VCSY - A Laughing Place #2

Saturday, 11 July 2009

This date last year we VCSY longs were all wondering what the future might be. We are still wondering what the future might be, but, we know much more and much less today than one year ago today... the day after the scheduled Markman Hearing came and went to accommodate a delay in Microsoft's schedule.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:47 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 11 July 2009 3:48 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Thursday, 9 July 2009

The worm turns.
Mood:

cool
Now Playing: "La Bamba" Horizontal Samba talent show (celebrity contestants)
Topic: The Sneaky Runarounds

I've been waiting for this behaviour to become manifest for a long time.

PING.

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=249607

By: arthurarnsley01
09 Jul 2009, 02:02 PM EDT
Rating:

Msg. 249607 of 249646
(Reply to 249600 by dabbler3248)
Jump to msg. #

Dabbler, MSFT may have bought ‘744 from VCSY.

There is one aspect of the Markham hearing that is a bit of a worry. If MS had gone into the Markham hearing and won then the patent would have been voided. After that every company in the world could have used '744 for free. By avoiding the Markham hearing and paying VCSY $2.9 million for use of the patent MS validated the patent so that no other company could use the patent without buying a license and paying royalties to VCSY.

So MS effectively bought the patent from VCSY for the “chump change” others have mentioned. Isn’t that a dreadful thought? MSFT owns ‘744 and VCSY is out in the cold. That is the way this scenario has unfolded. VCSY may not be in a position to enforce patent ‘744 with any other company that wants to use it because those other companies can now come in the back door and use Microsoft’s Markham defense to avoid paying fees or royalties to VCSY. Google would be home free using ‘744.

So where is the upside for VCSY in all this? There may not be one. It does not seem credible that VCSY won anything in its lawsuit against MSFT and instead may have lost everything. After all is said and done, VCSY claimed the settlement details were confidential, as in, did you want this chump change in $50’s or $100’s?

On top of all that, NOW Solutions’ revenue is shrinking and the time clock acquisition may be a finger in the dyke effort to turn NOW into profitability.

Perhaps VCSY is overpriced at .018.

Arthur

A squeak in the night. The hinge on the gate.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=23066&mid=23066&tof=2&frt=1

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 10:32 PM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 9 July 2009 10:40 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Friday, 3 July 2009

Nuff said.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=22832&mid=22871&tof=1&frt=1

Now we see the value of keeping the technological discussion alive as long as possible. It was to equip longs with sufficient knowledge to be able to ferret out sufficient information about what VCSY has in patented IP.

By this time, the readers know enough about what to look for and how certain aspects of the software technology realm look and act like to be able to do their own survey and comparison against the patent language.

Once they've done that, they end up getting a solid feel for why they're holding the stock.

The average person that wanders up, takes a look at VCSY without a technology knowledge, does a quick financial analysis and bails. That's what original_al is here for; to encourage average readers to get the quickest look and get out. His job is to ensure those who think only about money will see the worst case assumption about VCSY and they will be driven solely by the shareprice.

Thus, the Julie Krafts of the VCSY stock world belong to original_al. Don't you believe original_al's version, julie? That's what you believe now. What did you buy for?

You bought because the "logical" path to follow a Microsoft settlement with ANYbody in history said Microsoft settlement with VCSY would be "about" the same.

But, it was, as normnowak points out, not an "ordinary" event based on a view of Microsoft's history.

So, if you're driven by purely financial urges, you're not going to buy VCSY.

But the people with sufficient technology skills compares the financial aspects of the MSFT settlement with the diagrammed technological architecture, then compares that diagram with a diagram of the technology beginning to be made public and they question the shareprice valuation.

Mirror is slowly being forced back away from his BS line for the past two years, that the patents are worthless.

As I began saying in spring of 2008 (when discussing the signs pointing to a Microsoft settlement) the farther down the road past a settlement you go the more you're going to see the technology complexion of the software industry change toward an internet services base (mostly 744) that is interoperable (mostly 521).

(I say mostly since 744 and 521 compliment each other and provide much of the same benefits only at different scales.)

Now, mirror is being forced to acknowledge the patent language describes a system that can easily accomplish the kinds of "cloud" web services being announced by many large players for almost a year after the MSFT settlement with VCSY. Before summer 2008, those players could only play at the fringes and most could not play at all.

Those who've been studying know that. Those who don't have that acquiring resource are at the mercy of unscrupulous vultures like mirror. Unscrupulous because he uses his knowledge of technology to selectively word a line of BS made of partial truths and out of context inaccuracies. A vulture because he can only reach stragglers and those who don't have a knowledge foundation.

