Mood:  accident prone

Mister Frickaseed says "Remember what's been forgotten. You will then own what was never lost."

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 4:09 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 16 October 2008 4:13 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

HAAAARRRRRR. Squeeze me parrot and varnish me leg, Thar's a wind blowin' through the riggings, me hearties.

20-Aug-08 02:31 pm by portuno_diamo

The question has been asked: "if the settlement had been substantial, what would MSFT's motivation be to settle?"

Microsoft settled to be able to use the technology that's allowing them to say the kinds of things they say now about their products and plans they couldn't honestly say before.

Without 521 and 744 they won't be able to extend their interoperability beyond COM/DCOM.

Two innovations made skyscrapers possible: Steel structural frameworks and elevators.

The analogy here is 521 allows the construction of lightweight and robust ties between all types of data systems and applications.

The other analogy is 744 allows the developer, user, engineer, governor to extend a functional presence to any place the lightweight framework build can reach.

Without 521/744 Microsoft would still be trying desperately to buy Yahoo to have breathing room until the March 2009 trial.

That's why you need to understand the technology or at least have advisors who understand distributed functional systems instead of "operating systems". "Operating systems" will be obsolete.

The real "killer app" is the ability to build out on the web... not closed proprietary platforms like Windows.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2417

The true "killer app" is the ability to interconnect and interoperate seamlessly across the web. VCSY IP provides the foundation for doing precisely that. NOW Solutions provides the realistic demonstrations for doing precisely that with Microsoft applications - something even Microsoft couldn't do.

That's why the Infinitek news is so important.

$300,000+ drove VCSY to bail the day before the Markman Hearing? That's not even logical.

The bigger question is "why did Microsoft avoid the Markman Hearing if they would have won the claims contest?"

The answer is Microsoft would have lost the Markman Hearing and they would be at risk of a summary judgment and/or injunction.

Microsoft needed VCSY much more than VCSY needed Microsoft.

Now they are partners. Reluctant partners, perhaps. But, MSFT is suddenly able to show and do things they could only talk about for years.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to catch a train toward Palo Alto. Talk amongst yourselves.

Thus Spake Portuno

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 10:09 PM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 12 October 2008 10:35 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

7-Sep-07 01:29 pm by zogdan2

You are PUMPERS.

The technologies you discuss for VCSY have absolutely NOTHING to do with Vista, Silverlight, or any Microsoft technology.

And either you're too stupid to know it, or you know it and you're simply trying to deceive investors.

Which is it? Are you stupid or evil?

As for why you get no responses, it's because no one cares... just like one wouldn't engage the crazy man talking to himself on a NYC streetcorner.

Your own consistent blathering has proved you to been quite a loon... you've undone your own credibility. You need to change tactics if you successfully intend on pumping something in the future... for now, you're probably convincing more people to SELL whatever you support.

:)

-Zog

7-Sep-07 01:57 pm by portuno_diamo

Absolutely NOTHING? Oh, come now, zog. You can be more realistic than that. I agree the patents 6068744 and 7076521 have absolutely nothing to do with Vista, Silverlight, or any Microsoft technology in public now, but could you please tell me how Microsoft intends to get an XML processing runtime on the local client (like Silverlight) to act as a web application (like 7076521) and be governed in a web-based ecology (like 6826744) so .Net 3.0 in Visual Studio, Expression and Silverlight may act as one entity?

I do agree MSFt has the things segmented artificially to achieve various ends such as marketing and discipline and vertical lock-in, but to say the 744/521 patents have NOTHING to do with what Silverlight+Expression+.Net need to go is like people saying Eolas had nothing to do with Silverlight in the first place.

That is flat wrong and, by studying the structures described in the patents you will find Microsoft has to go that direction eventually or your segregated designers and developers will fall prey to a more integrated approach like Adobe's AIR/Flex.

Now, I know you guys have DLR which could perform the kind of robust application platforming that Silverlight can't provide (as Silverlight is intended just for automating GUI apps) so what will you use to link Silverlight environed GUI apps with DLR based web applications most people refer to as "programs"?

