Msg. 193900 of 193903
02 Aug 2007, 02:43 AM EDT
Msg. 193822 of 193899
Jump to msg. #
One thing about RagingBull, they don't have a low character limit like Yahoo.
Did you read today's news about MSFT “wanting” to settle with Eolas? Like my pa always said, “Want in one hand and $#!@ in the other and see which one fills up first.”
It's all beginning to make sense now. Nod nod wink wink. Say no more.
http ://news. com. com/2100-1032_3-5173287.html
The next round in Microsoft's Web browser patent fight will unfold in an obscure bureaucratic proceeding that offers the company and its allies few, if any, chances to argue their side.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) last month issued a preliminary finding that appeared to tip the closely watched case in Microsoft's favor: A patent... may have been wrongly granted, the agency acknowledged.
Sound like a familiar play? You see, it's always very important to examine the words. EVERY word. And repeat it to yourself (you can even move your lips, if that makes you feel more sure) until you know you understand what the word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, chapter, book says.
See, if you had just stopped reading you would think we're talking about today's MSFT strategy against the VCSY patents. "wrongly granted" is what MSFT wants us to believe about 744. That there was error in application criteria adherence and EVEN, heavens me, personal malfeasance on the part of the inventor. Oh my, that do stinketh.
But, no, the above news article and blurb was about their battle with Eolas v Microsoft for (what else?) patent infringement.
Read the article. It will make you feel good.
"Eolas Technologies at the heart of a $521 million infringement verdict against the software giant may have been wrongly granted, the agency acknowledged."
Note the date on the Eolas v Microsoft article that shows us MSFT had the patent office IN THEIR HANDS ready to admit the patent was wrongly granted. Where are we with the VCSY patent 744, Mister Patent Commissioner? Paper plug? Run a pig through it and clean out the lines. You guys have poop in your pipes.
Ask Paul Festa
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: March 16, 2004, 4:00 AM PST
Fortunately for Eolas, there was some good news later: On September 27, 2005, the USPTO upheld the validity of the patent. (Fortunately the patent system has its own checks and balances for making things happen correctly in the examine/grant process. It's not some whacked out college student thumbing through a patent summary with a stamp and a sticky pad.)
Now. Read today's news:
http ://www.washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080100820.html
Microsoft, Eolas seek to settle patent rift out of court
Microsoft is working to settle its long-running patent suit over IE with Eolas Technologies rather than heading back to court.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007; 10:19 AM
Microsoft Corp. is seeking to settle its long-running patent suit with Eolas Technologies Inc. through negotiations rather than heading back to the courtroom.
Now, isn't that a sign of good behaviour? I wonder which judge MSFT is trying to impress. The Eolas case holder or someone else?
Now, let's go to another patent case concerning Microsoft:
http ://www.pbs. org/cringely/pulpit/2003/pulpit_20030828_000447.html
Robert X. Cringely
August 28, 2003
Stupid Microsoft Tricks: Why the Richest Company on Earth Feels it Needs to Cheat
Burst claims that Microsoft negotiated in bad faith for over a year, then stole Burst's patented technology for increasing the efficiency of video and audio streaming. "Bursting" is protected by a total of 37 U.S. and foreign patents. A jury will decide later this year whether or not Microsoft is infringing Burst's patents and whether Redmond actively stole Burst's technology despite having a nondisclosure agreement in place....
What doesn't have to be proved is what was stipulated in this week's hearing. The hearing came about because Burst felt Microsoft was not divulging all the documents it was supposed to as part of the discovery phase of the case....
Microsoft handed over the e-mail messages on a disk, and when Burst's lawyers had printed all the messages they filled 140 boxes. That's a lot of messages, but not surprising for Microsoft, where the business culture of the company literally happens on e-mail.
When Burst's lawyers put the messages in order by date and time, they claim to have noticed a peculiar phenomenon. There were literally no messages from approximately one week before until about a month after all seven meetings between the two companies. This meant that either Microsoft completely suspended its corporate e-mail culture for an aggregate period of 35 weeks, or there were messages that had been sent and received at Microsoft, but not divulged to Burst.
Presented with this charge in court, Microsoft's attorneys acknowledged that the message gaps existed. The messages had been erased by the half-dozen Microsoft employees involved, both from their PCs and from the mail servers. There were no backup copies. The reason for this mass erasure, it was explained, is that Burst technology was unimpressive and not of interest to Microsoft, and the e-mails were simply not worth keeping.
http ://www.infoworld. com/article/05/03/14/HNburstmicrosoft_1.html
Update: Burst, Microsoft reach settlement
Microsoft to pay $60 million to settle patent-infringement, antitrust claims
By Grant Gross, IDG News Service
March 14, 2005
Looks to me that MSFT is fairly pragmatic when it comes to losing skin as opposed to money.
