Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
View Profile
« 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
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics
Apple Fritters
Calamity
Chinadotcom and VCSY
DD to da RR
Endorsements
Facebook
GLOSSARY
Gurgle
HP and VCSY
Integroty
Microsoft and VCSY  «
Nobody Can Be That Stupid
Notable Opinions
Off the Wall Speculation
Panama
Pervasive Computing
Reference
SaaS
SOA
The DISCLAIMER
The Sneaky Runarounds
TIMELINE
VCSY
VCSY / Baseline
VCSY / Bashed
VCSY / Infotech
VCSY / MLE (Emily)
VCSY / NOW Solutions
VCSY - A Laughing Place #2
Thursday, 10 May 2007
Web Services Back 2003
Mood:  quizzical
Now Playing: 'All The Live Wrong Day' Workers railroaded into dark tunnel revolt and take train. (Adventure / Swashbuckles)
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY

And Microsoft is all, like, 'we can do that too'. So where is it June 2003? IBM said they were into Web Services. MSFT said they were in too Web Services too.

We see IBM's web services all the way back from here to there consistently engaged. We's been watching Microsoft duck and weave from here back to there but we STILL don't see MSFT's web services.

 

What gives?

 

By: 4sirius1
07 Jun 2003, 10:53 AM EDT
Msg. 113966 of 184832
(This msg. is a reply to 79186 by ÿinvalid_sender.)

***A VERTICAL FUTURE***

Take a look at this older but descriptive article to remind you of the vision and the opportunities before
Vertical. See post# 71968.

I've heard it also means $7 trillion in business
conducted on the Net over the next several years. The article underlines the net effect on business as 12%
added to revenues and 42% reduction in labor costs.

What companies will be able to afford not to have that capability in the future???

Vertical is worth many times more than it's current market cap of $3 million using the pocket calculator. But we're using it to look forward.

Now use some judgment after you consider what Vertical offers to Global E-Commerce.


By the way, it has become old research that Web Services
from IBM, MSFT and others would begin to ramp up in the
3rd quarter 2003--we may be on the cusp.

- - - - -
View Replies »
 

sniff sniff bbblllllaaaaattt fried oysters

Makes me nostalgic when I was posting on Raging Bull. It's like gettting run out of the tenements but I'd a much rather walked out on my own. That 79186 by ÿinvalid_sender. That's me. I used to call myself ÿinvalid when I went into bars full of Svedish waitresses.

No I'm kidding, silly. Svedish is not a real word. You can see 79186 isn't a valid message either. That's because it was removed. I was once a proud portuno_diamo on raging bull but they took me off at recy43's insistence and silenced the tomes for ever... well, not exactly, I went over to PHeaven (my card: http://www.programmersheaven.com/c/authorpage.asp?AuthorID=118252 ) where I was joined by a grope of likeminded RB longs and made a public site there As VCSY - A Laughing Place [aka the treefort, Port Uno, Winky's Wicked Wicker aimed at a special audience and a backchannel [most likeely still as I see many still log on - no doubt to likewise backchannel pro and con - pheaven was a delight for wringing out speculation - much of the long cockiness you see on RB is due to the degree of certainty they've reached  in their DD and projection of facts they have found with the likelihood of scenarios. It to conversate what they call managed risk in a consensus weighted skylark of an 'investment'. The 'you gotta be crazy' quotient somehow or someway clicks across the 'I once was blind but now i see' line on the Figgerdair and it's a whole new world of stations.] about VCSY but he followed us there and insisted the webmaster get rid of the site. We went private as a forum after that, got socialized with our stufy habits and background and now that's 100 ants from a mound that were just recently kicked out right after the lawsuit against .Net by VCSY. I guess being a .Net developer, the webmaster didn't want to see what was going to hit.

So we get shoveled out to other venues like this one and Number 2.

And now we burrow even deeper because we gain a more widely spread coverage with an already deepened social structure content and efficient with messages laid down by a scent trail - some may pick it up some may not but it guides you to the riches that will guranatee the next generation of eggs. 

And to give you a sense of history and prospective, I offer you this trail sign from a little outpost on the edge of reality called ... the highlight zone.

 

Color me Curious 

Not the cat, stupid, this:

http://clearstation.etrade.com/cgi-bin/bbs?post_id=1069916 better known as: 

WARNING: Speed Bump... Maintain Truth 
311 Emily is a perfect fit Portuno_Diamo Mar 7 11:47P

Then tell us we haven't been talking about all this 'new technology' stuff like web services, XML and extensible dynamic languages and framworks since the dotcom days. Where the hell has Microsoft and the information technology industry BEEN for all these years? Have they been wandering in the green fields of illgotten money while we property owners have had to water our lawns with our tears, sweat and, dare I say, wringing out the bedsheets after a long desperate night. Woe is me, woe is ... VIOLA! Gimme a beer! Woe is me.

So if your engine and tranny fall out from under yer ride , it ain't my fault you drive through this here residential neighborhood so fast.

You should stay a little longer and read a bit. You certainly will be doing that later trying to figger out where you missed your chance..


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 2:26 PM EDT
Updated: Thursday, 10 May 2007 2:34 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, 9 May 2007
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.

The Difficulty With MicroHoo: Every Business is an Internet Business

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
Post Comment | View Comments (3) | Permalink
Monday, 7 May 2007
My mama said she wants the cup of sugar you borrowed back.
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: 'Looking Back I Was Mistook' Spinster finds the marriage license she never got was never valid.
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY

Microsoft, Yahoo acquisition buzz fizzles (Updated)

Todd Bishop at May 4, 2007 6:59 a.m.

 

Update, Friday evening: The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News are reporting that the companies aren't considering a merger or acquisition, but they're exploring some sort of strategic partnership.

Original post follows:

Microsoft and Yahoo are again discussing the possibility of a merger or some other combination, according to the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, which was first to report the news. Both publications are citing anonymous sources. The WSJ cautions that the talks are in the early stages and notes that similar discussions previously didn't result in a deal.

Yahoo shares rose in early trading Friday, while Microsoft shares dropped.

As Mary Jo Foley notes, Yahoo CEO Terry Semel happens to be speaking at a Microsoft online advertising conference in Redmond next week. Semel has actually spoken at the same event in the past, but maybe this time he'll have something more interesting to discuss than general industry trends.

Would these two make a good combination? When I spoke to search expert Danny Sullivan in March, he said a Yahoo deal would do more for Microsoft than anything else the company has done in its efforts to catch up to Google in that market. But an acquisition like this would be a monster deal for Microsoft. Even before getting to the potential integration challenges, Yahoo wouldn't come cheap. Its market capitalization is more than $44 billion as of Friday morning.

Update, 9:50 a.m.: A Microsoft representative says the company has no comment. But the reports have clearly gotten the attention of Wall Street investors and analysts. In a note to clients, Sarah Friar of Goldman Sachs assessed the positive and negative aspects of a possible deal. She wrote:

Positively, in our view, an acquisition of Yahoo! would provide Microsoft with technology assets, advertising relationships, and "eyeballs" to prove its seriousness in this market. Negatively, large deals carry significant risk, not least being Microsoft's ability to retain Yahoo! talent. Thus we'd prefer more of a stock-based deal with strong lock-in for current yahoo! employees. We also believe a champion would also have to rise within Microsoft--perhaps Ray Ozzie--to ensure the success of the acquisition.