Thanks in advance for your response.
the real portuno

PS – This thread is useful for finding out who knows what. You will find it has a variety of posts such as this little gem:

7-Sep-07 03:26 pm by portuno_diamo
Let's get this right, OK?

From your post in response:

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks...

to my questions as to why MSFT can't integrate their packages to make them easier to use, better interoperation and more productive.

Which I also replied to in two parts here:

and here: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks...

and here: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks...

----

You said the following from your post (my comments <<>>):

<< why they can't (won't?) bring the various pieces together to provide a designer+developer construct so one person can take hold of a web application without having to learn many different pieces as MSFT has segmented what they have.
>>
Answer: because that would be stupid.
Microsoft segmented them because the people who use the tools are completely different. Trying to come up with a single tool that is applicable to both is a BAD IDEA and will fail.

Is that what VCSY has done? Sheesh... no wonder they're in the crapper.

---
So what you're saying is Microsoft COULD integrate their packages and extend their usefulness and capability to look and act perform as well as 521/744 BUT, it would not be advantageous to the Microsoft business plan.

I see. So, the MSFT way is to lock in clients with segmented applications that don't interoperate except to move files from one discipline user to another discipline user. Thus "interoperation" is actually a dirty word to MSFT because it allows others to work (collaborate) on projects and perhaps sidestep the requirement to buy their own version of the Microsoft products to do their work.

Stupid? That would be stupid? To allow people to work with less complexity, less complication, greater productivity and less expensive would be, in your words as a Microsoft adherent and, I would assume, employee, "stupid"?
Uhhh... You do realize, of course, that all this is public and the CEO's of corporations and journalists and various voices who know are going to read your words, right?

Would you like a chance to rephrase what you've said as you've very succinctly demonstrated how MSFT intends to sidestep patents 7076521/6826744 by keeping the different pieces that need to work together segmented and functionally separate?

That's very interesting and helpful. Thank you very much. You've been honest with a sincere desire to help... unlike the others who want to kill the messenger and extinguish the message.

Thank you. the real portuno

Plenty more where that came from folks.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 1:07 AM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 12 October 2008 1:41 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

8-Sep-07 01:18 pm by hross_bjorn

> Most of the technology people who read this board know what
> a startup tech company is like in stealth mode.

I AM a "technology person." VCSY.OB is not a startup tech company anymore. It *was* a startup tech company at least 8 years ago. Now it's just a washed-up has-been trying a Hail Mary Pass(tm).

VCSY.OB's current operation is not "stealth" mode--it's "we're going broke and have nothing to lose, so throw everything at a wall and see what sticks" mode. I've seen it many, many times, and I've seen the relevant companies basically dissolve in 99% of all cases. Trying to characterize its behavior as a "startup in stealth mode" is either dishonest or clueless on several levels.

8-Sep-07 11:18 pm and 8-Sep-07 11:30 pm by portuno_diamo

Well, gee, hoss - I thought I had not seen another mind quite so closed as mtgmark1, but, low and cornholed, I do believe another contender for chumpion has come into view.

I saw an article recently (on RB - maybe one of the Longs at RB can dig it up) saying a handful of startups that had their stocks collapsed or lost investing capital and went unlisted back during the dotcom bust (circa 2000 in case you weren't aware at that time) find TODAY a perfect storm for technology startups. So, how is it there is a time limit on running stealth OR startup?

But you see a failure in VCSY after reading all the extraneous information that's been dug up on the public internet for the past years.

Do tell.

But... what if?

If you knew today you could become a billionaire in ten years by remaining in secret operating posture (as long as a public company meets filing requirements to inform shareholders, I don't remember any rule saying a company has to feed the PR machine) would you (could you? Really?)?

Let's say you had a choice of putting your technology for sale to the public at a time when the largest competitors could take what you had (let's say you were waiting on a patent or two) so you could then move forward with protection of the law... (let's say you suspect said competitor was a crook and would steal your trade secrets [what they are if not patented] at first opportunity and bury the stealing by burying you in articles and advertising)... would you keep your operations secret?

