Thank you Joe!

Here's a good place to start. imo

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=7086&mid=7086&tof=3&frt=2

Most of my posts here have been copy and pastes of Portuno Diamo's writings which soon, you will all see as works of art.

"Now here's a quandary. Should I report on an item related to a notorious Microsoft Watch comment spammer?"

Hope this puts an end to the spamming.:-)

Joe, just a small correction.

VCSY was only .014 cents last week and is now just .061 cents per share and soon to be on the Nasdaq!$!$!$
----------------------------------------------
Microsoft obviously wants to keep this on the down-lo

On July 24th(the day the mediator conference was held) Ballmer told Microsoft Shareholders:

"It's spending $500 million dollars and then it says we'll tell you later how we'll spend it,"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080725/wr_nm/microsoft_internet_dc_8

Joe,
check your facts. vcsy.ob closed at 6.1 cents & went as high as 8.8 cents.

Joe, what sort of comments are you looking for? I-man is among the very small group of holders that have been following vcsy for many years. Because of following the orbit of companies around said patent, and msft in particular struggling to define their place in the web-based race while dancing around infringement of said patent made it easy to see that msft would surely settle. Most of 'us' knew that this would be the outcome based on the recent pr's msft released stating the upcoming release of software that describes vcsy's patents. If you understand the patents, then its easy to see who's who.

On a side note. Vertical in 2000 went as high as 15 dollars a share.

Hey! I've been posting crap for ages on MW too - i want an article about me as well damnit!!! :)

I'm waiting for one more comment—the one that really matters—revealing details this post cannot. What is I-Man really willing to tell? According to court papers, Microsoft and VCSY settled their patent dispute on Thursday.
----------------------------------------------------
Nice post Joe. Wasn't this the stock that a few weeks ago traded at only about 1.5 cents per share? If so, that is a big increase. If I-Man knows anything about the settlement? It would appear that VCSY did get something out of this settlement.

However Softies would want to spin it, it would appear that money changed hands, and Micro$oft was the one paying.

Excellent article Joe.

I am not a fan of penny stocks. They are not regulated by the SEC and are more subject to fraud. You take a huge risk in investing in any penny stock. Throwing money at a penny stock is worse than stuffing cash in a mattress.

Here are my one time financial recommendations. While I get my stock information from multiple locations, Jim Cramer's 'the street' site is excellent for industry and company analysis. Cramer is entertaining on video. It is fun to watch him get truly animated when he is on a particular stock. I also like the A - F company ratings on the site.

I also like low cost mutual funds. The cheapest and best are Fidelity, Vanguard, and T. Rowe Price. These are reputable companies. The costs for many funds are less than 1%. Any fund that is costing you more than 2% is overcharging you. Check your IRAs and 401Ks to see what they are charging you. Over time the extra charges can add up leaving you with less money than a low cost fund.

At least we can put the VCSY issue to rest now.

I been watching the VCSY thing on and off for a little while. Never commented on it until now. Which means its been settled...this won't hurt Microsoft (they have much bigger issues like with the E.U. than this) and now we all move on ... till the next big lawsuit.

Al wrote: "check your facts."

Whoa, Al, I'm not used to seeing real penny stocks. I've corrected the amounts.

Thanks,

Joe

This "lawsuit", if you can even call it that, was a crock of shit.

Dear JM

Thanks for all your words of wisdom. But the readers here are not, I repeat or not looking for sound investing advice. We're trying to get a discussion going based on software patents concerning a settlement. Charts, graphs and financials will never tell the readers anything about how vcsy patents will affect the industry as a whole. It appears to me rather than paying attention you'd rather hear yourself speak. Try paying attention. Investment stragety is not the clue. We're talking tech, and we're talking "why".

I would encourage readers to do a little diggin before labeling vcsy as "a penny stock". The direction of ones opinion tells more about what one chooses to be aware of rather than actual hard objective facts. I hate to break it to you folks but your cliche labels will get you only regret. Dig, then information is out there. If you're lucky a few of us will point the way, if you're lucky.

"who's going to get rich off 6.1 cents a share?"

It depends on how many shares you buy. If you just buy 1 or 2 then you will not be rich.

If you bought $1,000,000 worth of shares then you would have just made about $3 million profit. Maybe you are really rich Joe but to me thats serious coin.

I wonder if the real settlement is worth more or less than this 75% increase?

Good read for newbies:
(Portuno did call this CORRECT way back on February 17th)

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_M/threadview?m=tm&bn=12004&tid=1348011&mid=1348015&tof=5&rt=2&frt=1&off=1

Microsoft probably won't offer more for Yahoo because they really don't want to own Yahoo. I think we'll see Microsoft abruptly shift gears and settle with VCSY. That will (Ballmer hopes - I don't know if Wade will provide one) bring a license for 744/521 to Microsoft and MSFT's applications and platform inventory can then be made internet-powered and Yahoo will be washed away unless they've been working with evaluation versions of 744/521 all this time.

As long as Microsoft does not settle, they will not be able to use any development work that uses 744/521 claims. When Microsoft settles, the agreement will probably allow MSFT to begin using whatever 744/521 related development they have in the shadows to be used immediately.

So the risk Microsoft is taking is that 744/521 are in the hands of the Googles and Yahoos of the world for evaluation and they've been using that to develope their systems and one day they will be allowed by VCSY to begin using the patents for commercial work before Microsoft gets that chance.

Either way, Microsoft will likely let the Yahoo bid fail so they can claim they're being abused then settle with VCSY and miraculously derive some incredible internet-enabled applications.

Ballmer would then look like a genius (even though he would show clearly he's a crook) and the softees in the world will elect him to be CEO for the next twenty years.

Oh well, who cares. It's only money.

@ Benjamin (if that is really who you are)

Cheers. A companies financial position is a good clue to how well a company is performing and WHY. This includes technology companies like Microsoft and VCSY. The fact that VCSY is going for less than a dollar is considered a penny stock. That is obvious to most people, but apparently has been lost on you. It is considered an 'over the counter' stock since it cannot list on a major exchange (less than a dollar). OTC stocks are not well regulated by the SEC and that includes VCSY. Due to this fact, less non-biased information is available than non OTC stocks. They have been consistently late with their 10K filings. I am sure that just went over your head.

You are just ticked because I shattered your VCSY house of cards.

This article from does pertain to financial information. I suggest you take some community classes to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

VCSY stinks as an 'investment'. This information can be found anywhere.

http://www.marketwatch.com/quotes/vcsy

Humm.. VCSY patent might not change anyones life or the industry, but the settlement with microsoft just makes things right for this small company. It has been seen many times, the big company uses the small ones idea without regard to the damages caused. Then the lawsuit comes and everyone labels them as lawsuit happy. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to get what is yours. They did the research, they applied for a patent, it was granted, and so they should be able to get a share if someone else wants to use their invention.
As to becoming rich, Billybob is right, at 1 cent a share you can buy a large volume of shares, and if it ever goes to 1 dollar like some people are speculating then you will see plenty of rich investors.

