VCSY - A Laughing Place #2

Wednesday, 15 July 2009

The Ring of Fire
Mood:

amorous
Now Playing: "Johnny Crash" Country musical featuring papier mache' horsies and lace chaps. (leather accesseries)
Topic: Reference

Those of you watching from the parapets should be able to recognize what just happened here.

It's like sitting on the roof in the city and hearing a car crash a few blocks away. You don't have to be sitting on the curb watching to be able to tell what happened.

http://reddevnews.com/articles/2009/07/13/w3c-pulls-plug-on-xhtml-2.aspx

W3C Pulls Plug on XHTML 2

By Joab Jackson
07/13/2009

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has halted work on the second version of the Extensible Hypertext Markup Language (XHTML), and has instead redirected its energies to the next version, HTML 5.

"When the XHTML 2 Working Group charter expires as scheduled at the end of 2009, the charter will not be renewed. By doing so, and by increasing resources in the HTML Working Group, W3C hopes to accelerate the progress of HTML 5," states a W3C news bulletin

...

Version 2 of XHTML is actually a complete rewrite of the markup language, Jones said. "Basically, the vision of XHTML 2 was to start over and fix all the mistakes with earlier versions of HTML," he said. "They were successful in [technical terms], but it never got market uptake. It never got native support in browsers."

...

(more at URL)

----------

"...the vision of XHTML 2 was to start over and fix all the mistakes with earlier versions of HTML..."

You see, once the industry saw something done right the first time, they had to revisit all the stuff they say they would consider "obvious".

It wasn't all that obvious when you blind people felt up the elephant AFTER the Emily language patent application was made. Your consensus didn't come up with a proper dispensation of the novel concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML

And anyone who reads the Emily patent pending information knows Emily is the use of XML as a truly functional and transformative language intended for use with the MLE 7076521 native XML process but uniquely powerful just by itself.

Very interesting timing for the W3C to pack it up in attempting to do what Emily does and they go traipsing over to HTML to see if they can make HTML extensible enough to work around the Emily method.

If anyone would like to argue what I'm saying, please feel free to comment. Better bring your lunch.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 1:11 AM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 15 July 2009 1:26 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Topic: Notable Opinions

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?bn=33693&tid=20676&mid=20676

by normowak

checkmate! 19-May-09 01:04 am

notice that Fish & Richardson law firm does NOT do M&A.....Microsoft called in Ms. Rovner from Weil Gotshal & Manges...They DO M&A.....this is a win-win situation...Either Rovner was called in to close the deal that Fish & Richardson could not close OR Gotshal was called in to do MORE than deal with the patent infringement ... something that Microsoft thought would take 6 weeks to accomplish.....Either way, it appears to be good news! By the way, my first post was several months ago. my post dealt with the fact that Backweb hired Niro 8 months after Vcsy settled with Microsoft....Backweb filed a patent infringement suit against Microsoft...Why in the world would Backweb hire Niro if he blew the case against Microsoft and quite possibly future suits against Ibm and Adobe? Would you hire a lawyer if he pleaded with you to give him one more shot at getting Microsoft because they got away last time ? Many law firms would take a contingency case against the worlds deepest deep pocket company....as i said in that post, Niro played the outcome (Vcsy vs. Microsoft) close to the vest (confidentiality agreement) but he revealed his hand by getting hired by a company(Backweb) to do the exact same thing(file a patent infringement lawsuit) to the exact same company(Microsoft) 8 months after he settled with them.....just a thought...

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?bn=33693&tid=21056&mid=21056

by normnowak

not acting like an ambulance chaser 25-May-09 12:17 pm

if vcsy REALLY did NOT have much going with the patent infringement against microsoft and microsoft was willing to throw vcsy a $2.9 million bone ( license agreement) then an obvious question remains....Why wouldn't Niro file suit against ibm, adobe and others if he could pocket a couple of million dollars for so little work? It has been a year since microsoft agreed to fork over almost $3 million....if that was ALL there was to the microsoft suit. why not file suit on at least ibm and adobe? If, and i really mean if Niro is "just a patent troll looking for a quick buck" he certainly is NOT acting the part... if Niro is really the slim that some make him out to be, having microsoft toss $3 million to vcsy would have him RUNNING to ibm and adobe with his hands out demanding a couple of bucks....no, certainly NOT acting like a hit-and -run lawyer that some have claimed .......then again, i have respect for the #1 patent firm in the country.....there isn't even a close second...

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=23166&mid=23166&tof=30&rt=1&frt=2&off=1

by normnowak

NIRO already had his foot on lawyers throat 13-Jul-09 10:05 pm

for those of you that said that Fish & Richardson looked at Niro as a nobody who would take a handout a run with it, i've got some "interesting " news for you....back on 9/10/07 Fish & Richardson were sued by one of their own lawyers...seems that the lawyer had some patents and one thing lead to another and before long, he was sueing his own "former " employer, Fish & Richardson.....the case settled on 8/14/ 08......Now, these lawyers at Fish & Richardson are VERY smart people....these are the guys that MICROSOFT uses....this "former" Fish & Richardson was "smart" enough to use NIRO as his lawyer....by the way...i guess NIRO did a pretty good job against Fish & Richardson because on 12/23/08 that's 4 months AFTER Fish & Richardson settled, NIRO filed suit against HARPO STUDIO's ( that's OPRAH WINFREY)....interesting that while VCSY had NIRO beating the hell out of Microsoft's lawyers, NIRO was in court "prosecuting" the law firm in another court.....