And let's say you have people who want to use your technology but want to make sure you really own the stuff and can prove it by a court case or a settlement by your largest competitor... would you let them try, test out, develop their own work with your patent pending intellectual property? Would they want to pay? Or would they want to work with it on a 'pay you when you prove it's yours' basis (whatever your lawyer wants to call that kind of agreement)? Would you go along with that kind of plan?

And, if you could work it so not just one but several people who you can build a relationship with and trust will make the same agreement with the understanding that none of them can actually sell the stuff (they can field secret test versions as alphas and betas) until you do prove it's yours... would you?

If you could become a billionaire in 10 years by agreeing to that? Would you?

Or would you stay in your silly little trading job in the sweatshop while trying to make a few bucks in the “marketing” department dribbling out the swill the cue cards and scripts tell you to write about XYZ stock on message boards?

I think I would and could be as quiet as a mouse peeing on cotton. Cotton socks on giant feet.

And if you did make that sort of deal with companies with a relationship and they continued working with their products incorporating your technology on an evaluation and development basis, don't you think you would hold all of them to the same reveal date? And don't you think that, just to be fair, you would treat your biggest competitor and your biggest competitor's partner differently so the courts wouldn't view your efforts as anti-competitive?

You know, I have a bit of a problem with Apple and the way Apple is postured.

Sun has ZFS and so does Apple but Apple has a read only version of ZFS and Sun has a read/write version. And Sun and Apple are only fielding test versions of the products.

And then, Apple has a virtualization technology and Microsoft has a virtualization technology called Viridian and the odd thing is that both Apple and Microsoft delayed their operating system virtualizations on the same day... here's a timeline:

April 12, 2007 Apple Leopard delay to October announced
[Apple admits]

April 12, 2007 Microsoft Viridian delay to October announced
[virtualization]

April 13, 2007 Sun buys SavaJe IP
(which went dark in unexplained circumstances last year see Oct 17 2006)

April 18, 2007 VCSY sued Microsoft for infringement on US 6,826,744

So what do we see? Coincidence? Or a plan? An agreement for evaluation (of which nobody legally has to say a peep) and a wait for the property to be validated as to ownership?

Beats me. Mtgmark1 is supposed to be the financial whiz but I guess he's never heard about development on spec.

And I guess hoss forgets what a "five year plan" is. I guess he also requires all companies in secret development for longer than X days months years to give up on the day after his ... limit (gee, "hoss" how long should a company work before giving up? Hmmmm, sweety? Can you give us a figure? Can you give us a clue as to how you arrive at your conclusion?).

So, whatever you say recy. Yeah you right. Rage on, bro. Rage on. Just, do me a favor, will ya? Hang around until the day after VCSY proves ownership of the technology so you can be around for me to laugh in your face. Then you can drop dead or disappeared or de@#$%d. I don't give a flying frappe'.

sincerely,
the real portuno

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 12:14 AM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 12 October 2008 1:40 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  don't ask

 Hey everybody! How about a big tepid bowl of ignorant soup?

Now that Microsoft is an ally in protecting the validity of patent 6826744, we can go back to the past and see what kinds of brilliant analysis the software industry had to rely on to protect them from stumbling into a bear trap.

The following comments are from a news blurb April 2007 announcing VCSY had sued Microsoft for infringement of 6826844. I am placing these here because someone on Raging Bull VCSY board posted the article and pointed out some material in one of the posts: http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=226723

I attempted to post all this on Yahoo VCSY board, but the Yahoo board froze up when I tried to post the first segment, so, I thought I might leave this little bag of flaming poo here so everyone will have some idea what it's like to listen in on a gang of thugs disappointed they won't get a chance to break into your house and cart off everything you've worked hard to achieve.

Enjoy!

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/07/04/21/microsoft-hit-with-patent-suit-over-net 

>>  #1 Posted by Quick Reply on 21 Apr 2007 - 15:55
These definitions are way too vague! Been on notice since February 7? That's plenty of notice, even though .NET framework has been around since 2002! <<

And since the patent was applied for in 1999, plenty had the opportunity to build their own versions of the patent claims to see how they worked. Apparently, Microsoft liked what they saw. I wonder how many are now in the telescopic sights of Raymond Niro and Charles Wade?