Its obvious you're a technical investor. That is ok JM. You're just shattered because a little company like vcsy can make msft stumble for a settlement. Its shattering I know. And jm, technicals are for those to lazy to do the real digging it takes to discover just what it is that makes people real money. You might as well point out there less than par website. The point is, we're hear to talk about the technology this company offers. I'm not angry about anything. Just disappointed by the lack of insight and openess people show because they're too lazy to verify whats been put in front of them. So they(you) resort back to what they know rather than what they're supposed to see. Its the blind leading the blind. That is ok. Its just sad. Cheers.

JD. Please note that they've traded as high as 15 dollars a share around 2000. The past repeats itself, as you'll soon see in many instances.

By: RapidRobert2
29 Jul 2008, 05:17 PM EDT

Jump to msg. #
UPDATE: STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL BY COURT IN EAST TEXAS...SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL..SO WE SHOULD GET NEWS THIS WEEK!

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., ?
?
Plaintiff, ?
?
v. ? CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-CV-144 (DF-CE)
?
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ?
?
Defendant. ?
?
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
IT IS STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiff Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. and
Defendant Microsoft Corporation (referred to collectively as ?the Parties?), through their counsel
of record and subject to approval of the Court, that:
(1) All claims presented by the Complaint, as well as all counterclaims thereto, shall
be dismissed with prejudice as to each of the Parties; and
(2) The Parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys? fees.
Case 2:07-cv-00144-DF-CE Document 65 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 1 of 3
2
DATED: July 29th, 2008
/s/ Eric M. Albritton (with permission) /s/ David J. Healey
John Ward, Jr.
-------------------------------------------------
By: RapidRobert2
29 Jul 2008, 05:26 PM EDT
Msg. 217061 of 217065
(This msg. is a reply to 217059 by regisoft.)

reg: This IS what we have been waiting to see. The CASE is HISTORY as soon as Judge Everingham approves the 'dismissal' of the case.

Don't let the 'with prejudice' throw you, it is in most motions to 'dismiss' a case with a settlement so neither side can bring legal action against the other for the same cause which is settled.

YES! THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS and we should see either NEWS or an SEC FILING by VCSY and/or MSFT as soon as the judge signs his signature to the 'approval'.

YEEEEEEEEHAAAA!

GET READY TO RUMBLE.....Because..

VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS - NOW IS YOUR TIME!

RR
IMO

By: msubulldog92
29 Jul 2008, 06:15 PM EDT
Msg. 217071 of 217193
(This msg. is a reply to 217069 by morrie33.)

Morrie
I agree....it wouldn't surprise me for the 8k or pr (whichever comes first) to emphasize the "partnership" with msft a whole lot more than the fact that we won a settlement. They will probably spin it so everyone wins, at least in the eyes of the unaware. That's ok with me though---as long as the check is big!!!lol

GO VCSY!!!

msu

Joe wrote "Microsoft Watch readers have been unable to escape VCSY (Vertical Computer Systems) in the comments." ... only because you failed to honor your stated intention of banning him some months ago.

Who else is VCSY going to sue? There are a ton of other non-MS products on the market that appear to overlap with that patent. Did they only sue MS because of the deep pockets?

Mike, you must be part of the "group" that would preferred the average investor stay blind to VCSY's potential. Back when I was "spamming" VCSY's shareprice was just a penny and a half, now it's almost six cents. So was I giving good advice in my posts? I think YES!

I see VCSY's shareprice in the dollars very soon!

Here's a clip from an email to me from morrie:

Where do YOU think the shareprice will go after MSFT announces a partnership. Do penny stocks announce partnerships with MSFT? Do pennystocks make MSFT crumble and settle? Even Alcatel-Lucent went all the way through the court process with MSFT. I bet you that a few million, hundreds of millions of people have heard of Alcatel-Lucent. How many have heard of VCSY? A few thousand?

And we brought MSFT to its knees. Where DO you think the shareprice is going to go?

In 2004 the shareprice went up to .05 based on one patent. No partners. No revenue streams. Does anyone around here read Portuno? MSFT has made billions off of .Net and Sharepoint. Texas Star has been so kind to say we should get 12% of that. Heck, let's say 10% for argument sake. Heck i'll be conservative. Let's say 5%. So for every billion that MSFT makes off .Net and Sharepoint, VCSY gets $50 million dollars. Did you know VCSY makes $6 million a year? But for every billion MSFT will be making, they'll be making conservative $50-100 million. This is called revenue stream from MSFT. What about settlement dollars? What about other partnerships? Licensing agreements with other companies?

We've waited 8 years guys. C'mon. And now at the end, you guys are worried about shareprice? Or the MMs? Enjoy the ride. sirius has given us scenarios of stock buybacks from VCSY. Of dividends. Do you really want to lose that opportunity because I say it's going to go to .30-.40 and once it hits there you're going to sell?

This is just the beginning. We've hit the big dog, and they've agreed to settle. Other companies will pony up next. Portuno has been saying it was going to happen like this for 2 years. When someone has the prescience to tell me something is going to happen in 2 years, and it does, I listen. When that same person says, "you will be very, very happy with your financial rewards." I hang on for the ride.

And this is one of the reasons...(By Portuno)

...Microsoft gave in and settled before the Markman Hearing as well:

http://efvote.wufoo.com/forms/ado-net-entity-framework-vote-of-no-confidence/

When your own people kick your butt for not delivering next generation capabilities in your "next generation" products, it's time to let somebody else run the show.

I don't think Ballmer is the one who drove this settlement with VCSY. I think it was Gates and Ozzie. Those two knew MSFT would not survive the rest of the year without the kind of technology they need to compete. Ballmer wouldn't know what technology he needs if it bit him on the nuptials.

As you look around at the kinds of announcements and what's being said around Microsoft, then examine the 6826744 patent, you'll begin seeing a different Microsoft from this point onward.

And why would MSFT want to partner with VCSY? It's not as embarrassing as saying VCSY made you fold to avoid a Markman Hearing.

By: morrie33
30 Jul 2008, 06:33 PM EDT
Msg. 217368 of 217417
Jump to msg. #
Yes still. MSFT agreed to a settlement. Niro who has worked on the settlement on contingency for 2 years. WADE who might've won the Markman hearing and had an injunction placed on MSFTd all just sat down over tea and settled this thing for a few hundred bucks because everyone was tired of it.

MSFT gets to use VCSY's patents. WADE gets to say that MSFT settled. Niro feels good about himself. But it's for hardly any money. That big bad MSFT just really put it to WADE and NIRO who were holding all the keys. I wondered why MSFT folded on the day the MARKMAN hearing was going to start?

Oh yeah because they found something that made VCSY cry "uncle" and VCSY backed off. Sure. I believe that.

