Note, I am placing these posts on this board because Yahoo has a 4000 character limit on posts there.
The following was posted on the Yahoo/VCSY board:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=361&mid=361&tof=1&frt=1
Message for Portuno or any other long (Not rated)
8-Sep-07 04:37 am by ns5000
Can you make a case for vcsy for a non-techie or "traders" as you put it.
Please do not put any links. Just explain in simple terms why msft can't develop vista or viridian or .net without the 2 patents you have been talking about.
I could consider investing purely as a speculative buy if you are able to spell out your case clearly in simple terms.
I responded with this and will add to the effort shortly:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=361&mid=369&tof=1&rt=1&frt=1&off=1
Layman's view of VCSY issues Part 1a (Not rated)
8-Sep-07 12:05 pm by portuno_diamo
One quick explanation I can provide is this:
Microsoft's entire development philosophy has been centered around their operating system on the PC for decades.
During those decades, VCSY's inventors' life work focused on the network and specifically the internet as a network.
The VCSY inventors worked on distributed networked computer concepts while MSFT worked on the personal local computer network.
By the time the internet was mature enough to have a "boom" centered on it, the VCSY work was mature enough to deploy, thus VCSY work was made available to the market in 2000.
Microsoft had only been able to build a browser and was only then branching out to attempt to mature smaller experimental efforts. Thus, MSFT's work comes to the market in 2008.
From 2000 to present, VCSY has been able to further develop their work.
At the same time, MSFT struggled to come up to speed on web operating systems and web applications within a corporate culture that dismissed the internet as a valid platform for building anything more complex or robust than electronic magazines.
THAT cultural difference between MSFT design and VCSY design is what sets the stage for the power behind the VCSY patents.
Remember what happens in design/build. The designer considers the problem and comes up with A solution. That solution may or may not flesh out properly. Revisions of that solution or entirely new solutions attempt to address the newly met issues and often require further mods or remakes based on new issues that crop up.
It's just like writing and having to do repetitive drafts to come up with the most elegant form.
VCSy's inventors have been doing this process for decades. Microsoft has been doing this in a limited way decades later than the VCSy inventors made it through their most basic obstacles.
The trader simply needs to consider this fundamental difference to see the effect of MSFT's "internet is a fad" philosophy. VCSY was able to virtualize and arbitrate (I will go into more detail why these two concepts are central to breaking free of the "PC" OS) whilel MSFT was hell bent on keeping everything locked to the PC.
Some say MSFT has superior resources, but, resources is not the issue. Simplicity and elegance in response to all the various screw-ups and dead-ends encountered in the human design process is key.
(continued in next post)
Layman's view of VCSY issues Part 1b (Not rated) 8-Sep-07 12:05 pm
(continued from previous post)
If resources were the problem, the most critical issues could be solved more quickly by simply adding people and money. So what YOU do at work should be able to be done by 20 times that many people in 1/20th the time. We all know it doesn't work that way in design because each of the 20 times more resources will encounter the same sets of issues and come up with various ways to solve them. Without the collaboration tools to bring those issues and solutions to the front so the 20x resources can contemplate them as one mind, the result is not 20 years of collective experience but 20 one year experiences.
If MSFT could have done what VCSY can do, they would have done it back in 2003/2004 when they were high on XML and touting Longhorn and all the other parts and pieces to anyone who would listen. Instead, it all went into a vault and has STILL not seen the light of day. All that is STILL not on the market because MSFT is only now issuing test versions promising to deliver even more test versions in 2008.
Meanwhile, the record shows VCSY has been quietly working to mature the solutions that were available as products for sale in 2000 and 2001.
Big difference.
Based on information VCSY longs have found, after the dotcom boom went bust, taking VCSY's shareprice down, VCSy was quietly working with others to flesh out their philosophy.
In the next post (which will require some simplification and I won't have time to do until later this evening) I will explain HOW 521/744 are technically superior to anything MSFT or any other vendor's have built for network architecting.
Then, I will explain "virtual" and "arbitrary" so you may see why the VCSy method is fundamentally superior to anything MSFT or any other vendor's have built for building, operating and controlling networked applications.
Hope this helps. There will be more of
the real portuno
http://search.messages.yahoo.com/search?.mbintl=finance&q=portuno_diamo&action=Search&r=Huiz75WdCYfD_KCA2Dc-&within=author&within=tm
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
IBM Patent 7,058,671 referencing VCSY 6826744
Baveman found this IBM patent referencing the VCSY SiteFlash patent. I have attempted to describe the patent purpose and cited reference patents in a narrative below. It could use some work to refine so that's your homework so you can verify for yourself what it is you are seeing.
The IBM patent 7058671 appears to be aimed at automating the construction of programs on the web.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=7058671.PN.&OS=PN/7058671&RS=PN/7058671
ABSTRACT: A method and system for delivering dynamic web pages in the INTERNET. Compiled programs embedding static queries to a database are stored on a server computer; view templates with HTML tags defining the layout of corresponding dynamic web pages and data tags instructing where and how to include each record of the query result into the respective dynamic web page are further stored on the server computer. When a dynamic web page must be distributed, the corresponding program is run, and the query result is stored into a shared memory structure. The query result is combined with the corresponding view template, by replacing the data tags with the associated records in the shared memory structure. The resulting web page is then distributed to client computers of the network.
If you look at the description of the patent uses, there are no "users" involved. The patent performs work in an aggregating complexity with the aim of producing a deliverable sent to the user at the client. The deliverable is an application aka program and the patent claims the "...means for sending the view structure to at least one client computer of the network for causing the view structure to be displayed on the at least one client computer, wherein the corresponding view template is generated by a compiler and has the form of a directly executable program."
Thus, the end result is an autonomous system assembling blocks of "information" comprise the necessary content, format and functionality information into a "view" template which is then compiled into program (application) and delivered to the client for application use.
That's it in a nutshell. As any application may be comprise of content, format and functionality:
1. content (text, images, sound - anything humans or machines may produce as a deliverable of processed data - metadata attached to this content is available to guide the machine on the various processing requirements)
2. format (specifications and objects that define how the content will be presented to a human user and/or a machine user)
3. functionality (the stepwise instructions [via diagrams, outlines, narratives - think UML and other program modeling methods].