>>#2 Posted by noroom on 21 Apr 2007 - 15:56
Booo! Down with software patents! <<

Hissss. Down with people who want to rip off pioneering IP. Give 'em the razzberry!

>>#3 Posted by superhuman on 21 Apr 2007 - 15:57
This is Funny. XML is an open specification. Everyone can use it to build their website. I am not sure why they let them patent it. <<

"Everyone can use XML to build their website." What's funny is you didn't have any idea what that patent said about processing XML. That's why you sound so ignorant now.

>>#4 Posted by ahhell on 21 Apr 2007 - 16:14
MS is going to eat that company for breakfast. <<

Want some bacon with that egg on your face?

>>#5 Posted by chaosblade on 21 Apr 2007 - 16:30
MS is going to buy that company for breakfast <<

Did they leave a tip? Yeah. Here's a tip. Don't talk about things you know nothing about.

>>#6 Posted by +ECEGatorTuro on 21 Apr 2007 - 17:06
MS is going to crap that company out a few hours after breakfast.<<

That was some dump, booboo. Sure you don't need a forklift to get you off that commode?

>>#7 Posted by XeonBuilder on 21 Apr 2007 - 17:12
Are they kidding me?

Everyone wants a piece of Bill pie... How he does buy them and sells them on eBay. <<

But Bill didn't buy them, did he? He settled with them. The day before the Markman Hearing... and you know what that means.

>>#8 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 21 Apr 2007 - 17:33
What a load. They need to line up suits against the entire computer industry. AJAX is a framework, as is Java, Ruby, HTML, and almost every other programming environment ever used. I wish MS could countersue for harassment.

EDIT: Here's Vertical's company description:

"Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (VCSY) is a provider of Internet core technologies, administrative software, and derivative software application products through its distribution network."

Now, everyone that their software is derived from can just steamroll right over them since they opened the door.

BONUS: http://www.vcsy.com/investor/stockactivity.php

Their stock is worth 2 cents! lol

Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 21 Apr 2007 - 17:58<<

That's right. The entire industry. It's what we had been warning you clinks for years before. Steamroll over VCSY? I don't think so, fat girl. That rolling sound is just you dropping your doughnut. I'm sure MSFT dearly wanted to be able to countersue VCSY for harrassment, but that's not how it went for Mister Softee. The judge signed off on the case and therefore cancelled any further discussion with extreme prejudice. Case closed. NEXT!

>>  #9 Posted by +azcodemonkey on 21 Apr 2007 - 17:56
LOL I'm completely certain that there is prior art. I worked with a company around the same time that was doing the same thing -- wrapping arbitrary objects or using "pointers" to objects/data for use in a web portal. Who wasn't doing this in 1999?

Everyone working with the current web tech at the time saw a need for this kind of thing and grew their own. I really don't know how they expect to win. The .NET Framework isn't really like Vertical's tech at all. Sharepoint/web parts, on the other hand, seems more like what Vertical has produced. .NET, you still have to do a lot of work to achieve what Vertical's patent covers. Besides, architecture is architecture. Using components in the web was a natural progression from classic ASP inline script or static html. I guess Vertical should sue Plumtree, Sun, BEA and the rest of the world for this one. <<

Everybody? 1999? Are you sure about that, doc? That's funny. There were only a select group of software pioneers aware of XML back in 1999 and you're saying "Everyone working with the current web tech at the time saw a need for this kind of thing and grew their own."?  Want a little XML history? http://www.w3.org/XML/hist2002
XML Development History - Historical events in and around the W3C XML Activity include Recommendations:

Want some more?
http://www.itwriting.com/xmlintro.php
Copyright Tim Anderson January 2004
Read the paragraph on Microsoft and XML. Microsoft thought they had VCSY wrapped up.

