Joe, what no mention of Verizon/Yahoo? Everyone but Verizon gets mentioned. Where, oh where has Yahoo gotten the strength to fight of Microsoft?

http://promo.verizon.com/yahoo/
-------------------------------------------------
By: dabbler3248
14 Feb 2008, 02:19 PM EST
Msg. 208572 of 210975

VERY interesting quote today by Yahoo's CEO

Yang told stockholders the company is "a faster-moving, better-organized, more nimble company than it was just a few months ago."
-----------------------------------------------
Let's not forget that VCSY owns Now Solutions!

A Verizon Press Release repost:

Verizon Business Powers 'Software-as-a-Service' Business Model for NOW Solutions Inc.

NOW Solutions Rolls Out Web-Based HR Software Suite, Supported by Verizon
Business Data Center Services With Built-In Security and Reliability

BASKING RIDGE, N.J., Jan. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Verizon Business Data
Center Services are supporting NOW Solutions Inc.'s rollout of a new
Web-based human resource management software service designed to help
businesses perform key personnel functions including payroll, performance
reviews and benefits administration. Verizon Business services are
providing round-the-clock access and a secure, robust environment for
delivering NOW Solutions' new delivery model of its emPath(R) portfolio of
human resource software services.
The NOW Solutions software is now built on an increasingly popular
model known as software-as-a-service (SaaS) in which the applications are
hosted by the vendor, rather than the customer, and delivered as a service
over the Web to help control set-up and operational costs. When delivered
as an SaaS service, the emPath human resources management system (HRMS)
helps to minimize the strain on companies' internal information resources
and infrastructure capacity.
"It's critical that NOW Solutions takes the lead in defining the
software- as-a-service model in the HRMS market," said Laurent Tetard, the
company's vice president of operations. "Verizon Business Data Center
Services provide an effective, secure and scalable environment for the
delivery of our software suite."
NOW Solutions, based in Fort Worth, Texas, is one of the industry's
leading providers of end-to-end strategic human resources, payroll and
benefit administration services. The company recently announced the
availability of its SaaS emPath(R) HRMS solution for customers in the
United States and Canada.
The appeal of SaaS, in addition to helping businesses control
infrastructure and maintenance costs, is its ability to deliver
applications based on real-time usage. NOW Solutions said the SaaS delivery
model also helps it provide quicker responses to changing business
application needs.
For NOW Solutions' HRMS offering, Verizon Business Data Center Services
provide carrier-class infrastructure support such as:
-- Web-based delivery, multi-tenant architecture and 24/7 availability.
-- Redundant power supplies and network connections.
-- World-class physical and data security.
-- Advanced administrative controls and monitoring processes.
"NOW Solutions also is relying on Verizon Business' world-class data
infrastructure to help avoid downtime, control its own infrastructure
operational costs, increase up-time and concentrate more fully on
delivering Internet-centric services to its enterprise customers," said Jim
DeMerlis, vice president, managed services, Verizon Business. "Verizon
Business Data Center Services are a perfect match for companies like NOW
Solutions needing a robust underlying infrastructure to deliver SaaS
applications."

I-Menst says, as always:

VCSY, blah, blah, blah, VCSY, blah, blah, blah .

***** JOE *****

I-Man/portuno is AGAIN using Microsoft Watch as free advertising for his hype-and-dump stock scam. You know why Joe? It's because it gets hits on a Google search. The idea is that if someone "researches" VCSY or whatever I-Man/portuno is hyping, when they Google it, positive information comes up. Can you smell a scam?

What does a press release from Verizon on January 16 have to do with the Yahoo, AOL, Google, Microsoft, Newscorp stories of today?

Berber, the breadcrumbs that I put out aren't laced with poison like the ones you try to feed the readers.

VCSY is under two cents a share(.02) and are the reason the Microsoft hasn't been able to show any new products to the public. Unless you can explain Microsoft's technology gap, then your useless.

