|Msg. 187121 of 187124 |
Jump to msg. #
DC- "who wants to discuss the mystery of how the tech and investment worlds have managed to miss the significance of the VCSY patent litigation - as indicated by their lack of interest in buying the stock even at such bargain basement prices - when the world-shaking magnitude of the litigation is so obvious to the relatively less plugged-in denizens of this message board?"
You first have to explain whether the claims are bogus or not. If they are not, what you are watching is the grand brainfart of all time on the part of technological journalists.
If the standing VCSY patents have are fundamental to the operation of web-based applications, we would doubtless hear such from expert journalists, would we not? I agree. What's wrong? I suspect the only real "journalists" out there are people who work for someone who sells advertising to the larger software houses. Thus... conflict of interest in the editorial suite. It would be akin to the court reporter's journal receiving ads from mafia leaders. It is that level of 'report by report'.
Or has VCSY granted stories to journalists already and they are patiently waiting for their promised dated byline? Either way, there's a huge reason why a journalist's editor would act that way. And there's some sort of huge reason a magazine article on MSDN would be written in July 2006 and posted in June 2007.
Why have they not written about it? I think every one of the large software houses wished upon hope and plucked four leaf clovers hoping upon wish that VCSY would simply go belly up and the party could begin. (photo right: Nice socks)
Any one of them active in XML research who claim they knew nothing of VCSY or their technology are bald faced liars. Not just speak with forked tongue. Got two whole sets of faces, Tonto.
Ummm. Me know how fix Buffalo With Four Horns. Make buffalo butt itch. Scratch butt, bleed to death. No scratch butt, make head fall off.
I think the big software houses were waiting for VCSY to collapse. LOOK at the damn thing. It looks like they need to go out and collect cans and pop bottles to stay alive. Can you imagine having to try to do your business in the shadow of a billion dollar giant. Hell, One? Let's say at least ten because VCSY technology impacts so many software producers I wouldn't know where to start counting. And that's just their software disruption. And that's just in software.
Look at the Fiber Optic patent and think through that one. Do a google of cruz+fiber+optic and tell me the hits don't keep coming. Think a bit and then we can begin to answer your question: why doesn't anybody know?
Why? I believe because the reputation of the company was damaged in the early years and very few people believe anything anybody says about VCSY anymore. There are only ~350 loyal readers on the laughing place #2. That's not many people knowing something. Oh wait. We HAD 350 up until a few Wednesdays ago. Then, all of a sudden, there were another 350+ hits on top of that who dropped in on one day to check things out. They were gone shortly after but the bandwidth has gone up. So SOMEbody got curious in a "departmental" sense it would appear. But it's still a very tiny number to have any interest in VCSY at this time when the company had such a spectacular fall from grace in March 2000... when DC and the rest said the company was a scam. Tsk tsk tsk... unknowingly (no doubt) setting the stage for the denuding of company reputation such that with world wide patent announcements STILL a website for VCSY information gets only 350 loyal (and 350+ surprise guests in one day) visitors a day. Peanuts. No wonder nobody believes the story... no money in the bank. No mention of contracts and no PRs saying anybody is even interested. No wonder recy stuck to that line and refused to read anything else. When you read the rest of the story, you see the big smiley face pasted on the bumper of the car about to run the “technology” world down.
And what of the rest of the world? Like you say, patents fall on their face every day. They may sound great on paper but flop on the ground. Your own software houses advise engineers and programmers to not read patents so they don't gum up their creative juices. No. Leave that to the MBAs who will decide whether a market is just too tantalizing to pass up even if it means waiting years for an old fart to keel over. Meanwhile, you stall your customers who know SOMETHING isn't right. Especially the software developers called OEMs. Man, when they find out whether those patents are bunk or real, you won't have to worry about us longs screaming bloody murder. Hoooo boy.
You're a reasonable guy, DC-Steve. Tepe says the fiber optic patent is bunk. He admits he is a mechanical engineer with no knowledge of optics or electronics. But, he stands on his opinion though he absolutely refuses to read or discuss evidence seen explaining how the Cruz patent can be done.
