The punch tastes funny this time but at least the sandwiches are dry.
Mood:
smelly
Now Playing: 'You Can Fool Some...' Small time politicians find themselves outed in a scandal.
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY
You have to think through things, and when you do think through, you have to come up with logical answers or it means there are idiots in your equation. Who is the idiot in this whole MSFT/YHOO charade? I think Microsoft thinks the idiot is you.
Posted on May 7th, 2007 with stocks: MSFT, YHOO
Paul Kedrosky submits: As much as I believe that Microsoft (MSFT) needs to do something major, and as much as I have predicted that it would put Yahoo (YHOO) in play in 2007, the idea of Microsoft trying to buy Yahoo, while in a sense inevitable, is still desperately difficult. The two companies' cultures are different, as people keep yammering, but you could say that about Microsoft and pretty much any other company -- Microsoft is an anomaly in an industry of anomalies -- and so culture is not the real issue.
The real issue has to do with size and experience. Bringing off multi-line acquisitions of this size -- call it $50-billion and 11,000 employees, against Microsoft's $293-billion mkt cap and 71,000 employees -- is always tough, and Microsoft, while a relatively profligate small acquirer, doesn't have material large dealing experience to point to. It can do the deal, in other words, but the subsequent carnage may be something to behold -- which Google (GOOG) might actually end up applauding.
Some people are saying that Microsoft needs to spin out its "Internet" business and combine that with Yahoo. Newsflash folks: This is 2007, every technology/software business is an Internet business. If you want to make the argument that MSFT needs to carve out media and advertising then make it, but don't conflate media/ad with Internet and pretend the latter still remains a distinct category, because it doesn't.
Pretending there are are Internet and non-Internet aspects to a tech company like Microsoft is like pretending you can have peeing and non-peeing sections in a swimming pool. It doesn't work.
And, yes, I'm putting this post here for a reason. Think it through. There is always a reason for everything.
By: DC-Steve
08 May 2007, 07:20 PM EDT
Msg. 184463 of 184477
(This msg. is a reply to 184452 by RapidRobert2.)
RR, you've already asked all those questions and you've seen them all asked repeatedly by others. And you've seen me answer them many times.
Why do you keep reasking? Either you believe the answers or you don't. It's pointless and just a little dishonest to keep asking questions as if you haven't heard the answers already.
You also KNOW that the companies I've "bashed" the most have either been busted for fraud or shut themselves down under a cloud of apparently fraudulent activity had drawn the interest of federal and sometimes state authorities. It's odd that you imply I have some sort of nefarious hidden agenda when I've been right and been ahead of the SEC so many times and I have yet to be proven wrong.
Maybe VCSY will be the first to prove me wrong at least in part. But even if that turns out to be the case, why would you assume anything other than that I was honestly mistaken? There is nothing in my posting history on any other board that suggests dishonesty and the overwhelming majority of my commentary has proven accurate and potentially helpful to anyone who has read it.
You haven't offered any evidence or rationale to support your accusations that I'm trying to deceive anyone let alone that I'm stupid enough to believe I can influence a company's fate by posting on these boards. Seriously, dude, you should be able to see how that makes you appear to be off base and unjustified, at the very least, in continually making such allegations that you can't support with anything resembling facts or sound rationale. More so when it's clear that all the documented facts and most cogent rationale only serve to argue against the validity of your accusations, making them seem, I dunno, sort of frantic and panicky maybe.
Whatever. Some folks just need an enemy, real or imaginary, to make them feel righteous or satisfy some other emotional need. If it works for you I'm happy to serve as the comic book style arch enemy to your superhero of the small time investment world. i??
- - - - -
View Replies »
Old DC is on record as having declared VCSY a SCAM on many occasions. But, he's been mysteriously absent from any VCSY postings until the evening of May 3, 2007 - right before the blow the next morning - odd behavior for DC as he is scrupulously a daytime working kind of guy. But, here he can not resist the debate. LOL. ... when Microsoft needs a diversion and the recently announced Amazon settlement with IBM in the ad-center patent roundup puts a fine point to the speculations.
There's acid in the ink and something's making stink.
The odd thing about this poster is that he's supposed to be long VCSY shares and he's offering copious defenses for Microsoft. Hmmmm.... odd.
What kind of shareholder invests in a scam? What kind of shareholder then slams the scam company's management, future and successes? And, what kind of shareholder defends the competitors working against his 'scam' investment?
By: DC-Steve
08 May 2007, 07:37 PM EDT
Msg. 184464 of 184582
(This msg. is a reply to 184460 by RapidRobert2.)
RR, let me guess this straight. I'm being deceptive because I haven't stated that MSFT intentionally "stole" VCSY's IP and is currently negotiating with VCSY to pay for its theft, and I know this is true because . . . because . . . because . . . well, just because I know it like you claim to?