Where to now, Saint Peter?
Yes, yes yes, it's always in the nature of any architecture that the more you see of the elements the more you can see of the whole.
Regarding Burst, they had "...patented technology for increasing the efficiency of video and audio streaming" (pretty self explanatory)
Regarding Eolas, they had a patented method "...for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document" (that's patent attorney speak for any object for GUI interaction you may wish to run on a a browser).
Put the two together and you get... ah haaaaaa!
Now, treeforters, put on your thinking caps and stick some more aluminum foil under there because we's gonna radiate.
The first necessary element in building a web application is the GUI. A GUI (graphical user interface) is the buttons and knobs (actually pictures of buttons and knobs) and various other objects up to and including moving graphics.
The natural extension of dynamic GUIness is the video streamed to the user with controls the user can interact with. Burst had the first part of that patented. But, you need to be able to start and control that object stream. Eolas had that patented. The "with controls the user can interact with" is where patent 521 steps in.
Thus, video streaming and control over the internet is a prime foundational concept. And Microsoft wanted it bad enough to steal it AND to hide information about the coveting and stealing or to come up with "information" and "witness" to "prove" the patent is "invalid".
Not very creative, but they're lawyers, dummy. They're not art majors.
So, concerning the Burst people, the relationship with the Eolas patent covered essentially the automate-able initiation of video (among other elements of GUI controls) and the Burst patents cover the streaming of said video once initiated. Everything you need to have VIOLA! GIMME A BEER! the most dynamic GUI possible on the internet.
Then you attach agents (7076521) to various parts of the GUI to provide a functional component to the GUI and you have yourself a web application.
So the Microsoft "Expression Suite", one would presume, covers building everything from 'traditional' graphics to video based GUI (what you can do when you can tag video elements with XML-based identification and metadata). And supposedly Expression takes up where Frontpage left off... in a sense. The problem, however, in the Microsoft system is that you're either a designer OR a developer. You apparently can't be both in the same package... so Expression and dotNet 3.0 grew along separate tracks.
Why? Because if you combine Expression and dotNet 3.0 together into one package you trample the patented content/format/function management on the internet (it doesn't matter if you do it all day long on your operating system platform - this one is on the internet platform and is thus 'extra-platform' as well as obviously cross-platform) of patent 6826744.
Microsoft might be able to do all this kind of thing on their own operating system but they were stuck on that platform without being able to extend their GUI and functionality to the internet (aka browser platform)... and Burst and Eolas and VCSY and who knows what others stand in their way.
I wonder for how long?
See, what good is building this kind of stuff in R&D labs and on "test beds" if you can't present it on a browser in front of the public?
Well, you COULD be satisfied with doing it on the operating system platform called "Windows" (or OX because as MSFT goes so goes AAPL).
But, in order to be done on the browser, Microsoft found, one will have to contend with an entirely different set of concepts. Whatever patents MSFT might have in it's stall should be sufficient to do all the things one might need do on an operating system, but, when one needs to move "beyond" the operating system (in order to reach those who are not on your platform) one needs something... how shall I say it?... beyond the operating system.
What's out there we can use as a 'ubiquitous' enough platform that is not like the proprietary platform, but can, in fact, be a platform on other operating system platforms?
Well, there's the browser, but, that's a whole heck of a lot of other patents not available under the umbrella of operating system... and Microsoft does not own them. Oh, they want to build and develop the stuff in, like, Research and Development campaigns, but, they apparently can't bring themselves to actually sell any of it.
Fine by me. They can sit on their sales for a decade for all I care. I got all the time in the world. And the reader knows how to learn even if it's by accident. If they're as sure about proving the VCSY patent invalid or crooked as they were with Burst and Eolas, I think the shareholders are going to catch on real fast that each day MSFT delays putting next generation patents on the field is going to cost them plenty.
How long can they wait?
So, first Burst, then Eolas, then VCSY and why?
Because, Burst and Eolas make up what have come to compose the fundamentals for web-GUI design aka MSFT Expression.
VCSY represents the segments beyond the Expression content/format wherein development fundamentals on the internet are fashioned and run and managed ... beyond the platform of the operating systems where an "operating system" or "application" may be made out of anything you can get your hands on.
It's almost like a freedom beyond the machine; Beyond the robot taught to adhere to the law because the law was made for the big man's benefit.
"He who loves me will obey my commandments."
You heard the man.