And, by the way, the aforementioned Charles Goldfarb was among those besides IBM touting VCSY's XML solutions back in the early years. Here's a sample:

SEC Info - Vertical Computer Systems Inc - 10KSB - For 12/31/01

"The .NET Framework isn't really like Vertical's tech at all. Sharepoint/web parts, on the other hand, seems more like what Vertical has produced. .NET, you still have to do a lot of work to achieve what Vertical's patent covers."

Uhhh, you see, the idea is, Microsoft wanted .Net to BECOME what VCSY Siteflash could do. Not the wrong way around as this numbnut saw it. I wonder how he sees it now?

And, yes Virginia. Sharepoint was somwhat like SiteFlash. Now, the idea is to make Sharepoint a whole lot like SiteFlash and become a living software ecology for Windows. Thus Windows 7's humble beginnings.

Keep reading, pilgrim. You'll learn by accident. 

>>#10 Posted by NightmarE D on 21 Apr 2007 - 20:25
It's a company that isn't worth a nickel whose desperate for money.

I hate companies like this. They can't make a name for themselves so they'll try to sue another company to make a few dollars.
 #10.1 Posted by Ideas Man on 22 Apr 2007 - 01:13
Are we talking about Real here

I absolutely agree. If this was such a big deal, why wasn't the suit done back in 2002? Why is it loosers like this, Real, Eolas and the like wait years before they sue? I reckon there should be some expirary date on these things, because they almost always ask for damages in the millions, and they always sue well after the product is used by the millions, seems wrong to me.<<

Uhhhh, hello dummy. The patent was not granted until 2004. VCSY gave Microsoft a long time to get their act together and negotiate for a settlement.

"and they always sue well after the product is used by the millions, seems wrong to me" That's right. Millions. Seems fair, equitable and right to me.

>>#11 Posted by Jugalator on 21 Apr 2007 - 20:52
Haha, "arbitrary object framework"?

So in other words, they try to enforce a patent about "building websites in a modern programming language"?

Wow, I hope they won't succeed in that... <<

Haha. Haha haha. Haha hahaha hahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahaaaaaahahahahaaaaa. I don't think I'll ever stop laughing at that one.

>>#12 Posted by black_death on 21 Apr 2007 - 21:06
roflmao! this has got to be my second favourite patent infringement suite next to the MP3 one of course. who the hell works at the US patent office, elementary school drop outs? <<

Blah blah blah. The stupid ones are the ones who shoot their clueless foot while it's in their clueless mouth. This has got to be my favorite patent infringement suit (not suite you idiot) next to none.

>><#13 Posted by Jelly2003 on 21 Apr 2007 - 21:16
Step 1) Lets found a company
Step 2) Lets have an idea and patient it
Step 3) Lets stick our head in the sand
... YEARS LATER ...
Step 4) Lets take our head out the sand

HOLY CRAP! Someone has been infringing our patient for over 5 years!
LETS SUE!!!

PS. How pathetic, this company doesn't even deserve the time of day.
What's their excuse? They're a "Global Web Services Provider", how could anyone who develops for the net not know about ASP.net?

Obviously what's happened is that the company has been bought out, and the new directors have suddenly realised that the company has these patients which can bail them out of trouble, because obviously they don't have a clue about the internet, they're not making money from it, so the only way that they can survive is by stealing from those who do know about the internet.<<

Isn't it amazing just how uninformed the loudmouths turn out to be? it's a fact of nature. Loudmouth dumbasses are made, not born.

>>#14 Posted by +Octol on 21 Apr 2007 - 21:20
Quote -
VCSY’s main administrative software product is emPath 6.3, which is developed and distributed by Now Solutions, Inc.. Vertical’s primary internet core technologies include SiteFlash™, ResponseFlash™ and the Emily XML Scripting Language, which can be used to build web services.

I can't wait for Adobe to nail these guys for trademark infringement:

SiteFlash™
ResponseFlash™

Using the "Flash" name, even as part of a compound term, would be no different than using SiteWindows™" or "ResponseWindows™", and we all know how long Microsoft would let them get away with that!<<

Well, now, isn’t THAT an interesting opinion? What’s up with Adobe? Are they deaf? Hard of reading? DO you think Adobe knew what they were doing when they codenamed AIR Apollo?