Update, 10:15 a.m.: Even as Wall Street goes into a frenzy, some analysts are highly skeptical about all of this. "My opinion on the matter is that it's extremely unlikely," said Matt Rosoff, an analyst at the Kirkland-based Directions on Microsoft research firm, when I spoke with him a few minutes ago. While some sort of partnership might be possible, perhaps related to advertising or search, Rosoff listed several reasons why an acquisition wouldn't make sense:

  • The huge price tag. Yahoo would be larger than anything Microsoft has acquired before.

  • The large amount of overlap between the two companies, and the big investments Microsoft has made in building out its search technology and advertising infrastructure in recent years.

  • The differences in the Yahoo and Microsoft cultures, and the likely problems integrating Yahoo employees into the Microsoft business.

  • The message that an acquisition would send. In some ways, buying Yahoo would amount to an admission of failure by Microsoft, and the company doesn't seem anywhere close to that point.

Posted by Todd Bishop at May 4, 2007 6:59 a.m.
Category:
Windows Live, MSN & Internet Services

 

OK My turn with above.

 

...a Yahoo deal would do more for Microsoft than anything else the company has done in its efforts to catch up to Google in that market...



...$44 billion...

Or Microsoft could just give every person on the planet eight bucks each to be their friend.

...in our view, an acquisition of Yahoo! would provide Microsoft with (1) technology assets, (2) advertising relationships, and (3) "eyeballs" to prove its seriousness in this market...

(1) I agree it would bring technology assets but I would surely ask 'what assets?'

(2) Advertising relationships are like bank accounts. If you have the money, you have a bank account. If you have no money, all the bank account passbooks in the world won't make a dollar ... or 'friends' in the ad business... appear. How valid is a bought relationship? For the time being the relationship works well but the warmth runs out just as the meter flag goes down. No time for 'kismet', one might say, as what will be has been.

(3) Microsoft has more 'eyeballs' than anyone else on the planet, don't they? I mean 500 million computers with at least one splash screen that says 'Microsoft', right. I have a great idea. When all those Internet Explorers come on, give people a place to go. LOL Oh, I forget, one of the ideas MSFT has operated by is that the internet is a fad and XML is too hard to do.

So, let's revisit (1) since it's the only thing I think the author thinks is a worthwhile idea as once the money's changed hands and a few months ensue, (1) is the only thing you would be most likely to still have in hand. (2) and (3) are ephemeral wishes paid for by a knocked out tooth. And once they see you're a snagglepuss, count on the laughing to begin. Not in front where your teeth are. In back where you've showed your ass. Why? This line says it all: “...Negatively, large deals carry significant risk, not least being Microsoft's ability to retain Yahoo! Talent...”

So (1) brings us to WHICH? technology as, to my thinking, there can be nothing beyond specialized algorithms and the results of top secret R&D done by Yahoo and their partners that would be anything remarkable to Microsoft. So what is so valuable to Microsoft?

What else but Panama? And what is Panama but a host facilitating a means of connecting one ocean of 'stuff' with another ocean of 'stuff' at different levels with managed commerce (interchange)? This is 'virtualization', you do realize... virtualization as a core technology is much more involved than developers will tell you. But, it's still the ability to transactionally connect proprietary datastores to internet. It's the ability to interconnect different masses of information with each other for a 'transactional relationship'. Old timers would call it intercourse although I am not an old timer. I call it screwing somebody else for fun and profit. Well, that's how I felt about what was going on before July 18, 2007 when Yahoo said they would postpone their two-timing ways after we all saw this piece of paper telling us VCSY was granted patent 7,076,521 July 11, 2006 and Panama was delayed one week later. LATE! And with my sweet baboo's baby! But now that the baby is out (Panama finally delivered February 1, 2007, one week before VCSY sent Microsoft a 'cease and desist' about patent 6,826,744 .) me and Norman's gonna buy us a double-wide and....vvvvvvffsssssssssttttttt

What will be missed by the mainstream 'brains' out there is that Panama is an exercise in managed virtualization (7,076,521 can be said to be a micro-virtualizer at the core of its functional claims aka XML Enabler Agent and Emily Language. 6,826,744 is a management and assembly ecology for such a world built out of all these virtualized and virtualizable elements aka SiteFlash aka what Roosevelt sounds like – the boundaries are probably not clearly defined although I would not be surprised to find the SiteFlash/Emily boundaries are similar as the different uses dictate the different forms) assembled in a dynamic framework apparently more powerful than what Microsoft can show with .Net Framework. I also sense Cranium is more than 'a room' I would wager an environment as any conference toom no matter how glitzy is so much popcorn on a theater seat if actual construction of the applications are not a real time result of working in 'the room'. Otherwise your Cranium is wood also. Lotsa wood getting thrown around.

Yes, I do think Microsoft approached Yahoo on a technology because, if MSFT could by now, they certainly should have by now and we don't know why they would not have done so by now other than to come up with one glaring answer: they're impotent.

They either do not own technology or they do not have a right to the technology they own. We watched a weird dance with Chinadotcom trying to buy Onyx last year and speculated there was a technology deficit in CDC preventing them from fielding effective virtualization without technology available in founding members of Onyx re their backgrounds circa 1994-5 with Microsoft. Onyx nixed the hostile takeover and sold to someone else private. CDC subsequently bought C360 (I think – I can never remember their name) and Microsoft was brought in to help with CDC SaaS system which... who knows.

Anyway, virtualization is in the XML Enabler Agent patent and arbitrariness (arbitration as the system is an ecology for transactional states where the virtualization also represents the transactional states for each granular function or actuation) is in the SiteFlash framework working in conjunction with Emily as a very high level language application environment.

So, is Microsoft saying they can't do virtualization effectively? Why not? That's what Hailstorm demonstrated they are able to do in 2001. Sure it melted but Panama appears to simply be various Hailstorm elements fused and directed to facilitate ad metrics and management.

Like the VCSY marketing material said, Emily and SiteFlash may be anything to any vertical. That's the way fundamental capabilities impact your world in XML when you have the assets. If you do not have the assets, you have difficulty turning out products that do those things.

Microsoft looks to be almost a year maybe two behind Yahoo in fielding web-based applications in a specialized framework for executing their business. As fas as anyone can tell, the use of Microsoft's capabilities on the internet are rather limited in tools and teaching. I do not see any next generation capabilities in Microsoft's Live Dynamics Expression of an Experience in living black and white. The next generation capabilities I do see are the fundamental concepts necessary in mating a proprietary system such as .Net/Biztalk to arbitrary systems on the internet, but I do not see much in the way of Microsoft using those capabilities in producing products.

Maybe I'm wrong but it's like looking at a decoy duck in the pond. Looks like a duck. Floats like a duck. But... It doesn't bob to eat. It doesn't swim around. It just sits there and gets wet when it rains. It just sits there and bakes in the sun during the day. Doesn't sleep when it's night. Doesn't quack when quacked to. It just sits there and gets 'shown' and talked about. 'Mighty fine duck you got there, Walter.' 'Yessir that's a fine duck. What's for lunch?' 'Baloney sandwiches.'

You know, I had a deliciously cynical thought. What if MSFT knew they were not going to shell out $50billion to pick up a virtualized arbitration ecology because...


