Mood:
suaveNow Playing: Rubber Duck - Women is offended by amorous advances on her feathered pet (hockey highlights)
Topic: Notable Opinions
Sorry for the intrusion but I noticed this post recently and decided to edit it a bit to make it more appealing to the masses general.
Donald Duck and Daisy Duck were spending the night together in a Hotel room and Donald wanted to have sex with Daisy.
The first thing Daisy asked was, 'Do you have a condom?'
Donald frowned and said, 'No.'
Daisy told Donald that if he didn't get a condom, they could not have sex.
'Maybe they sell them at the front desk,' she suggested.
So Donald went down to the lobby and asked the hotel clerk if they had condoms.
'Yes, we do,' the clerk said and pulled a box out from under the counter and gave it to Donald.
The clerk asked, 'Wozuld you like me to put them on your bill?
'No!' Donald quacked, I'll thuffocate!
And now we return to our originally laid out program. Sorry for the interruption. If I had known I would have tidied up the p......
GET OFF THE STAGE!!!!
Oh. Right. Sorry. I'll just picl up and move me little bucket here and you folks have a nice knight. Ya'll hear?
Well worth knowing and saving.
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=225271
Msg. 225271 |
| Revised version: This is what we have:(By Lumster50) (Nice series of posts lump!) The USPTO granted the Company a patent (No. 6,826,744) for an invention for “System and Method for Generating Web Sites in an Arbitrary Object Framework” on November 30, 2004. The Company has filed for a Continuation in Part for this patent to pursue possible additional derivative patents. This patent is the foundation of the Company’s product, SiteFlash ™, and forms the basis of the ResponseFlash™, NewsFlash™ and AffiliateFlash™ products. The USPTO granted the Company a patent (No. 7,076,521) for an invention for a “Web-based collaborative data collection system” on July 11, 2006. This patent covers various aspects of the XML Enabler Agent. ------------------------------------------------- This was our concern about what we have: Although the Company intends to protect its rights as described above, there can be no assurance that these measures will be successful. Policing unauthorized use of the Company’s products and services is difficult and the steps taken may not prevent the misappropriation of its technology and intellectual property rights. --------------------------------------------------- This is the action we took when we noticed some infringement activity: On April 18, 2007, the Company filed suit for patent infringement against Microsoft Corp. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The Company claims that the Microsoft .Net System infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,826,744. On July 13, 2007, Microsoft filed an answer to the Company’s complaint, alleging various defenses and counterclaims. On August 2, 2007, the Company 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. The court has set the claim construction hearing for July 10, 2007. ------------------------------------------------------- This is what we thought about the situation and posible outcome: In the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution of any pending matters may have a significant effect on the financial position, operations or cash flows of the Company. Also, the Company in the future may become involved in other legal actions that may have a significant effect on the financial position, operations or cash flows of the Company. ------------------------------------------------- This is what happened; Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) has settled the patent infringement claim that the Company initiated in federal court against Microsoft Corporation. This matter has previously been disclosed under the heading “Legal Proceedings” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007. Pursuant to the confidential settlement agreement, the Company has granted to Microsoft a non-exclusive, fully paid-up license under the patent which was the subject of the legal proceeding. ------------------------------------------------- NOW we wait for the 3rd qtr filing,...enjoy the wait! Lump (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy) |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=225297
Msg. 225297 |
|
| Looky here! VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter) DELAWARE 0-28685 65-0393635 -------- ------- ----------- (State or other jurisdiction (Commission (IRS Employer of incorporation) File Number) Identification No.) 6336 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048 (Address of principal executive offices) (323) 658-4211 (Registrant's Executive Office Telephone Number) SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGY, INC. (Former Name of Small Business Issuer) 1203 HEALING WATERS, LAS VEGAS, NV 89031 (FORMER ADDRESS OF SMALL BUSINESS ISSUER) Scientific Technology, Inc. Hmmm For those new to VCSY Scientific Technology Inc was a delisted from the Nasdaq shell that VCSY bought a while back. NOW why in the world would they do that? Lemee tell ya. By aquiring this shell VCSY only needs to meet the criteria for a delisted company to return to the NAZ.Much simpler than what is required for a new entry into the exchange. I believe we need a pps of $5 or above for 3 months and viola!!! We're trading with the big boys! NOW review my previous post and do the math and some DD All in my Humble opinion of course! Lump (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy) |
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=225329
|
| lumster: Here is the motion by VCSY to add 'sharepoint' to the infringement by MSFT: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, § INC., § § Plaintiff, § § Civil Action No. 2:07-CV-144 –DF-CE v. § § JURY TRIAL MICROSOFT CORPORATION § § Defendants. § UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE AMENDED INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (“Vertical”), plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered civil action, moves the Court for leave to serve amended infringement contentions. In support, Vertical will show the following. On November 30, 2007, the plaintiff served its infringement contents against the defendant. Subsequent to serving such contentions, the plaintiff determined that Microsoft’s SharePoint 200 should be accused of infringement in addition to the products originally accused. Thus, the plaintiff requests leave to serve such amended contentions pursuant to P.R. 3-6(b). The defendant does not oppose the plaintiff serving the amended infringement contentions. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grants this motion for leave to serve amended infringement contentions. Case 2:07-cv-00144-DF-CE Document 53 Filed 06/11/2008 Page 1 of 3 2 Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Eric M. Albritton Texas State Bar No. 00790215 ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, Texas 75606 Tel.: (903) 757-8449 Fax: (903) 758-7397 ema@emafirm.com Thomas John Ward, Jr. Texas Bar No. 00794818 Ward & Smith Law Firm P O Box 1231 Longview, TX 75606-1231 Telephone: (903) 757-6400 Facsimile: (903) 757-2323 jw@jwfirm.com Raymond P. Niro Vasilios D. Dossas Sally Wiggins Robert A. Conley Eric J. Mersmann NIRO, SCAVONE, HALLER & NIRO 181 West Madison Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 236-0733 Counsel for Plaintiff Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE The undersigned discussed this motion with Dave Healey, counsel for the defendant who advised that the defendant agrees to the relief requested. ______________________________ Eric M. Albritton Case 2:07-cv-00144-DF-CE Document 53 Filed 06/11/2008 Page 2 of 3 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 motion was served on all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(d) and (e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by email and/or fax, on this the 11th day of June, 2008. ______________________________ Eric M. Albritton Case 2:07-cv-00144-DF-CE Document 53 Filed 06/11/2008 Page 3 of 3 |
Posted by Portuno Diamo
at 1:10 AM EDT
Updated: Wednesday, 14 October 2009 7:45 PM EDT