We've read the court docs for 2 years. VCSY had this case in the bad. MSFT didn't even argue infringement, they argued "prior art." Once the Judge said the PATENT IS VALID, MSFT would've been screwed and all their partners using .Net and Sharepoint would've been screwed. So yes, MSFT was going to take it in the shorts.

And WADE and NIRO will walk away with bulging freakin' pockets. Take that to the freakin' bank.

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=217368

Good post Benjamin, JM is one of those idoits who love to hear themselves talk. Nobody is looking for investment advice here. The only problem we're going to have is a tax problem once the PR is released! Any opinion on when a PR is coming.

More from Portuno:
Looks like a more rational force is in place in Microsoft as touching the future. Gates and Ozzie understand what VCSY technology does.

The Yahoo bid smoked the senses of MSFT shareholders. The next time they hear "billion" they'll kneejerk that it "can't be worse than Yahoo" and everyone will walk away happy and hand in hand.

VCSY's prime tech estate in NOW Solutions is a testing platform for VCSY technology in conjunction with Microsoft .Net. Why would MSFT partner with VCSY? To gain access to the already-in-the-can glue that integrates Microsoft products with other third party applications and systems.

Or Microsoft can do the development themselves. See them in five or six years. So, VCSY is a treasure trove of information on how to meld Microsoft products with the web world. Will Gates and Ozzie be as obstinate and intransigent as earlier rulers?

I don't think so. I think they allowed the bus to careen all the way up to the last moment before the Markman Hearing only to stop it dead with a settlement.

If you're the plaintiff and the defense wants a settlement the day before the Markman Hearing, how much do you think that's worth.

And if you're the defense and you could put the screws to the plaintiff... wouldn't you? Would you settle to the hearing where you will discredit the plaintiff's claims and thus own the patent claims (since you've been using it for years to fatten your own calf)?

Microsoft settling the day before the Markman Hearing is a clear sign there's a change of mind in MSFT management.

Gates and Oz have been bumbling and mumbling about the wonders of the future webified Microsoft. Ballmer told the world MSFT is going to have to shell out some bucks to get into the club.

Now, Ballmer is busy trying to re-org his Windows/online unit. We probably won't be hearing much about or from him for a while until he's able to glue the little ceramic pony back together after one of the Kevins quit to turn Junipeer Networks into a next generation happy house.

GE has the largest socialized website in the world. Stuart Scott left a cush job at GE to work for MSFT right after MSFT let the AJAX horse out of the barn.

There's a much bigger story here than just one company's revenue. What VCSY longs are actually waiting for is the day when we can say "ok, so, that's how much we're making on Microsoft's license, who's next?"
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=7581&mid=7591&tof=2&frt=2

From what ive been told big investors is that VCSY is going to go up in the dollar ranges but it may take a few years. ive herd this from several investers. i say its a buy.

@MH:
Thanks for the tip! I'll be sure to invest a large sum of money in VCSY. I've always found that the most reliable investment advice comes from people who post anonymously on the Internet with poor spelling and worse grammar.

You wouldn't believe the fortune I've made from all of those offers from Nigeria! And now VCSY rises to offer a compelling investment alternative! Woo-hoo!

Vertical Computer Systems Settles Patent Suit With MicrosoftLast update: 8/1/2008 1:51:37 PMDOW JONES NEWSWIRES Vertical Computer Systems Inc. (VCSY) settled the patent infringement claim that it initiated in federal court against Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), according to a document filed Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Under a confidential settlement agreement, the company said it granted Microsoft a non-exclusive, fully paid-up license under the patent which was the subject of the legal proceeding. No further details of the settlement was provided in the filing. Vertical Computer shares traded recently at 8 cents, up 1 cent, while shares of Microsoft recently traded at $25.32, off 40 cents. - Chad Clinton, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-1349; chad.clinton@dowjones.com Click here to go to Dow Jones NewsPlus, a web front page of today's most important business and market news, analysis and commentary: http://www.djnewsplus.com/al?rnd=DH3lPMl... You can use this link on the day this article is published and the following day. (END) Dow Jones NewswiresAugust 01, 2008 13:51 ET (

By: RapidRobert2
01 Aug 2008, 02:20 PM EDT
Msg. 218061 of 218068
Jump to msg. #
It tells me that MSFT IS PAYING A YEARLY LICENSE AND ROYALTY FEES TO USE THE 'SITEFLASH' PATENT AND MSFT PAID DEARLY OR THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO HAVE A 'CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT'.

VCSY WOULDN'T REQUIRE A 'CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT' SO THAT SAYS MSFT PAID A HUGE AMOUNT TO KEEP IT QUIET, AND CLOSE THE CASE.

THEY WON'T KEEP IT QUIET FOR LONG, SOMEONE WILL EITHER TALK OR WE WILL SEE ALOT OF MONEY IN THE NEXT FILINGS OF VCSY.

OH! AND MSFT ISN'T THE ONLY ONE LICENSED TO USE 'SITEFLASH' TECHNOLOGY.

NICE!
RR
IMO

Oh look, VCSY's own Retarded Robert2 drops by to spread the FUD.(this is the same guy who swore 15 months ago that VCSY had a "done deal" settlement with Microsoft. Bzzt Wrong Answer, Didn't happen.

The fact is, Microsoft signed a non exclusive, "in perpetuity" (forever) license. There is no "annual stream of revenue" fees. It's a "one shot, that's all you get" deal. They signed a license. Period.

None of the VCSY spam squad can prove anything beyond that.

Yo,eleven minutes after 2 pm, time for me to dabble in some still water.

Microsoft wants to keep it quiet that they paid a HUGE settlement(in the form of past licensing) to a penny stock company that they tried to drive out of business for eight years, but failed too!

--------------------------------------------
(By Portuno)
"Is there any possibility for VCSY to have something bigger on the work with IBM besides 744?"

Certainly. 744 is a basis to begin knitting together the various operating systems out there into a unified platform. 521 allows for all legacy code to join in that modernization.

Products will derive from 744 and 521 that will be worth even more than the original intellectual properties. This is why no-one will receive an exclusive license for either 744 or 521 or 103. Each is an individual foundation for building over-the-horizon systems. Meshed together, these three patents promise to usher in a new age of computing with ideas and products no-one could have imagined only six months ago.

Six months ago Microsoft reigned supreme even though we VCSY longs knew how badly the thing was wounded. Now, Microsoft is trying to hide the embarrassing news that what they dismissed has hobbled and crippled them.

This is only the beginning. The real value for Semantic Web products comes when individual companies like IBM and Adobe are ready to interoperate their companies so their development teams may work on projects together without losing their cultures or mismanaging their individuals and teams.

There are numerous items within IBM that can be and have been pointed out for their similarity to the claims and capabilities of both 744 and 521.

We also await news of patent 103 use with the larger communications houses which could afford to build a 103 prototype.

The Microsoft settlement now means VCSY will have the cash to pursue their business plans without concern Al will be able to convince the VCSY debtors to sell the intellectual property (was THAT a hilarious idea or what?).