"The message that an acquisition would send. In some ways, buying Yahoo would amount to an admission of failure by Microsoft, and the company doesn't seem anywhere close to that point."

...but, instead, they wanted the duck to look real so they could line up what ducks they could to hear the 'we got good news and we got bad news' pops. So they bobbed around in the water all day Friday until the sun went down and then Monday morning we'll find they 'flew away home' over the weekend.

If you were a MSFT shareholder going to bed over the weekend with the thought that the huge pile of cash you've come to think of as part yours would suddenly be obligated to those who held 'that other company' shares. If you were sure you were going to have to shell out a big chunk of change for technology and you knew the poop would hit the ceiling fan, would you not want to scare your shareholders straight? Make them think 'Whew, we didn't have to spend 50billion for some ratty technology. We can get it from that whatchamacallit outfit they settled with. I'll be glad to spend whatever that little dinky company wants. It can't be 50 billion, can it?' Nothing will seem as bad as the Yahoo specter seemed.

Actually, it could be more expensive than that. It could be 'priceless'... meaning you don't get it at all especially due to the nastiness and apparent creepy grandfather role and the only way for Microsoft from that point to get on the internet is to hose Novell up real good.

What if Yahoo knew the proposal wasn't sincere? Furthermore, what if they have a license for the use of virtualization and arbitration intellectual property? What does that mean if Microsoft can not roll their own? What it means is that Microsoft stays on the proprietary island like some survivor wannabee. Lovely accommodations. All you need now is a boat.

But wither the boat? And ... I speculateth outrageously here with but what the hell, never stopped me before...what if CEO Wade means taters and not biskits when he says he wants a jury trial? It could mean he's either going to leave after eating his fill for the busy day ahead or he'll be settling in after dinner for a little poke in the plutonium before nighty night.

I would say the choice of Niro et al on a contingency basis indicates Wade will go a settlement route as Microsoft would be worth much more as a friend than an enemy as it's been all this time. At least with the civil infringement he will. I suspect once all the major players and relationships become more easily known, there will be many opportunities for underlings, grunts and gripers to vent about 'so and so said this and here's the transcript' etcetera etcetera etcetera, as the King of Siam so pretentiously repeated.

There are all kinds of ways to play this musical game of hide the spoon... especially when all three parties know the score. Like dancing in the dark; knowing what each other knows to be fact pushes the necessary logic to a level where most people go blind. And the three (maybe more?) know there's something sharp in there for the covenant blood-mixing. That's what makes the dance so much fun. You know there's a knife in there but you don't know if it's a pen knife or a cleaver.

We shall see. We shall see.

UPDATE 

 

Microsoft, Yahoo May Partner to Challenge Google in Web Search

By Jonathan Thaw and Jason Kelly

May 5 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo! Inc. have held talks about a partnership designed to boost their share of the Web search and advertising market and catch up with Google Inc., people briefed on the discussions said.

The discussions are in the early stages and focus on a partnership rather than a merger, said one of the people, who asked to remain anonymous because the negotiations are private. Shares of Yahoo jumped the most in three years yesterday after the New York Post said Microsoft wants to buy the company.

More at URL


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 2:14 AM EDT
Updated: Monday, 7 May 2007 11:04 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, 1 May 2007
When you wish upon a star, wear asbestos shoes.
Mood:  hug me
Now Playing: 'Love Me Some Cornpone' Southern aristocrat throws town drunk in baker's oven.
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY

 

Now that Microsoft has elected to ignore the cease and desist on patent 6,826,744 served February 7, 2007, I suppose they've decided to lure all the developers out there into further infringement against the patent and other property Vertical owns.

"The biggest Mix '07 announcement made on opening day of this week's show was one that Microsoft didn't call out in any of its own press releases: Microsoft is making a version of its Common Language Runtime (CLR) available cross-platform."

Uhhh... You'll need 7,076,521 also, Mister Oz, in order to pull off an arbitrary version of what you're doing. Are you saying you're infringing against this patent ALSO? tsk tsk tsk You would think smart people would act smarter by design.

April 30th, 2007

Mix ’07’s sleeper announcement: Cross-platform CLR

Posted by Mary Jo Foley @ 4:57 pm Categories: Corporate strategy, Development tools, .Net Framework, Code names, Silverlight (wpf/e), MIX07

I agree with my ZDNet blogging colleague Ryan Stewart. The biggest Mix '07 announcement made on opening day of this week's show was one that Microsoft didn't call out in any of its own press releases: Microsoft is making a version of its Common Language Runtime (CLR) available cross-platform.

The CLR is the heart of Microsoft's .Net Framework programming model. So, by association, the .Net Framework isn't just for Windows any more.

Silverlight 1.1, an alpha version of which Microsoft has made available for download, includes a very slimmed down version of the CLR, plus the newly announced Dynamic Language Runtime (DLR). Silverlight will plug into Internet Explorer, Mozilla and Safari browsers, meaning the slimmed-down CLR will run on these platforms, as well.

Microsoft calls the streamlined CLR the "Core CLR." (The Core CLR's codename was Tolesto, which happens to be one of the moons revolving around Saturn, according to the Softies.) The Core CLR will include the garbbage collection, type system, generics and many of the other key features that are part of the CLR on the desktop. It won't include COM interop support and other features "that you don't need inside a browser," the Microsoft execs say.

Microsoft is not opening up the source code to the Core CLR. It is opening the code to the DLR by posting it to the Microsoft CodePlex source-code repository under a Shared Source Permissive license.

Any non-Microsoft developers out there keen on seeing the CLR go cross-platform?

 


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 11:28 AM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, 1 May 2007 12:03 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Saturday, 28 April 2007
Vertical Sues Microsoft and damn proud of it, too.
Mood:  special
Now Playing: 'Your Achy Breaky Crack' Addicts find the supply has dried up and a boat isn't coming in for a few more months.
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY

Friday, April 27, 2007

If anybody wants to take some open shots at VCSY please do. Do be do.

The above is my response to anyone who wants to take a shot at Vertical Computer Systems lawsuit against Microsoft. It's a long article so bring your spectacles.

You should take this seriously and I'll tell you why. Push the little blue title up top there and it will magically take you through the accumulated magic of SGML to VCSY, A Laughing Place, Part 3

where you will find a few of the following pieces of knowledge:

Other VCSY related links

 ...........

Don't think Microsoft is hypervigilent to protect their interests? And why have they not addressed the Vertical interest? It only promises to get more and more vertical. KWIM?

By: mm-buster
27 Apr 2007, 07:22 PM EDT
Msg. 183726 of 183730

 THIS SAYS- microsofts has mounted an intensive campaign for Open XML?
care to comment?