But he says the cruz patent to move whole images through a single fiber of current technology optical class is impossible. The patent admits it's been impossible for a hundred years. But VCSY got the patent on the idea and the activity and the results. And nobody else has. Would the industry stand still for that if the patent were bogus? Look at the googles again and you'll see some of the pinged hits are on things like looking at a moirre mesh through a single fiber to test for power and current and stress. Think about it. No wires from the instrument to the computer. Just individual hairs of glass fiber. Microsopic.
Cruz was an automation engineer to begin with and I would think he would have stumbled on this way of looking at images while trying to come up with a way for a fiber end to "see" refractive images in say strain gauge material and "image" it back at the electronic sensor inches, feet, miles away without electricity. I read something tonight that shows me how it's done (it's sitting out in the open like eveery other elephant Wade's been hiding) and it's so god awful easy to see I want to kick MyOwnass for not seeing it sooner. We use the same aberrance correction methods in giving modern adaptive optical telescopes better eyesight.
Cruz knows how to do this through an atmosphere of glass. A C:!######## stroke of genius old man. Bravo!
$#!@ I'm tingly all over. I wonder how wrong we all are on the software patents.
DC-Steve, You're seemingly a more reasonable person and must admit there is a very slim chance the fiber optic patent is workable. I know you called the company a scam some time in the past, but we're not talking here about their business construct or execution. We're talking about technology and its relevance to modern industry.
If the VCSY technology (both fiber optic patent and software patents) really is baloney then we've all been wasting our time.
But, if it's real, and we see what is predicted by our scenarios, namely that the large Software houses are all sitting there waiting to see if they're going to put out their own versions of the web-application age once Microsoft makes up their mind when they're going to introduce the first "web-applications product"...
Here they all are after trying to build those kinds of things (things made real by the patent methods) since 2001 and failing... and all of them are fielding betas since starting last october-november (Microsoft is just now fielding alphas - methinks they thought they could avoid the snare in october-november but it sprang in the spring) and... what's holdign them back? Why aren't they out there elbowing each other in the gut claiming to have the first product out on the street. It looks like horses shoved into stalls waiting for the little guy on top to kick the ribs and lunge out of the gate.
Funny, ain't it? There are journalists out there alluding to the tension and the uncertainty and the sheer weirdness of the current web-technology world, but they can't quite put their fingers on "IT". Meanwhile IBM is chugging along just fine and VCSy is waiting quite patiently (given the number of products that violate the XML Agent patent AND the SiteFlash patent showing out in the magazines now).
If it's not real then hundreds and may have thousands made a big mistake and we all did the mass-deluded koolaid party of Guyana look like tea with the mad hatter. We was WRONG if those patents are bogus.
Harry Truman is said to have remarked he wished he had a one-armed economic advisor on his staff so he wouldn't have to hear "on the other hand".
If the patents are real, then, everybody made some huge mistakes over the last seven years and there will be a whole lot of quesions why. Keeping something a secret for so long only acts to strengthen the intoxicating effect like aged wine. This will be rich.
Tepe says it's a scam. He says the fiber optic patent is impossible and tells everyone it's evidence Wade is a scammer and a thief. He says we pumpers are stealing from people if they buy VCSY stock.
But VCSY didn't steal the patent(s). Some might think VCSY stole the patents but VCSY told the patent office, yep everybody says this is impossible but here's how you do it. And the patent office (not just one lone examiner sat up in his leather chair in the patent office attic poring over dusty volumes. This false image plays toward the cynicism of the 'patents are for losers' crowd and clouds the truth.) said, ok Mister Cruz, you get the one patent everybody else would be willing to swap nuglets for.
You people portray the world in the most simplistic way when it fits your purpose. The patent office examination involves many opportunities from all sides with expert opinions on each side. If you folks believe the patent office can grant VCSY a patent for an optical phenomena that folks have theorized can be done using a method of image projection IBM played around with a couple decades ago. Crux was an IBM employee at some time in the past.
You employers who have that clause in your "intellectual property" that tells the inventive soul in your employ every new idea he has on your time (hell... even on HIS time) belongs to YOU... you know who you all are. Lemmings that jump off the cliff because your mother says so.
You're a bunch of nitwits lead by fools with MBA's. What you effectively do is drive the inventor out of your company to work on an idea you'll never understand until after he's gained venture capital. And you STILL won't know what to do because you're lead in the technology business (or any other vertical) by people who know MONEY but don't know your discipline or vertical.