For those of you looking for information, pay particular attention to what posters say. The more cunning of them try to appear "reasonable" and "conservative". This particular poster should be dismissed entirely.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=23166&mid=23167&tof=11&rt=1&frt=1&off=1

by mirrorfuk

Re: NIRO already had his foot on lawyers throat 13-Jul-09 10:20 pm

Niro did a great job, IMO, negotiating a $2.9M settlement for VCSY, very generous considering how weak the case was. Excellent job by Niro to get *anything* out of this. I never expected it.

Niro sure proved that they are good. They squeezed water from a stone. imo.

The obvious disparity in the information normnowak writes about and the scenario posters like mirrorfuk attempt to pass off to casual readers demonstrates the assertion by longs there is much more behind the covers on VCSY than actually appear.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 12:10 AM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 15 July 2009 12:26 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Monday, 13 July 2009

Interesting threads.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=20576&mid=20576&tof=-1&rt=1&frt=2&off=1

by normnowak

timing is everything.... 16-May-09 11:00 pm

Immediately AFTER Microsoft settled with VCSY (Aug 28th or so) i am sure Raymond Niro was in discussions with IBM.Remember, NO patent infringement lawsuit was or has been filed against ibm....Let's say that Niro came up with a "royalty"agreement over the next 3 months....that would put us into january 2009.....if, and i stress if ibm paid anything to vcsy, it may have occured over the first 3 months of 2009.....the 10Q for ibm on pages 20 and 21 discuss money paid that includes intellectual propery (royalty)....the amount for the jan to march time is $30 Million dollars MORE that the time ending dec.2008.... THAT money would NOT be listed under " Legal" because NO lawsuit was filed..... Just pointing out a $30 million dollar increase in expenses that include "IP"...One other point, Microsoft DID hire a lawfirm to settle with vcsy( markman extension so that new firm could be called in).....Why call in a firm to settle if settlement is so so small????? Microsof't's lawyers ( who settle or fight all the time) couldn't work out a couple million dollar settlement with vcsy ? had to hire a specialist to close the deal? just asking! by the way, 8 months AFTER Niro settled the vcsy case, BackWEB Co. filed a patent infringement lawsuit case against Microsoft......why would backweb hire niro if he did NOT deliver the goods to vcsy? lots of lawyers would take a case (yes, even on a contingency) against Microsoft.........Just asking !

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?bn=33693&tid=20584&mid=20584

by normnowak

Weil Gotshal & Manges 17-May-09 03:00 pm

Rovner is quite the star lawyer...#1.....she works for the law firm Weil Gotshal&Manges...Same law firm that represented Microsoft is its HUGE Eolas lawsuit ( $500 Million before a final settlement). Weil also represented Microsoft in its victory in 2007 against Acacia and MANY others....Weil Gotshal &Manges is also a leader in AQUISITIONS.....If the vcsy patent is as valuable to microsft as we all hope it is, would microsoft want to be on a vcsy chain for the next couple of years? Would microsoft want to take a chance of a competitor (google,ibm,adobe) buying vcsy and having to answer to them? Weil Gotlshal and manges would first have Rovner deal with Niro and the royalty value of the patents....then have the M&A department work out the details.....Now before you start shouting that the shareholders have to vote on a buyout, do your dd and see what percentage is needed.....preferred vs. common share voting rights, etc.

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 9:51 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 13 July 2009 9:57 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

For the curious. If all your friends jump off the Golden Gate bridge, would you do that too?

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?bn=33693&tid=17701&mid=17797

By normnowak

Niro revealed more than he wanted... 17-Mar-09 07:06 pm

part of the Microsoft Lawsuit settlement was confidentiality of the settlement...Niro (vcsy Attorney) has held his cards close to the vest. Seven months after vcsy settled, another company named Cygnus filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft, Google and Apple...Cygnus could hire ANY law firm on planet earth... They hired Niro.... Cygnus would NOT have hired Niro if they had blown the vcsy vs. Microsoft case.. ....Cygnus would ONLY have hired Niro if they believed Niro could duplicate the success they had against Microsoft.... Niro had a game strategy that MUST have worked or Cygnus would not have chose them...CHECKMATE !

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?bn=33693&tid=20576&mid=20576

by normnowak

timing is everything.... 16-May-09 11:00 pm

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_V/threadview?bn=33693&tid=17701&mid=17797

by normnowak

Niro revealed more than he wanted... 17-Mar-09 07:06 pm

Posted by Portuno Diamo at 1:28 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 13 July 2009 1:40 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

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

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