State by state, Microsoft responds to creeping threat
Software empire faces a new front in the assault on its products' dominance
By John Letzing, MarketWatch
Last Update: 6:34 PM ET Apr 27, 2007


SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Ed Homan, an orthopedic surgeon representing a central Florida district in the state legislature, thought an amendment touting open-source document formats he tucked into a 38-page bill wouldn't draw much attention.
But within an hour of the proposed bill's reading in late March, Homan said, he was greeted in his office by three lobbyists representing Microsoft Corp. (MSFT : Microsoft Corporation
News , chart , profile , more
Last: 30.13+1.05+3.61%

7:03pm 04/27/2007

Delayed quote dataAdd to portfolio
Analyst
Create alertInsider
Discuss
Financials
Sponsored by:

MSFT30.13, +1.05, +3.6%)
"They were here lickety-split," Homan said. "I had no idea it was going to get that kind of reaction."
State-by-state skirmishes over open-source document formats represent the latest showdown in a long-running, and so far unsuccessful, campaign to topple Microsoft's sheer dominance of the desktop software application market. Outside of Florida, four other states since January have seen language similar to Homan's included in proposed bills.
Document formats serve as an underlying digital container, controlling access to files like spreadsheets and the ability to share them. Efforts like Homan's could lead to broader use by states of OpenDocument Format, or ODF, an open-source technology promoted by Microsoft's competitors. ODF, analysts say, could undercut one of Microsoft's most essential businesses, by opening the door to alternatives to Excel and Word and other popular productivity applications owned by the world's biggest software company.
Characteristically, as lawmakers like Homan have learned, Microsoft's hardly taking a passive position.
The Redmond, Wash.-based company has mounted an intensive campaign for Open XML, an open format designed to counter ODF. Microsoft argues ODF is a limited technology that can't read Microsoft files very well, and says that Open XML ensures compatibility with Microsoft's full Office suite of products.
'We knew we'd be up against a tough battle, because of who they are and the lobbyist they hired.'
— Texas Rep. Marc Veasey
According to Homan, his open-source amendment has been pulled from the Florida bill, because other legislators "didn't want to go to the mat on one paragraph." But if similar bills are passed elsewhere, a spreading ODF format could prove a gateway to its compatible open-source applications -- whereas bureaucracies, and most computer users, have relied to date on Microsoft Office suite products such as Word.
"File formats for years have been what's really locked people into Microsoft Office," said Michael Silver, an industry analyst with Gartner Inc. Office, in turn, has thrived. Microsoft's business division, over 90% of which is made up of Office products, contributed one-third of the company's $14.4 billion in sales from January through March.
Sensitive issue
Soon after introducing an open document format bill in the Texas state legislature in February, Rep. Marc Veasey said it was clear Microsoft was going to commit considerable time and effort to influencing the outcome.
"Immediately we heard from Microsoft and their lobbyist here in Austin, and we knew we'd be up against a tough battle, because of who they are and the lobbyist they hired," Veasey said.
Veasey is co-sponsoring the open document format bill, which is now being read by committees in both chambers of the legislature.
Other states recently weighing calls to adopt open-document formats are California, Minnesota and Oregon.
Massachusetts was an early adherent of open-document format technology. It began moving certain state agencies to the use of ODF earlier this year, based on a 2005 mandate.
'Microsoft sees what's coming. Things like Word and Excel are sort of like a drug now getting ready to go generic.'
— Florida Rep. Ed Homan
Lawmakers in other states haven't necessarily recommended ODF over Open XML. But Microsoft clearly sees the spread of ODF as a potential, threatening result of their proposals.
In a document Microsoft lobbyists left with Homan, the company downplayed the "minority of voices" arguing specifically for ODF. Open XML, it argued, is a "more robust" option.
According to Veasey, in the proposed Texas bill, "We really wanted to stay away from choosing one format over the other."
"We went out of the way to bring Microsoft in to seek their input in drafting this legislation," Veasey said. Ultimately, however, "they said they thought it was favoring ODF," Veasey said, and declined to lend their support.
Veasey said he would gladly support the adoption of Microsoft's Open XML, if the Texas department of information resources decides that it meets his bill's definition of "open."
The impetus for the Texas bill was similar to that in other states -- a desire to ensure access to archived and current documents regardless of which company's application is used to open them, and lower costs.
Related Blog Posts & Articles


Continued on page 2
1 | 2


(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)

- - - - -
View Replies »

 

.......... 

Read this and think through how many IT managers there are who know what XML predicts but have never had the pleasure of working with it on Microsoft products.

By: explore98
27 Apr 2007, 06:30 PM EDT
Msg. 183722 of 183731
(This msg. is a reply to 183721 by morrie33.)

The only thing that will legitamize VCSY at this point in the eyes of the bashers will be a hugh contract . Why haven t they made any money on this new type of technology,XML. My answer is IBM . When it s ready to be announced watch out .. I was talking to one of the IT managers I deal with about VCSY . I told her that they have a patent on an this xml enabler . She didn t know vcsy but her eyes lit up as she went on telling me all about xml . Boys and Girls , well and bashers too , mark my words ....THIS WILL BE HUGH .....IMO.... EXPLORE�

Folks, if you know what XML can do you know you learned it from reading Bill Gates and OzRay. You know what XML can do and you've wondered for years what's been up with it. Well, friends and neighbors, it's been under cover at IBM, Microsoft and VCSY until more recently as IBM has openly embraced XML and Microsoft has avoided XML like it was black death and VCSY has said 'mmmfffppphh...' while the critics and bashers maintained their self-righteous ignorance and refusal to debate.

One can only wonder what the topic of conversations will be at MiX07. Should be an interesting week ahead. (That's 'ajead' in SPanish)

And when this guy says 'Alarming'... I believe him especially for the 'countless' folks who've been experimenting in their labs coming up with what Microsoft should have sold them in a box years ago... if only they could have. If only they could have spent only a little money and bought a license back then. But, then Microsoft DID promise to endemnify users of Microsoft products from intellectual property suits in November 2004.

Do you remember that? We do.

 

Evolutionary Goo

Alarming Patent Suit Filed Against Microsoft

Posted by Rob on April 21, 2007

A company named Vertical Computing Systems Inc. is suing Microsoft for a patent violation involving Microsoft’s .Net framework. The patent is for a “system and method for generating web sites in an arbitrary object framework.”

Let’s hope this patent doesn’t place countless other Web and application frameworks into Vertical Computing’s cross hairs.

Yep that is quite a worry. Maybe Microsoft will be able to give their assessment of their chances against this suit at MiX'07... I hope, for the sake of all the work you people have put out since... when?

Well, heck, they isn't anything to worry about, salamander. Microsoft has plenty of cash and I'm sure they'll make good on it. Might even let you bring your corporate image in for a makeover and paint job at the next developer's retreat.

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. - Rumplestilsken, I think. Oh, no, that's not right. The google says Sir Walter Scott. Who the hell is that?  Is he a venture capitalist with options? Sounds like it.

 

 


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 1:34 AM EDT
Updated: Saturday, 28 April 2007 1:41 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 26 April 2007
'The Monster is trying to eat Aunt Emily, Uncle Jim!' 'Quick! Run get my check book, Billy Bob.'
Mood:  smelly
Now Playing: 'Eeeek' Mice swarm farmhouse and eat through wallpaper revealing a fortune stashed in the walls.
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY

Looks to me, boys and girls, as if the Monster is in the throes of some sort of fitfulness. Indecision, confusion, obfuscation, wandering, waffling, waking, worrying... What the heck is going on in that upside down bucket?

From Microsoft Watch: 

April 26, 2007 12:09 PM

Microsoft's 'Big Bang' Is When?

Joe Wilcox
Joe Wilcox

Last night's release of Windows Server Longhorn Beta 3 is a monumental event for Microsoft, much bigger than the launch of Windows Vista. How big may depend on when Microsoft releases Vista Service Pack 1.