Big deal you say. Big deal I say because YOU get only the story THEY want you to hear... and you on your fat butt (not you DC-Steve, I speak allegorically regarding the various flabby and distended body parts so evident in Mister Technology's spandex and lycra) think you're doing just fine.
And then somebody like IBM sneaks up behind you and steals your rabbits in broad daylight and we can all see you now out in the moonlight building cages so the neighbors won't think you were an irresponsible nut for keeping those bunnies in a kiddie pool. I guess nobody told you When it rains, the pool fills up and the rabbits can swim and climb out. They did. Now you're hammering chicken wire and two by fours up on the barn to keep invisible rabbits.
Acropolis? Avalon? Going somewhere?
Somebody almost got what they wanted from VCSY... or at least it certainly looks that way. I feel quite violated as a shareholder that larger companies wanted to TAKE VCSY... not buy. I didn't hear any cases of Microsoft or Sun or Apple or Yahoo or Google ASKING to BUY VCSY, have you?
I would think even the sniff of even ONE of those individual companies asking Doc Wade for a menu and a price sheet would rate a x-K of some sort of filing, wouldn't you? Are you telling me if Microsoft said, 'Hey, Rick. What say you guys put yourselfs up for sale.' and shareholders of a battered penny stock are not told, the CEO could walk away with his skin? Nope. He would have to make at least some noise especially if the 'sale' talk fell through.
So somebody wanted to get what they had (you're telling me the top Tech houses did NOT want the patent material? You're not that stupid, DC. You're smarter than that and you know what the patents say the web-applications technologies should look like is getting to be so obvious it's like parading) and somebody tried to make that happen (ask judge Solomon what she thought was going on in the CDC/Ross thing. Shes not a stupid woman. And she doesn't appear cowed as opposed to the bull$#!@ we had to put up with from the very start of that four year trial.).
They almost took her down. They still could (at least, that's what it all looks like when you read their listings. I know what all that's about and you know what all that's about because bad competition is bad, okay?) and so we wait each day with word of whether VCSy is going to survive and is there news on who mugged her in her own place of business.
Now. IF the technology is bull$#!@ then case closed and VCSY goes away.
Now. Prove the technology bull$#!@.
VCSY has been dying for years because people like Microsoft and Sun and Apple and Yahoo were keeping a death vigil on VCSY in hopes their intellectual property would fall from Emily's unclenched fingers as she breathed her last corporate entity. That's not just an opinion, I think that can be shown using public records aka their very own marketing materials since 2000.
Hey, There's no crime in knowing somebody's going to die. You can sit inches from them while they go through the pangs of the last rattle and be the pope the next day and nobody says anything... until they find out you took something from off the person and copied it some time ago and had it stored in a closet... so that would be ready and able to put out in the open as theirs the day AFTER the sickie dies.
One BIG problem. She didn't die and blow away and, man, there are some pissed off people out there who would give almost everything (still might) to have their way with the technology. And now? I say they're having to wait for Microsoft to make the deal then they can all be off to the greyhound races chasing the bunny for a big bite of hare pie.
Don't like what we're saying? Prove us wrong. The first thing we need to do is prove the technology is pointless or useless and we'll all know. We've all been asking for somebody to do just that and the only ones we've had on this board are a debotched career 'techie' who we don't know who we're talking to who can't get to first base on the first question: Explain how VCSY patent language and VCSY technical language and business are invalid in the current SaaS CaaS Services as a Service world.
Do it. We dare you.
All we need is a hefty like Walter Mossberg (how C:$!### appropriate THAT name is. I couldn't have picked that name for its irony at this point in the technology "know" state if I had made it up in a fantasized life.) willing to take the patent language apart.
Or maybe a mister feeblefritz on one of the science channels take the single image over optical fiber story and dash it to the rocks below. Then we poor deluded minnions of mmmmpphhh will go home and unplug the computers.
Well, I'm waiting for the proof. Heck. Just take the patents to an expert and ask them what they think it can do and then tell us what they said. I want to hear every laugh and ridicule word for word so we can gauge how severe is our psychosis.
HA. This has been fun. I get the feeling it's about to get more fun.
I have only one question: Mister Cruz, what did it feel like when you “saw” the way to do it? LOL