Friday, April 27, 2007

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

Howdy, friends.

To short circuit any preconceived view you may have regarding VCSY as a 'patent troll', allow me the opportunity to place this for your perusal.

May I present: Transactional Process Facility (TPF) Vendors and Suppliers (VCSY) - TPF is the foundation of the operating system for the IBM 360 mainframe. Think through what is said in the remainder of this post against that backdrop and the announced invigorated and rejuvenated life legacy mainframes are enjoying via IBM virtualization technology... and we see VCSY nested where we always thought it was since 2001.

Read on, please, or please forever refrain from offering criticism on the lawsuit VCSY will prosecute against Micosoft. Do it as a personal favor to me. OK?

If this appears to be whacked and fragmented it's because I'm rushed. Trying to get this out before the sun goes down. It's a personal bet with me.

Funny, isn't it, the amount of bias that is built into the readers AND the reporters? If it's a big company 'OMG they will be so happy you wrote something for them.' If it's a small company 'Yuck. Eewwww Why would anyone want to ask whether the tiny company has any opinions in the matter.' Do you think it might have helped if the article writers had contacted the company's intellectual property law firm in Chicago? Hmmm? Maybe too much effort for such a little matter. Perhaps we should hire a public image attorney and counsel to see if the most valuable asset of any corporation, its public image and reputation for integrity and forthrightness, is not being served well by those who write articles yet don't attribute the proper referencing? We should look into that.

Again, we VCSY shareholders are most fortunate to have the services of a highly regarded law firm working on contingency basis to pursue the protection of physical work results and products VCSY has in its possessions on top of the fact that they were granted by the US Patent office. Whether the patent office is flawed or no is a subject for much debate. What we do have here is a situation where the patent was issued in November 2004. I doubt any work the Senate subcommittee on Telling Everybody to Stuff Their Individual Intellectual Property Rights Into A Common Good Sock and 'get along' with the Rich & Powerful will have much impact on anything VCSY has done to date. Either that or we're all planning a decomposition of intellectual competition as the haves smother the have-credit-cards-and-a-home-office in their sleep.

Like getting hit with a bar of soap in a sock. By the way, what ever happened to SOAP? Was that a bubble or was MSFT lathering everybody up for the big slip? It left not so much as a bruise on the Web 2.0 world. Where is Microsoft in all these technologies they 'owned'. I think Microsoft only borrowed the stuff ahead of their time. Maybe it was such a hard habit to break, you know, copying technologies from smaller entities and muscling past them to the front of the market crowd.

So you know what Wade did? He went dark and worked in that darkness and is only now coming out into the light. Microsoft thought they would be gone by now. Hell, that ain't so big an accusation when you consider that's exactly what Microsoft is in the habit of doing. First, copying. Let's all come to Jesus and tell the truth, Microsoft is the poster child for copying 'cool new and novel stuff' into marketshare existence. That's the nacent justification in the Microsoft management for having to bow to adopt the end justifies the means methodologies. They HAVE to for the sake of propagation of new exciting technologies so they copied it from existing companies already in the market. And for companies that were just getting in? Wait for the little runt to die.

But that's a diametrically opposed result in Microsoft's hands because MSFT had the opportunity to front the kind of products as VCSY SiteFlash, XML Enabler Agent, and NOW Solutions emPath. VCSY have their own IDE called Emily which they are pending patent. The MSFT argument (and the arguments the shills are using even now) is that 'Frontpage' is the prior art.

The industry will tell the developers what the status of SiteFlash compared to anything Microsoft has... and I believe that is precisely why we haven't heard so much as an admission MSFT know they're being sued. Are they waiting for MiX 07 to be just OVER? They are in danger of being eaten alive by journalists who have known some of this story for the past few months. It started in February 07 with a cease and desist on .Net. We treeforters have been mining the date-mobile for the various stratified events before during and after that date. What about you? Any interesting things happen around your .Net work after that time? Is it making sense, friend? Is it all falling together? Well, hang on to your jstrap because the fuzzies become much clearer from here on out.

The various people smirking and hooting (most obviously worker bees and not management. I think management with an eye for appreciation of system architecture will immediately begin to see the issues and claims that differentiate all of Vertical's intellectual property and products) should recognize Microsoft has not been able to demonstrate significant advancement in their own XML-based market. The most telling item is the failure of Microsoft to address this issue of XML interconnectivity and interoperation via XML over http in their products up front since November 2004 at least when the SiteFlash patent was issued to VCSY.