I've tried to throw together an explanation of what IBM patent 7058671 does and what the cited patents add to the discussion. There is plenty room for improvement and jsut a result of an extra cup of coffee and an English muffin with extra butter. This is a rough analysis and is my own opinion. It may be further refined and that's what you the reader should do so you can understand this concept thoroughtly. This is a foundation for modular constructed applications and delivered and used handled autonomously by machines under human supervision.
Below are citations the patent rests its claims based on evolution of past patented prior art. The citation describes what past patents reflect as founding or similar methods and advancements. The patent describes what activity regarding those patents and additional advances described in the claims is used to create the unique invention qualities.
First, view the patent refences by themselves:
Patents Cited in the 7058671 patent (aka patented prior art):
Patent Number
Title
Issue date
5835712
Client-server system using embedded hypertext tags for application and database development
Nov 10, 1998
5894554
System for managing dynamic web page generation requests by intercepting request at web server and routing to page server thereby releasing web server to process other requests
Apr 13, 1999
6055570
Subscribed update monitors
Apr 25, 2000
6275830
Compile time variable size paging of constant pools
Aug 14, 2001
6826744
System and method for generating web sites in an arbitrary object framework
Nov 30, 2004
As you see them listed in chronological order, you may also see an evolution of capability providing a foundation for the present claims of this to be validated patent claims against.
This is a ratification by progressing art extension of the claims of the cited patents.
Now, view each of the cited reference patents fleshed out individually.
In this example the progression of capability is fairly easy to see if we dissect and display each:
1. 5835712
TITLE: Client-server system using embedded hypertext tags for application and database development
ABSTRACT: A system and methods for rapid deployment of World Wide Web applications on the Internet. A preferred method provides a template, accessible to both client and server, for constructing Web source text. The source text includes HTML tag extensions for implementing dynamic Web environment. The tag extensions are nested and grouped to form scripts to perform specific tasks, such as state construction and on-line data arrangement. Each tag extension or script is expanded and replaced with data value to be embedded within a traditional HTML tag. A processor is employed to process templates and execute tag extensions therein, and produces pages in pure HTML form for displaying by any Web browser.
1. Says we can equip a template shared between the server and the client to build web code using HTML "tag extensions" (encompassing XML) to build web pages as required on the fly (dynamic) having the capability to act as functional processing applications ("state construction and on-line data arrangement").
Huh?: Web pages can be more than look, feel and interaction. A web page can be an application or even an operating system in itself. This patent addresses a method to build applications out of web pages on a changing basis as requirements, resources and specifications change. The first step toward autonomous web operation as the machine may understand and construct web components.
ADVANCE: Instead of relying on old art traditional methods of identification and indexing content, [1] provides tagging and templating methods to machine-build programs using "web pages".
Key: TAG
---
2. 5894554
TITLE: System for MANAGING dynamic web page generation requests by intercepting request at web server and routing to page server thereby releasing web server to process other requests
ABSTRACT: The present invention teaches a method and apparatus for creating and managing custom Web sites. Specifically, one embodiment of the present invention claims a computer-implemented method for managing a dynamic Web page generation request to a Web server, the computer-implemented method comprising the steps of routing the request from the Web server to a page server, the page server receiving the request and releasing the Web server to process other requests, processing the request, the processing being performed by the page server concurrently with the Web server, as the Web server processes the other requests, and dynamically generating a Web page in response to the request, the Web page including data dynamically retrieved from one or more data sources.
2. Says we can create a system whereby we get "...a computer-implemented method for managing a dynamic Web page generation request to a Web server" to allow the server to delegate processing to other servers more targeted for handling generation of product.
What the...?: This builds a supervisor machine which can take in requirements from all areas and delegate the delivery workflow to other machines. The machine becomes an autonomous contractor.
ADVANCE: Instead of relying on monolithic systems using a single server to receive process and deliver all web page product, [2] provides task management by delegating production duties to distributed servers with their own distributed reqources by a request processing supervisor. This allows servers to compartmentalize various processing needs on server by server basis rather than segments of servers.
Key: DELEGATE DELIVERY
---
3. 6055570
TITLE: Subscribed update monitors
ABSTRACT: A user can monitor changes to information located on a network by registering with an update monitor service. The update monitor service can run as a stand alone server in the network or can run on a user computer or on the computer of an Internet Service Provider. The update monitor service obtains information about changes to information being monitored for the server on which the information is located or from a comparison of old and current versions of the information. The user can modify the list of information sources to be monitored by the update monitor service.
3. Says we can provide each client with appropriate methods to monitoring current product delivery for compiance with latest instances of specified requirement governance.
Duhhh...?: Each client can be monitored by an objective seperate policing facility tracking the delivered state and the required state of information provided the client use.
ADVANCE: Instead of running blind and waiting for the next update to trickle through the system, [3] provides a means for independent and objective machine monitoring of client delivery and compliance may be provided in real time from an objective and independent source. This allows the machine to know its current state and its current health and proper work ethic. A critical element of dynamic autonomy with traceability.
Key: POLICE
---
4. 6275830
TITLE: Compile time variable size paging of constant pools
ABSTRACT: A method and apparatus for paging data in a computer system is provided. A set of data associated with a program unit is divided into pages such that no item of the set of data spans more than one page. The size of one page may vary from the size of another. When the program unit is compiled, metadata is generated that indicates the division of items into pages. At load time, a page mapping is generated based on the metadata. The page mapping is used to locate a item that belongs to the set of data. Other parts of the program unit, such as byte code, can contain references to items in the constant pool. Each reference specifies the number of the page in which the corresponding item will be stored at runtime, and the offset of that item within the page.
4. Says we can provide a means for metadata to identify and direct access to data structures throughout a mass of data within the web page, web site, web framework, web world. That metadata may be used in machine code thus enabling a machine to autonomously select, retireve, provision, and employ process and data units throughout the internet delivered processing mass autonomously.
But uhh but uhh but uhhh...?: The machine needs to know where the data is just as an operating system needs to be able to touch compounded masses of data for processing within memory resources in a hardware operating system or a software operating system.