Windows Server is the nucleus of Microsoft's enterprise strategy, around which all other products—even Windows client—revolve. Longhorn's eventual release, which Microsoft claims will be later this year, will likely set off major software upgrades, including Office 2007 and Windows Vista.

 

.... (SEGMENT - see full article at URL)

When isn't When
But there is a wrinkle—uncertainty which Microsoft has created. Back in November, Bob Muglia, Microsoft's senior vice president for server and tools, told eWeek that Windows Server Longhorn and Windows Vista Service Pack 1 would ship "simultaneously." Such a plan would be quite sensible, as, according to Muglia, "it is one source code base" for both products. Since then, Microsoft has backed away from this coordinated release commitment.

Yesterday afternoon, I asked Helene Love Snell, Windows Server product manager, about whether Microsoft still plans to ship Windows Vista SP1 with Longhorn Server. She told me it was too early to give a date. Huh? How can it be too early if Microsoft already gave a date? It's either, yes, the commitment remains or, no, the plan has changed.

Love Snell gracefully backed out of the corner by saying she couldn't speak for Windows Client. I couldn't argue with that position. Later, I chatted with a Microsoft spokesperson for Windows Client.

"It is too early to talk about SP1's delivery, including whether it will be released at the same time as Windows Server codename Longhorn," she said.

Again, I rebutted that it can't be too early if a major Microsoft executive already committed to a time frame. The spokesperson would only say further that there was "no firm date range for SP1."

Whether or not there is a Big Bang of upgrades—or at least when—hinges as much on Vista SP1's release as Longhorn Server. Already, a number of high-profile Microsoft customers, including Intel, have indicated they would hold back major Vista deployments until release of the first service pack.

.... (SEGMENT - see full article at URL)

Muglia's November commitment is consistent with Microsoft's desktop and server development pattern. So the question: Who's not telling the truth? If Windows Longhorn Server releases ahead of Vista SP1, the Big Bang—assuming it's real—would likely be delayed. If SP1's release is uncertain but aligned with Longhorn Server's release to manufacturing, both products could ship later than expected. Either way, there is potential impact on enterprise deployments of multiple Microsoft desktop and server products.

.... (SEGMENT - see full article at URL)

When is When?
Right now, Microsoft is keeping to the story that Longhorn Server will be released by end of year. But "release" in Microsoft parlance means release to manufacturing, which isn't the same as customer availability. However, Microsoft is taking the position that Longhorn Server Beta 3 is ready enough for some customers.

"We have close to 1,000 servers in the world already using [Longhorn Server Beta 3]," Love Snell said. Microsoft also already has licensed Internet Information Server 7, which is part of Longhorn Server, to "about 50 hosters."

The production use of a testing product is a sign of stability and customer interest. Touting product use also could be a distraction tactic, regarding when the software really will be available.

Microsoft's reluctance to keep its Vista SP1 commitment isn't the only thing missing.

"We will announce the official name when we release Beta 3, which is on track for the first half of 2007," Muglia told eWeek last November. He was right about the Beta 3 release, but why not the name?

Late last night, a Microsoft spokesperson told me that the naming announcement is "imminent." Does that mean a few days, weeks or months? Product naming yesterday or very soon would be consistent with Longhorn Server tracking for release as previously stated.

The release date of either or both products is important to Microsoft and its customers. There is a huge opportunity for Microsoft if the Big Bang theory proves to be true. If there is a delay in the offing, Microsoft wouldn't want to say. Businesses testing for Vista deployments might forestall the process.

Then there is the enormous impact on other products. Many IT organizations will choose to take one bitter pill—coordinated Exchange Server 2007, Longhorn Server, Office 2007 and Vista deployments around the same time—rather than many pills over time. Hence, the Big Bang, and all contingent on answering the question "When?"

Related:

 

Now, given what Microsoft was working on as 'Longhorn' et al was scrapped in '2004' I think it behooves us to look at what happened in the barnyard in 2004 and specifically around the time when the SiteFlash patent was issued and that was November 2004. 

To Wit:

Ah the ebullent mood the entire dotNet development community was in when MSFT announced the 2004 rewrite. Given our discussion in the VCSY community, we wonders what they rewrote as it certainly did appear VCSY was not going to survive that year.

Fog Creek Software

Discussion Board the real world
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 

"Never rewrite", applied to APIs

Interesting article. However, I have the impression that it's basically making the same point than the one Joel wrote years ago about "never rewriting your apps from scratch", only applied this time to APIs.

The truly ironic thing is that people have trashed Microsoft during years for being technically inferior, and now that they are actually trying to innovate and come up with something exciting (like them or not, .NET and XAML do sound very interesting from a technical POV), they are going to lose the war and leave the market open to web-based apps with crappy UIs. Truly another example of "Worse Is Better".

PaulJ
Wednesday, June 16, 2004

OK, I admit it -- .NET violated the Never Rewrite From Scratch rule. Microsoft got away with it because they had two things. First, they had the world's best language designer, the man who was responsible for 90% of the productivity gains in software ...

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Our.NetStrategy.html

........

Longhorn is Windows XP but with a new explorer.exe (written primarily in managed code apparently) that makes use of the 3D subsystem, as well as a couple of new services (WinFS, etc) written in managed code. This is not a wholesale rewrite of the operating system, and really is taking the "gloss" of XP and continuing down that road.

Dennis Forbes
Thursday, June 17, 2004

Oh, and ".NET the MS version of Java"? You could even go further and say that .NET is the MS version of the Lisp Machine. Philip Greenspun wrote once "the Lisp Machine was something truly remarkable; it did things in 1978 that, if we are lucky, will be announced by MS as innovations in 2005". Well, guess what, he was off only by one year or so.

PaulJ
Thursday, June 17, 2004

 

MORE at URL

Having been a Lisperator back in the day, I find it very odd they should talk of this 'Lisp Machine' when three years later the central core of MSFT is working on just such a magical machine to do this sort of thing...Still? I thought they had it in the bag. Did the bag have a hole and did the donuts fell out? Or was that the bag with the eggs?

...........

And, then, later that year...

Posted by timothy on Wednesday November 10, @12:03PM
from the we-guarantee-this-avacado-won't-eat-your-baby dept.
bigtallmofo writes "Microsoft announced today that it will indemnify nearly all its customers against claims that their use of Microsoft software infringed on any intellectual property rights. The only exception will be for embedded versions of Windows, since vendors are able to modify the source code. Is Microsoft opening itself to defending thousands of lawsuits against their customers?"

 ............

But, a bit before that could happen: 

This is an interesting exercise yard for those interested hunting and pecking and scratching and eating. This following selection of niblets is from Enterprise System Spectator - Frank Scavo (excellent information blog).

September 2004 Microsoft-Longhorn-Cutbacks-Threaten-Project-green

 


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:32 PM EDT
Updated: Thursday, 26 April 2007 3:52 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Oh... I thought you said 'Magic Shell'... damn and I bought ten gross of waffle cones.
Mood:  mischievious
Now Playing: 'I cain't hep it, cuz, I'm still in love with you.'
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY

Interesting information regarding what accompanies the recent Longhorn beta release. Looks like Microsoft is going to balls it out. What's the risk when you feel pretty sure you're going to pay what's necessary. All you want now is to get your stuff out on the market to try to grab market share... YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT WITH A BETA RELEASE.