Why? Prior to late 2004, Microsoft was beating every XML drum it could find. They OWNED XML, don't you remember? MSFT had THE patent to control it all... apparently not much control evident, no? Come November 2004, Microsoft started to experience some sort of palsy limiting their ability to show or discuss various elements of their XML strategy. Did MSFT go stealth as VCSY was forced to do to protect itself from Chinadotcom and Ross Systems? The critics should consider VCSY won their lawsuit against CDC/Ross last week... right before they filed this lawsuit against Microsoft. VCSY settled in the low range of dollars. The last time they did that they also got information aiding them in going after the next fish up the food chain.

That's why Microsoft is next, given indications between some sort of snafu between Bill and Yip last year. What that is or was or will be is no doubt up in the air.

I don't think we'll have to wait near as long as the CDC/Ross lawsuit to get some resolution on the SiteFlash patent and that will inform the agent patent and THAT will inform the patent examiner in the throes of indecision about Emily... and obvious advancement in the art of distributed architecting, creation and deployment.

Interestingly for all us VCSY longs, there are a series of coincidental timings between what VCSY was declared ownership by the US Government and what Microsoft was suddenly unable to do. Things for Microsoft became quite difficult to do in XML from that time on... mens rea comes to mind ... as in the subsequent months moving foreward from November 2004. Google walked away with the Ballmer family jewels as Mark Lucovsky took XMLhttpRequest out to play with him when he went and Microsoft never made a peep and everybody gained AJAX out of the blue. poof. Ajax belongs to VCSY, folks. It infringes on a number of items McAuley and Davison have created from their pioneering status and work in SGML applications and networks and operating systems. Long before XML was 'invented'. LOL

XMLhttpRequest is a primitive form of what patent 7,076,521 was before XMLhttpRequest. Couldn't do the grandfather thing I guess, so they kept it quiet. Lately, Microsoft has created easyobjects in .Net to work similar to 7,076,521 and that will be one of the next battlegrounds. It's not just about web-computers and web-operating systems and web-applictions. It's about connecting from something proprietary like Vista to something different like Solaris using XML/http. Is that done? Fully deterministic so the two can function as one applied computer? Fully governed so the agents acting as middleware and the agents acting as operating modulators can know preisely what the users should and should not be allowed to do throughout the distributed framework? Can't do that between Vista and Leopard? Hmmm? Cain't? Why? Abel you should be. You've spent enough money to be able to do it... but there's something in the way, isn't it. Damn lawyers. Scums of the earth and rocks of salvation.

I mean, really folks... why isn't Microsoft doing what I've described by now? Do they have so many com/dcom people they simply HAVE to use that technology to conserve the number of XML people they have? Huh? blink blink

Why do I think Vista and Longhorn and Viridian and Leopard are delayed? I think the 7,076,521 patent can be shown to be the real problem because an arbitrary and extensible interconnection and interoperation realm is a common architectural requirement to each of those projects... it's much more common to them than the actual functions they each execute and provide severally. The SiteFlash patent 6,826,744 is what describes a system that would look like expression and .net framework integrated to act as one agnostic dynamic application. It sounds like something Adobe Apollo is describing. In fact, there are a number of articles that look and sound like the SiteFlash system... and the funny thing is McAuley and Davison and Wade and Valdetaro are technology pollinators according to the pattern laid down by CEO Wade's old boss Charles Feeney at DFS. The same Charles Feeney who was also at that time founder of General Atlantic.

Where Vista was supposed to be an operating system you could run anywhere from any machine with unstructured data and virtualized resource... you're now kicking proprietary based drivers... that could have been, should have been, would have been obsoleted by virtualized object drivers. Vista is now just another a stand-alone operating system with some sort of extension to the Longhorn server in the future. It was supposed to communicate with the Longhorn management system and the WinFS file system but neither of those are around after many years and billions of dollars... they will be here, no doubt... in the future. And viridian that paragon of hypervising... in the future. Can't hypervise neither Microsoft nor Apple and that spells trouble virtualizing.

