... so after the fire engine companies left we ate Mrs.O'Leary's pet bovine.

I will have to do a deeper read of the Charles Northrup patents as they would relate to the VCSY patents within SiteFlash and EmilySolutions. Anyone who knows me might as well be resigned to my enthusiasm and might as well turn the damn computer right now if you even THINK you will say, 'Oh, great, there he goes again. What can VCSY do THIS time?'

I don't want you to over pressure a maypop in the old mudbucket. You know. A nick in the neuron balloon? A dart in the duck's butt? Brain cells are few and precious and you're going to have to expend some few truckloads of them to dispel what I will tell you in the coming posts. In fact, the discussion is purposely obscured so as to somewhat assure only people who bother to dig will find and there won't be boneheads saying 'Portuno said....'.

To wit:

Do Not Read This Sign

If you were a machine you would not be here now.

Note: Because these posts get copied and not all methods of copy preserves the hypertext, I will try to include the URLs for each of the items called out in the post. I don't know that I will always remember or have time to do such always (portuno gotta remember to breath and blink at least) but I will give it the old colleague try. Actually it's not a bad deal because it let's me write the URL along with the tag name first, then, keep that energy by copy/paste into the 'link' tool at the top menu (looks like a chain-link, thus a hypertext link)

So it's:

At face, a view of NOW Solutions Conference but it hides a discussion on patents - specifically a discussion about
Charles Northrup patents: http://ajaxamine.tripod.com/index.blog/1684712/bessy-mae-is-gonna-recompany-me-on-the-autoharpy-key-o-g-lil-darlin/

SiteFlash:
http://www.vcsy.com/pands/siteflash.php

EmilySolutions:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2000_Oct_24/ai_66294854

I do not know where or in what form the Charles Northrup patents exist and I do not know where or in what form the VCSY patents exist. I do know what the patent languages say and I can demonstrate diagramatically a fundamental componentization of a virtual computer framework. Davison of 7,076,521 is an industry expert and pioneer in network management. McAuley of 6,826,744 is an industry and pioneer expert in virtualization.

The XML Enabler Agent is a product derived from a small subset of claims in 7,076,521
The breadth of the total claims describes an elemental computer form capable of drawing commands, reference, design parametry, specification, governance into a minimal-footprint processing engine deployable in any coded language and presented at any moment of operation.

This computer consists of a kernel (micro-kernel) of hard code that makes up the MLE footprint. That engine is able to draw networked information (Davison is a network management expert) (Charles Northrup is a network architecture expert)(McAuley is an information deployment over network expert) as commanded by processes described in the workflow.

McAuley's SiteFlash also describes the elements of a processor although it has a different focus. The engine described in SiteFlash dovetails perfectly with the Davison engine and thus any 'granularity' embodied within the body of a SiteFlash integration is absolutely seamless. The apparent overlap in the 2 virtual engines different level operation actually is not a redundant approach but rather a systemically elegant approach.

The only way to guarantee a completely determinisitic and idealized optimal workflow description on dynamic workflows (and boy a computer is a dynamic workflow!) is to provide a simulation based on an idealized model as a transactional mirror of the real process.

This puts all of this hoorah about what VCSY has etceterra in an entirely other league now to my mind. Comparing VCSY capabilities to Microsoft's operating system is as a bunnyrabbit is to an ant. One poop pellet and it will squash the little bugger and then roll along the ground to fill up the entrance to the nest. This is one gravitationally heavy poop pellets, lemme tellya.

An apparent 'redundancy' seems to lurk in the two patents as the casual reader will recognize both relate to a computational facility and a transactional facility within the claims. There may be other 'relateable' items between the two patents, but, I don't know them at this moment.

These two will serve the purpose to demonstrate what a seamless system we would have (would someone want to make a completely compressed application... one that is operating system, application, framework, network in one scaleable arbitrary software entity. The image is of a single body of code that fits a particular industry in every way including the particular formal and actuary models of each individual and several users.).

SiteFlash and MLE (the agent patent is essentially an architectural description of the MLE [Markup Language Executive] micro-kernel which may be further seamlessly applied in conjunction with the Executive Markup Language, a scripted typeless language environment capable of semantic and architectural abstractions up to and beyond human language.) both SiteFlash the Agent offer and opportunity to place granular agents of any scale on any tool or activity within a host software structure (and hardware structure as we assume the IBM empath temperature modulation system to employ. If not it's one screwy set of branding.).

SiteFlash may use its own processing capabilities to mimic the activities of the granular agents, in effect, executing an idealized version of the aggregated granular processes in the larger supervising environment... without burden or bias. It allows for running a modeled software simulation above (right alongside as the separation via boundary crossing is non-existent wiht these two/three two patented/plus one patent pending) the currently working workflow to flag inconsistencies, to advise on direction of projected outcome, to supervise in governance... etceterra all the way to world dominance by machine if the Massa want.

Except for one stumbling block. Maybe more like a narrow skreet. Wit alleyways.

I have wondered for a while how VCSY could hold the necessary IP to develop an infrastructure comprehensive enough to truly dominate the existing purveyors. That gravity got a hefty weight gain when the Cruz patent was given to VCSY. This is the actual physical network pipes the operating applications and ecological frameworks will run... a potential 100Gbps tunnel to services governed by automated agents of all disciplines as required to completely model business behaviour and actuation... instantaneously.

So they got that part in their pocket. But... you're going to do all that in THOSE shoes? IPv4 is a terminal case of the comic book boos. Nasty. Dangerous. Unsecure... phish stink on here and it's not always easy to nail down where the fish-head of death is.

IPv6 can't run like that and I haven't seen the ecology for supporting them until did a quick read through the Northrup patents. They describe the elements for constructing a virtualized network. A virtualized network would have all the discovery, verification, routing and transport capabilities abstracted into automation frameworks via the same virtualizing layers the aforementioned operating framworks will be built.

The safety lock the big mind in the sky has had to keep all his minions from flying the coup with their own interpretation of the big plan lies in that the virtual network patents and the operational frameworks patents must work together to really obtain the value.

We know web services are ancient. The management of such services in human terms is dismal. The automation of those capabilities are feckless.

Only the aggregation of those capabilities will provide any power to the assembly. All else is silly patchwork on a maypop... and dammit you don't walk too good if that patch blows.

capable of deriving audit trails, compliance audit information assembly, specification of downstream work components