The VCSY intellectual property just became much more valuable because it's validated by a litigation event and because it sits at the center of the kinds of operating systems and manufacturing ecologies the software industry will be using for the next few decades.

Microsoft settled before the Markman Hearing so they would not be punished by the Judge with an injunction against .Net and Sharepoint. They are trying to keep things quiet but I would suspect that tactic is going to backfire like putting a brick on the cooker's pressure valve.

Microsoft has not been good at evaluating public reaction and formulating an appropriate reaction. They tend to over-react and most commonly in the wrong direction.

The "Mojave Experiment" has turned out to be an embarrassing screw up on the part of MSFT marketing. I would suspect Ballmer is still at the reigns on marketing and this effort for MSFT to operate in stealth is going to land Ballmer in hot water with major shareholders.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=7760&mid=7767&tof=2&frt=2

By: scdawgfan
01 Aug 2008, 11:20 PM EDT
Msg. 218328 of 218328
(This msg. is a reply to 218269 by johnnnyri.)

johnnnyri...

I'm here...just playing catch up again tonight. I spent the afternoon on the golf course and missed all the banter about what the phrase "paid up" means. At this point, I'm just glad to see VCSY announcing that it got paid. I tend to agree with Port that the lack of specifics indicates the numbers are significant.

Why are we arguing with each other about varying degrees of GOOD news for VCSY?

Fact, the 8k does not define the terms of the settlement, the settlement agreement will do that. It's unlikely we will ever get to see the actual language of the agreement.

Food for thought..."IF" VCSY will derive future revenues from the future revenues of MSFT, isn't it in the best interests of both to spin this deal in such away that MSFT minimizes the degree of negative impact on MSFT? Last week they were the enemy...no argument here. Now they are a customer. VCSY's future may not depend upon them, but it certainly stands to be enriched by them...and the byproduct should be financially rewarding to us as shareholders.

Go MSFT! And with any luck, we will be able to license the same tech to MSFT's competitors and cheer them on too.

Here's to the future...raise your glass. Hopefully, we are now sailing with the wind at our back and on the way to showing up on the radar screens of the major players of the technology world.

SCDAWGFAN

By: Texas_Star
01 Aug 2008, 11:32 PM EDT
Msg. 218330 of 218375
(This msg. is a reply to 215759 by Texas_Star.)
Jump to msg. #
$$$ to pay "up to date?" A possible clue...

This was released on July 24, 2008. Date 'ring a bell?' Settlement!

"There is this huge, huge, huge new opportunity around the Internet and online and we have to embrace that opportunity and invest in that opportunity," Ballmer said.

Shares of Microsoft have fallen 8 percent over the last week since the company forecast an outlook below Wall Street estimates and revealed an additional $500 million investment into its online unit, even as it chalked up further losses.

Charles Di Bona, a software research analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein, said Ballmer's comments did not give enough details about how that additional investment will be spent and how the company arrived at that decision.

"It's spending $500 million dollars and then it says we'll tell you later how we'll spend it," said Di Bona, who has an "outperform" rating on Microsoft. "The market's concern is not about how it is running its core business. It's about decisions about larger chunks of money that people can't track."

Reference post no. 215759

Many have thought the settlement (paid up to date) would be around, yep, $500,000,000.

Very interesting!!! So glad to be Locked & "FULLY" Loaded!

Tex*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080725/wr_nm/microsoft_internet_dc_8
(I added the link to the article- Thanks Tex!)

Hey Joe, if you follow the messageboards you'll see how true this post is. The old Bashers are pretending to be happy only to shift gears later to slow down the runs and the new Bashers are talking about flipping and other crap to try and convince VCSY Shareholders this isn't what we think.
I personally predict $50 per share or more by Thanksgiving! imo
-------------------------------------------
By: morrie33
02 Aug 2008, 08:32 PM EDT
Msg. 218514 of 218549

Hey still, funny that there are new bashers and the "bashing" isn't about what a scam VCSY is or how their patents don't work or how MSFT will crush VCSY, but how the price can't continue going up on a daily basis or that Fund Managers won't buy VCSY or that VCSY won't make it to the NASDAQ in the immediate future.

(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long)

Buyer beware. The following link is a warning from the SEC on microcap stocks.

http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/microcapstock.htm

"Insiders Own Large Amounts of the Stock In many microcap fraud cases — especially "pump and dump" schemes — the company's officers and promoters own significant amounts of the stock. When one person or group controls most of the stock, they can more easily manipulate the stock's price at your expense."

A word of measured advice on penny stocks. It is a minefield of fraud and hype.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2006-11-24-otc-bb_x.htm

How many penny stock companies have made Microsoft settle a lawsuit in just 15 months?
(You can understand why it is being kept confidential)

VCSY will not be a penny stock company for long!
-------------------------------------------------
Vertical Computer Systems Settles Patent Suit With Microsoft

Vertical Computer Systems Inc. (VCSY) settled the patent infringement claim that it initiated in federal court against Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), according to a document filed Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Under a confidential settlement agreement, the company said it granted Microsoft a non-exclusive, fully paid-up license under the patent which was the subject of the legal proceeding. No further details of the settlement was provided in the filing.

I-Man, I have an alternate theory, and I stress that it's only a theory.

But I've never known Microsoft to make deals and business decisions without a clear and solid strategy in mind. Regardless of the court of world opinion, they spit in the face of the US government and never missed a beat. They are in bed with the Chinese government, and own voting majorities in many government bodies throughout the world. Sp what does VCSY have that entire governments don't?

My theory is that a large incumbent deliberately, though without admission, may tend to throws patent lawsuits in order to give the impression that software patents really do protect small companies and competition. Whereas the truth is that software patents protect the powerful incumbents, letting those giants legally destroy any competition and innovation that might threaten their power base. Software patents are a legal weapon that only the rich and powerful can afford to use, and that always trump poorer but innovative people.

However, the incumbents cannot let it be known that software patents protect the old empires and stifle innovation and competition. So an ultra-rich incumbent does well to throw away some of its riches to make it look like software patents protect the little guys; the long-term payoff is much larger.

So, yes, you are probably right that VCSY and its investors will make some money on this. But it's not a triumph of VCSY's "technical innovation" (in general, lawyers are not capable of software technical innovation; that's why they are lawyers instead of software engineers). It's a triumph of VCSY's luck to be used as a tool by an incumbent to help support the software patent system.

So VCSY and its investors will very likely reap profits from this deal. But also help dig the grave of future innovation just a little deeper. But that's not a moral judgment; it would be wrong and unfair to force VCSY or other patent trolls from trying to legally game the system. It would be better to dismantle the software patent system altogether. But for now it's a legal loophole and a major boon to the current empires and their willing accomplices.

... mind you, it's just a theory...

If you don't know the technology...(By Portuno)

... or at least make an attempt to understand the technology, you're going to be at the mercy of these cheesy traders who will lie to you about the facts and the history to get you to let go.