You know who CAN hypervise and virtualize and actually rise to the occassion? IBM. And Verizon. The two success stories in SOA. Want to know a rumor? It's as 'speculative' as the Microsoft Vista delay rumor and the Apple Leopard delay rumors. Sure you want to hear the rumor with all that speculation? OK Here goes. The rumor is that VCSY technology is in IBM technology and you don't hear a peep out of VCSY about that. Hmmm. So THAT's why IBM is producing dynamic very high level languages like the 200,000 line language for building the control software for the James Webb Telescope. DONATED to NASA, mind you ... and then NASA goes 'Vista is persona non wanta.' - IBM GAVE it to NASA. There's that philanthropic vein inspired long ago by the likes of Feeney and parroted by Gates and Buffet after the granting of 7,076,521. Fresh and interesting and the perfect way to introduce a next standard for programming environments.

Any school teacher can tell you it's common to conclude that if two boys in class develop a cold at the same time and one of the girls had a cold around the time subtracted for viral gestation... bingo. Two fresh wiseguys kissing the same problem. What do you get when you kiss a girl? You get enough germs to catch pneumonia. And after that, they think they own you. Let's all sing together! IIIIIII'll never fall in love again with a technology again.

You VCSY longs will find the critics will become as quiet and non-combative as geeksqueak once they think a bit past their own trash can and cubicle fabric.

Where the 'content management' argument being used by the architecturally unwashed to compare with SiteFlash parallel the attempted patent block by the use of Microsoft FrontPage as a challenge example begins well, it finishes badly because it can't describe the usefulness of webpages as 'applications' and thus completely misses the architectural construct and the projected implications. Siteflash operating systems can be easily made to be vertical specific... a virtualization of something like Vista, let's say, for the meat packing industry.

From Dreamweaver to Frontpage to Expression, these are all media presentation engines. They are media presentations with interaction between the user and the content/form amalgam. The 'prior art' challenge didn't stand up to SiteFlash patent reasoning (REASONING - only weak arguments count on 'the examiner just granted it to get rid of the hassle. I suppose that examiner's bosses have been fending off criticisms about those two patents ever since, right? Right? Why is it still in force? Intellectual dishonesty does not become you people who are so supposed to be so intelligent.), the SilkRoute challenge didn't stand up to the Agent patent and those arguments won't stand up in the future... just ask Adobe or IBM. And neither FrontPage or Expression can create webpages as applications beyond a media experience... precisely where Microsoft is running for safety from the business arena.

Until expression can make a webpage into a computer, the developers on Microsoft stuff are safe enough outside the infringement zone. But it doesn't help Microsoft's image to have to stand in the crowd when they were so used to having a backstage pass.

Why? Because SiteFlash compared to a content management system is like comparing the Visual Basic IDE to MSAccess. One you use if you want to build any sort of information query and report system. The other you use to build anything you want including a information query and report system.

Each is specialized to produce one type of product. MSAccess produces databases [even though there are ways to create applications that do sophisticated modeling of large datasets using Access (I use access only as an exampled generic database. These same statements can be said of many sorts of database models...) mmmm except for IBM DB2 9 codename Viper with a 'V'. But that's another subject and we'll be there soon enough. These folks are crapping egg yokes about what they don't even understand about SiteFlash. It will take a few days of thinking through for it to begin to dawn on most as they aren't accustomed to thinking past their own component orientation to a distributed affiliation of intelligent autonomous agents developed deployed and deterministically run by an over arching operating architecture. Comparing Site Flash to Vista is like comparing Visual Basic to MSAccess in the range and capabilities and users served.

SiteFlash can make any number of operating systems like Vista in a fraction of the time [dear god one would hope so - $20billion spent in 3 years to do WHAT?] with fewer people each of which uses a higher experience and skill abstraction.

I would not be surprised to see the snotty and profane remarks about poor Emily and her daughters are ignorant farm hands on Farmer Brown's acreage. They can't stray off the property so they sing 'hooray for our side' all the live long day.

And we haven't even gotten to the fun part of the show where the US Patent office gave Vertical a commanding control of XML based methods of interfacing to proprietary datastores and the XML stream at a large.

The simplest PH treeforter knows precisely what I'm saying because they have a block diagram of the transaction sequence from datastore to XML and back across a virtual engine that conducts deterministic transactions with authority, audit and governance. Comparing the agent (let them find the number from now on - we need to save some surprises for them) patent to anything would probably be to make it look something like Adobe Flex with the ability to be a morphed virtual engine micro-kernel with its own markup language and the ability to run as a fully described autonomous agent with dynamic expansion and retraction capabilities in any range of component sets whether content, form or functionality all to do one thing... transact an XML discussion of any sort and any type between objects of any nature or origin.

.Net uses easyobjects. Do you know when easyobjects was made available to the world at large with easyobjects 1.0? January 2006. Almost a year after Lucovsky bailed from MSFT to go to Goog. Over a year after VCSY received the SiteFlash patent.

