Saturday, July 14, 2007

A Little Yo-Yo Wisdom from the Bull...

By: yo-eleven
14 Jul 2007, 03:01 PM EDT
Msg. 190246 of 190304
(This msg. is a reply to 190224 by benjaamin.)

Jump to msg. #
benjamamin (and anyone looking for an answer to the question) NewsFlash looks to be one step up on FrontPage and not covering the defining characteristics of SiteFlash.

At best NewsFlash is a set of improvements on web publication on the way to becoming SiteFlash but the fundamental capabilities of arbitration and functionality do not appear to be used in the NewsFlash capability as presented in the newspaper sites. To my mind, it would be more difficult to explain to a judge or a juror (maybe even me) how NewsFlash represents claims in SiteFlash than for a demonstration of NewsFlash and SiteFlash together to show the difference.

This appeal to prior art should be about as effective as FrontPage was in trying to stop the patent grant. It's an obvious stall for time - probably to grab market share before finally settling while the competitors grope for a decision on whether to try their own grab for market share.

I think this is another poorly calculated risk/reward chart.

Want a platform? How about NewsPapers as a functional medium for the Semantic Web? Probably more intuitive for the rest of the world than a 'desktop'. How many people work at desks? Well, developers do and managers do and people at the top of those kinds of companies do. I don't like desks. I like to work near the machinery or out on a farm somewhere.

(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)

« VCSY Message list
| Reply to msg. | Post new msg.
« Older | Nwer »
By: yo-eleven
14 Jul 2007, 02:20 PM EDT
Msg. 190241 of 190301
(This msg. is a reply to 190229 by load-up-the-ship.)

Jump to msg. #
Load-up - If you look at what NewsFlash is doing, you can see the construct demonstrates basically the same kind of capabilities claimed by FrontPage, only automated.

If you will look at a google of Newsflash, you will see it applied to a number of newspapers across the US.

Each Newsflashed publication is essentially news content from a particular server location broadcast (affiliated) into each subscribing website. In doing so, the format of the targeted website is employed by the content/format management portion of the NewFlash technology.

Frontpage was cited as a prior art to deny the SiteFlash patent. FrontPage did not qualify as prior art because SiteFlash acknowledged the prior art of content/format management systems and went on to explain why SiteFlash is an advancement past those systems. SiteFlash manages all (any - extensible to arbitrary) compartments of application development (FrontPage is a web-page editor with various general use management functions) and provides an arbitrated management ecology around the application environment.

NewsFlash looks to me like little more than automated content/format management (a full step beyond FrontPage to be sure but 'FrontPage' all the same) as there is no functionality - not even animation - the NewsFlash items being only HTML text and not even XML in the source code.

So MSFT admits as to the viability of the SiteFlash patent, but they're saying it's already shown in NewsFlash. LOL And it's clear NewsFlash is very old technology... sort of like FrontPage which MSFT retired last year.

uhhhh... you're going to risk an injunctive remedy with THAT as a defense?

Stupid is as stupid does. I thought MSFT had some brains earlier when I assumed what I was seeing was a company able to come to terms with the past and move on for a greater competitive advantage.

Now, we get to see the 'business dance'. The one that's satisfied with being mediocre to prove the view that management is right and has been right all along.

Seems some people have a real need for that kind of thing.

That may have worked back when Linux was a distant rumble on the horizon. Until Microsoft feels cocky enough to actually sell products that can compete with what their competitors will be able to field in public, Linux and Google will be determined to acquire those tools and a superior and free reign to take Microsoft out.

I'm just speaking from my own view, but I think this is where Microsoft miscalculated the impact of not settling and what ultimately will cost them the company as a monolithic entity.

I don't see any integrated content/format/functionality management in the NewsFlash items on the level discussed by the SiteFlash patent. I see no arbitration capabilities in NewsFlash. I see no interoperable environment. And saying the word "WebOS" doesn't mean you can 'have' a WebOS, does it Surgy?

Just because I don't see it doesn't mean it's so. I guess we'll have to watch the Judge's reaction. I would suppose he's already studied up on the case. This one will be a great profile for Groklaw, won't it?

Remember, the web has become MUCH much more social and interverbed since the last big clash Microsoft management went through. All those little incremental weakenings of your control over the environment spell greater risk. Discounting those changes increases the likelihood somebody else will to your detriment.

What would Google give to say they can now put out their vaunted WebOS instead of eveeryone waiting until Longhorn 2008? Maybe we'll get a chance to find out what kind of capability GPLv3 could give to a webified Linux.

So this move by Ballmer may be akin to sitting on your fuzzies in a church pew. Let's just say you would be better off being in a Holy Roller church where they excuse demonstrations of sheer foolishness.

If VCSY follows through with a suit for infringing on the XML Agent patent, I think they are going to go for a cooperative effort with Microsoft. I know that sounds crazy. But everybody's got a favored plan and they sometimes push for that against all odds.

On the other hand, wise people also have a counter-plan and that would be what I would think is probably the more favored plan here as it would provide the greatest potential benefit aka The World instead of The Microsoft.

If VCSy does NOT follow through with a suit for infringing on the XML Agent patent, I think they would be going for the throat. No need to press on any other legal remedies as Microsoft will just drag it out as CDC dragged their case out.

A turn of 180 degrees would provide the remedy. Open source the VCSy IP and provide proprietary web tools to carry it off. I'm sure IBM and Adobe would love to help a project like that.

Adobe and IBM-Red Hat would be a scizzors on Microsoft's legs. Google's attack alone ('unhindered' shall we say?) would cut out the Office platform in short order. That would leave a crippled Microsoft still viable for a time but just long enough to morph into neatly packaged acquisitions.

I would remind everyone, it's probably pretty dangerous to gamble against somebody who's controlled a giant company for many years.

At the same time, I believe it is decidedly more dangerous to gamble against somebody who's willing to outwait and outsmart even his friends to get to you.

(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)

(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)

No comments: