The iPhone was announced 34 months ago in Jan 2006? Really?

And i do believe, while WinMo is crap, Android won't be taking away from the main WinMo user base without Exchange, VPN, Contacts-other-than-Google, Calendars-other-than-Google, etc.

I have never seen a teen or other non-business person with a Windows Mobile device. I believe that's because they don't exist and WinMo is mainly sold in and around business.

That means MS have some time to catch up before they meet Android head-on. Whether they'll actually do something with that time is another question...

iPhone was announced in Jan 2007, not 2006. About 21 months.

Hey Joe,

how do you know that they arn't working on this app center. Or that they arn't devising some grand windows Mobile strategy.

When MS do something it's well thought out, at PDC this year we will see there cloud strategy that I believe will be part of the building block of there mobile device strategy.

MESH is where it's at when were talking about apps on devices...

@whatever: I disagree, as a teen I used WinMo to get SatNav in my car on the cheap.
Hardware like the Samsung Omnia and the SE Xperia are aiming at more than just the business market.

I agree that its the OS+Sync Services that really tie the consumer in. "I want WinMo/Android/iPhone because I want Windows Live/Gmail/Mobile Me to sync my life".

I use a windows mobile PDA purely for tomtom. Cheaper than a dedicated device... I used to (try to) use it for other things, but now I've got an iPhone...

So Joe what you are basically saying is "dead man walking"?

I am not sure Windows Mobile ever ran, they were at the starting line first, but when the race started they were stuck in quicksand.

HTC is bound to switch to Android, its free, good quality and they can change it how they like. Maybe Google even gives a kickback for each new user signed up or pays a commission for adwords clicks (like Firefox and Safari).

Even if Windows Mobile 7 was as good as Android and free, it would still not be the best choice by a long way.

Heck WM6 is better than Android so I can't wait to see what MS has in store for us in WM7. My WM device helps me be productive in my busy day-to-day activities. I can't live without it. Hats off to MS.

I think Joe is spot-on when he suggests that, without its ability to leverage its monopoly, Microsoft can't compete.
What makes Google and Apple such a threat is their ability to innovate and make great products without the crutch of a monopoly.
Every additional market share percentage point that Microsoft loses to Google's search or Apple is another nail in Microsoft's coffin.

Very strange you are to much focused in this article on the US marked. the Mobile market is now World Wide...

the biggest OS is Symbian and in particle S60 from Nokia in the world.

you just mentioned it ones ....
it's if you don't wanted to compare there solutions, or market share or new developments ...

is like you are talking about OSX, Linux and Vista and not even mentioning or comparing against Windows XP ...

So your review is not that deep or correct in my opinion

best regards

Olivier

Your main point about Windows Mobile falling behind is valid. I think Ballmer was forthright about the challenge. You should have stopped there. The rest is overly emotional and in some cases just pure bs.

Enjoy

In Pictures: 15 Killer Android Apps For The G1
http://www.pcworld.com/article/152384/15_killer_android_apps_for_the_g1.html

ha ha...for sure the author didnt know that still windows mobile is the first priority in business..they use it for critical applications. (know about google 30 hours gmail downtime?)...
Know about mobileme downtime?

Have you ever heard of a companies exchange going down for more than 4 hrs? there stands windows mobile...business trust it like they do for RIM.

Dont worry dude, windows mobile 7 is coming for you :-D

Clearly Joe Willcox has written this blog as an advocate or fanboy position on Microsoft. He seems real perturbed that MS is not doing something about competing with Apple and Google on the phone platform. What makes Joe a fanboy or advocate of Microsoft in this blog, and many others, is his clear preference of Microsoft to win the moble market. What he does not explain, is why he would want Micro$oft to win over Google. Google does most things with open source, and gives away many free software. Android, might not have all the lock-in that a MS Moble with DRM would have. Google would be better for Consumers than any product that Microsoft could or would release.

So Joe, the question is, as a MS fanboy, or advocate, why would consumers prefer a MS Moble product over a Google one? Bet you can't give me an good anwser.

Hi Chips!

Bet you wont get any answer at all! However I think thats more to Joe not wanting to get into the comment argument side of things and simply wants to post his views as a talking point.

Having read and re-read many of Joe's posts, I dont think hes so pro MS to the point of complete bias. I think his posts are quite balanced for someone who, IMO has a massive dependency on MS products.

Andre is still posting over on his "blog" but hasnt returned here either. Shame. Im sure hes got a press release or two he could paste on the site.