ADVANCE: Instead of clueless web pages and web sites, [4] allows each supervisory metadata package to contain its own analog of the traditional disk operating system File Allocation Table (FAT) which represents the structural architecture and boundries of the machine. This was once found only in hardware processing resources. [4] says the virtual page, website, framework has the capability to natively identify by address index any data anywhere in the structure. This is a key to machine "awareness" of the application space.
Key: CONDUCT
---
5. 6826744
TITLE: System and method for generating web sites in an arbitrary object framework
ABSTRACT: A system and method for generating computer applications in an arbitrary object framework. The method separates content, form, and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified separately. The method includes creating arbitrary objects, managing the arbitrary objects throughout their life cycle in an object library, and deploying the arbitrary objects in a design framework for use in complex computer applications.
5. Says the above masses of data and processing capability may be segmented in segregated operations dealing with content and format and functionality arbitrarily-[5] to combine these into affiliated-[5] web applications-[1] using virtualized and arbitrated resources-[2] and arbitrary governance-[3] of addressable masses-[4] to provide a means to build applications without the need for programming knowledge or skill [5].
Blink Blink...?: A machine simply needs to know [1]-what it touches [2]-where the solution is [3]-the requirements are being met real time [4]-where to touch and [5]- how to create. The building process (design/develop/deploy/determine) of applications at every knowable state may be further processed to build applications for human or other machine users autonomously (humans construct the elemental pieces of the system resource pool - the machine is able to pick up the task from there and complete the building process) by machine.
ADVANCE: Instead of human teams of programmers building applications (even if or especially if they use manual implementations of various design, develop, model environments), programming becomes an abstracted processing ecology that may be abstracted toward the human (5 as SiteFlash) or toward the machine (5 as the creating element in this patent).
Key: CREATE
---
So you create a system that can TAG,DELEGATE,POLICE CONDUCT,CREATE and funnel that activity into a system that delivers the machine built applications to the client for deterministic use tailored in usability, culture and governance to the user's unique requirements.
The user is the computer.
Viola! Gimme two beers. One for the janitor.
Congratulations. You've made it over the bridge. Now, take that farmhouse and await further orders.
The IBM patent 7058671 appears to be aimed at automating the construction of programs on the web.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=7058671.PN.&OS=PN/7058671&RS=PN/7058671
ABSTRACT: A method and system for delivering dynamic web pages in the INTERNET. Compiled programs embedding static queries to a database are stored on a server computer; view templates with HTML tags defining the layout of corresponding dynamic web pages and data tags instructing where and how to include each record of the query result into the respective dynamic web page are further stored on the server computer. When a dynamic web page must be distributed, the corresponding program is run, and the query result is stored into a shared memory structure. The query result is combined with the corresponding view template, by replacing the data tags with the associated records in the shared memory structure. The resulting web page is then distributed to client computers of the network.
If you look at the description of the patent uses, there are no "users" involved. The patent performs work in an aggregating complexity with the aim of producing a deliverable sent to the user at the client. The deliverable is an application aka program and the patent claims the "...means for sending the view structure to at least one client computer of the network for causing the view structure to be displayed on the at least one client computer, wherein the corresponding view template is generated by a compiler and has the form of a directly executable program."
Thus, the end result is an autonomous system assembling blocks of "information" comprise the necessary content, format and functionality information into a "view" template which is then compiled into program (application) and delivered to the client for application use.
That's it in a nutshell. As any application may be comprise of content, format and functionality:
1. content (text, images, sound - anything humans or machines may produce as a deliverable of processed data - metadata attached to this content is available to guide the machine on the various processing requirements)
2. format (specifications and objects that define how the content will be presented to a human user and/or a machine user)
3. functionality (the stepwise instructions [via diagrams, outlines, narratives - think UML and other program modeling methods].
I've tried to throw together an explanation of what IBM patent 7058671 does and what the cited patents add to the discussion. There is plenty room for improvement and jsut a result of an extra cup of coffee and an English muffin with extra butter. This is a rough analysis and is my own opinion. It may be further refined and that's what you the reader should do so you can understand this concept thoroughtly. This is a foundation for modular constructed applications and delivered and used handled autonomously by machines under human supervision.
Below are citations the patent rests its claims based on evolution of past patented prior art. The citation describes what past patents reflect as founding or similar methods and advancements. The patent describes what activity regarding those patents and additional advances described in the claims is used to create the unique invention qualities.
First, view the patent refences by themselves:
Patents Cited in the 7058671 patent (aka patented prior art):
Patent Number
Title
Issue date
5835712
Client-server system using embedded hypertext tags for application and database development
Nov 10, 1998
5894554
System for managing dynamic web page generation requests by intercepting request at web server and routing to page server thereby releasing web server to process other requests
Apr 13, 1999
6055570
Subscribed update monitors
Apr 25, 2000
6275830
Compile time variable size paging of constant pools
Aug 14, 2001
6826744
System and method for generating web sites in an arbitrary object framework
Nov 30, 2004
As you see them listed in chronological order, you may also see an evolution of capability providing a foundation for the present claims of this to be validated patent claims against.
This is a ratification by progressing art extension of the claims of the cited patents.
Now, view each of the cited reference patents fleshed out individually.
In this example the progression of capability is fairly easy to see if we dissect and display each:
1. 5835712
TITLE: Client-server system using embedded hypertext tags for application and database development
ABSTRACT: A system and methods for rapid deployment of World Wide Web applications on the Internet. A preferred method provides a template, accessible to both client and server, for constructing Web source text. The source text includes HTML tag extensions for implementing dynamic Web environment. The tag extensions are nested and grouped to form scripts to perform specific tasks, such as state construction and on-line data arrangement. Each tag extension or script is expanded and replaced with data value to be embedded within a traditional HTML tag. A processor is employed to process templates and execute tag extensions therein, and produces pages in pure HTML form for displaying by any Web browser.
1. Says we can equip a template shared between the server and the client to build web code using HTML "tag extensions" (encompassing XML) to build web pages as required on the fly (dynamic) having the capability to act as functional processing applications ("state construction and on-line data arrangement").
Huh?: Web pages can be more than look, feel and interaction. A web page can be an application or even an operating system in itself. This patent addresses a method to build applications out of web pages on a changing basis as requirements, resources and specifications change. The first step toward autonomous web operation as the machine may understand and construct web components.