If you at least understand what the patents can do, the news in the industry will illuminate what you're seeing in VCSY technology.

Like this:

---------
Microsoft working on "post-Windows" OS 1:07PM, Monday 4th August 2008
PC-Pro

Microsoft is working on a web-based operating system called Midori, as it looks to life beyond Windows.

Midori is expected to be a cloud-computing service, and so not as dependent on hardware as current generations of Windows.

The operating system is also expected to run with a virtualisation layer between the hardware and the OS, and is expected to be a commercial offshoot of the Singularity research project which Microsoft has been working on since 2003. Previously the company had denied that the project was intended for commercial release.
(more at URL)
-----------

Now, do a quick run-through of this:
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT7076521
and you will begin seeing how an operating system can be pieced together by components acting as agents.

Patent 521 is the sister patent to 6826744 which is the patent settled by MSFT with VCSY in VCSY v MSFT.

Negotiations between VCSY and MSFT ongoing? I would say yes until they announce they've reached agreement on the rest of VCSY's IP cache as a past use of 744 won't secure Microsoft's future at all. Mainly because anything MSFT did with 744 in the past was done on the QT and tiptoeing around anyone looking for infringment evidence.

Buyer beware. The following link is a warning from the SEC on microcap stocks.

http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/microcapstock.htm

"Insiders Own Large Amounts of the Stock In many microcap fraud cases — especially "pump and dump" schemes — the company's officers and promoters own significant amounts of the stock. When one person or group controls most of the stock, they can more easily manipulate the stock's price at your expense."

@Check this out:
Thanks for the link. Very good information and advice.

@I-Man:
I once asked portuno where I could obtain real information about the VCSY products to which these patents apply, and was told that it was all hidden away on disks and in cabinets by a small group of people and was no longer available for me or anyone else outside of this group.

And regardless of your flowery language, those patent applications are nothing but fluff and hand-waving. They are so broadly general that they describe things that have existed decades before they were granted or even filed.

I know this from experience. The database engine that I invented 9 years ago was based on our company's previous engine, taking many of its design points but leaving behind its old code. Those design points were invented in the mid-1970s and yet they currently are described by an issued patent. Somebody a fw years ago failed to research prior art, someone at the USPTO swallowed the application hook, line, and sinker, and a US patent was issued.

So, since portuno admits that the information isn't accessible you me, I must conclude that it doesn't exist. (Maybe it's my roots in Missouri, the "Show Me" state.) Can you fill in the gaps here? No? Pointing folks to the patents means nothing: they overly broad and written so that only a lawyer could stomach them.

You can only throw around buzzwords. Great. If you really thought you had a hot investment, you wouldn't push in into other peoples' faces; you'd hide away and silently rake in your trillions. The only people who sell off their Get Rich Quick schemes are those whose schemes depend on selling them to suckers.

@Check this out:
Thanks for the link. Very good information and advice.

@I-Man:
I once asked portuno where I could obtain real information about the VCSY products to which these patents apply, and was told that it was all hidden away on disks and in cabinets by a small group of people and was no longer available for me or anyone else outside of this group.

And regardless of your flowery language, those patent applications are nothing but fluff and hand-waving. They are so broadly general that they describe things that have existed decades before they were granted or even filed.

I know this from experience. The database engine that I invented 9 years ago was based on our company's previous engine, taking many of its design points but leaving behind its old code. Those design points were invented in the mid-1970s and yet they currently are described by an issued patent. Somebody a fw years ago failed to research prior art, someone at the USPTO swallowed the application hook, line, and sinker, and a US patent was issued.

So, since portuno admits that the information isn't accessible you me, I must conclude that it doesn't exist. (Maybe it's my roots in Missouri, the "Show Me" state.) Can you fill in the gaps here? No? Pointing folks to the patents means nothing: they overly broad and written so that only a lawyer could stomach them.

You can only throw around buzzwords. Great. If you really thought you had a hot investment, you wouldn't push in into other peoples' faces; you'd hide away and silently rake in your trillions. The only people who sell off their Get Rich Quick schemes are those whose schemes depend on selling them to suckers.

Dear Joe,

Sorry if I have turned your comment page into a warground but sometimes a body can't just stand there and be slandered no matter how mealy the mouth may be. I should turn the other cheek but I don't like folks introducing spiritual platitudes in business dialect so let's shove the hypocrisy and get down to tuna.

PS - I hope you paid up on your bandwidth for the months to come. I don't think this is going to calm down any time soon.

@ Philosopher.

"Too broad". That's odd. Microsoft settled so they apparently don't believe the patent is too broad. They agree the novelty of the method in which 744 constructs with arbitrary objects is quite a ways farther than Microsoft's own .Net capabilities (the ones that were shown, that is. their own MVPs declared no confidence in ADO.Net because it was full of holes in applicability. Perhaps now that MSFT has a "fully paid-up license" the holes in the ADO.Net facility will miraculously be closed and smoothed over.

You don't sound too happy, philos. I tell you what, phil. Why don't I give you something to read that might cheer you up? Uhhh... just don't read all of the article because you're just going to have your heart broken.

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/07/the-death-of-go.html

>

That was a bastardization of a paraphrase if ever I saw one. You turn out to be as devious as the bashers who lurk the message boards. Is that you at Yahoo, Phil? I know original_al is here. he pops up once in a while to appear relevant. He's an open-source advocate. Are you? If so I can immediately see what has you so upset about Microsoft settling. Here comes Mono strapped to the tracks and the 7:20 is about to sever head from feet.

I feel so bad about slighting you so. If you could restate the information you were looking for, perhaps a kind soul out there would undo the terrible wrong you feel you have been done by my arrogance.

>

Microsoft settled the day before the Markman Hearing. The Markman Hearing was about to unroll their history of infringement in .Net and Sharepoint in full view of a judge versed in software patent terms. If all you said were true, don't you think Microsoft would have before now achieved a re-examination of the patent instead of settling? I guess you think Microsoft settles cases all the time... (ok readers you can stop the snickering - philosopher here has a serious issue with patents and it shows).

>

Woops. There it is. Blinding prejudice. There's always some emotional skreed behind every effort to pile up unbiased reasoning. Something always prevents the subject matter from ever becoming more than a flat featureless surface to be attacked.

The database engine you invented doesn't provide the ability to treat all content, all form, and all functionality as arbitrary. Microsoft wants to use that capability. They used it in their .Net and Sharepoint products for years. The SiteFlash patent does build a new arbitrary paradigm and that's what you're failing to acknowledge. Microsoft paid up for the period of unauthorized use of the patent capabilities. What's secret is the amount paid for the license. We haven't seen the results of any follow up negotiations yet. That's what longs are looking for. What will SiteFlash mean to Microsoft products like Oslo from now on? I'll tell you what 744 means to Microsoft. It means Microsoft doesn't need Novell as a "secure" interoperable middleman between the world and Microsoft. Microsoft may now grow living software in a SiteFlash ecology (the operating system is the development system is the application is the community - more buzzwords I guess).