VCSY: At the Epicenter of the New Truly Global Internet Revolution
All the products sold on the sites will be able to be purchased by major credit card or VCSY'swebsites' Apollo Smart Card with enhanced security and ...
www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-23-2001/0001474662&EDATE= - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

Do you think they got the news yet. Do you think these guys commenting will ever get smart?

>>#15 Posted by water.hammer on 21 Apr 2007 - 21:48
Uber pwnage<<

I wonder if "water.hammer" pissed his leg off? Pure ownership on VCSY's behalf. The rest of you nitwits can line up and take a number. Do the peepee dance if you're in a hurry.

>>  #16 Posted by MaceX on 21 Apr 2007 - 22:16
You get 1000 people to solve a problem.

90% of them will solve the problem in some way that would infringe on a patent.

That's the problem with software patents. It stifles development in software because there is so much collusion. <<

Do you mean collusion by those in the software industry who tried to destroy VCSY? That must be what he means. Who else would VCSY collude with to have their patent granted?

>>#17 Posted by  neufuse on 22 Apr 2007 - 01:37
too bad the patent doesnt even match how the .NET framework works if you read it...... and they are "Vertical is asking for a jury trial." asking for a jury trial because they know a judge would throw it right out.. they just want to confuse people that dont understand the tech and make them think they are the same

Last edited by neufuse on 22 Apr 2007 - 01:44<<

Too bad neufuse doesn’t know a judge hears the Markman Hearing which determines by law which side of the litigation has rightful ownership of the patent claims language.The jury is just there to determine just how heinous the infringement is for the purpose of apportioning damages.

>>#18 Posted by theh0g on 22 Apr 2007 - 11:53
Don't software patents ever expire? <<

Sure. The Siteflash patent will expire around 2024. Are you going to hold it that long? You'll bust a kidney, you know...

>>#19 Posted by zivan56 on 22 Apr 2007 - 18:15
Wouldn't Java be violating this as well then?<<

Well now, it all depends on what you're doing with Java, Einstein. If you're imitating the claims of the 644 patent with Java then Yes. If not, then No.

(end selections)
-------------------

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 2:45 AM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 28 September 2008 12:20 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  incredulous

How much ya wanna bet Windows 7 turns out to be Vista + Longhorn?

Ready for the pop quiz, class? Let's build a little formula so we can evaluate the future:

Where: (Longhorn - (6826744+ 7076521)) = 0 and (Vista - Longhorn) = funk

Then: 6826744 + Vista = Windows(7)

Windows 7 hits Milestone 3
Posted by Mary Jo Foley @ 11:50 am
September 16th, 2008

Home Groups — the functionality formerly known in “Longhorn”/Vista as “Castle” — is part of the new Windows 7 build.

Windows 7 does not look or feel like a major departure from Windows Vista.

(more at URL)
------

If you're going to try to follow all this, you first need to nail some thumbtacks to the wall with some yarn, some dates and some events (maybe even some dates of your own from what you've seen and heard - wouldn't THAT be exciting, kids? Kind of like Harry HomeDetective.) and start tracking this stuff like a big game hunter.

Why? Because it is a big game. A BIG game.

https://ajaxamine.tripod.com/index.blog?topic_id=1089847

Either that or sit back in the Buick and let the dynaflow transmission do the work. Just listen to the radidio.

Patent 744 is all about enclosing the operating arena in a life-long ecology where all is affiliated and known. This method in and of itself is inherently more secure as anyone not affiliated simply can't get in without affiliation credentials. When something like the security system VCSY has rights to (Tecsec and ImmuneApp ) envelopes the ecology, you have a virtual cocooned community for living software.

You juniors have a whole lot to learn since you've been ignorant for so long. Do some serious study instead of shaking your head at VCSY's small size. Size is in the bite, not the bark.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 10:07 PM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, 16 September 2008 11:16 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  lazy

I was asked to try to present what VCSy technology does as simply as possible. Well, I've been digging through some old files and I came upon a diagram I did last year and thought I might offer it for your viewing here.