ADVANCE: Instead of relying on old art traditional methods of identification and indexing content, [1] provides tagging and templating methods to machine-build programs using "web pages".
Key: TAG
---
2. 5894554
TITLE: System for MANAGING dynamic web page generation requests by intercepting request at web server and routing to page server thereby releasing web server to process other requests
ABSTRACT: The present invention teaches a method and apparatus for creating and managing custom Web sites. Specifically, one embodiment of the present invention claims a computer-implemented method for managing a dynamic Web page generation request to a Web server, the computer-implemented method comprising the steps of routing the request from the Web server to a page server, the page server receiving the request and releasing the Web server to process other requests, processing the request, the processing being performed by the page server concurrently with the Web server, as the Web server processes the other requests, and dynamically generating a Web page in response to the request, the Web page including data dynamically retrieved from one or more data sources.
2. Says we can create a system whereby we get "...a computer-implemented method for managing a dynamic Web page generation request to a Web server" to allow the server to delegate processing to other servers more targeted for handling generation of product.
What the...?: This builds a supervisor machine which can take in requirements from all areas and delegate the delivery workflow to other machines. The machine becomes an autonomous contractor.
ADVANCE: Instead of relying on monolithic systems using a single server to receive process and deliver all web page product, [2] provides task management by delegating production duties to distributed servers with their own distributed reqources by a request processing supervisor. This allows servers to compartmentalize various processing needs on server by server basis rather than segments of servers.
Key: DELEGATE DELIVERY
---
3. 6055570
TITLE: Subscribed update monitors
ABSTRACT: A user can monitor changes to information located on a network by registering with an update monitor service. The update monitor service can run as a stand alone server in the network or can run on a user computer or on the computer of an Internet Service Provider. The update monitor service obtains information about changes to information being monitored for the server on which the information is located or from a comparison of old and current versions of the information. The user can modify the list of information sources to be monitored by the update monitor service.
3. Says we can provide each client with appropriate methods to monitoring current product delivery for compiance with latest instances of specified requirement governance.
Duhhh...?: Each client can be monitored by an objective seperate policing facility tracking the delivered state and the required state of information provided the client use.
ADVANCE: Instead of running blind and waiting for the next update to trickle through the system, [3] provides a means for independent and objective machine monitoring of client delivery and compliance may be provided in real time from an objective and independent source. This allows the machine to know its current state and its current health and proper work ethic. A critical element of dynamic autonomy with traceability.
Key: POLICE
---
4. 6275830
TITLE: Compile time variable size paging of constant pools
ABSTRACT: A method and apparatus for paging data in a computer system is provided. A set of data associated with a program unit is divided into pages such that no item of the set of data spans more than one page. The size of one page may vary from the size of another. When the program unit is compiled, metadata is generated that indicates the division of items into pages. At load time, a page mapping is generated based on the metadata. The page mapping is used to locate a item that belongs to the set of data. Other parts of the program unit, such as byte code, can contain references to items in the constant pool. Each reference specifies the number of the page in which the corresponding item will be stored at runtime, and the offset of that item within the page.
4. Says we can provide a means for metadata to identify and direct access to data structures throughout a mass of data within the web page, web site, web framework, web world. That metadata may be used in machine code thus enabling a machine to autonomously select, retireve, provision, and employ process and data units throughout the internet delivered processing mass autonomously.
But uhh but uhh but uhhh...?: The machine needs to know where the data is just as an operating system needs to be able to touch compounded masses of data for processing within memory resources in a hardware operating system or a software operating system.
ADVANCE: Instead of clueless web pages and web sites, [4] allows each supervisory metadata package to contain its own analog of the traditional disk operating system File Allocation Table (FAT) which represents the structural architecture and boundries of the machine. This was once found only in hardware processing resources. [4] says the virtual page, website, framework has the capability to natively identify by address index any data anywhere in the structure. This is a key to machine "awareness" of the application space.
Key: CONDUCT
---
5. 6826744
TITLE: System and method for generating web sites in an arbitrary object framework
ABSTRACT: A system and method for generating computer applications in an arbitrary object framework. The method separates content, form, and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified separately. The method includes creating arbitrary objects, managing the arbitrary objects throughout their life cycle in an object library, and deploying the arbitrary objects in a design framework for use in complex computer applications.
5. Says the above masses of data and processing capability may be segmented in segregated operations dealing with content and format and functionality arbitrarily-[5] to combine these into affiliated-[5] web applications-[1] using virtualized and arbitrated resources-[2] and arbitrary governance-[3] of addressable masses-[4] to provide a means to build applications without the need for programming knowledge or skill [5].
Blink Blink...?: A machine simply needs to know [1]-what it touches [2]-where the solution is [3]-the requirements are being met real time [4]-where to touch and [5]- how to create. The building process (design/develop/deploy/determine) of applications at every knowable state may be further processed to build applications for human or other machine users autonomously (humans construct the elemental pieces of the system resource pool - the machine is able to pick up the task from there and complete the building process) by machine.
ADVANCE: Instead of human teams of programmers building applications (even if or especially if they use manual implementations of various design, develop, model environments), programming becomes an abstracted processing ecology that may be abstracted toward the human (5 as SiteFlash) or toward the machine (5 as the creating element in this patent).
Key: CREATE
---
So you create a system that can TAG,DELEGATE,POLICE CONDUCT,CREATE and funnel that activity into a system that delivers the machine built applications to the client for deterministic use tailored in usability, culture and governance to the user's unique requirements.
The user is the computer.
Viola! Gimme two beers. One for the janitor.
Congratulations. You've made it over the bridge. Now, take that farmhouse and await further orders.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Reference: Inventors for 6826744 and 7076521
I am placing this here as a place holder for pointing to by the Yahoo VCSY board as the Yahoo message forum has a 4000 character limit. I may use this method of supplying information to boards without burdening the posted messages with large bodies of text.
Thanks to Morrie and all the other contributors here and thanks to all VCSY Longs ("long" VCSY stock aka investors aka treeforters native or honorary) for your work in uncovering, collecting and distributing information and opinions to the VCSY Long social network.