I've seen cases like yours and I would say you need to get hold of a bottle of Doctor Tort's Emulsion of Couldawouldashoulda Root. It's said to be the cure for the not-invented-here virus that seems to inflict otherwise intelligent technologists. It's marked by minimilization of concepts, isolation of logical trains with truncated synapses and general stupor.

Im very sorry somebody described your invention before you got a chance to thrill the world with your work (that's the jist of your paragraph - I'm not sure I understand what happened, though - just taking a stab at being civil. I've invented things myself... just not as fast as others.). The other people did the amount of work necessary to codify the structure built. You seem to have a problem with that???

It's quite obvious you're of the anti-patent league school of thought. I have a bit of information for you: software patents are legal and they aren't going away anytime soon. In fact, based on recent opinion around the PTO as commented by the patent lawyer in the URL I gave you above (of which you will be surprised to hear I agree with), most software patents would be done away with EXCEPT (drum roll please!) and I quote: "Distribution of the process over two general purpose computing devices quite clearly seems to be the key to patentability in the Board’s view, for the Board emphasized that the narrower claim covered only the embodiment in Wasynczuk’s specification that “uses two computing devices” not the embodiment that “uses a single computer.” In sum, an innovative process is not patentable when operating on a single computer processor but is when operating on two processors, even though the Board recognizes that the process in the unpatentable claim “is essentially the method” set forth in the patentable claim."

Both 6826744 and 7076521 are nothing if not used between any and all other computers. It's the sole reason for the 744/521 sisterhood to join computers and their processing together. It's the kind of thing that can begin in human resources management and repurpose all the way to energy management on server farms. THAT kind of transformation the above patent article is singling out for patentability. Both 744 and 521 are embodied by virtualized communication and transaction processing arbitrated into a common abstract. Buzzzzzz.

The day of the monolithic software is done. Distributed resources join distributed content (all data of any kind) form (all descriptions of data presentation) and functionality (all services and transformations available to the computer) into communities of development ecology. A place where the community builds the software, manages the software, answers questions does tech help on the software governs the sotware... and the entire show can be run by a few people. That's what Microsoft agrees "arbitrary" is about as a by-product of SiteFlash's ability to arbitrate content, form and function in distinct verticals within the development structure.

Ooops... forgot! Buzzwords. No. Spoilers. Watch Oslo spin from nothing over the next few months and you'll understand what a disruption in a technology epoch means. Don't you remember Altair? Commodore? Great game simulations on really primitive graphics. You could use those in a siteflash construct if you wanted. Granular virtualization allows the smallest working node in a structure to be adapted for use anywhere (that's 521) But, you need a way of affiliating that virtualization with a field of abstractions that will express into any or many or unique user requirements. (that's 744)

You seem intelligent. I would be interested to find if you understand the nature of the SiteFlash patent. Perhaps there's something there you're missing. Microsoft hasn't missed it. They didn't want to go through a Markman Hearing so they bailed out. Would they have had the opportunity to say anything about any other negotiations after the immeidate announcement of the settlement? Probably not given the scope of products derived from those two patents (VCSY is anything but a patent troll and would be seen that way if given a decent review by argumentatives - nobody seems to be objective. Even Robert X (Malcolm's younger bro) Cringely is flipping the journalistic ego and finger. Why? Is that sort of artwork necessary? Past date anxiety medication?

Oh well. Enough words. I'm talking to brick walls.

>

I think what you are talking about was the Emily whitepaper. I don't remember. That whitepaper was about the Emily programming language more so than the MLE(521) kernel. What I know of the MLE kernel I know from the patent. Emily is a programming language built in XML to process XML and any other protocol. It's the first of the dynamic languages you hear so much about today in 2008. The whitepaper was written in 1999. The patent pending process on Emily seems to have come to an abrupt halt right around the time of the settlement.

Why would that happen, do you think? What's funny is Microsoft only a couple days ago announced a new programming language for parallel processors. Funny, but, that's what the whiz of SNMP agents was aiming at with Emily.

If VCSY dangles an exclusive on Emily in front of Microsoft, let's consider what that would do. First, it would immediately balance the disadvantage Microsoft is starting off with in this lineup with all the rest of the industry players. Don't notice it? Isn't it funny how the semantic web is always allllmmmooosssttt there... but nobody just rushes out and delivers what semantic web theorists all know is possible. The aggregated web operating systems... where are they? It's like flying cars. Nada even though we know they're there. Everybody's got something under wraps and what is it? Each is afraid to unveil before the other? It's been this way since 2006 - how much more obvious does it need to be? The industry is throttled at a point just a few developments away from the semantic web. And Microsoft is behind. Want to throw a real bone to sweeten the negotiations? MicroEmily - a very high level dynamic language for building very high level dynamic languages... veertical style. In other words, your langauge (what you guys say at work) becomes the programming language linked to the arbitrary business objects crafted by 521 al within a living software ecology of 521.

Nervana and that's not a typo. It's a state business types meld into when the business hums along. Like velveeta on wonder bread. Toasty.

The whitepaper was written and available in 2000. It's stuffed away in a file on a storage device I don't have immediate access to. Sorry if you interpret my difficulty in accessing old information as refusing to educate you. You made one request, if I remember correctly. And you didn't ask for anything more after. Sorry I forgot. Your request didn't sound as thirsty for knowledge as you seem to have become now that Microsoft settled.

Besides, the whitepaper was only a shadow of a description of what the patent says for MLE/Emily. The whitepaper focused on the Emily langugage and what it could do... that's somehow slipped off the radar screen now that VCSY doesn't seem to be pursuing the patent process now. I may be mistaken but that's the impression I got from some email of PTO declarations.

Besides, the thing you're supposed to be talking about is the Siteflash patent. There was no whitepaper for that as I recall... other than the kind of paper work you can dab on the redass.

>

What's funny is these buzzwords have been thrown around for a long long time before now. Now they're recognizable. People laughed at the longs for talking about this kind of thing. Now you're paying big bucks to learn the buzzwords in Byteme. Where's Mono, phil? Do you know where Mono is tonight? Better look out for the dogcatcher.

I'm throwing around buzzwords none of you were using eight years ago. Now you recognize them as "buzzwords" at least. At least you've studied enough to know what I'm talking about has a real paradigm beyond the traditional procedural world. If you could possibly navigate a few of the "buzzwords" perhaps we could examine the issues more closely.

I've written about these "buzzwords" and the methods that can make those buzzwords reality since 2000 because I know what it can do to the moribund and hobbled software industry going through the throes of a failed identity. I like showing peopole new things. Unfortunately, in this case, it took eight years to catch on. It all had to come down to suing Microsoft. What have those who are not Microsoft doing all this time and with what?

Hard to figure, isn't it? I like looking because it's the only way anyone will find anything.