Ahhhh it's just so tedious. The clowns will just have to look it all up themselves. It's all posted and any dimwit on RagingBull can tell them where to find the information.

But, they're developers, don't you know... and developers are supposed to stay in the dark to satisfy their management's need for plausible deniability. 'Is THAT what the hell that was? Well, by cracky, I ain't never heerd of one of them ... do they cost a lot of money?'

SiteFlash is going to revolutionize the way applications and operating systems will be built. A much tighter integration than Microsoft Expression (form and content) for designers and .Net Framework (functionality) for 'developers' with much larger reach due to their patented micro-kernel engine method and the patent pending micro-kernel engine factory.

What virtualization teaches us (patent 7,076,521 Web-based collaborative data collection system is describing the basis for an intelligent virtualization/transaction engine and patent 6,826,744 System and method for generating web sites in an arbitrary object framework is for an IDE to employ that engine to build anything with any applications and with any code within any object libraries to run anywhere... dynamically. HA HA HA this is going to be more fun than I had thought.) is that we don't need to have one source for our applications or operating platforms. We never did. Maybe the answer is to break up the monolith and let the values keep themselves alive with their usefulness... or die from lack of usefulness.

When I first started learning about Emily and XML Enabler and the hive affiliation work of McAuley in 2000-2001, I already had knowledge of various languages such as FORTH LISP PROLOG on top of PL/I Basic Pascal (starting circa 1979-1980 - Intel multibus development) due to exploratory and corporate work I was doing in 'intelligent drawings and intelligent documents'. You know what is astounding to me? I'm astounded the stupid industry is still just as non-communicative and non-interoperational today as it was ten years ago.

Why do we need developers and programmers to connect applications together? VCSY emPath does with .Net what not even Microsoft can do with .Net. And by NOT DOING I mean... MSFT is only now becoming active now that these lawsuits are going to be coming out. The industry itself sees these signs but sees them in an information vacuum that makes them tilt their heads like the little RCA dog wondering where in the hell all this weird sound is coming from. Master's Voice my cracker behind... it's more like 'Who's in charge here and what happened to this place?'

This is the 'head for the bunker' strategy, except there's a tall fence between them and the promised land. They're going to make a run to the fence to see if they can make it over before the mass of teeth make contact with the behind. That's the body strategy as I see it's language. Running scared, babbling for help and boasting to the dog he can be outrun. Dog's don't sway under psychological persuasion. You have to shoot them.

You know, that brings up a quite distasteful subject for me but, at the same time, truth is what truth is and must be.

James Gray, a phd in transactional process amongst distributed systems and father of much that Microsoft does in their operating systems, disappeared earlier this year. I've often had a queazy feeling when I think about that case. Knowing now the cease and desist on SiteFlash came in February 2007, we should be reminded SiteFlash also can depend on the transactional facilities available within the distributable micro-kernel that is MLE. (reference here earlier information on VCSY as a vendor and supplier to TPF.)

I hate the feeling that creeps over me. Kind of like finding out your sister slept with the night watchman so she could slip on down to the tavern when the Navy's in tow.

I don't like those sorts of insinuations, so I'll just leave that little orchid lay here and let the aroma fill your mind with wonder.

Funny business, the technology business. I have an autographed book by a father of the microprocessor. It wasn't mine, I stole it. Borrowed for life from an associate I interfaced with who WAS in that arena at the time. He would forgive me for the theft as I gave him knowledge in exchange. Fair trade. I always marveled at how incestuous and blood thirsty that industry was while the chemicals and manufactured items I worked with never had a political... or nefarious thought. God forbid any of you tonight should have any nefarious thought... but if you do, remember SiteFlash is a third generation cousin to NewsFlash.

I started in that technology of trying to get data and metadata and methods and parameters to work between documents and their attending computers around 1988 after working in the process computer industry since 1980. Before that I was in a number of feckless endeavors involving technology and 'agents' shall we say. This sort of thinking (the distributed architecture as opposed to the 'operating system in a box' the PC represents. The cell processor is optimized for such languages as MLE because the partitioning can be made deterministic at every state so no possible buggery or memory fouling can occur under autonomous control. Keep the humans out of the computers, folks, and everybody will be much the happier for it.) is so commonplace to me that, I lie not, I never for once stopped to wonder until today what the development community reaction would be to these things.