Here's why Microsoft has a technology gap, it's
because VCSY has what Microsoft has been claiming to have but Microsoft wasn't able to put VCSY out of business so they couldn't show it to the public!
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006

Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. Receives a Notice of Allowance From The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office For a Patent Application Covering Various Aspects Of The XML Enabler Agent

Fort Worth, Texas, March 29, 2006--Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (OTCBB: VCSY) announced today that it has received a notice of allowance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for a patent application serial number 09/882,494 for a "Web-based collaborative data collection system." The notice of allowance states that all 41 patent claims of the patent application are deemed to be allowable to issue in a patent. VCSY intends to file with the USPTO to issue the patent shortly thereafter with all 41 claims being valid and enforceable.

This patent application covers various aspects of the XML Enabler Agent. The XML Enabler Agent, which was featured in the "XML Handbook" by Charles Goldfarb, 4th edition was created to XML-enable any database and developed with the Emily XML Scripting Language.

@I-Man: Granted, you did not specifically mention "patents" this time, but that seems to be the point of your post. You may be disappointed to learn that a legal challenge is in progress against the very "legal logic" for software patents. It seems that a case is before a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (BERNARD L. BILSKI AND RAND A. WARSAW) that challenges the software patents per se. I quote from an amicus filing pertaining to that case, "THE SUPREME COURT HAS REPEATEDLY RULED THAT INFORMATION PROCESSING ALGORITHMS WITH 'INSIGNIFICANT POSTSOLUTION ACTIVITY' ARE BARRED FROM PATENT-ELIGIBILITY." Apparently, federal courts have progressively undermined the Supreme Court by allowing patents of abstract concepts PLUS any trivial application of the concept, and a number of interested parties have joined in legal support for reversing that trend through this case. Anyone interested in reading more can find the amicus and other material at http://endsoftpatents.org/bilski.

See there, Tom? Now THAT is somebody posting about VCSY. I simply asked you a civil question and I get cussed out.

Want more information, Tom?

You're cluttering up Joe's comment board with frantic invective as though you're afraid of the information being made available to readers.

What's got you so bugged, young Tom?

@ pinball;

I think you'll find the "'INSIGNIFICANT POSTSOLUTION ACTIVITY'" does not apply to the patents in question.

There are all kinds of people waiting and hoping for these patents to be found invalid. If you take a look at what the patents say, you'll have to conclude they offer a different architecture for building applications that have been and may be patented... so why would the original parent patent not be subject to the same patent efficacy?

I-Menst/Portonumbnuts

You see, the problem is one that you attested to. I read in one of your posts that you bought your penny stocks based on email tips you received. Um, you didn't realize those were scams? So you can blow your compost out all over all you like, but it's not doing a thing for your pathetic little joke stock.

That's what this is all about. I am not trying to keep information suppressed. What you are providing is not information. It is patent blah blah blah. But when you search on any major news site or even search Google for news, VCSY doesn't even register on the radar. Because it is nothing.

You're not wanted because you are an off-topic ad/spam scam spewer. That's all.

Oh, and Arnold called. Seriously, he wants his arm back!

@ Tom

I don't know exactly who you're posting to since you reference two different people, but I'll answer the allegations you've made for my own side:

"I read in one of your posts that you bought your penny stocks based on email tips you received."

Wrong. I first bought based on a whitepaper I read in 2000 that described what later became patent 7076521. I read that whitepaper in 2000 and it described the kind of architecture that would provide the kind of web service capabilities we're only now beginning to see used in the public technology sector. The whitepaper was far "ahead of its time" although anyone at that time (dotcom savvy) could see the value in waht the architecture could do. Most people are XML stupid these days and believe it's just a set of buzzwords even Microsoft couldn't deliver.

I don't care if anyone buys or does not buy the stock. I'm content to know what I know, to see what's happening in the industry now (finally and it took a lawsuit against Microsoft to bring the issues to a head), and to inform people who might want to take the time to learn.