Word came only last month as to whether PowerShell aka Monad would even be in Longhorn. When you look at a list of features in Longhorn, beyond Powershell as a scripting base, there isn't a whole lot of 'there' there.

Ha. Balls to the wall. Shouldn't that be ball to the wall with poor lonley Monad out there?

From VCSY, A Laughing Place, Part 3 

Anonymous said...

long in the tooth this tiger? Does this history relate to the dispute being discussed and if so is it not at the heart of current efforts in the MS development community.

2004--Monad and its "dadddy" -see section 5 of the video --on programmers-- stating that Monad is progressive evolution of .net and how it works with objects.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/theshow/episode.aspx?xml=theshow/en/Episode043/manifest.xml

2005---Microsoft cant decide if monad is in or out of Longhorn---Many want it in but Microsoft eventually says no---a later OS not Longhorn

2005 commentary---prior to it being pulled from Longhorn.

http://www.informit.com/guides/content.asp?g=windowsserver&seqNum=187&rl=1


Monad becomes Microsoft command shell, MSH, and now Powershell

http://www.informit.com/guides/content.asp?g=windowsserver&seqNum=187&rl=1

Gaining popularity--but still not to be in Longhorn---

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/hubs/msh.mspx

This is a big deal and may shake the MS tree by the roots---if Powershell AKA Monad and its .net foundation is founded on, or borrows from, patented property.

Or have I missed the point (here and of the lawsuit) entirely?

Anonymous said...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/management/powershell/faq.mspx

 

 

portuno
said...

Very interesting, invisible man.

The value of a scripting language is you can make very powerful and flexible syntax for dynamic development. With machines doing the development, a scripting language provides a very powerful way to supervise, guide and intervene in the construction/deployment/update cycles.

What makes this kind of thing possible is two layers of abstraction (the first; the machine works autonomously and the second; allows a human regime to access the lower abstractions through higher level syntax and function) mated to the server hardware's installed operating system (should you actually NEED one of those archaic software thingies and we do know they do be do). You do that by providing your big fancy G driven interface (aka Vista or Leopard) with a T interface namely w-o-r-d-s that tell the machine what to do via a command line.

Machines don't need graphics... they need instructions. Text is more flexible, more compact, more direct and thus more powerful than graphics. AND XML is text. Graphics only carry XML tags and various metadata which is the real information interface to the machine. (A graphic is an abstraction of machine commands into a piece of art. The problem is the art's done and you the user don't have much say about what else you might want to do.

With text, the text base may be abstracted (just as with graphical abstraction) from complex to more simple and more powerful. And it may be abstracted up to the highest level which is human dialect and jargon. This is what Emily provides and can be applied to any environment.

Powershell is a text driven regime around the whole (or is there a hole?) of the Longhorn server. Why? Because, as we understand, it the Longhorn server will reside as a little round box in the family closet and will have no interface beyond connection to Vista (and future Microsoft applications) and a necessary set of commands.
Thus... a 'PowerShell' (with what I would bet would be a stripped down version not quite ready for prime time given the sensitivity of enabling proprietary/arbitrary transactioning) allows humans and machines within an XML enabled framework to manage and maneuver the server content and purpose as needed.

I would say Vista will mate through a .Net structure to talk to Powershell to do what magic needs to be done per the Vista user's wishes or per the autonomous scheduling and management features in Vista talking to Powershell.

Just a guess as that would be the most elegantly simple solution. Now... their problem, if we are reading them properly... is that they can mate up Longhorn with Vista over .Net via the family network, but the main question is; how will they interoperate over the internet?

Simple commands and command line syntax are easy transfers for XML over http. Why they wish to do it in brittle dotNet is a good quesion... unless the Framework does what SiteFlash does and facilitates the virtualization of .net structures and communications for XML enablement and transport.

Just a fig. Will others blow the figleaf off the Longhorn server's plans for... how shall I say it?... internet intercourse?

April 26, 2007 10:10 AM

 


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 2:29 PM EDT
Updated: Thursday, 26 April 2007 3:36 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
SiteFlash Patent Squeezing Nuglets in the Seats.
Mood:  spacey
Now Playing: 'Eye to Eye in Frog Level' Yankee lawyers get lost outside of Texarkana and live to express their own deliverance experience.
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY

Anyone curious about how I think VCSY will do defending the SiteFlash Patent (google SiteFlash patent) please refer to the post URL Reply to challenges to SiteFlash patent.

For those of you wanting more information, this involves the lawsuit brought against Microsoft by Vertical Computer Systems for infringement against the first of the following:

Source:  Vertical Computer Systems, Inc.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Vertical Computer Systems a Patent Covering Various Aspects of The XML Enabler Agent

FORT WORTH, Texas, July 13, 2006 (PRIMEZONE) -- Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (OTCBB:VCSY) announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a patent to VCSY for a "Web-based collaborative data collection system." The patent number is 7,076,521 and the patent was issued for 41 patent claims.

Additional information about VCSY's architectural software elements:

Also google XML Enabler

Also google Emily + VCSY

Also google MLE + VCSY

 

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Reply to Challenges to SiteFlash patent

I saw the particular blog article mentioned below earlier today and didn't want to have to put out so much effort tonight (the old social calendar is strained by all the writing KWIM?) but when theSubtleCount put it out there on RagingBull I had to plink the cat, as it were, or we would be looking at stray kittens everywhere. SO I either deal with it here once or a hundred times tomorrow.

First, I would like to say this may all appear very esoteric and arcane to many and it is and the thought of defending such a patent in court might reduce some to their trembling knees, but, VCSY has operational products based on these patents and pending patent properties that may be demonstrated to a jury with only casual skill in software construction, maintenance and use.

I do think we have a law firm fully capable of demonstrating what I can only offer as a feeble attempt.

To Wit:

MORE at URL



Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:08 AM EDT
Updated: Thursday, 26 April 2007 3:12 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, 24 April 2007
They woke up Edger Cacey and he said he couldn't remember what he was dreaming.
Mood:  special
Now Playing: 'Mickey Finnish' A dame's night out on the town gets cut short when somebody spikes her punch. (Comedy/Thriller)
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY

When the rabbles begin rabbling, old Rasta is gonna set the burning tire blockage to light. We'll smoke the bastids out dammit.

rastamafoo's Comments on Slashdot

 

In particular, this comment heya. RESPECT MY AUTHORITIE!!!

by rastamafoo (1092581) on Tuesday April 24, @12:31PM (#18856811)
The following appears to indicate Microsoft not only knew about Vertical's development but that they shadowed that development with their own all along. Given the smallness and insignificant profile of Vertical at the time (today is a totally different story) one might assume Microsoft was simply keeping their own development alive in the sad but likely event that VCSy would not exist past 2002... say... summer of 2002. Hmmm. We wonder who might have convinced them to think that way. Or one might wonder what source inside Microsoft could offer such an assurance.

For the casual reader, consider what Microsoft was doing circa 2001 in pursuit of some sort of .Net Framework (of which they've only recently arrived at in 2007...??? where has their XML capability been before now? Hmmm? Buried in client systems no doubt. ooooo I wonder what those clients will say to Microsoft now that they may receive a cease and desist order similar to what Microsoft received February 2007 [the 6 year anniversary of VCSY introducing the XML Enabler Agent).