I realize this is a very simplified schematic, but, that's what 744/521 does. It simplifies.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 11:51 PM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, 16 September 2008 12:06 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

To those agonizing over how a tiny company like VCSY can appear out of nowhere with technology that appears to supplant technologies over a decade old. I offer this discussion over the importance of Java and Javascript. See Java Smackdown below.

I tend to agree with the nerd in this discussion as I have dug through the history of Java as a smartcard effort in the mid 90''s and the ultimate use of VCSY Emily (VCSY's XML based scripting language) to build the Apollo/Transtar smartcardsystem using the latest generation smartcard technology of Jerome Svigals.

I believe an indepth analysis of events and efforts over the past 20 years would yield a not-so-pretty picture of Java in the hands of elitists attempting to kill off the advent of scripters such as resulted in Javascript adherents.

With that "compiled code is superior to script" elitism, as with all technolgical elitism, came a huge crippling of effective software development and use. Sun's Java press hit the wall some four or five years ago when their combined effort with IBM to build a complex telephony system in Germany failed to scale. That sobering event lead to a slow death of Java that continues today.

You might examine some of the things I've pointed out on this blog and elsewhere about SavaJe, a telephony effort that mysteriously vanished in 2006 only to be scooped up by Sun shortly before VCSY sued Microsoft in April 2007.

Please reference this timeline.

I commend your perusal of this timeline so you can get a stratified view of events over the span of the past few years. It can be enlightening once fleshed out with your own examples of "hey, I know an interesting coincidence". It's a great game to play with those who work in the industry. They have their own time points and event correlations that build a picture of desperate efforts and questionable strategies.

Anywho, here's the discussion for your own internal discussions. Do with it what you will.

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/one_time_only_javascript_java.php

One time only: Java-Javascript smackdown

James Fallows// The Atlantic
13 Sep 2008 11:00 pm

James Fallows writes: Blah, blah, blah, dit da dit da dit, yada yada yada...

And then he offers two views of correspondents. First the Java proponent as pointed to by the James Fallows article above:

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/about_chrome_next_in_the_serie.php
Ken Broomfield writes:

There's plenty of irony in Google's effort to create a robust client-side platform for web-based ("cloud") applications, mainly because Netscape and Sun tried and failed to do exactly this over ten years ago.  Part of this effort was led by a guy named Eric Schmidt, then at Sun, and used Java, a technology that's superior to the Javascript language that's now being used largely because Java never quite worked on the client (i.e., in the user's browser).

So, Google's effort to create a good Javascript environment in Chrome -- which is now sorely needed -- should have been unnecessary, and sophisticated web applications should have appeared a long time ago. Multiple efforts to create client-side web application platforms are now under way, with Balkanizing effect: Google with Chrome (Bosnia), Adobe with Flash/Flex/AIR (Croatia), and Microsoft with Silverlight (Serbia) [Microsoft had to be Serbia :)]. That all these platforms are inferior to what ought to have been achieved years ago with Java is a tragedy....

Little stuff:

-- On additional tabs using more and more memory, this is true in Firefox and IE, but iRider has sophisticated memory management to limit memory usage even with hundreds of pages open. Free memory is utilized to speed access to open pages, but released as other apps need it. (Everyone misses this, but it took a lot of effort.)

-- Firefox, IE and iRider can leak memory, though Firefox is notoriously worse than the others here. (Opera, another browser the press now ignores, does a great job in this department.) But often what seem to be leaks can also be mere memory fragmentation, as when a room seems full but is actually just cluttered. It's not clear that Chrome solves the fragmentation problem, which is trickier. (The paged virtual memory environment in modern OSes mitigates some of the problems of fragmentation, but also makes it trickier to solve completely.).

-- Entering search queries in the Address Bar has been possible in IE since version 5 and iRider from the start. And in iRider, to quickly run multiple searches, say "Palin moose", "Palin bridge to nowhere" and "Palin Alaska secession", hit Shift-Enter after each. 