Why do I do it? Because I want you to discover what I found; an elegant way to make everything from distributed operating systems (like what Microsoft needs to do) to aggregated interoperable internet frameworks... ahhh, but, there I go with the buzzwords you don't like. Ideas too foreign to you? I can imagine. Perhaps you can read Verticals description of their claims vconstruction for 744. Maybe that will help you understand a tad more of what 744 can bring.

I would like to help you out with the Emily whitepaper but I get the feeling you're more comfortable with the hurt feelings and ignorance so you won't have to come out of your deep denial. We can continue to trade benign insults and passive aggressions as long as we want. But, the goal to learn is something that requires a "yes", not a "no". And I would like to see you say 'yes', phil. Join the race who lives 10,000 years just to get a chance to poke a button on a machine. At some point in the not too distant future you're going to have to adopt the buzzwords and learn at least SOMEthing of the architecture. You might as well do it now and avoid the rush... and the irrelevance. By that time only programmers who have subject matter expertise need apply. Industry can't afford the middleman incantations of the 20th century. It's hands on and personal from here and across the web or nowheres at all. Boy howdy.

Microsoft settled. The patent is for real. You and yours will have to contend with it like I've been trying to tell you all year. Just trying to help you short-cut the disruption process. Ride the wave and it's just another bobble. Cling to the lawnchairs and you'll be found sandwiched between vending machines floating through the casino.

Microsoft is going to be able to put all the pieces in the lab together once the dust clears. The big machine is going to start running again after all these years; suddenly, it will appear as though somebody put the distributor rotor back in the old jalopy. Microsoft is about to become a very attractive property... if they're not crazy, that is. We await news. I think there's a rational voice in MSFT now and it's finally going to go the right directions. But I've been wrong about MSFT before using the "nobody can be that stupid" gauge but this would truly be the highest in any pecking order of boners.

I'm hurt, phil. I thought you were going to become a devotee. If you knew the opportunity that was offered, you wouldn't be accusing the gift giver of being a bad person. Perhaps you should concentrate on explaining to the bad person exactly what you think made Microsoft settle. Because, THAT is what you're upset about. I can tell.

----

Joe - sorry for the major footage. Inchage? Real estate. Sorry. It needed to be said. Just like the next thing will be needed...to be said.

Lesson one - the website treats Yahoo marking with left and right arrows as markup so phil's comments were turned into metadata. Poof. Just like that.

So here are the quotes from phil's post that fit in where the arrow points - sorry to make you have to do the cut and paste >

"I once asked portuno where I could obtain real information about the VCSY products to which these patents apply, and was told that it was all hidden away on disks and in cabinets by a small group of people and was no longer available for me or anyone else outside of this group."

"And regardless of your flowery language, those patent applications are nothing but fluff and hand-waving. They are so broadly general that they describe things that have existed decades before they were granted or even filed."

"I know this from experience. The database engine that I invented 9 years ago was based on our company's previous engine, taking many of its design points but leaving behind its old code. Those design points were invented in the mid-1970s and yet they currently are described by an issued patent. Somebody a fw years ago failed to research prior art, someone at the USPTO swallowed the application hook, line, and sinker, and a US patent was issued."

"So, since portuno admits that the information isn't accessible you me, I must conclude that it doesn't exist. (Maybe it's my roots in Missouri, the "Show Me" state.) Can you fill in the gaps here? No? Pointing folks to the patents means nothing: they overly broad and written so that only a lawyer could stomach them."

"You can only throw around buzzwords. Great. If you really thought you had a hot investment, you wouldn't push in into other peoples' faces; you'd hide away and silently rake in your trillions. The only people who sell off their Get Rich Quick schemes are those whose schemes depend on selling them to suckers."

PS - Sorry Joe for the additional inchage but it would have been in the original post so it's almost the same except for the overhead apoligizing for the screw up.

VCSY dropped today 27% to 6 cents a share!!!!!!!

http://finance.aol.com/quotes/vertical-computer-systems-inc/vcsy/nab

Still up from .015 two weeks ago!
It's just the Shorters way of trying to scare some shares loose to cover their azzes!

Either way, nothing you can say will change the fact that Microsoft was petrified of going in front of the Judge at the Markman Hearing and i'm "POSITIVE" that Wade and Niro used that to our $ADVANTAGE!$

VCSY will be $50 by Christmas(this year)!!

@ Portable Doubledildo
You said (and I quote):
"The fact is, Microsoft signed a non exclusive, "in perpetuity" (forever) license. There is no "annual stream of revenue" fees. It's a "one shot, that's all you get" deal. They signed a license. Period."

I'm quite shocked at your naivete'. You obviously aren't aware saying things precisely the way you said it is actionable by the company for a viriety of reasons - primarily to protect the information coming to past, current and future shareholders of publicly traded companies.

You either made people laugh in the sixth grade and think posting misinformation on a public technology forum is like farting in the cafeteria next to the refired beans or you're wreckless and foolish.

Same same.

Here's how you make amends: post the language from a court paper or announcement or SEC filing that says what you wrote.

Otherwise stfu.

The grownups are trying to has things up. Go fart in the closet. It will give you maximum feedback and satisfaction.

Screeeecccchhh. Das flugneshpickt und floggenshnooken mit dem farbeguden das sociechtun mit einen friggenshprokker!

Heil! Heil! Heil!

"Mike :
Joe wrote "Microsoft Watch readers have been unable to escape VCSY (Vertical Computer Systems) in the comments." ... only because you failed to honor your stated intention of banning him some months ago.

Posted by Mike | July 30, 2008 5:29 AM"

You folks are going to have to figure out what "public" means. When you're faced with a crowd with information and events and things they can point to hat make your thinking screwy... it's not them that's wrong. It's your own thinking.

Figure it out or quit bitching. If you want to argue: argue.

Don't stand there and bitch like a fat girl set in fireants at the church picnic.

When good journalists go bad.(By Portuno)

Robert Cringely got skunked by depending on the "sharper minds" who thought the whole VCSY v MSFT issue was a mirage or bluff.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080807_005369.html

"It's nice for Vertical that Microsoft settled, but sharp legal minds (far sharper than mine) were surprised."

Surprise! There's a reason they were all wrong.

Now, those same "sharp minds" are cobbling all sorts of alternative theories as to why they were wrong.

LOL

They were wrong because they don't understand the technology (you should get yourself a new group of technical advisors, Bob X. The ones you depend on are stuck in the 20th century.)

Oh NOOOO a CURVE BALLLLLLL....(By Portuno)

LOL

Yankeepoodle was trying to emulate his heroic Microsoft management by throwing a curve ball at the RB VCSY crowd:

Thanks to stockwabbit for finding the URL:

Small Business
Running the Show
Caught in the Crossfire

Small firms make a lot of money from licensing patents to larger companies. Now, a big chunk of that money may be at risk.
By STUART WEINBERG
August 11, 2008

(more at URL)
------------

There's a difference between Avistar's situation with Microsoft and VCSY's situation with Microsoft.