I see you don't want to take the time to learn and are secure in your preconceptions and prejudice, so I'll leave you to your ignorance.

"I am not trying to keep information suppressed. What you are providing is not information. It is patent blah blah blah."

The very fact you are concluding "blah blah blah" tells us all you simply are not prepared to talk about the technological issues and anyone who reads the patents now with a view as to what Yahoo and Google and Amazon and others are doing (but Microsoft is struggling with). Sorry you're so technologically ignorant or in such deep denial you can't address the issues.

"VCSY doesn't even register on the radar. Because it is nothing."

We have to wait for the fat lady to sing to see if the opera has a moral. You're just standing up in the third act complaining you can't see the stage. You have your eyes closed. Sit down or you'll trip on somebody's popcorn box.

Quote from the article;
"With this Yahoo deal-making going on, there's little chance Yang will ever work for Ballmer. Either Microsoft walks away, or it buys Yahoo and Yang walks away. But Gartenberg's point obviously is bigger: Yahoo wants its independence."
----------------------------------------------------
This is the heart of the matter, isn't it? Yang and the board of Yahoo, do not want to work for MS, simply put. In fact, Yang has said, that if the buyout with MS goes through, that most of the best Yahoo engineers, will go to work for Google.

There are some deep seated problems with this buy out, Its the people that would come with Yahoo, cause they won't. Many will quit rather than work for MS. Others will stay while trying to find employment elsewhere, but there work may suffer.

MS is trying to acquire a company where most of the management and employees are tech savvy and have a strong dislike for the practices of MS. Rightly so, I might add. Its called integerity, it why many at Yahoo, do not care to work for, or be a part of the Borg that is M$. Yahoo, has done a lot of open source work, and uses BSD to run some of its servers. Open Source software companies have been on the receiving end of Steve Ballmer's FUD about Linux supposedly infringing on M$ patents. Perhaps this little bit of FUD is coming back to cost M$ more now in trying to acquire Yahoo?

They seem to have a lot more respect for Google, who actually run there operation, in many regards, similar to Yahoo. A Google/Yahoo merger, is the one that would make the most sense. Yang seems to be smarter than Ballmer, and will most certainly at least get a far higher price, if not escape entirely from the clutches of the Evil Empire. I wish them well and victory at Yahoo.

@chips:
You are correct. You have a bit of editorializing going on with phrases such as "Evil Empire" (not that I don't fully agree!), but on the other hand, what Yahoo's officers want to do with Yahoo is the business of Yahoo's officers, regardless of how much Steve Ballmer thinks otherwise.

You or I might envy John Travolta's collection of aircraft. But they're his aircraft and not ours, and he is under no obligation to sell them to us at any price, let alone a price that we unilaterally determine.

This idea of property rights seems to be lost on the Gollum characters around here who bemoan anyone who doesn't worship their preciousssssss Microsoft.

@I-Man / portuno / whoever you are at the moment:
When I search for VCSY and Emily, all I get are heated opinions from Microsoft Watch, Raging Bull, the Yahoo message boards, and the like. I get NOTHING AT ALL that indicates that the Emily Scripting Language exists nor anything that indicates that it ever existed. Are you able to point me to some real product documentation and/or a real product demo that I can download, read, and evaluate? If you are, then please do. Otherwise, I can't help but agree with Tom, as all I see now is blah blah blah from you. So, please show some credibility and show me something real. I have a specialty in custom language development and would very much like to see what this Emily is really all about. (Hint: The patent doesn't show me anything that is useful. I've already looked at it.)

@Tom Berber:
I found this gem during my Google search. As far back as 2000 (going on its 8th year), this stuff was being emitted. Darn, but how much patience does the world need to show? Eight years and the stock is still invisible to the unaided eye. Are the investors part of some alien race that lives for 10,000 years and make the past 8 years seem like a brief blip?

-------------------------------------------------
From: Portuno_Diamo Mar 20 2000 7:07PM
Title: VCSY - Emily framework.