To Wit:
(REFERENCED FROM: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=328&mid=328&tof=1&frt=1 )
The inventors behind 6826744 (Aubrey McAuley) and 7076521 (Jeff Davison) hold pioneer status in the field of network framework syndication (McAuley) and network automation management (Davison).
For convenience:
patent 6826744 (aka 744)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,826,744.PN.&OS=PN/6,826,744&RS=PN/6,826,744
System and method for generating web sites in an arbitrary object framework
patent 7076521 (aka 521)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=7076521.PN.&OS=PN/7076521&RS=PN/7076521
Web-based collaborative data collection system
(CONTINUED FROM : http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=328&mid=328&tof=1&frt=1 )
---
Aubrey McAuley:
McAuley came in contact with pioneering work in distributed computing through his background in on-line comic book publication (funny, ain't it? - see http://www.comicbookdb.com/creator.php?ID=13032 ) which requires an entirely different boundary of capabilities than the traditional work limited to syndication of data typified in parallel or hive computing.
From the unique problems encountered within the realm of syndicated distribution of functional graphics, McAuley developed a method to integrate the concepts of content and format management (typified in the dotcom era by designer suites such as Adobe ColdFusion and Microsoft FrontPge) and functionality management (which is the area occupied by IDE's [Integrated Development Environment] such as the Microsoft "Visual" series of environments).
Thus, McAuley's vision was of a single framework within which a person skilled in design (content/format) and development (functionality) could produce applications built using web-page graphics interaction (look and feel aka GUI [Graphic User Interface]).
In doing so, McAuley was the first to construct the idea of web applications
Some additional reading:
McAuley's background in Austin, Texas centered around hive-computing work typified by the University of California/Berkeley WebOS:
http://www.cs.duke.edu/ari/issg/webos/
"WebOS began at the University of California, Berkeley in 1996 as part of the Network of Worksta(t)ions project." also known as 'NOW'.
that was taken further in the University of Texas/Austin project "Beyond Browsers"
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/less/bb/
Network-of-Workstations or 'NOW' is the original SaaS using thin or fat client workstations to construct distributed computing resources. In such a system, the browser serves as the GUI environment.
"Beyond Browsers" allowed ALL programmed applications, including browsers, to use geographically distributed computing resources.
VCSY NOW Solutions takes the central "network is the computer" concept to a comprehensive plateau with the emPath construct gluing all applications together so they may run on their respective proprietary platforms while interoperating with web services and other networked resources.
McAuley's work resulted in the 6826744 patent which took these distributed computing concepts and rendered them in an integrated content/format/functionality framework that referenced all resources within those three domains in an arbitrary way. A natural by-product of such arbitrated virtualization is the ability to "repurpose" any part of the application from any resource to any other required use.
A search on McAuley's current work shows him in the Adobe user forum... where one would have expected to find him these days based on his long-running experience and efforts:
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?224@@2cd6967d@.3bc48a75/9
While 744 is referred to as a "WebOS" patent, the WebOS is only one construct that may be derived from the patent. The patent is a universal framework maker from which any operating system and/or application and/or code fragments may be derived into any other purpose or use.
The framework also allows for the integration of any purposed applications into the framework. Thus, 744 becomes a comprehensive ecology for concept, design, development, deployment of applications from any arbitrary resources. The ecology may thus be extended to include life-cycle maintenance, management, governance or any other discipline relating to the purposes represented by the overall or piece-wise application resources.
744 represents one of the most significant developments in application existence in history and signals a new paradigm which promises to absorb legacy software development as well as creating wholly novel and unique applications.
One of the most important characteristics of 744 is the ability to morph operating systems and applications (both may be integrated into a single package) into any subject matter ecology where the tasking and use is carried out by SME's[subject matter experts] with little to no programming skills.
Furthermore, such constructs may be further extended into vertical disciplines with similar but different applications and appliances. Thus SiteFlash becomes the parent with all derived child capabilities remaining traceable to the original product.
This capability alone teaches a wide array of available life-cycle design, development, maintenance, management, governance and property audit methods which provide a comprehensive means of value-assessment and policing unavailable by traditional methods and products.
The above barely touches the surface of the 744 paradigm which is a transcendent approach on software.
---
Jeff Davison:
Davison's work in network management by agent methods uniquely equipped him to produce an executive kernel and a programming language constructed from and using markup language (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markup_language). The result of this construction and programming results in a universally extensible means of building virtual computer architectures.
Another useful facet of Davison's agent work means the "markup" language may be any textual system for expressing data and structure including but not limited to the more famous markup language XML. Thus, the MLE (Markup Language Executive) described in the 7076521 patent is capable of running any code of any kind. This means the 521 virtual machine is able to be applied to any platform using any code to perform the task of collecting data from any resource and processing and transporting that to any consumer.
By combining agents of various capabilities, the MLE becomes a granular component for building virtualized software and/or virtualized hardware. The 521 machine may thus become anything "computer" for any purpose and is not limited by proprietary structure thus allowing virtualization at any level for any purpose.
This small bio covers only a small part of Mr. Davison's career. The reader would do well to examine his significant background experience more thoroughly than space or time here permits:
http://www.secinfo.com/duwTa.43ar.htm from December 31, 2000
Jeff Davison, Age 45
Chief Software Officer
Mr. Davison is a Professional Engineer, certified in electrical and electronic engineering. He has more than 20 years of Internet software and product development experience. He is the author of various software products, including the popular SNMX scripting language for network management and automation, offered by Diversified Data Resources. Most recently, he has been the chief developer of Emily, VCSY's proprietary XML tool.
---
744 and 521 have complementary architectures.
The 744 patent allows for each deliverable to transform and evolve into higher forms thus providing the various constructs (of any kind with any resources) with increasing simplicity and ease.
Applying the 521 patent allows for the simulation/emulation of any software or electronic hardware construct. Pairing the 744 and 521 patents allows these constructs to evolve and repurpose via extensibility at all levels. For that reason, the potential scope of derivative computer products may number in the millions.
Thanks to Morrie and all the other contributors here and thanks to all VCSY Longs ("long" VCSY stock aka investors aka treeforters native or honorary) for your work in uncovering, collecting and distributing information and opinions to the VCSY Long social network.
