system and method for generating computer applications in an arbitrary object framework," so that "each may be accessed or modified separately."
The patent — filed in 1999 and awarded in 2004 — is for Vertical's SiteFlash technology, which utilizes XML (Extensible Markup Language) to create a component-based structure to build and efficiently operate Web sites, according to the company's Web site.
The complaint says Microsoft is still willfully infringing on the patent despite Vertical having put Microsoft on notice about it on Feb. 7, 2007.
Vertical, which describes itself as a global Web services provider, is asking for a jury trial.
On July 13, 2007, Microsoft filed an answer to Vertical's complaint, alleging various defenses and counterclaims. On Aug. 2, 2007, Vertical filed a reply to Microsoft's defenses and counterclaims.
The court has set trial for March 2009.
The parties are in the process of discovery.
(end article) --------- (Me: But the Markman Hearing didn't happen because Microsoft settled with VCSY.)
Microsoft has reached a settlement in a patent-infringement lawsuit filed last year by Vertical Computer Systems, according to a filing by the mediator in the case: PDF, 1 page. The Fort Worth, Texas, company's complaint alleged that Microsoft's .Net development system violated a patent issued to Vertical in November 2004.
The court docket doesn't reveal financial details or other information about the settlement. I've contacted a Microsoft representative and Vertical Computer's lawyer, and I'll update this post depending on the response.
Nancy Gohring, IDG News Service Friday, July 25, 2008 12:50 PM PDT
(excerpted to make a point)
After the demo, one analyst commented to Mundie that the technology looked great but that the rest of the world doesn't get to see such demonstrations, and he urged Mundie to spread the word so that people will perceive Microsoft as the innovative company that it is, rather than as a legacy software vendor.
Mundie pledged to do just that. "That is a commitment I can make to you and to shareholders," he said. For years, he and Microsoft founder Bill Gates spent a lot of time on the road talking about Gates' vision of the future, he said. "Over the last few years, both of us got out of the habit of going out and talking about it. I think we share your observation that we haven't done a great job in recent years communicating about the tremendous things this company does."
As Mundie and others begin talking more about new innovations, however, the company runs the risk of being accused of marketing "vaporware," a criticism it has faced in the past. In fact, Microsoft has been accused of announcing its work on technologies very early as a way to discourage other companies from developing similar products in competition.
CEO Steve Ballmer assured the crowd of analysts that the company is working on streamlining its online brand and developing a single page where people can find all available Microsoft online services. The page will predominantly feature a search bar, since that's an opportunity for revenue, but it will also display content tailored for each user, he said.
(more at URL) -------------- (Me: And now Microsoft can link up Windows 7 with their newly named Windows 7 Server.)
Microsoft’s Windows Server division has veered from its regular schedule to eliminate — at least in name — the minor “R2″ update of Windows Server 2008 that was slated to arrive in the next year or two. The result: The next version of Windows Server that Microsoft will ship will be named “Windows 7 Server.”
But this week, Microsoft officials decided to speak. And the official word is that WS 2008 R2 and Windows 7 Server are one in the same. The next release of Windows Server is Windows 7 Server and it is due, according to the new timetable, in 2010.
...late in the day on August 15, Microsoft sent me a note of clarification. Here’s is the only official comment I have so far, from a company spokeswoman:
“The company is still not yet disclosing specific release date/timing for this, but it does list 2010 as the timeframe on the roadmap page on Microsoft.com, which Ward notes in his comment. This of course is in keeping with the 2yr (minor)/4 yr (major) schedule for Server OS releases, as R2 is a minor release post Windows Server 2008.”
The change in plans leaves me with lots of questions, to none of which I’m expecting answers. (But I’m asking anyway.) My short list:
When and why did Microsoft cancel WS 2008 R2? Or is it simply renaming WS2008 R2 in order to make it clearer that Windows 7 Server and Windows 7 client are meant to be “better together”?
Has the Windows Server team decided against releasing any and all future R2 releases?
Are Windows client and Windows Server teams moving away from their previously stated “major-minor” delivery pattern (with a major release of Windows followed every two years by a minor one)? And if so, why?
Semantic web technology is on the verge of becoming commercially viable for businesses looking to develop their web capabilities.
"Semantic web has been around for a while now. A lot of work has been done on the building blocks," he explained.
There will be significant increases in the real-world application of semantic technology over the next 12 to 18 months, according to Davies, who cited examples where semantic web technology is already in use.
The key point to remember is VCSY technology (7076521) is an infrastructure basis for knitting together data resources which are of fundamental importance to interoperability. The path is bidirectional and any resources may be applied to the transformation and transport dynamically.
The other component of VCSY technology is patent 6826744 (the patent involved in the litigation). 744 aka SiteFlash is a web based operating system (a development and execution platform) with distinct content, format and functionality fitted as arbitrary (able to mate with any other) objects.
Those two capabilities allow for building very granularly applied arbitrary objects (using 521); the kind of thing you can use to build applications including operating systems like Midori.
Once you have the operational base built, you need applications that will act as processing resources across the base platform (whatever you've decided to build).
The following acquisition by MSFT is an example of the kind of actions Microsoft and others will be doing as they populate their base operating platform. Remember the operating platform may exists as many various functional arrangements. The two patents allow for building and actuating resources as needed when needed and only in the "amount".
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):
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.)
Watching the technicals go by. Mood: lazy Topic: Technical Trading
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.
Would Microsoft Buy VCSY? Mood: a-ok Now Playing: Antipasta Dinner - Noodle Haters of America debate macaroni (spagetti logic) Topic: Growth Charts
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.
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?
Making Babies Means Money Mood: happy Now Playing: Hopping On The Hog - Animal rights parade turns into broohaha (reality animal house) Topic: Growth Charts
Quack Quack. Smells like a duck. Dinner.
Well worth reading. Puts Settlement + Stipulation quite well.
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.
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.
Settlement with Stipulations Mood: a-ok Now Playing: What's Up Pussycat? - Step up the stairs, don't stare up the steps (collide-a-scope) Topic: Memories
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
Microsoft has reached a settlement in a patent-infringement lawsuit filed last year by Vertical Computer Systems, according to a filing by the mediator in the case: PDF, 1 page. The Fort Worth, Texas, company's complaint alleged that Microsoft's .Net development system violated a patent issued to Vertical in November 2004.
The court docket doesn't reveal financial details or other information about the settlement. I've contacted a Microsoft representative and Vertical Computer's lawyer, and I'll update this post depending on the response.
cool
accident prone
don't ask
lazy
a-ok
hug me
happy