VCSY - Emily framework.

My to-do list ran over and I couldn't get to the Emily Solutions Whitepaper written in NOV-98 by Jeff Davison until now. I just finished reading about an hour ago and I am still dumb-founded.

If MLE does what Mr. Davison projects in this whitepaper, I submit he has fundamentally changed the way data-rich web portals function.

He has it right. Damn. I'm envious and freaked.

I will try to collect my wits and write a summary of why I believe Emily embodies the essence of B2B and how fortunate VCSY is in acquiring this proprietary technology.

To those of you waiting for the VCSY roadmap - hang in there. This is a critical, fundamental chunk and should be judged on its own merits.

This will be a technical assertion necessarily divorced from the financial discussions. We're gonna talk hitech-turkey and leave the money to the smart guys for now.

turning green,
portuno
3-20-00
-------------------------------------------------
Oh, the suspense! I don't know if I can wait another 400 years or not! Maybe I'm just the impatient type who needs to see results in the same decade as the claims...

@ Philospher;

You said: "I get NOTHING AT ALL that indicates that the Emily Scripting Language exists nor anything that indicates that it ever existed. Are you able to point me to some real product documentation and/or a real product demo that I can download, read, and evaluate? If you are, then please do."

Your wait may be a bit longer. Patience is a virtue.

You said: "I have a specialty in custom language development and would very much like to see what this Emily is really all about. (Hint: The patent doesn't show me anything that is useful. I've already looked at it.)"

Unfortunately your "Hint" leaves me plenty cold. What you're failing to see in both patents is suprising but understandable. I dearly sympathize about the lack of material on the internet about these things. But, the information is available and it was available long ago.

Yes, you may have a specialty in custom language development, but you will need to step up the definition of "language", which we can discuss over the days, weeks, months, years ahead we can discuss this subject.

The traditional school has it the language is the most important factor in a computerized system. It's the element most easily abstracted into a useful application. But, when that language is extensible to the point of building custom virtual machines, the language then becomes more a vehicle for actually doing the processing instead of a set of instructions fed through a "computer".

So, maybe go back through the patents and this time try to imagine what you could do if you could build a virtual machine using words any particular vertical discipline uses for the way they do business to accomplish the work of the business process. Fitting the language to the user and the problem rather than a flat table presentation of the tools used to construct the string of characters (bytes) needed to make the hardware perform as needed. This is available in the very high level dynamic language called Emily which is also mentioned as a possible programming "language" that may be run through this constructed processor (some may call a "virtual machine" a "kernel" a "runtime" yada yada yada - every group has a way of describing elements. But the ways these elements work is what sets them apart as different intellectual territory. MLE is native XML. Written in an abstractable XML language framework, Emily may virtualize any data into any form and [in a constructed framework using the Emily/MLE framework (abstraction language running on a self-constructing XML/http processor).

If you know how to run any virtual machine, you can natively run your favorite associated language by applying an abstraction layer to mimick the virtual machine on the local processor and run your favorite script or compiled code through... all with easily understood words abstracted upward for ease of use].)

The Semantic Web is a meeting between machine and human and the machine can be made to appear to understand the things we want the machine to take care of if they have the use of tags on data and metadata.

It's good you have a specialty in custom language development. That implant in your head on our last visit to your region must have kicked in when you were in kindergarden and you showed a special affinity for stacking blocks. You shall be my protege.

The age of the "developer" as a middleman between SME (subject matter experts) and the computing resources are numbered toward obsolesence. When the ecology (6826744) allows subject matter experts to define their data processing structures using icons and jargon the ecology community uses as a course of business, the "programmer" is no longer necessary. Above that domain of "language to actuate the machine" are higher abstractions of the virtual mechanics required, ultimately, to make the machine act in a certain way. That may manifest as disparate layers with each layer representing an understanding epoch in the historical abstraction, but, given a proper culture and transparency in the ecology community as constructed allowed by a Siteflash construct (derivative, child, instance, generation... what ever jargon you might want to attach to successive abstractions of the original "language machine" you used originally". The Siteflash concept can cover the life of the "application" rendered by the content/format/functionality construction phase as anyone affiliated with the application in any way is included in the living software ecology.