To Wit:
(REFERENCED FROM: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=328&mid=328&tof=1&frt=1 )
The inventors behind 6826744 (Aubrey McAuley) and 7076521 (Jeff Davison) hold pioneer status in the field of network framework syndication (McAuley) and network automation management (Davison).
For convenience:
patent 6826744 (aka 744)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,826,744.PN.&OS=PN/6,826,744&RS=PN/6,826,744
System and method for generating web sites in an arbitrary object framework
patent 7076521 (aka 521)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=7076521.PN.&OS=PN/7076521&RS=PN/7076521
Web-based collaborative data collection system
(CONTINUED FROM : http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=328&mid=328&tof=1&frt=1 )
---
Aubrey McAuley:
McAuley came in contact with pioneering work in distributed computing through his background in on-line comic book publication (funny, ain't it? - see http://www.comicbookdb.com/creator.php?ID=13032 ) which requires an entirely different boundary of capabilities than the traditional work limited to syndication of data typified in parallel or hive computing.
From the unique problems encountered within the realm of syndicated distribution of functional graphics, McAuley developed a method to integrate the concepts of content and format management (typified in the dotcom era by designer suites such as Adobe ColdFusion and Microsoft FrontPge) and functionality management (which is the area occupied by IDE's [Integrated Development Environment] such as the Microsoft "Visual" series of environments).
Thus, McAuley's vision was of a single framework within which a person skilled in design (content/format) and development (functionality) could produce applications built using web-page graphics interaction (look and feel aka GUI [Graphic User Interface]).
In doing so, McAuley was the first to construct the idea of web applications
Some additional reading:
McAuley's background in Austin, Texas centered around hive-computing work typified by the University of California/Berkeley WebOS:
http://www.cs.duke.edu/ari/issg/webos/
"WebOS began at the University of California, Berkeley in 1996 as part of the Network of Worksta(t)ions project." also known as 'NOW'.
that was taken further in the University of Texas/Austin project "Beyond Browsers"
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/less/bb/
Network-of-Workstations or 'NOW' is the original SaaS using thin or fat client workstations to construct distributed computing resources. In such a system, the browser serves as the GUI environment.
"Beyond Browsers" allowed ALL programmed applications, including browsers, to use geographically distributed computing resources.
VCSY NOW Solutions takes the central "network is the computer" concept to a comprehensive plateau with the emPath construct gluing all applications together so they may run on their respective proprietary platforms while interoperating with web services and other networked resources.
McAuley's work resulted in the 6826744 patent which took these distributed computing concepts and rendered them in an integrated content/format/functionality framework that referenced all resources within those three domains in an arbitrary way. A natural by-product of such arbitrated virtualization is the ability to "repurpose" any part of the application from any resource to any other required use.
A search on McAuley's current work shows him in the Adobe user forum... where one would have expected to find him these days based on his long-running experience and efforts:
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?224@@2cd6967d@.3bc48a75/9
While 744 is referred to as a "WebOS" patent, the WebOS is only one construct that may be derived from the patent. The patent is a universal framework maker from which any operating system and/or application and/or code fragments may be derived into any other purpose or use.
The framework also allows for the integration of any purposed applications into the framework. Thus, 744 becomes a comprehensive ecology for concept, design, development, deployment of applications from any arbitrary resources. The ecology may thus be extended to include life-cycle maintenance, management, governance or any other discipline relating to the purposes represented by the overall or piece-wise application resources.
744 represents one of the most significant developments in application existence in history and signals a new paradigm which promises to absorb legacy software development as well as creating wholly novel and unique applications.
One of the most important characteristics of 744 is the ability to morph operating systems and applications (both may be integrated into a single package) into any subject matter ecology where the tasking and use is carried out by SME's[subject matter experts] with little to no programming skills.
Furthermore, such constructs may be further extended into vertical disciplines with similar but different applications and appliances. Thus SiteFlash becomes the parent with all derived child capabilities remaining traceable to the original product.
This capability alone teaches a wide array of available life-cycle design, development, maintenance, management, governance and property audit methods which provide a comprehensive means of value-assessment and policing unavailable by traditional methods and products.
The above barely touches the surface of the 744 paradigm which is a transcendent approach on software.
---
Jeff Davison:
Davison's work in network management by agent methods uniquely equipped him to produce an executive kernel and a programming language constructed from and using markup language (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markup_language). The result of this construction and programming results in a universally extensible means of building virtual computer architectures.
Another useful facet of Davison's agent work means the "markup" language may be any textual system for expressing data and structure including but not limited to the more famous markup language XML. Thus, the MLE (Markup Language Executive) described in the 7076521 patent is capable of running any code of any kind. This means the 521 virtual machine is able to be applied to any platform using any code to perform the task of collecting data from any resource and processing and transporting that to any consumer.
By combining agents of various capabilities, the MLE becomes a granular component for building virtualized software and/or virtualized hardware. The 521 machine may thus become anything "computer" for any purpose and is not limited by proprietary structure thus allowing virtualization at any level for any purpose.
This small bio covers only a small part of Mr. Davison's career. The reader would do well to examine his significant background experience more thoroughly than space or time here permits:
http://www.secinfo.com/duwTa.43ar.htm from December 31, 2000
Jeff Davison, Age 45
Chief Software Officer
Mr. Davison is a Professional Engineer, certified in electrical and electronic engineering. He has more than 20 years of Internet software and product development experience. He is the author of various software products, including the popular SNMX scripting language for network management and automation, offered by Diversified Data Resources. Most recently, he has been the chief developer of Emily, VCSY's proprietary XML tool.
---
744 and 521 have complementary architectures.
The 744 patent allows for each deliverable to transform and evolve into higher forms thus providing the various constructs (of any kind with any resources) with increasing simplicity and ease.
Applying the 521 patent allows for the simulation/emulation of any software or electronic hardware construct. Pairing the 744 and 521 patents allows these constructs to evolve and repurpose via extensibility at all levels. For that reason, the potential scope of derivative computer products may number in the millions.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Applesauce, Applesauce, Pay Up MSFT...
| Msg. 193900 of 193903 |
| |
And, a repost so it won't be buried: By: yo-eleven
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.