Do you think Mister Softy's clients will be able to excise the offending stuff out of their systems? I don't.

http://www.perfectxml.com/articles/xml/dotnet.asp [perfectxml.com]

Excerpts from end of article. More at URL.

# .NET in the short term
The final versions of the full set of .NET components (whether this concerns the development tools, or products from the .NET server family) are unlikely to be available before mid -2001, going by the most optimistic predictions.

"Old" applications built on the Microsoft DNA architecture will still function on Windows 2000 servers equipped with .NET generation tools. The two generations of applications will be able to cohabit without interference.

We therefore do not see any short-term threat for current and future DNA-based applications.

Microsoft points out that tools and assistants to help with migration will be provided with the .NET platform. However, we do not feel that this is an ideal solution, for various reasons. Firstly, migration assistants can never carry out 100% of the modifications necessary. Consequently, it would be advisable to devote sufficient time and resources to this migration. Secondly,transforming an ASP/VBScript application into ASP.NET/VB.NET will not automatically make it a.NET application. It will in all likelihood be necessary to alter the application architecture, so as to benefit fully from the new possibilities offered by .NET.

In future articles we will try to answer some of the questions that you are undoubtedly asking yourself if you have Microsoft DNA applications in production. We will try and draw an accurate schema of the optimum .NET architecture, and will show you the best way to write DNA applications which can be ported to .NET.

# .NET in the long term
Whether or not Microsoft achieves what it has set out to achieve with .NET, it cannot be denied that the way we design applications is going to undergo some changes. With the advent of e-commerce and B2B exchanges, there is already a need for interconnected applications which communicate via an enterprise network or through the Internet.

With this in mind, we can see that with .NET, Microsoft's main aim is to supply tools which can be used to develop applications as easily as Visual Basic did a few years ago, during the golden age of the client-server application.

# What's the verdict?
Pragmatically speaking, and casting aside any preconceived ideas about the Redmond vendor, a clever strategy would be to carry out sustained technology tracking of .NET and as its alternatives, together with the technologies on which all of these are based, i.e. XML and SOAP.

Until the final version of .NET appears, we will continue to keep you informed of technological and strategic developments, with further TrendMarkers articles on Microsoft's DotNet. Stay tuned!

 

 

And, in conjunction with the above masterfully stated opinings, I do dearly love little blurbs like this (Thanks to POS at the PH for finding this minor linken gershlobben.):

Applications are portable (as long as they are Microsoft applications... and Microsoft OS no doubt)
Applications compiled as intermediate code are presented as Portable Executables (PEs). Microsoft will thereby be able to offer full or partial implementations of the .NET platform over a vast range of hardware and software architectures: Intel PCs with Windows 9x, Windows NT4, Windows 2000 or future 64 bit Windows versions, microcontroller-based PDAs with PocketPC (e.g. Windows CE), and other operating systems too, no doubt. (yea. no doubt.)

All languages must comply with a common agreement (the agreement being there be absolutely no arbitrary code in the system. hmmm... I guess dotNet isn't quite as advanced as SiteFlash which is able to run on any operating system with any code and any language. What is this dotNet junk anyway? A woodent decoy duck?)
Computer languages are numerous. Traditionally, new languages have been created to respond to new needs, such as resolving scientific problems, making calculations for research, or meeting strong needs in terms of application reliability and security. The result is that existing languages are heterogeneous: some are procedural, others object-oriented, some authorize use of optional parameters or a variable number of parameters, some authorize operator overload, others do not, and so it goes on.

For a language to be eligible for the range of languages supported by the .NET platform (PING - SiteFlash architecture allows the use of ANY language), it must provide a set of possibilities and constructions listed in an agreement called the Common Language Specification, or CLS. To add a language to .NET, all that is required in theory is for it to meet the requirements of the CLS, and for someone to develop a compiler from this language into MSIL.  (Why? Because dotNet at the core does not run on a web based virtual engine beyond Java. It therefore can not do what SiteFlash or any of the other VCSY technologies do easily. VCSY even uses dotNet to do things even dotNet has not been able to accomplish. Am I baiting all you expurts out there? Of course I am! How else can we drag you limp-linguinied bs-shooters out of the bushes into the skreet? And we can hear your spurs jingle jangling as you try to sneak away so you might as well turn around and face the music. I'll call the dance, ok?)

This seems fairly innocuous at first glance, but the restrictions imposed by CLS-compliance on the different .NET languages mean that, for example, Visual Basic .NET ends up becoming a new language which retains little more than the syntax of Visual Basic 6. (Did you get that all you people pretending to be in the arbitrary coding business?)

The fact that all the .NET languages are compiled in the form of an intermediate code also means that a class written in a language may be derived in another language, and it is possible to instantiate in one language an object of a class written in another language. (Wow)

Today, if you want to create a COM+ object, you generally have the choice between VB6 and Visual C++. But VB6 does not give access to all possibilities, and for certain requirements, you are restricted to VC++. With .NET, all languages will offer the same possibilities and generally offer the same performance levels, which means you can choose between VB.NET and C# depending on your programming habits and preferences, and are no longer restricted by implementation constraints. (Wowie wow wow)

At this point, you may be wondering how this can all be possible. Magic? Not really. In our opinion, there is no magic wand being waved here. To give a more even view of the multi-language aspect of .NET, we would prefer to say that .NET only supports one language, MSIL. Although Microsoft does let you choose whether to write this MSIL code using Visual Basic syntax, or C++ syntax, or Eiffel… (OH YEAH EIFFEL... Hey treeforters... remember the orange and white eiffel tower in the IBM commercial? heh heh heh)

To put it frankly, in order to be able to provide the same services from languages as remote as Cobol or C#, you have to make sure these languages have a common denominator which complies with the demands of .NET. This means that the .NET version of Cobol has had to receive so many new concepts and additions that it has practically nothing left in common with the original Cobol. This applies just as much to the other languages offered in .NET, such as C++, VB, Perl or Smalltalk. (And you business IT guys are dedicating the future guts of your systems to THIS sort of wordplay? Oh yeah we can do that... mumble mumble mumble moo)

So what we need to understand is that when Microsoft announces the availability of 27 languages, we should interpret that as meaning there are 27 different syntaxes. (Damn.  So we have to learn all that to work with dotNet? That's some learning curve boss.)

The most symptomatic example concerns Java. It is one of the intended .NET languages, thanks to Rational, who are currently working on a Java to MSIL compiler. But what kind of Java are we talking about? It is a Java which runs as MSIL code, not byte-code. This Java does not benefit from the traditional APIs offered by the J2EE platform, such as JMS, RMI, JDBC, JSP. This is a Java in which EJBs are replaced by .NET's distributed object model. The label says Java, the syntax says Java… but Java it ain't! (and 'arbitrary' it all ain't)

Of course, the case of Java is a bit of an exception. Indeed, Java specialists see .NET overall as a rather pale copy of Java itself, and consider it to be proof of Microsoft's successive attempts to undermine Java's future. Relations between Sun and Microsoft have been peppered with disputes and lawsuits in recent years. It was out of the question that Microsoft would participate in the construction of Java by offering total support for the language in its new .NET platform. (Oh my goodness Sun... I had forgotten about Sun since Tim Bray called SOA 'vendor bull***' back when they were working with Microsoft on SOA and services. I wonder where Sun is working with SOA/SaaS now?)