Did it all say that in the patent? Not in so many words. But, if you diagram out what the patents are saying, you can build anything you like with "software" acting on "hardware" without having to succumb to the rule of one language domain or one hardware domain.

Any languages may have their functionality arbitrated into a common construction language (I prefer language being called "abstraction" at this level). So a perl fragment patched in a Cobol body with C## compilations rolled into an arbitrated functional module that may be semantically addressed, manipulated and actuated.

I speak of the higher reaches of the things Semantic Web theory teaches. These things may not exist now, but, the foundation for building them is embodied in the two patents. I know that's a bold statement. I've been asking for a challenger for years. Maybe you are the one to kick the old man's ass.

We'll see.

I know you may think I am using semantics to weave through this subject with catch phrases and buzzwords. Perhaps, but, if you have ever read the whitepaper on Emily/MLE back from 1998, your blood would thin and you would get those prickly hairs under your collar sticking up. The kinds of things I'm saying were common among geeks back then when they heard about XML. They couldn't tell you how it could be done, but, everyone can intuitively conjur what evolutions a semantic web with local/global processing power can achieve. So they think it's all "obvious". They just didn't get around to it because they were busy protecting their own proprietary asses. Now? Here we are. Time to pay the piper for having such a long dance.

Not obvious to figure out how to do it, apparently. And certainly not in 2000.

Davison was the inventor of agent operations on SNMP. Moving from there to XML/http was a quantum step. McAuley was active in the hive computing community using distributed processors attempting online comics years ago.

Put those foundations together and you have a way of building an agnostic, granularly specified, governed, secure and audited computing ecology together that can affiliate any user with any other user across frameworks. Imagine a comic book where you get to plug in the way the story will go. Sounds silly, doesn't it? Now, imagine a tax audit laid out in a do it yourself format. Kind of sobers you up, doesn't it? Get one of them honey's in the email and you have a boned up weekend ahead.

This kind of scenario is impossible in a traditional software construction paradigm unless the paragigm is all one platform. Multiple platforms integrated as a seamless interoperation with COM/DCOM, CORBA and RSS? Forget it unless you have plenty of money and a whole lot of time.

Those who know traditional languages are only now realising the value of virtualization, even though the concept has been around for years. But "knowing" and "doing" are two different things and, so far, the only virtualization the market is seeing is getting one operating system to run on another operating system.

I do hope you do not think me insensitive but whoop dee doo.

Granular virtualization is much much more powerful and waits to be done. Patent 7076521 provides virtualization between data bodies.

MLE is a virtualization engine placed between two databodies to collect data, process (and, by "process" I mean parallel processing with outside or local agents [other SME frameworks... available by web service - all is available via web service, of course but that's the ingredient the masses aren't grasping. They will. Patience is a virtue.)]

This kind of thing may be accomplished by language abstraction empowered by an extensible virtual machine. A virtual machine that can have its architecture changed to meet the incoming language... running anything. This is the kind of "virtualization" that gives way to the next level of articulating machine transparencies: arbitration.

Arbitration is virtualization seemlessly applied to disparate bodies of data with disparate computational needs. That frees the designer from ever having to worry again about what "language" the application code is written in.

Once one understands the extensibility of language and when you're able to process the ultimate tuple: content/form/function at any granular level including a framework for a completely enclosed Big Brother ecology... the two patents are sobering.

I don't know if anyone can see all that from reading the patents. Much of what I have said comes from the impressions given me by the whitepaper. Like you said... 1998. This Davison cat was blowing some big bud to come up with that gem. One of the most elegant solutions to granular processing resource distribution I've seen, and I've been in industrial distributed processing since CPM and Intel Multibus.