People like Julie Kraft bought based on emotion or poorly done DD. Both preparations generate the same driving force in the ignorant and educated alike. And mirror is there to apply the preparation liberally to every unhaired head.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 11:25 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Wednesday, 17 June 2009

Here is where you will see VCSY IP:(By Portuno)

...all you have to do is look. Open up patent 6826744 and read along with this article:

http://dotnet.sys-con.com/node/1006108

This post found here: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=22176&mid=22176&tof=6&frt=1

and here: http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=248509

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 8:58 PM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 17 June 2009 8:59 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Thursday, 11 June 2009

You Can Pull That String All You Want, I ain't Gonna Talk!
Mood:

cheeky
Now Playing: "What It Were" - Hiphop Easter egg list of egoes and blown heads (violins and brutality)
Topic: Apple Fritters

Just so you don't have to wade through the RagingBull swamp for an important display of information:

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=248289

The SUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
Vertical Computer Systems, Inc., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§ Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-144
v. §
§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Microsoft Corporation, §
§
Defendant. §
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. ("Vertical") brings this action against DefendantMicrosoft Corporation ("Microsoft") alleging as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Vertical is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas.

2. Defendant Microsoft is a Washington corporation and has its principal place of business at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington. Microsoft is doing business in this judicial district and may be served with process through its Registered Agent, Corporation Service Company located at 701 Brazos Street, Suite 1050, Austin, Texas 78701.

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=248290

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEM, INC. §
§
V. § No. 2:07cv144 (DF-CE)
§
MICROSOFT CORPORATION §
ORDER APPOINTING MEDIATOR
IT IS ORDERED that James W Knowles, 909 ESE Loop 323, Suite 400, P.O. Box 7339,
Tyler, Texas 75711-7339, telephone number 903.509.5000 and fax number 903.509.5091, is hereby
appointed as mediator in the above referenced case. The Court designates plaintiff’s counsel to be
responsible for timely contacting the mediator and defendant’s counsel to coordinate a date for the

mediation. Mediation shall be completed by March 7, 2008.

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=248291

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, §
INC., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§ Civil Action No. 2:07-CV-144 –DF-CE
v. §
§ JURY TRIAL
MICROSOFT CORPORATION §
§
Defendants. §
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE AMENDED
INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (“Vertical”), plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered civil action, moves the Court for leave to serve amended infringement contentions. In support, Vertical will show the following.
On November 30, 2007, the plaintiff served its infringement contents against the defendant.Subsequent to serving such contentions, the plaintiff determined that Microsoft’s SharePoint 200 should be accused of infringement in addition to the products originally accused.
Thus, the plaintiff requests leave to serve such amended contentions pursuant to P.R. 3-6(b).

The defendant does not oppose the plaintiff serving the amended infringement contentions.

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=248293

MEDIATOR’S REPORT

A mediation conference was held on July 24, 2008. All proper parties attended. The case has settled and the parties are in the process of circulating documents for appropriate signatures, and to be filed with the Court.
Signed this 25th day of July, 2008.
/s/ James W. Knowles

JAMES W. KNOWLES, MEDIATOR

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=248294

What VCSY asked or in the suit....six items

a. Judgment that one or more claims of United States Patent No. 6,826,744 have been infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Microsoft and/or by others to whose infringement Microsoft has contributed and/or by other whose infringement has been induced by Microsoft;

b. Judgment that Microsoft account for and pay to Vertical all damages to and costs incurred by Vertical because of Microsoft’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein;

c. That Vertical be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused to it by reason of Microsoft’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein;

d. That this Court declare this an exceptional case and award Vertical its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 285;

e. That Microsoft’s infringement be found willful and that the Court award increased damages of three times the actual damages awarded;

f. That Microsoft be permanently enjoined from any further activity or conduct that infringes any claims of United States Patent No. 6,824,744; and

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=248296

It should be seven items

a. Judgment that one or more claims of United States Patent No. 6,826,744 have been infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Microsoft and/or by others to whose infringement Microsoft has contributed and/or by other whose infringement has been induced by Microsoft;

b. Judgment that Microsoft account for and pay to Vertical all damages to and costs incurred by Vertical because of Microsoft’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein;

c. That Vertical be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused to it by reason of Microsoft’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein;

d. That this Court declare this an exceptional case and award Vertical its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 285;

e. That Microsoft’s infringement be found willful and that the Court award increased damages of three times the actual damages awarded;

f. That Microsoft be permanently enjoined from any further activity or conduct that infringes any claims of United States Patent No. 6,824,744; and

g. That Vertical be granted such other and further relief as the Court or jury may deem just and proper under the circumstances.