To wit:
Part1
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.
Elizabeth Montalbano
PC World
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?
Part2
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?
Part3
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.
To wit:
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.
Part4
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.
Part5
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.
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.
To wit:
Part1
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.
Elizabeth Montalbano
PC World
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?
Part2
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?
Part3
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.
To wit:
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.
Part4
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.
Part5
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.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
For the record.
29 May 2007 15:28 EDT Posted by Rasta Mafoozle
IBM wants to know. LOL
Question:
IBM (actually an O'Reilly Editor is asking) wants to know: "What are all you 'XML Programmers' using for tools? Rocks tied to sticks?"
XML and Java technology: Low-level or high-level XML APIs?
How much control do you want over your XML?
Brett D. McLaughlin, Sr. (mailto:brett@newInstance.com?subject=Low-level), Author and Editor, O'Reilly Media, Inc.29 May 2007
Not many years ago, the options for working with XML were limited essentially to SAX, DOM, or a home-brewed API. With hundreds of different developer-friendly APIs today, though, have developers lost some of their ability to manipulate XML?
Here's the deal: I'm looking to stir the pot a bit. This is obviously not a tip that is overflowing with working code, because I wonder who really does use working XML code these days, and what API (or APIs) they use. Is it true that hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of you out there still plug away with SAX and DOM, comfortable writing your startProcessingInstruction() method, or have data binding and helper APIs completely taken over? I'm curious, as is much of the developerWorks editorial staff.
And arguably more importantly, do you believe you still have the control and power over your XML? I pose this question particularly to programmers who have worked with XML since the early days when SAX was your only option for speedy XML reading, and DOM was the only choice if you wanted to deal with an XML document in object form. Do you find yourself working at a higher level, and are you OK with that? Or have we all become Turbo Pascal programmers while only a select few guys are popping the stack over on their ASM terminals? Please, get involved in this discussion—hop on over to the forum and start posting, and let's see what everyone thinks. XML programmers: declawed or not?
(me: I would like to know a few answers as well, like, how do all you developers feel watching Java take on XML while .Net sits in the closet? )
IBM wants to know. LOL
Question:
IBM (actually an O'Reilly Editor is asking) wants to know: "What are all you 'XML Programmers' using for tools? Rocks tied to sticks?"
XML and Java technology: Low-level or high-level XML APIs?
How much control do you want over your XML?
Brett D. McLaughlin, Sr. (mailto:brett@newInstance.com?subject=Low-level), Author and Editor, O'Reilly Media, Inc.29 May 2007
Not many years ago, the options for working with XML were limited essentially to SAX, DOM, or a home-brewed API. With hundreds of different developer-friendly APIs today, though, have developers lost some of their ability to manipulate XML?
Here's the deal: I'm looking to stir the pot a bit. This is obviously not a tip that is overflowing with working code, because I wonder who really does use working XML code these days, and what API (or APIs) they use. Is it true that hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of you out there still plug away with SAX and DOM, comfortable writing your startProcessingInstruction() method, or have data binding and helper APIs completely taken over? I'm curious, as is much of the developerWorks editorial staff.
And arguably more importantly, do you believe you still have the control and power over your XML? I pose this question particularly to programmers who have worked with XML since the early days when SAX was your only option for speedy XML reading, and DOM was the only choice if you wanted to deal with an XML document in object form. Do you find yourself working at a higher level, and are you OK with that? Or have we all become Turbo Pascal programmers while only a select few guys are popping the stack over on their ASM terminals? Please, get involved in this discussion—hop on over to the forum and start posting, and let's see what everyone thinks. XML programmers: declawed or not?
(me: I would like to know a few answers as well, like, how do all you developers feel watching Java take on XML while .Net sits in the closet? )
Just when I was getting good...
As most readers will know, I have posted on ajaxamine.tripod.com for months. That opportunity apparently has been denied as the site is now off-line. I will continue to explore more to find out why Laughing Place #2 is unavailable as I am able to post but not able to bring up the home page.
Thanks for the place to crash Morrie.
25 July 2007 16:14 EDT Posted by Rasta Mafoozle
The End Is Near
If Microsoft is counting on exhibit_for_msft_response.pdf to prove "prior art", Microsoft shareholders should start getting shelac and brushes to use to decoupage their Microsoft shares once they lose the VCSY patent lawsuit.
UDATE
And IF I am allowed by the poorly acting site software I will endeavour to prove my contentions.
As it is, just logging in to this blog is a chore as the software is hanging up and not allowing free movement.
UPDATE
Apparently this blog site is no longer on-line. I shall retire to Laughing Place #3 and tell the story there that I have been denied the opportunity to tell here.
Thanks for the place to crash Morrie.
25 July 2007 16:14 EDT Posted by Rasta Mafoozle
The End Is Near
If Microsoft is counting on exhibit_for_msft_response.pdf to prove "prior art", Microsoft shareholders should start getting shelac and brushes to use to decoupage their Microsoft shares once they lose the VCSY patent lawsuit.
UDATE
And IF I am allowed by the poorly acting site software I will endeavour to prove my contentions.
As it is, just logging in to this blog is a chore as the software is hanging up and not allowing free movement.
UPDATE
Apparently this blog site is no longer on-line. I shall retire to Laughing Place #3 and tell the story there that I have been denied the opportunity to tell here.
Yo Morrie the frig is on the blink...
Uhhh... I thought I would put something here since I can't get to the Laughing Place #2 anymore. There's an error in the directive or some such. So I just wanted to put the text here to see if it's like rat poison or caviar.
(no url available but try ajaxamine.tripod.com - could be just a cookie got shoved down the wrong neck.)
19 July 2007 00:03 EDT Posted by Rasta Mafoozle
Mommy, that man is eating my teddy bear.
Masts and Sails! Either this is a flagship or a pirate ship. harrr. Best pump up me parrot and screw in the old powdered peg leg. Looks like more socializing with the hedge hogs.
Astoria and the Semantic Web
Kevin Hoffman :: email
posted Mon 16 Jul 07
Kevin Hoffman's Blog
I have said it before and I'll say it again, Microsoft's Pablo Castro is one of the few people putting stuff out there from Microsoft that really seem to "get it". He knows how people want their data (well, he knows how I want my data, and that's really all that counts, right?) and he seems to be on the same page as everyone else that I have spoken to as far as the whole REST thing. People want their data to be located at discrete, uniquely identifiable URIs. End of story.