From our perspective, the support for Java in .NET is, as it stands, totally unusable if one intends to maintain a degree of compatibility with Sun's J2EE platform.    (Whose perspective?) We believe that its only justification is that it reinforces Microsoft's campaign to seduce developers. Microsoft's strategy is to win over developers in order to benefit from their prescriptive powers, with the aim of eventually imposing .NET on a wide scale. (Wasn't that Bill's plan from the beginningk? Vas ist loss? Der schpiegelshprechen vas inmittzvissing der sprockenvarren unt der larrygehaben? Acht meinen fartzenchaffen!)

Similarly, Microsoft is cleverly entertaining certain rumors, such as the recurring whispers predicting the eventual availability of .NET on Unix systems, even Linux. Linux is increasingly popular among developers, and is becoming a potential alternative to Windows NT as far as server architectures are concerned. By keeping details hazy around the issue of Linux support for .NET, Microsoft can win over fans of the free operating system.
(Or you can always pay them to let you play.)

 

I gotta say you Microsoft people are about as soft-spined and amoral as an urchin. It it weren't for all your big spikes you would be a fleshy mussel nestled in some cocktail sauce. As it is, you're going to get baked out in the hot Sun glare while the seagulls peck you to doom and gloom. Damn what a turrble way to go... spittoee


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 1:32 PM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, 24 April 2007 2:03 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 23 April 2007
The big problem with getting up here is you can't get down the way you came.
Mood:  accident prone
Now Playing: 'Contact Tort' Base jumping lawyers test the limits of their endurance in high altitude conclusion jumping. (travel, sport)
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY

click

...did you bring your BASE rig? I got mine. I guess you'll have to do it the way the hotcha wangy prove their bravery. They wrap this... that's right, it's a giant poison ivy vine... they wrap this around their feet and jump backwards off the ledge hugging the bungees. If they went off head first, they say is too dangerous to the tribes overall IQ. Some reported cases the poor chap would bounce back up to the summit minus a brain. Just popped right out from the g force. Well they were totally useless to the tribe so they hauled up food for them... there's a small village over on the other summit... where they keep the place clean and they become the ceremonial priesthood. That way the village below keeps a high IQ average and their contacts with the gods are an a different level altogether when they come up here to consult with their wisdom and then jump off the ledge.

Me? No thanks. I prefer science to mooka jambo. I would rather do a zero-p canopy with kevlar strings and nine cells over seven for my tender foots and all than rely on the rituals of my ancestors, thanks.

What makes them do it? Well, the poison ivy is sacred to them. 'mooka maka nunka nook' or 'he who anger clawed meat god'. We know it as the common 'notched nuglet's syndrom (nns)' also known in more severe cases as 'Scrot's Terror' or 'litiginitius pullimus inflamus maxidermus' also known as 'miner's dangle'.

The relatives would put a big tub of calamine lotion at the bottom of this tall cliff and the young and old hotcha wangy warriors would step backwards off of the ancient jumping ledge called wanga pangy. 

Plus the promise of pro-active and soon relief from the results of the vine bathed in calamine made jumping a more tantalizing idea than standing here at the summit of plenta pangy rock during the hottest part of the day. Makes me itch just thinking about it.

A perfectly executed jump would have the participant entering the vat to submergience as the vine would then jerk the jumper back up into the air whereby the air would blow dry the calamine and the jumper was ready for a second dip and so on until the calamine provides a thick covering to prevent injury by scratching. An infection in the jungle can be deadly, my friend. Mind the cuts. And say 'excuse me' when they happen.

But some of them forget the last rule and that's hang on until the bounding stops. Many fling their arms out wide as if to bathe in the calamine relief and they end up smacking their heads on the bottom of the pot. Post that, they can't figure out how to climb to the top of plenta pangy to join their wanga pangy priesthood, so they end up working in the bars as clerks.

Those poor bastids what miss the vat and have too much vine? Ouch. Aside from the obvious lack of relief from the calamine they usually have so much loose skin to scratch they often disappear after three or four days...

click 

Darlene... go ask momma why don't daddy have loose skin from falling out of that pine tree. Get yer finger out of there dammit...

click 

Well now. spittooee This here specimen below is a tell if ever a tell was told. Looks like the great big grizzly of the northwest is turned into a moose with dotted lines all over. You don't get to see many of these especially one so big when the mating ritual doesn't go his way.

 

DoubleClick Turned Down Microsoft's Higher Bid

The irony of Microsoft crying antitrust in the Google/Double Click is starting to make more sense: it may be sour grapes, and a regulatory approach may free up the company for themselves – if thwarted love can be reconciled through more proper marriages.

That's a somewhat cynical sum-up, certainly oversimplified, and maybe even a little unfair (there, I've said it so you don't have to) – sometimes it's just business. But the whole thing becomes really interesting when you learn Microsoft offered more for DoubleClick than Google did, and still got turned down.

DoubleClick put its eggs in Google's basket, instead of Microsoft's, for less money – as if business relationships have evolved into star-crossed, money-can't-buy-love affairs. But we all know that's bull, right?

John Battelle, who broke that news, rightly questions the reasons behind it:

The more I think about it, the more the fact that DBCLK went to Google strikes me as a seminal moment in the history of this industry. Microsoft could not win it, despite the cash it was willing to spend. Why?!

According to that lengthy blog post, Battelle will have to think on it a bit and make some  more contacts to make sense of the for-love-or-money outcome (like in most things, why-is isn't nearly as important as what-is – but that's a whole other discussion).

Former Microsoftie Robert Scoble has some suggestions about why a company would turn down a larger offer, including company reputation, employee benefits, better long-term options, more influence, location (at which point we get into a host of arbitrary justifications). But the most interesting one was Robert's first suggestion:

Better cultural fit. I’ve seen that some employees are real jerks during negotiations and can sour a suitor on that person’s company.

At the end of March, back when this deal was a just a gleam in Microsoft's eye, when there rumors were circling via the PR machine about Microsoft's affection for DoubleClick (and DoubleClick's high brideprice), Google didn't even appear to be in the courtship picture.

Briefly-put, DoubleClick wanted $2 billion, and Microsoft seemed to do a spit-take at the suggestion. Don Dodge, Director of Business Development for Microsoft's Emerging Business Team, blogged rather convincingly about billion-dollar gambles, and devalued the DoubleClick to about $600 million – a fifth of the final price.

And then, two weeks later, we learn Microsoft offered more than Google, and lost? Something happened. Microsoft had a change of heart or executives were blowing smoke during negotiations to keep the price down. Or maybe Google was a dark horse competitor, swooping in to take the maiden. And now Microsoft's double-pissed off.

Last week, David Utter noted the odd timing to Microsoft's and AT&T's antitrust complaints, arising just 48 hours after the news broke. Google's acquisition of DoubleClick is a market-cornering move – a market Microsoft and AT&T would rather have cornered for themselves.

The quick antitrust filing could mean that as soon as Microsoft realized they'd lost that market, they began preparing for the fight to get it back.

 


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 2:43 PM EDT
Updated: Monday, 23 April 2007 2:52 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older