Thanks for posting the facts, BIFT.

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=248286

By: LV_GaryD
11 Jun 2009, 09:25 PM EDT
Rating:

Msg. 248286 of 248296
Jump to msg. #

The future of this stock

rests in huge part on the patent of Emily. The company will continue to move forward in spite of Emily, but the stock price should surge when the Emily patent is finally granted.

If my thinking is correct, at that point we will hear of several billion dollar lawsuits being filed by VCSY and Niro. These companies know they have been infringing on the patent-pending Emily software for their own purposes and most will attempt to settle quickly.

Mr. Wade's silence is likely mandated by our attorneys.

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

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 10:49 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Saturday, 23 May 2009

TICK TICK TICK DAMMIT
Mood:

cool
Now Playing: Driven Cuckoo by the Clock - Audience finds halftime comes after every quarter (stressed spring)
Topic: Notable Opinions

There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether or not VCSY could be deferring reporting revenue. Now, the Vertical Computer Systems company filing under a new accounting system gives some specifics:

"Where VSOEFV (Vendor-Specific Objective Evidence of Fair Value) has not been established for certain undelivered elements, revenue for all elements is deferred until those elements have been delivered or their fair values have been determined."

In the dotcom era, software companies announced revenue on every item in a contract long before the item would be delivered and often long before an accurate value on the item could be determined. Times have changed and companies must now comply with a more stringent assessment of value for every component deliverable within a contract:

"SOP 97-2, which was later amended by SOP 98-9. These rules say that when software and other items are bundled together in a contract, a company cannot recognize any of the revenue from the contract until the last item has been delivered — unless it can prove the separate value of each item. For example, if a company sells a software license with installation services and 12 months of maintenance, it must either defer all that revenue for 12 months or recognize it proportionately over the 12 months, depending on the particular circumstances, unless it can establish the independent values of the undelivered items."

For background on VSOE (Vendor Specific Objective Evidence) and the difficulties software companies face in complying with the Federal rules:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Software+revenue+recognition+on+the+rise:+technology+boom+expands...-a0173554521

http://www.cpa2biz.com/Content/media/PRODUCER_CONTENT/Newsletters/Articles_2008/CorpFin/Spells_Trouble.jsp

Thanks to various posters on Raging Bull, the readers have example articles for some self-education and edification regarding intellectual property and the value determinations thereof.

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/intellectual-property/757921-1.html

http://www.tenonline.org/art/8905.html

More...

http://www.contractualcfo.com/documents/WhatstheBigDealaboutVSOE.pdf

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2005/405/essentials/p38.htm

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:51 AM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 24 May 2009 12:38 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Wednesday, 15 April 2009

Happy Tax Day
Mood:

celebratory
Now Playing: "Worms in the Waffles" - Exploration crew finds old news they should have read long ago. (family internment))
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY

FYI

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=18704&mid=18704&tof=1&frt=2

Now, compare what you've read in that article to this:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,826,744.PN.&OS=PN/6,826,744&RS=PN/6,826,744

and this:

http://www.vcsy.com/pands/responseflash.php

See how easy it's been all this time for those who've taken the time to learn the technology and architecture? You should see the view from up here.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 2:59 PM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 30 April 2009 9:22 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Tuesday, 31 March 2009

Monkey see monkey doo.
Mood:

celebratory
Now Playing: "Spark Plug Polka" Dancers undergo electric shock therapy without commercial interruption (ritual mutilation))
Topic: Pervasive Computing

Take these 10 principles from the manifesto and present them as the opposite stand. That's what Microsoft, Google and Amazon will have to sell to the industry and the market. IBM has a very easy job and has a marketing hammer by which to allow clients and the market to ask the recalcitrants critical questions.

Simply applying a "not" in front of each sentence subject sheds light on the way traditional software companies have done business and how they want to continue operating.

1. User centric systems [DO NOT] enrich the lives of individuals; education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and society as a whole.

2. Philanthropic initiatives can [NOT] greatly increase the well-being of mankind.

3. Openness of standards, systems and software [DOES NOT] empower(s) and protect(s) users.

4. Transparency [DOES NOT] foster(s) trust and accountability; decisions should [NOT] be open to public collaboration and scrutiny and [NOT] never be made "behind closed doors". (The double negative means "decisions... should be made behind closed doors" to the anti-manifesto player.)

5. Interoperability [DOES NOT] ensures effectiveness of cloud computing as a public resource; systems must [NOT] be interoperable.