In case you have been living under a rock, or you really don't care about Microsoft's "data in the cloud" strategies, Pablo Castro is the technical lead responsible for such gems as the ADO.NET Entity Framework and Astoria. Astoria is a project that wraps up an Entity Data Model in a WCF service with a uniform URI query format that allows for RESTful access to relational data via XML, RDF, or JSON.
The notion of the semantic web isn't really all that new, but it has been gaining a lot of momentum lately. The short story is that right now everyone is using the Web to publish and view human-readable content. What we look at on a daily basis is graphical, textual, and has animations, flash, whatever. The bottom line is that the content is human-readable. The semantic web pushes forward the notion that in addition to using the web for human-readable content, it should be used for data as well. The means by which the data on the semantic web is accessed is through raw HTTP, through a standard representational format like XML or RDF. It's a fantastic theory but I think it's too eutopian at the moment. I don't think that anytime in the near future the web is going to be flooded with this huge sprawling green field of RESTful services exposing POX/RDF data for the entire world to consume. Ths is where technology and business diverge. Technologically speaking, the eutopian vision of the truly semantic web is quite possible, and many people are working toward that goal right now. If you look at it from a business perspective, however, the outlook is a little darker. Bottom line is that people aren't going to embrace the semantic web until they can make money off of it.
Tools like Astoria are a fantastic tool by which we can expose data in a way that jives with the vision of the semantic web. The problem is that there are business concerns to exposing data on the web, not the least of which is of course -how do you charge people for that data? How do you make money off of exposing that data? The great thing about a semantic web and standardized data location and access methods is of course mashups. If anybody knows how to get at your data, and they know that your data is referenced in a way that is similar to the way in which Bob is exposing his data, etc - then everyone can consume everyone's data and the entire world enters a euphoric bliss of data consumption.
So what I see really happening is that corporations are going to take baby steps. Perhaps they will adopt "semantic web" style philosophies internally... hopefully they will even be using Astoria to expose relational models and helper methods on top of those relational models to allow applications within a corporation to consume data. In my ideal world, this is the way much of an organization's data is exposed internally. The clash between technological philosophy and real-world business practice occurs when you try and deal with how to authenticate access to your data, how you charge for your data, and how you license your data, etc.
The great thing about tools like Astoria for exposing the data and tools like Silverlight for rendering exposed data is that regardless of what the business people decide the future of the semantic web is going to be - you'll be ready. In that regard, as long as people like Pablo Castro are still allowed to make some decisions within Microsoft, we will still see a steady stream of good things coming - at least from the data team, anyway.
(no url available but try ajaxamine.tripod.com - could be just a cookie got shoved down the wrong neck.)
19 July 2007 00:03 EDT Posted by Rasta Mafoozle
Mommy, that man is eating my teddy bear.
Masts and Sails! Either this is a flagship or a pirate ship. harrr. Best pump up me parrot and screw in the old powdered peg leg. Looks like more socializing with the hedge hogs.
Astoria and the Semantic Web
Kevin Hoffman :: email
posted Mon 16 Jul 07
Kevin Hoffman's Blog
I have said it before and I'll say it again, Microsoft's Pablo Castro is one of the few people putting stuff out there from Microsoft that really seem to "get it". He knows how people want their data (well, he knows how I want my data, and that's really all that counts, right?) and he seems to be on the same page as everyone else that I have spoken to as far as the whole REST thing. People want their data to be located at discrete, uniquely identifiable URIs. End of story.
In case you have been living under a rock, or you really don't care about Microsoft's "data in the cloud" strategies, Pablo Castro is the technical lead responsible for such gems as the ADO.NET Entity Framework and Astoria. Astoria is a project that wraps up an Entity Data Model in a WCF service with a uniform URI query format that allows for RESTful access to relational data via XML, RDF, or JSON.
The notion of the semantic web isn't really all that new, but it has been gaining a lot of momentum lately. The short story is that right now everyone is using the Web to publish and view human-readable content. What we look at on a daily basis is graphical, textual, and has animations, flash, whatever. The bottom line is that the content is human-readable. The semantic web pushes forward the notion that in addition to using the web for human-readable content, it should be used for data as well. The means by which the data on the semantic web is accessed is through raw HTTP, through a standard representational format like XML or RDF. It's a fantastic theory but I think it's too eutopian at the moment. I don't think that anytime in the near future the web is going to be flooded with this huge sprawling green field of RESTful services exposing POX/RDF data for the entire world to consume. Ths is where technology and business diverge. Technologically speaking, the eutopian vision of the truly semantic web is quite possible, and many people are working toward that goal right now. If you look at it from a business perspective, however, the outlook is a little darker. Bottom line is that people aren't going to embrace the semantic web until they can make money off of it.
Tools like Astoria are a fantastic tool by which we can expose data in a way that jives with the vision of the semantic web. The problem is that there are business concerns to exposing data on the web, not the least of which is of course -how do you charge people for that data? How do you make money off of exposing that data? The great thing about a semantic web and standardized data location and access methods is of course mashups. If anybody knows how to get at your data, and they know that your data is referenced in a way that is similar to the way in which Bob is exposing his data, etc - then everyone can consume everyone's data and the entire world enters a euphoric bliss of data consumption.
So what I see really happening is that corporations are going to take baby steps. Perhaps they will adopt "semantic web" style philosophies internally... hopefully they will even be using Astoria to expose relational models and helper methods on top of those relational models to allow applications within a corporation to consume data. In my ideal world, this is the way much of an organization's data is exposed internally. The clash between technological philosophy and real-world business practice occurs when you try and deal with how to authenticate access to your data, how you charge for your data, and how you license your data, etc.
The great thing about tools like Astoria for exposing the data and tools like Silverlight for rendering exposed data is that regardless of what the business people decide the future of the semantic web is going to be - you'll be ready. In that regard, as long as people like Pablo Castro are still allowed to make some decisions within Microsoft, we will still see a steady stream of good things coming - at least from the data team, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