Once again you fault me for not mentioning MSFT intentionally infringed on VCSY patents and is currently in talks with VCSY only for the purpose of negotiating exactly how many billions it will have to pay for this theft.
Again I told you I wasn't aware of these supposed facts, and again I asked you to identify the proof or at least some evidence to support these allegedly factual statements of yours.
Again you declined to do so and replied that I should be aware of these things already.
I dunno, RR. Call me cynical or overly suspicious, but I'm beginning to think you don't actually know those "facts" to be true and you're just guessing or hoping that they are.
BTW, if MSFT upper management, VCSY management, the attorneys for both of them, plus you and at least a few dozen other VCSY investors already know with certainty that MSFT has conceded its liability to VCSY and will soon reach an agreement worth billions to VCSY, don't you think it's a little odd that VCSY's stock price hasn't gone up a lot and MSFT's hasn't gone down appreciably?
How is it possible, given all the brilliant and most informed minds in the tech and investment worlds who track MSFT, that very few if any of them have figured out the significance of VCSY's lawsuit? Do you think anyone from Wall Street to Silicon Valley will ever figure it out before the blockbuster licesning/royalty deal is announced to the world causing VCSY to rocket from pennies to $XXX dollars in a matter of hours?
Take your time answering. I gotta go. But I'll check back tomorrow because I'd love to hear a plausible answer. Later.
- - - - -
View Replies »
Want a 'plausible answer'? A 'shareholder' with an agenda, that's what kind. If you are a VCSY newbie and you listen to the rants from this poster or his posting companions (the kind that stick to your shoe to your embarrassment) you will not provide yourself with the deeper education needed to understand what VCSY is doing.
'Nuff said. And after his posting buddy moves off the shift, this one comes right back for more 'questions'.
There's only one point of caution I have to tell you. If you don't understand what these two posters are doing, you have no business buying a stock as speculative as VCSY. These two will convince you to sell or to not buy just when it's most important to hold and accumulate.
By: DC-Steve
09 May 2007, 11:05 AM EDT
Msg. 184585 of 184586
Wow! 40 posts by fastbob between 1 a.m. and 2:45 a.m. RST (Raging Bull Standard Time).
If I didn't know better it would appear that fastbob was in a FRANTIC PANIC to bury yesterday evening's posts under that rapid fire 40 post dump. You know, I mean those posts from yesterday in which he repeatedly made fantastic claims he couldn't back up and he dodged relevant questions he couldn't answer.
At the risking of making fastbob's hard work burning the midnight oil all for naught, let's recap some of bob's assertions of fact that he hasn't been able to support and the questions he can't bring himself to answer:
1) Bob says he knows that MSFT intentionally infringed on VCSY patents, and that MSFT and VCSY also know that any judge or jury will definitely rule that way, and that MSFT has therefore already decided to pay VCSY billions of dollars. Bob knows that they all know that, and Bob also knows that MSFT and VCSY are currently in talks only to determine exactly how many billions will be paid by MSFT to VCSY and how the payments will be split between liscening and royalties.
Fastbob has made this assertion several times (at least), but he has never replied when asked to explain how he knows this. He has never provided any circumstantial evidence let alone anything close to the proof he claims is available for anyone to see. He just keeps saying the proof is in the public record and anyone who fails to acknowledge this is being dishonest. But he can't identity where in the public record this proof remains hidden in plain sight.
2) Bob says that siteflash and the patent in question are already being marketed and sold by VCSY. When Tepe said they aren't and backed it up by noting that VCSY's only revenue producing product or service does not use siteflash, Bob was unable to reply to Tepe's post with anything more specific than what amounts to the grade school retort: "you're wrong and I'm right, so there!" Fastbob, mmbuster, beach and anyone else making this claim can't seem to offer any evidence that siteflash or anything related to the patent has ever been successfully marketed by VCSY. They claim it has, but refuse to offer any proof. VCSY claims to be marketing siteflash and responseflash and they name one single installation of RF, but the latest 10K filing says their majority owned subsidiary that markets SF and RF has never made any material revenue (and had no assets). So it would seem Tepe is correct about VCSY being unable to market anything related to the patent so far while Fastbob and the others are wrong, but the faithful longs just keep repeating this apparently false claim regardless of the known facts.
[NOTE: longs could quibble that VCSY announced that one and only sale and pending installation of ResponseFlash. But that amounts to arguing a very weak technicality since the sale was announced more than five years ago, VCSY didn't identify the revenue to my knowledge (please correct me if they did), and they haven't announced another sale or installation since. If that's the only marketing "success" VCSY has had with Siteflash related tech, then for all practical purposes Tepe is right while Fastbob and the others are blowing smoke.]