6. Representation of all stakeholders is [NOT] essential; interoperability and standards efforts should [NOT] not be dominated by vendor(s). (The double negative means "interoperability and standards efforts should be dominated by vendors" to the anti-manifesto player.)

7. Discrimination against any party for any reason is [NOT] unacceptable.

8. Evolution is [NOT] an ongoing process in an immature market; standards may [NOT] take some time to develop and coalesce.

9. Balance of commercial and consumer interests is [NOT] paramount.

10. Security is [NOT] fundamental, [NOT] not optional. (The double negative means "Security IS optional" to the anti-manifesto player.)

Of course, each party will argue they are NOT putting a "[NOT]" against each point. They will argue for more finesse. But, each finessing point will require a rationale made public and arguing against each of these points in public will damage each party's future posture.

IBM must have a large list of notable players already signed on to force these anti players to engage in "negotiations". Negotiations for what? What strength does the manifesto have behind it and how damaging will an anti-manifesto be for these players in the future?

The manifesto is a baseball bat corporations may now use against those who are posturing to build universal platforms but are angling to present proprietary lock-in platforms.

Google and Amazon and Salesforce, to name the top few, have found themselves unwittingly forced into posturing precisely like Microsoft. Not a good thing when you're trying to differentiate yourself for the beginning of a new age.

What do they have to fear from these?

IBM

Sun Microsystems

VMWare

AT&T

Telefonica

Cisco Systems

EMC

SAP

Advanced Micro Devices

Elastra

rPath

Juniper Networks

Red Hat

Hyperic

Akamai

Novell

Sogeti

Rackspace

RightScale

GoGrid

Aptana

CastIron

EngineYard

Eclipse

SOASTA

LongJump

NC State

Enomaly

Nirvanix

OMG

Computer Science Corp.

Boomi

Reservoir

Appistry

Heroku

Plenty.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:51 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Friday, 27 March 2009

From the other side of the mouth
Mood:

accident prone
Now Playing: "Slap Stick" What they used to use on students (history)
Topic: Endorsements

But, seriously, folks...

Who's strong enough to make Microsoft keep a secret?

From http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=18020&mid=18020&tof=1&frt=2

From comments to this:

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/web_services_browser/cloud_manifesto_is_microsoft_afraid_of_rain.html

portuno_diamo :

These are from a "cloud manifesto" on wikipedia:

1. User centric systems enrich the lives of individuals; education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and society as a whole.

2. Philanthropic initiatives can greatly increase the well-being of mankind.

3. Openness of standards, systems and software empowers and protects users.

4. Transparency fosters trust and accountability; decisions should be open to public collaboration and scrutiny and never be made "behind closed doors".

5. Interoperability ensures effectiveness of cloud computing as a public resource; systems must be interoperable.

6. Representation of all stakeholders is essential; interoperability and standards efforts should not be dominated by vendor(s).

7. Discrimination against any party for any reason is unacceptable.

8. Evolution is an ongoing process in an immature market; standards may take some time to develop and coalesce.

9. Balance of commercial and consumer interests is paramount.

10. Security is fundamental, not optional.

As reported by Mary Jo Foley, a Microsoft representative won't comment on whether these points are in the top-secret "cloud manifesto" Microsoft has been asked to sign.

I thought everybody said nobody can keep a secret?

What kind of power is behind a document that prevents Microsoft’s Senior Director of Development Platform Management Steven Martin from speaking?

One would have to ask Steve Ballmer which of these 10 tenets Microsoft finds so onerous. There seem to be quite a few in there that have run counter to Microsoft's demonstrated way of doing things, so I would have to say "all the above".

I would caution Mister Ballmer to use a rare better judgment and sign what he can see.

It's the things one can't see that end up bringing nightmares into the barn.

Posted by portuno_diamo | March 27, 2009 7:56 AM

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 8:36 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Sunday, 22 March 2009

X Marks the Spot
Mood:

a-ok
Now Playing: "Stupid Goes to School" Imposter finds himself surrounded by experts (reality)
Topic: Calamity

Sorry the text rendering on this site is screwed up so, here's a much more readable version:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3810960476663402897&postID=2251760952382393551

We ask that you be patient with us in this transition.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

http://humourvideosonline.blogspot.com/2007/09/stupid-mirror.html

The following text was cut and pasted and didn't do well in the execution:

Poor mirror needs a reason to post on Raging Bull and Yahoo very badly. So he's resorted to chasing Portuno the Great anywhere he can have a chance at getting a response. Mirror intentionally holds a dying view on the new technology era. He must actively ignore and dismiss new developments as only a delusion and marketing hoax. Time has not been kind to Mirror's credibility. Time has crippled the Microsoft shareprice. Mirror's mindset is what is responsible for the Microsoft shareprice. Ballmer was an early proponent of Mirror's views. Time has now shown Mirror lost the argument. Now he's about to lose his job. Those he represents have lost much because the software industry positions they have tried so hard to protect have changed to what VCSY intellectual property predicted from 2000. http://vcsy.blogspot.com/2007/11/lets-do-ragingbull-tos-dance.html August 25, 2008 8:19 AM mirror said... Portuno has been completely discredited by VCSY's own management and has been under legal scrutiny for penny stock pumping. Be careful when reading anything Portuno says. He does not have a technical background. March 13, 2009 6:55 AM mirror said... Portuno has abandoned his delusional VCSY cause and you won't seem him posting about it here, or anywhere. It seems like there has been legal action taken against him for pumping this his favorite penny stock with lies and deceit. You should ignore everything he has ever written. It will all be removed in due time anyway. March 22, 2009 10:33 AM Anonymous said... Portuno says: Poor mirror is desperate for a chatting partner so he can justify his vociferous campaign against VCSY. Mirror missed being able to even understand the significance of the powers in VCSY's IP to predict massive, interoperable distributed computing which came to be known as "cloud" computing circa 2008-2009. Microsoft's entry into the cloud computing era is Azure which Microsoft announced November 2008. Azure matches claims of patent 6826744 quite well. Microsoft's hesitance to move Silverlight 3.0, Azure and Sharepoint as a full-force integrated concept indicates they don't have hold of the 521 patent permission. We see VCSY delaying the court date indicating VCSY is in the middle of negotiations. We see Ballmer talking about all kinds of "future" work but not able to say he's on top. "If I win..." is how he describes the future for him. And Mix09 fritters by with nothing but IE8 being released as a "surprise" that was sorely needed by Microsoft. Here's IBM and Sun about to strip the market share off Microsoft partners and Ballmer still has nothing to power his partners and client into the heart of the internet platforming concept TODAY. But, today like every other day since 2000 mirror has been pushing one view that's been continuously eroded as time marches on. Mirror missed it because he's been dedicated to the same attitude Larry Ellison used to describe cloud computing as a hoax and bogus and "been done before". Mirror's been shown by his own declared ignorance to be a consistent loser in arguments and events. Of course, Larry Ellison has long since changed course and become a cloud computing vendor. But he's very far behind the curve as Fusion shows only limited capabilities when compared against what IBM and Adobe are able to show. Those who believe like Mirror have suffered a serious setback in their ability to match the current track of those who adopted cloud computing concepts. Mirror continues to hold a failed technology view with no-one to debate any technology with him... while the market shows his technology views are all dated and wrong. VCSY's IP predicted the cloud computing age and the delays taken by VCSY in ending the Ross trial shows VCSY could play a card in the Ross trial that may impinge MSFT given the trail MSFT and CDC/Ross took over the years. Remember, the court hearing of March 18 was to show reason why Judge Solomon should not end with a judgment - that judgment being against Ross. Apparently VCSY has some reason to hold Judge Solomon from rendering their verdict. Sounds like a hammer sitting above the head of anyone who thinks they can simply wait and muscle VCSY out of their position. VCSY has all the time they need. Microsoft does not. CDC does not. As they continue, they must show cards to the industry as IBM + SUn and Adobe walk into formerly owned Microsoft territory and replace the costly Microsoft software with Microsoft-like solutions that cover the 95% of Office use cases. The longer Microsoft walks timidly in the web world, they are vulnerable. Mirror knows that. He knows the game is to play the hammering as long as they can to drive VCSY into accepting what Microsoft is offering. Apparently it's not good enough for Wade. So mirror's work is to distort and damage the public conversation about VCSY and the reputation of VCSY and VCSY's management and shareholders. Wade has had to keep things as secret as he can legally do. Mirror adapts to that defense by using it as an offensive weapon. Mirror characterizes the silence as "suspicious"... all the while unable to explain why his excessive time on message is supposed to be not suspicious. As he applies his work in the last few days before this next Ross case hearing of March 28 he has to be wondering who will blink first; Wade or Ballmer. Ballmer has Ozzie's harried and bewildered engineers pounding on him to get Microsoft into the web game before it's all over for Microsoft. Wade has VCSY shareholders demanding answers to questions they themselves can't create. Mirror's future depends on the outcome. I like watching the whole thing, actually. It proves a great deal to me and justifies my time spent writing about VCSY technology.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:13 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 23 March 2009 1:18 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older

«	July 2009					»

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