The good news is that Chrome will be open source and may be very useful to us and others.

------------ separator between correspondent views ------------

And here, an anonymous nerd writes:

My correspondent writes:

... I am a nerd.  As such, I'm afraid I have to dispute a bit of what your friend Ken Broomfield, the founder of iRider (which I've downloaded and am evaluating now), wrote to you about the early days of web application development. 

From a developer's perspective, Java was far too complicated and the performance of the Java Virtual Machine far too poor to be useful for web applications in the early days of the internet. 

Broomfield refers to Java as a "technology that's superior to the Javascript language" and suggests that JavaScript "should have been unnecessary, and sophisticated web applications should have appeared a long time ago," but that's false.  As programming (or scripting) languages go, JavaScript has always been relatively easy to learn and has allowed developers (and businesses) to rapidly develop useful web applications. 

The same is not true of the strict and complex Java programming language.  Good Java programmers were (and still are) few and expensive; good web technology (JavaScript/CSS/HTML) developers were (and still are) abundant and less expensive and, again, the performance of JVMs in web browsers was crap until recently.

Web application development has evolved along with PC hardware and available consumer bandwidth.  YouTube was not possible 10 years ago; it is now thanks to Flash, faster machines and the fact that a great many people have broadband internet connections.  Flash, not Java.  Java is still far too complex, and Java developers far too expensive, for client-side web development.  Java is, more often than not, not the right tool for client-side web application development.  It is a "superior" technology in the same way that a jackhammer is superior to an ordinary hammer for driving a nail into a wall.

Additionally, the "Balkanizing effect" that Broomfield sees in the current competition between "inferior" client-side web technologies offered by Adobe, Microsoft and web browser developers (Google did not invent JavaScript; they have, however, developed Gears and their own JavaScript interpreter to improve JS performance and to mimic some of the functionality offered by desktop applications) is merely healthy competition between companies that would like to sell software tools (in the case of Adobe and Microsoft) or advertising (in the case of Google).  He seems to suggest that Sun's Java should have been accepted as the standard years ago and that Sun should be rewarded, in one way or another, for enabling the rest of us to develop "sophisticated" web applications now and forever.

Java failed as a client-side web application technology for good reasons and web applications are evolving at a reasonable and steady rate.  Like many nerds, I am excited by the possibilities presented by the current crop of web (and mobile; the line is getting blurry) technologies and am thankful that I don't have to spend my days coding in Java.
---------------- end of comparison------------

There is much that may be discussed and one day all of it will spill out, but, for now, remember this: Not everything you know is real. Not every thing that's real you know. I know it's a basic observation but sometimes you have to be dragged back to a basic to make sense of the world around you.

Oh, and one more thing, I commend this article offered by James Fallows to your reading so you can get an overview of Chrome. You'll need one to make sense out of what will happen over the next few years.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/090808-google-chrome-under-the-hood.html

We are in the beginnings of the first public views of a disruption wave moving through the software industry. If you keep yourself educated (and it doesn't take any more effort than reading and learning by accident) you will be more equipped to profit from the disruption far more effectively than your more ignorant brethren and sisterns.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 12:03 AM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 14 September 2008 1:05 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  don't ask

Apparently my fanbase is of the cloistered variety.

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=225290

By: vcsyes 13 Sep 2008, 06:50 AM EDT Msg. 225290

So, maybe a stupid question but who is Portuno and why are all his past posts referenced upon? I mean, it seems like he know his stuff but how come I dont see any of his posts on a day-to-day besis? ...just wondering. Anyone? Go VCSY!! (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)

This must be what it's like when the kids are planning to put grandpaw in the home.

UHHH...I'M SITTING RIGHT HERE AND I CAN HEAR YOU TALKING

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 11:19 AM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 13 September 2008 10:11 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  suave

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.

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

By: lumster50 13 Sep 2008, 12:23 AM EDT 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

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=225329

By: RapidRobert2 13 Sep 2008, 03:41 PM EDT Msg. 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

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink