VCSY - A Laughing Place #2

I know what you're thinking Pilgrim. You're saying "How can this dinky no-nothing company cause all this pandelirium?" Well, consider this: Jeff Davison (inventor of the XML Enabler Agent patent and the Emily VHLL pending patent) and Aubrey McAuley (inventor of the massive affiliation Web OS patent) and Aluizo Cruz (inventor of the image transmission by single optical fiber patent) have thrown in with the man, Richard Wade (current CEO of Vertical Computers) who worked early financial networks as a computer realm (with Duty Free Shoppers founder Charles Feeney of General Atlantic) relying on Luis Valdetaro's knowledge (creator of the tech for the first transcontinental mainframe networks)...

And you nitwits want to know "How do this be?"?

Are you all stupid as a post? We're up to around 600 viewers here now. In 2000 the number was more like 20,000. Why? Because even the most marginally knowledged traders and investors in 2000 knew the power of XML because it was splased over every magazine page available. These folks buying the stock understood what XML could do back then.The larger mass of investors and traders in technologies today wouldn't know what XML can really do any better then they would be able to recognize a Vietnamese vegetable peeler isn't a surgical instrument.

Fools and blind.

There are only a tiny handful who actually believe Vertical is capable of surviving past month. It's been that way for years since the company's image was hammered into the ground by a relentless team of purposeful naysayers and gopher boppers.

I do believe Mister Ballmer is a believer now. Or else he would be dragging Vertical back through the briars in the news... I wager MSFT won't breathe a word of VCSY's existence. Know why? All those knowlegeable investors and traders out there who were ripped off by a crush on their diamond-to-be would be no-doubt surprised to find VCSY is still alive and with vitality enough to latch on to Steve Ballmer's ankle like a hamhock and not let go until the house comes down.

In Mister Ballmer's thinking he can cling to the long-range view that if he can get patents declared invalid (across the board, Steve? Really? That's an optimisic projection on your part, no?) VCSY's claims against him (he's the guy in charge so it's all in his lap) will evaporate.

The legal system will have to answer Vertical as to their claim at having been violated as to money-making opportunities (while Microsoft sold billions in .Net projects) while the legal regime in question was fully in force.

In other words, Mister Ballmer, thievery is not excused when you've lost those thieving fingers in a garbage disposal. Sympathy and a hook to hang it on? OK maybe that. But I'll wager you'll be using that hook to fend off the residue of angered shareholders calling you out to explain why you pounded their company into the ground and took their money with it. Tick Tick Tick...

You see, it's not the 300 reading here now. It's the 20,000 who read this claptrap in 2000 who will all realise with a sudden start just how right Portuno was all that time... and just who's been eating their pie all these years under their noses.

Anger. The one thing a little money doesn't always work against. A LOT of money, maybe. But it will take a barge full of money to assuage the anger of those who owned VCSY stock in 2000 onward who were discouraged and urged to sell by the voices supporting the Vertical take down.

Where are those people? I think they're positioned horizontal right about now. DUCK!

May 14th, 2007

What should Microsoft do about the 235 “free software” patent violations?

A lot of pixels have been devoted to a story by Fortune Magazine (CNN coverage here) covering claims made by Microsoft that free software is violating 235 of the company's patents.

The core of the argument is summed up as follows:

The conflict pits Microsoft and its dogged CEO, Steve Ballmer, against the "free world" - people who believe software is pure knowledge. The leader of that faction is Richard Matthew Stallman, a computer visionary with the look and the intransigence of an Old Testament prophet.

Caught in the middle are big corporate Linux users like Wal-Mart, AIG, and Goldman Sachs. Free-worlders say that if Microsoft prevails, the whole quirky ecosystem that produced Linux and other free and open-source software (FOSS) will be undermined.

Microsoft counters that it is a matter of principle. "We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property," says Ballmer in an interview. FOSS patrons are going to have to "play by the same rules as the rest of the business," he insists. "What's fair is fair."

There's also a breakdown of the alleged violations given:

Linux kernel - 42 violations
Linux graphical user interfaces - 65 violations
Open Office - 45 violations
Email apps - 15 violations
Misc - 68 violations

If suing was on the cards, rest assured that there wouldn't be this kind of banter going onDespite the breakdown of alleged violations, Microsoft still refuses to identify specific patents or explain how they're being infringed,. Many involved in open source communities have asked Microsoft to do this but the company is probably unwilling to take this step for fear of generating a tidal wave of challenges.

First off, let's clear up one thing here. Microsoft is not interested is suing. It's already declared such action as being a non-starter as it would "get in the way of everything we were trying to accomplish in terms of [improving] our connections with other companies, the promotion of interoperability, the desires of customers." If suing was on the cards, rest assured that there wouldn't be this kind of banter going on.

Now here's a question for you. What should Microsoft do about this? It seems to me that they have three options open to them:

Ignore the situation and let the issue slide (effectively donating the patents to the open source community)
Demand royalties or enter into licensing agreements
Do nothing in the interim but keep an eye on the situation

It's clear that Microsoft isn't going to ignore the issue and let it slide because the company wouldn't be engaging in this debate if that was the case (it's also not going to be a move that pleases Microsoft's stakeholders). Same goes for doing nothing. It seems that the only viable route for Microsoft to take is enter into discussions over possible royalties.

Some commentators are taking the view that this is signals a new Microsoft desperate to squeeze cash from Linux because its own business model is crumbling. Given Microsoft's bottom line, this kind of statement is bordering on the ridiculous. If Microsoft's business model is crumbling, other companies such as Apple, who have a far less muscular bottom line, must be in dire trouble (which they're not, of course). Record quarterly profits aren't the usual sign of an eroding business model.

Some say that Microsoft needs to outline what the violations are and allow the open source community to code around the problems. That's certainly a possible solution, but give me one reason why Microsoft should do this?

Some doubt the numbers. I don't. The open source movement is massive and with so much code being written, there are bound to be patent infringements. As Robert McLaws wrote:

Let's face it. In the world of software development, everyone copies everyone. And Linux is, at it's heart, a decentralized operation to build software that competes against Windows by mimicking it, directly or indirectly. It may even have been done accidentally, which isn't terribly farfetched. Accident or not, it happened, and that's all well and good. But if you're an open source developer, and you think that duplicating someone else's technology doesn't open you or your organization up to liability, then you're an idiot.

The landscape has changed significantly. Back when open source was the domain of geeks with high ideals, it's easy to overlook patent violations (in fact, it would be nuts to even waste too much time worrying about it). But now that you have massive companies built on a foundation of open source, open source is big business and the rules have changed.

What are your views on the conflict between Microsoft and the open source movement?

I think VCSY should press their case to the end for hostile and damaging infringement by a much larger foe for the years .Net was marketed without recognition of Davison/McAuley knowledge.

They should do so while participating with relationships with IBM and Verizon. I mean... it's going to hurt Microsoft more to sue for their patent infringement claims than it's going to hurt VCSY. What have we got to lose (new reader I speaketh as a very minor shareholder)?

Microsoft has at risk the commercial goodwill of every company and country that will be encumbered by their dallying and delay since 2004 to prove out these allegations of 'infringement'. Ballmer has cried 'wolf' each time VCSY legal claims close in (look at the timeline and see).

He's had and taken plenty time to prove out his 'evidence' against Linux producers.

VCSY's proof is in the marketing material and demos from prior to 2004 which mysteriously pops up and goes away periodically in Microsoft technology discussions.

Please allow Vertical a similar period to unveil their evidences, ok skeptical world?

VCSY just started putting out the proof after being dragged through a pretentious and outlandish legal fight by Chinadotcom(CDC)/Ross Systems which resulted only recently in CDC/Ross submitting to a judge presided settlement (a NEW judge and not the original recalcitrant bench bubbler).

VCSY can easily continue the patent infringement claims while marketing their wares in the proprietary AND open-source realm.

Use the best of both worlds.

«	May 2007					»

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31