I think some nasty things will be done and said. I only hope we are all civilized individuals realizing we live in a nation of laws under law with scrutiny and compartmentalization by the law. Lift not thine hand, pilgrim, unless you want to be on TV.

Could somebody just answer one simple question for me? Why won't Microsoft put both expression and experience in the same package? Is this patent scaring them or is there a technological reason why it can't be integrated for interoperation under the hand of one skilled user? The developers had to beg for the tools the designers were being given. And Microsoft was SHOCKED that the developers could use these tools. My oh my what ever for? Maybe they WILL consider putting it in one package. After they own a SiteFlash license.

Please excuse my ignorance, but, I've gotten the impression from reading .net lit that you guys have been having the dickens doing agnostic coupling. You say either and you say either. You folks are all stuck on your several islands of automation still after virtualization became available with Hailstorm... oh, no, I forgot. That wasn't the first. VCSY's XML Enabler was first introduced in the Seattle area two weeks before Hailstorm was introduced in 2001. No $#!@.

Uhhh .... where is the state of virtualization processes in your company inter-departmental and inter-product? Why are dinky companies like VCSY/NOW Solutions doing what Microsoft can not EVER seem to do for it's products or itself? Sorry, that's just weird. Weird. Weird. Weird. But, then, I love FORTH. Go figger.

Usually you would have the people in your company in some sort of concept/develop/deploy/manage/govern framework like SiteFlash. That way we wouldn't have these delays that are so typical like Vista/Longhorn/Viridian and Leopard. Must be a epidemic. So comparing SiteFlash to DreamWeaver to me is like comparing Visual Basic to MSAccess. SiteFlash compared to the basic infrastructural operational capabilities of Vista? Like Visual Basic to MSAccess. Why? Because SiteFlash can use dreamweaver within the framework to build webpages which are computers to siteflash. Siteflash can use webpages to be their own operating systems with no need for external support software. Laying bare and nude on the memory substrate electrified with electrons of low-cost freedom. Holy loo, ye.

Each individual webpage IS the computer or operating system or application in a Siteflash framework. And any webpage computer/os/application can mate and cooperate and interoperate and transact with any other entity of any kind. Duhhhh....

So all the happy things you want to 1-say (content) 2-look and feel like (format) and 3-do (functionality) are handled and made into a deliverable (did I already say they are integrally managed and governed?) that you the user may use, extend, modify reuse... whatever... without compromising but likewise extending the management and governance of the original.

The page is the computer so you don't need to run a browser on Vista to run an application on Vista because Vista can be emulated on the webpage... by siteflash. You don't need Vista because SiteFlash can aggregate functions to do what needs to be done on your application and no need for any thing more. Like... Wow.

Go ahead and tear it down. I welcome any and all comers. I haven't been smacked (you may inquire within RagingBull for verification of that assertion and believe me some have given it the hardest they've thought in ages - not arrogance. fact. It's not bragging if you can do it. DD) so much as a nosebleed in 7 years of describing and defending for the love of the elegance this set of technologies. Granted most of the attempts were lame, but there were some notable ones that ended up betraying their allegiances and they broke off the debate. It's hard not to hide if you have a runny nose.

I own shares in VCSY and that's the depth of my involvement except my freeforall writing (and style). I first began to buy in 1Q2000. I don't work for nor know nor care a rat's nit anyone around in over or under VCSy or anyone else they work with. I HAVE done my fair share of software work and if you want the testimonials I'll have to go back about 30 odd years through Fortune 50 to backwoods stills. I don't give a jaybird's tick about what you think you do and know and have seen, you need to read both of these patents alone (don't worry about Emily... Emily can take care of herself for now - you'll get to know about Emily in due course - you folks have a lot of learning on your hands now that it's apparent to all but the thickest that VCSY is not only going to survive but grow beyond anything we could have projected including the billions the patents alone are worth.) and draw it out on paper how YOU would do it different and why it's already been done before. OK if it's been done before let's see what Microsoft has been working on since 2000. Apple, too. Maybe we'll leave HP and IBM out of it. But maybe SAP. Haven't figured that one out yet. I think they have a two headed monster one of which doesn't shprechen zie West Coast or East Texas.

We at least know what Verizon thinks of VCSY stuff. Look it up, pilgrim. You got some long nights ahead, Charlie. Long nights and lost sleep.

I think there's a far worse fate for an emperor than to be found he has no clothes. He could be found to have nuglets only for fodderhood. Snug up them Jstraps pilgrims because .Net is going to take a swan swim.