3) When asked to reconcile (1) the ACTUAL FACT that VCSY's price hasn't rocketed up and MSFT's price also hasn't been affected by the patent litigation with (2) his own ASSERTION OF FACT that MSFT, VCSY, and dozens of retail investors already know that VCSY will definitely get billions from the litigation, fastbob declined to reply. He can't seem to explain how VCSY's inevitable huge victory has escaped the notice of all the Wall Street and tech industry analysts who are paid millions of dollars to, among other things, spot big developments on the horizon such as the likely impact of pending litigation.
Fastbob knows the outcome with certainty. So do portuno, beach, mm-buster and who knows how many other IP litigation experts who happen to be members of the VCSY investment cult. MSFT corporate management, VCSY corporate management and their respective legal teams also know the outcome has already been determined and that VCSY will get billions.
But somehow the most brilliant, best informed and highly motivated technology investment professionals from Wall Street to Silicon Valley to London to Zurich to Tokyo to Paris and all points in between, above and below haven't been able to figure out what is so obvious to Fastbob and pals. The litigation is public. Surely many pros took note of it as they typically would in their daily routines. But none of them have yet grasped even the potential significance of the litigation let alone that the final outcome is already a fait accompli.
That's fastbob's story about the preordained, multi-billion dollar success of VCSY's litigation. He just can't fill in any of the details for his central plot. I guess it's a good thing that fastbob isn't trying to make a living as a novelist and restricts his forays in to realms of fictional mystery to stock message boards.
P.S. To you investors out there who want me to tell me yet again to "can it" because you're sick and tired of me attacking VCSY like this, read this post again before you post that inane crap again. You will find no negative comments whatsoever nor even any vague suggestions about VCSY, its chances of winning the patent lottery, or its future business prospects. If you do, then just like fastbob, you've got a little problem with distinguishing between fastbob and VCSY. And probably between VCSY and yourself, too.
It may also be useful to remind yourself as often as necessary that questioning unsupportable or just typically debatable assertions made by VCSY supporters is NOT an attack on VCSY. It's not even an attack on the supportive poster unless you consider it a personal attack to ask someone to back up their assertions of fact or their speculative comments with some evidence and rationale.
Also try to remember that when some of us state the future is almost always uncertain and no one on this board knows for sure how the litigation will play out or how successful VCSY may ultimately be, that is NOT an attack on VCSY. It's just common sense.
I don't really understand it, but these very obvious observations about what constitutes an attack on VCSY aren't obvious at all to quite a few participants on this board. I don't think it's because these folks are FRANTIC or PANICKED. I suspect it's just because some folks have been hearing portuno and fastbob sell them on the certainty of VCSY's success for so long - and sell them on the certain wealth in store for VCSY investors and the certainly evil nature of anyone who questions their alleged certainties - that a few of them now instinctively react as if those obviously arguable conclusions posted daily by Fastbob are actually proven facts. i??
- - - - -
View Replies »
See what I mean? He even uses the 'other poster' to support his findings. If you are stupid enough to listen to 'these two' and not put everything this posters writes on ignore, you deserve to be deceived.
That's right, folks. The sharpest minds in the industry know what's really happening so why are you even bothering with this ridiculous penny stock. You should all go out and buy Microsoft according to these two VCSY 'shareholders'.
By: tepe
09 May 2007, 11:00 AM EDT
Msg. 184584 of 184587
"In cases now arising trial courts should bear in mind that in many instances the nature of the patent being enforced and the economic function of the patent holder present considerations quite unlike earlier cases. An industry has developed in which firms use patents not as a basis for producing and selling goods but, instead, primarily for obtaining licensing fees. ... For these firms, an injunction, and the potentially serious sanctions arising from its violation, can be employed as a bargaining tool to charge exorbitant fees to companies that seek to buy licenses to practice the patent. ... When the patented invention is but a small component of the product the companies seek to produce and the threat of an injunction is employed simply for undue leverage in negotiations, legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement and an injunction may not serve the public interest.
Tuesday's decision, KSR v. Teleflex (NYSE: TFX - News), may be even more significant. In that decision, the Supreme Court made it significantly easier for patents to be attacked on the ground that they were "obvious" in light of prior art. In SCOTUSblog, Michael Barclay of Silicon Valley law firm Wilson Sonsini explained:
This decision makes it far easier to invalidate patents based on obviousness. Thus, this is the most important patent case of the last 20 years, and perhaps since the passage of the 1952 Patent Act. Virtually every litigated patent case includes an assertion of obviousness – and ones that might not have included that defense up until now are more likely to do so. The PTO examines every patent application for obviousness. [The case] will thus have an enormous impact on both the prosecution and litigation aspects of patent practice."
http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070502/34302_id.html?.v=1
Oh well, I think you're smart enough to be able to smell what's mixed in with the match odor.
Posted by Portuno Diamo
at 11:02 AM EDT
Updated: Wednesday, 9 May 2007 11:41 AM EDT
don't ask
chillin'
quizzical
caffeinated
spacey
accident prone
hug me
suave
amorous