"Earlier this year, Avistar Communications Corp. was in talks to license some patents to Microsoft Corp. when Microsoft threw it a curveball..."

It's quite obvious MSFT was using a brute force method of "negotiating" with Avistar before they had reached an agreement (that's what "was in talks to license" means, Al).

Microsoft asked VCSY to accept a settlement and a cash amount to forgive and forget all past issues regarding 6826744 and to pay up for the licensing period not paid by Microsoft prior to the Markman Hearing July 25, 2008. (Note .Net and Sharepoint have been available from Microsoft since at least 2003 - the period of infringement is retroactive to begin the year the application was filed - 1999. That was before .Net or Sharepoint existed.)

Microsoft has licensed patent 6826744. Where would they immediately place their license and future business at risk by double-corssing on the settlement and pursuing a course to invalidate 744? That's crazy.

So, "yankeepoodle" pulls a ##### like the rest of the skeptics. They typically don't know the field so they wing it and in doing so they look foolish for not being able to detect the details that squash their position.

It's called biting the foot in your mouth.

I don't think VCSY is going to be "paralyzed" as yankeepoodle would have us assume is VCSY's current fate.

I think VCSY is most likely "paralyzed" trying to figure out what to do with the money and who to contend with next.

The act of settlement in VCSY v MSFT strengthened VCSY. It also had the effect of strengthening Microsoft as they will be seen to be innovative... at VCSY shareholder expense.

(continued from previous post)

Mister Ballmer wants to stay quiet but I don't think that's going to be possible.

Note MSFT is brazen enough to take advantage of infringement to establish a market for Sharepoint (5th year and already exceeding Microsoft's own expectations... and only a partial endowment, so to speak, of VCSY IP for that period).

What will a full endowment of a legal VCSY IP license bring about? Well, in only about one month since this...
http://efvote.wufoo.com/forms/ado-net-entity-framework-vote-of-no-confidence/

...to the latest announcements and promises about Sharepoint and .Net ADO Entity Framework and we're seeing some improvement already. What will the full endowment look like and what will the SiteFlash and MLE/Emily patent allow MSFT to pull in? Multiples of $5billion in my estimation given the magnitude of the teaching effort and the productivity of a SiteFlash derivative like Oslo to go hand in hand with Sharepoint Services and Sharepoint Servers each becoming established and dominant in their own verticals.

THAT is what Sharepoint can do for Microsoft: a web operating system for any and all bounded only by the constraints of governance for the covered vertical disciplines.

Pretty snazzy, don't you think? And that's just a baseline to measure advance.

Siteflash can build other Siteflash constructs meaning each covered vertical can build its own construction ecology so the owner can become the builder on grand scales.

Like I said, watch the claims about Sharepoint in the near future.

But, then, also watch for claims among ALL the software industry players. Their own products are going to take some quantum leaps in capability over the months and years ahead.

You should all at least know where it came from.

I would think the NEXT period of .Net/Sharepoint enrichment of Microsoft would be a more curious entity as the Microsoft community is expecting $5billion+ revenues on Microsoft's promises concerning growth of Sharepoint.

That's what will blow the lid off the story and if there's no information now, we'll just have to keep digging and laying it out.

I ain't no-ways tired. But I do grow weary of thinking adults might behave as adults and being sorely disappointed. So my decision to disappear from the boards has been revoked along with the kind of "open-ness" one might expect from such a large and supposedly unpretentious "partner".

Mister Ballmer may wish to throw curve balls but he should realize, in the adult world, people throw back.

Advancements to .Net + Sharepoint(By Portuno)

A clear way to measure the difference between .Net/Sharepoint before the VCSY v MSFT settlement and after the settlement is the best way to see how important acquiring VCSY technology has been to Microsoft.

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=220427
By: Texas_Star
11 Aug 2008, 05:38 PM EDT
Msg. 220427 of 220473

[.NET] + [SharePoint] =

$$$$$ * Mucho Dinero amigo!

With all the recent news about .NET and SharePoint, I think the settlement is larger than most here ever could imagine! In My OPINION.

Try to 'wrap your head' around all this:

(url's at original post)

NOW, don't try to "pizz down my back and tell me it's raining" (that Wade & Niro settled for $10 and lunch)! Yeah right. SharePoint & .NET have a projected $7 Billion of combined revenue next year!!

Tex*

aimvho

* "The grownups are trying to has things up."

The idiot who wrote this non-sentence pretty much summed up the intelligent thought in the rest of the lunatic rantings.

* "Go fart in the closet."

It looks like you are taking your OWN advice! I just popped though the MS Watch history and lo and behold, what do I find? One steady stream of unanswered farts.

(By Portuno)"Is there any possibility for VCSY to have something bigger on the work with IBM besides 744?"

Certainly. 744 is a basis to begin knitting together the various operating systems out there into a unified platform. 521 allows for all legacy code to join in that modernization.

Products will derive from 744 and 521 that will be worth even more than the original intellectual properties. This is why no-one will receive an exclusive license for either 744 or 521 or 103. Each is an individual foundation for building over-the-horizon systems. Meshed together, these three patents promise to usher in a new age of computing with ideas and products no-one could have imagined only six months ago.

Six months ago Microsoft reigned supreme even though we VCSY longs knew how badly the thing was wounded. Now, Microsoft is trying to hide the embarrassing news that what they dismissed has hobbled and crippled them.

This is only the beginning. The real value for Semantic Web products comes when individual companies like IBM and Adobe are ready to interoperate their companies so their development teams may work on projects together without losing their cultures or mismanaging their individuals and teams.

There are numerous items within IBM that can be and have been pointed out for their similarity to the claims and capabilities of both 744 and 521.

We also await news of patent 103 use with the larger communications houses which could afford to build a 103 prototype.

The Microsoft settlement now means VCSY will have the cash to pursue their business plans without concern Al will be able to convince the VCSY debtors to sell the intellectual property (was THAT a hilarious idea or what?).

The VCSY intellectual property just became much more valuable because it's validated by a litigation event and because it sits at the center of the kinds of operating systems and manufacturing ecologies the software industry will be using for the next few decades.

Microsoft settled before the Markman Hearing so they would not be punished by the Judge with an injunction against .Net and Sharepoint. They are trying to keep things quiet but I would suspect that tactic is going to backfire like putting a brick on the cooker's pressure valve.

Microsoft has not been good at evaluating public reaction and formulating an appropriate reaction. They tend to over-react and most commonly in the wrong direction.

The "Mojave Experiment" has turned out to be an embarrassing screw up on the part of MSFT marketing. I would suspect Ballmer is still at the reigns on marketing and this effort for MSFT to operate in stealth is going to land Ballmer in hot water with major shareholders.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=7760&mid=7767&tof=2&frt=2

hi, i am just your avg hard worker,looking o make some extra bucks to get by,and maybe get lucky,,is this stock for real??thanks rick