So, read up on "language" and we'll have ourselves a parlay about how a computer gets er done when the words don't make sense. The Semantic Web pyramid of facility from base resources to proper human interaction requires an elevating abstraction from machine level; to assembler; to procedural languages up to and past natural language processing. The current technology allows for tagging for tuples that allow a more refined view of the datamass using RDF and microformats as a local, easily implemented solution. But, processing all those tuples is the bitch.

I'm very glad we have someone who at least can read material and relate to a useful technological disciline. It will at least make some sense out of what is, for most people, a jumble of information, wrongly ranked.

People go for easy reading - they don't have to dig for the information. So what you see are posts and blogs and bitter invective for putting a stumbling block in the path of open-source. This is what they would have used to step beyond Microsoft. But, they have to wait to see what Microsoft does.

If anyone disagrees with that assertion, by all means, speak up. Your silence is dumbing.

So, Philosopher, you certainly must understand the value of abstraction of language as a tool. I'm actually talking semantics, here. The current search tool deals with subjects in a way a dog would respond to a word. "Ball" is going to bring the favorite ball if found and, if a ball is not found, will bring back as many things that look like a ball as it can find.

When the text box is able to entertain verbs, we can begin sifting through the searchable mass with our own ability to process locally defined and intimately designed... or you can get, rent, own the work patterns of the SME packaged to your specs.

So, where is the information you really want to see about the Emily scripting language, the MLE kernel, and Siteflash frameworks? It's all in the past. It's in the Emily whitepaper written in 1998 and I read it in 2000 when I found out about VCSY. It's in the XML Enabler marketing material during 2001 when VCSY was marketing its first product which hinted at a platform that could do what the XML Enabler Agent could do PLUS do what Hailstorm (microsoft's XML product for portable identity) could do and I would surmise just about anything else you would like to do and do it in a superior fashion than any of the server/client based offerings.

All that information is in stores of files captured on the internet from 2000 to about 2002-2003 when the company began policing information that made it to the web and was revealed. We essentially helped to clean up their leaks as a side effect of our efforts to find information. The longs have many many pages filed away on hard drives and filing cabinets. Whiteboards. Notes and conversations and scenario builds... all socialized webbing long before business folks knew you could "collaborate" on the web.

So, there are all sorts of things you could have read years ago, but, sadly only us munchkins who have been patiently waiting get to have those memories.

You'll have to take my word for it all now and you can check me against the patent language.

Here's an idea! We'll do our own public markman hearing so all the interested masses will be able to understand 744 and 521 inside out. And then we can see who's using what and why and how.

It's something we would all like to know... I'm sure.

As a person who actually uses Yahoo, and have since 1995 (before Google was even a notion), I really don't want to see Yahoo get bought or otherwise acquired by Microsoft. I'm worried MS will ruin a good thing, as they have certainly been unable to produce anything worthwhile on their own for the Web.

As for Yang not wanting to work for MS. I don't blame him. I have a friend who works for MS. He loves it there. Of course, that's because he's a programmer and they're pretty much treated like gods over there. Unlike the R&D staff, which seems to constantly be at war with the development staff. Hence the non-user-friendly crap we've grown up on.

Which gives me double the reason not to want this change to happen. If it does, I'll be leaving Yahoo as a customer. And alas, that will be the last of the worthwhile e-mail account experiences. I mean, let's face it, G-Mail is really not all that. It's still pretty plain-Jane and all over the place. Hotmail looks like Outlook/Windows Mail (ick). And I am so leery of AOL after growing up with the AO-Hell experience.

As a die-hard, faithful Yahooligan, I am 1000% (not a typo) against MS acquiring Yahoo. I think it would be disastrous for the name and I think MS would just end up cannibalizing it and screwing up yet another good think, like they did the PC and everything else they've get the hands into.

"With this Yahoo deal-making going on, there's little chance Yang will ever work for Ballmer. Either Microsoft walks away, or it buys Yahoo and Yang walks away