(don't know the exact date of this post, but the repost was dated Sept. 28, 2006)
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3810960476663402897&postID=5819265003338918632
WHY did the Great MICROSOFT want the patent for themselves if it is nothing? Why did the patent office reject the challenge of the Great MS in favor of VCSY and Davison? If the products by VCSY aren't much, why did Microsoft want the technology so bad they filed the challenge? Why has Microsoft not simply bought the license to the VCSY XML products? Could it be that the products are NOT available to Microsoft to purchase or anyone else since a deal was made for them FIVE years ago. Why has Microsoft, after Steve Ballmer stated 'XML is Revolutionary' gone all the way around the area of the VCSY XML patent so not to infringe on it and spent billions of bucks trying to do what the VCSY XML products could do for them YEARS ago? Has MSFT infringed on the patents since they found no way to go around them? I know you will come back with 'how do you know that' and I can only say from watching MSFT over all these years, reading and also reading what Portuno has said on the topic and I do think port is a genius at software, regardless of what you think of him as a person.
I think Microsoft would have loved to buy the license to the XML patents but couldn't. Remember, Richard Wade put an add touting the XML products in a magazine right in Redmond, Washington, right in front of the doorsteps of Microsoft and also 'touted' the fact, yes FACT, that IBM in February 2001 highlighted VCSY as a 'TOP 40 Innovator of the YEAR' and showcased VCSY on the IBM website for ALL to see and read about. That isn't a coincidence to me and shouldn't be for you...I think you were during that time period and should remember how big a deal it was for VCSY.
And, why did the BIG BLUE IBM stop working on their own XML enabler if the product by VCSY was just a so so XML product?
I can answer those questions for ya, if you can't think of a good reason. The XML products haven't been marketed for FIVE years by VCSY because they are tied up in a deal, already and NOT AVAILABLE for sale. That means a lot of money on the table for those so so VCSY XML products FIVE years ago.
My posts are not just about the VCSY 'patent' being published but it is part of the whole and the 'whole' is the basis of the 'parts' and those add up to BIG BUCKS for VCSY from some source and IBM is the only one that has came out with a new, improved XML product called DB2.9 ('v'iper) that has been in development (according to the Big Blue IBM, itself) for FIVE YEARS.
Go back through the 'time frame' post of mine and see the 'parts' become almost the 'whole' picture. NOW, we wait for the 'whole' thing with announcements by either IBM or VCSY or both.
Oh! Do you have any thoughts on WHY(?) IBM announced the 'white paper' on their XML product DB2.9 would be available September 22nd and it is still not published by IBM? Could IBM be having second thoughts on what company to include or not? Could IBM be having thoughts if about including the 'core' technology in the DB2.9? I know, a lot of questions but the fact is that the great IBM made the announcement and no 'white paper' as yet. Makes a person wonder what happened over at Big Blue.
Also, IBM is certainly concerned about their patents and going forward with a website that will list all 40,000 patents (that's a lot of mega bucks for mega experts to go through for answers) when the patents are available on the US Patent Office site somewhere and a search would give the same results. And, IBM says it is to stop the 'me2' lawsuits. I would have simply said 'infringement' suits but 'me2' sounds nicer, don't cha think? And, IBM is giving away 100 of those patents to others for free.
I'm not suggesting IBM is infringing on the VCSY XML patents, I think a deal was made and they don't have to use them illegally. Oh! Have you noticed all the new software programs IBM is going to release about the same time as the DB2.9? MANY, MANY is the answer.
To close this off, 'they have a patent' isn't too weak to say as part of the whole.
RR
1 comment:
I actually like Port as a person, judging only from his personality in posts that is.
Post a Comment