Anonymous said...

Thought about a long tale of Crossgrain and BEA--and Msft looking for pants at the web services race in 2000---

But that actually subtracts--In tribute to the above post---by way of windows to the past. (and this fine ship would take on water from a list of those using the IP around this time)---as those still grieving from the passing of PH well know--

Waldo aint that hard to find---
here and here...and over there.. and how can anyone say this isnt waldo here when he looks exactly the same here, and here and what about those two over there.

Anonymous said...

If you had WEB-OS in those days you paid.---the news reported on it---you got what was WEB-OS now---you pay!! Aint no two ways about it.

portuno said...

FYI to all longs. I lodged the following comment because I like to plink at cans.

Alarming Patent Suit Filed Against Microsoft

Evolutionary Goo


Leave a response

Paranoid Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:24:56 MDT

Maybe Microsoft has paid them to sue them. Then Microsoft can easily settle down the case (M$, right?) in a way that makes the rest of the world think like that VC’s claims have been valid.

Then they start suing the rest of the Web Framework companies and destroying them one after another!?!??!?!

Sincerely yours,
Portuno_Diamo Sat, 28 Apr 2007 06:05:51 MDT

I can assure you Vertical and Microsoft are poles apart.

Microsoft has some explaining to do about coincidental timing regarding this patent and another described by myself and other VCSY shareholders on the ‘VCSY, A Laughing Place, Part 3′ site at

We shareholders have been watching this story unfold for 6 and 7 years and have been keeping up with the various events and coincidences all along. Any questions regarding what knowledge we have may be answered at the Raging Bull VCSY Message board at Raging Bull VCSY Message Board URL

‘We’ are not connected with VCSY in any way other than being shareholders, long VCSY, who are very happy with management and the technical team and look forward to participating in a company growth easily as explosive as Microsoft’s in the early 1980’s.

Back in the day, as it were, for softies.

So, take the aluminum foil hat off and turn the electric razor off next to your laptop. VCSY is the last place I think Microsoft would want to be affiliated with right now.

Hopefully, that will change and Microsoft will make good on their November 2004 promise to shield users of Microsoft products from indemnity due to patent infringement. You remember that, don’t you. November 2004 by Mr. Ballmer. November 2004 is also when the ‘SiteFlash’ U.S. Patent number 6826744.

There is a second VCSY patent granted 7,076,521 that we believe influences various developmental bumps Microsoft has gone through in the past five years. It also stands to impact web-based computing on a much more pervasive and ubitquitous scale especially in the marriage of extant legacy systems to an arbitrary system ecology.

There is also a third VCSY intellectual property pending patent and hopefully (uhhhh… we longs are hopeful - you folks aren’t going to be too happy with Mister Softy) we can bring the state of the software art up to 21st century standards out of the brittle tight coupled and automated islands of the 90’s into an agnostic and arbitrary data world of usefulness and the empowered little man or woman or machine.

That’s what the virtualization effort is really all about, right?.. getting beyond the software houses and putting the software selection and improvement in the hands of the users in their own houses or businesses. The technologies owned by Vertical and apparently being made available to those smart enough to be able to work with VCSY in such a way as to build systems out of their patent descriptions without a peep out of Vertical.

Go figger. Some people know a good deal when they see one, I guess.

So, it’s like medicine and we’re like the little thermometer that pushes the little medicine pill into position where it belongs. No harm intended and only a discomfiture for a short time.

Then we wait for the melt.

Sorry for taking up so much space. There’s a lot to say. But not much is being said by Vertical so we shareholders have dug what nuggets of information we have mostly by ourselves. We not only wait for the melt, we wait for VCSY to tell the world what they’ve been doing in XML-based technologies like SaaS and CaaS.


teachrcoach said...

Finally I found the guru of all gurus! After your "exit" from the RB VCSY board, I inquired several times as to your status, but to no avail. FYI, your postings were a major factor in my decision to buy into VCSY! Thank you for guiding me into the light from the dark places of this realm!

teachrcoach said...

For those who do not know to whom I was referring to in my prior post, it is Portuno of course!

poscash said...

You will find that Portuno comes in many flavors! He is the GRANDMASTER!

Riffraff51 said...

teach, there are usually hidden clues with ports messages. Now we all know why he was posting so much about MFST. Anyone have any clue on how much the MSFT Infringement can be be? The amount should be much higher since the patent is being used. I have NO Idea at all