As I said in previous threads, Ive been less than impressed at Windows Mobile on my MDA Mail (I didnt have a choice when getting my phone) Im just waiting for my contract to expire before upgrading to a new phone and OS (havent decided which one yet)

This all goes back to my interpretation of MS's sales strategy, Jack of all trades, master of none.

Would I boycott Windows Mobile in the future? Im not sure, for at least the next couple of upgrades Ill will be choosing an alternative, and its going to take alot of positive reviews, and innovative features to lure me back. Am I typical of the mobile user? Not sure either, and to be honest, I dont really care. I want a functional OS for my mobile, and I couldnt care if it was running Workbench 1.3 as long at it works as I expect.

Theres a thought, a Motorola 68000 based Mobile running Workbench 1.3, now that would definately be worth a purchase.

Regards.

Goblin says;
"Having read and re-read many of Joe's posts, I dont think hes so pro MS to the point of complete bias. I think his posts are quite balanced for someone who, IMO has a massive dependency on MS products."
----------------------------------------------------
I would actually kind of agree with you, that Joe is not a pro-MS complete bias, and trys to be fair. More than most, anyway. But I do point out the tone he sets can be easily interpenetrated as very pro-MS the way its written. My point is, why not inside a pro-MS advocate position on MS products, but instead a pro-consumer position, one that subjectively compared the products of Microsoft, with its competitors? Wouldn't that be of more use to all of us, consumers and businesses?

@Chips

Yep agree, although maybe the majority of viewers to MS watch are ones with shares/financial interest in the company? I dont believe the MS watch was ever intended to be a comparison site, hence the name, although now, with the help of people willing to spend time typing, its now become more of a staging ground for the opensource community to show that it does have something to offer everyone and without any of the tradition software restrictions we have all grown up with.

What better site to advertise the free alternatives than Microsoft-watch?

Chips, Im really pleased I could join your pro opensource stance (as I believe youve been posting here alot longer than me) I honestly believe that opensource just needs the exposure as the uptake in it is only slowed because of ignorance of the product.

Its obviously got companies worried and at the end of the day, when you have talented coders providing functional software for free, no company can compete with that.

End of MS? Not likely. End of proprietary lock in and ignorance? Yep we are getting there!

Idiots.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=3009

Open source businesspeople are frustrated that their business models is not bringing them enormous returns. Microsoft perceives the threat of open source and wants to neutralize it.

Let the dance begin. (Image from the Disney Wikia.)

If “we’re all mixed source companies” then there is no real difference between Microsoft and, say, Red Hat. Microsoft wants merely to share its profit secrets with anyone who is interested in making money rather than political points.

Thus its well-timed release of Web platform installers which can get open source developers conversant with tools like ASP .Net, Silverlight, and the .Net Framework.

The Web installer comes with out of the box support for such projects as Drupal and OSCommerce. Microsoft is aiming to become the largest open source distributor of them all.

The picture above, from the Disney classic “Snow White,” illustrates my point. The apple was delicious. The girl ate it and the poison took her. There is no handsome prince in this story, however.

Note the continuum. Here is an open source tool. Here is something with a Microsoft open source license. Here is something with just a Microsoft license. Before you know it you’re one of us.

And you should be one of us, says Microsoft. We make money. You’re a businessperson, you want to make money too. You don’t want to be a dirty hippie in your parents’ garage all your life, do you?

A year ago open source businesses would see through this like a pane of glass. Now it’s more of a stained glass window. After a few hours with the accountant it becomes an appealing offer.

After all, if pure open source business models don’t pay, if we’re all mixed source now, why not enter into Microsoft’s orbit?

------------------

Sorry to pop in like this Joe, but, the open-source BS from the previous two common taters drove me to it. Nothing like whistling past the graveyard to irritate the crap out of me. I hate whistling.

To all you open-source flunkies: Your days are numbered and we VCSY advocates say "you're welcome".

Fools.

Firstly portuno_diamo, your post is not very clear as to what point you are trying to make.

What is clear, is that you feel the need to insult when putting your point across, so whatever your point was supposed to be I instantly paid little attention to you.

What a "common tater"? - explain please. "Open-source flunkies"? - What are you refering to?

Whatever stance portuno_diamo is trying to take, Im damned if I can work it out. The article that was quoted (you didnt make that too clear either) was both an article to support MS and to knock it at the same time. Maybe its because its early in the morning and I cannot get my head around it yet.

I feel like im talking to a child, portuno_diamo. Maybe you just need to make yourself clearer and instead of copy and pasting (yep another one folks) putting your own justifications down instead of a couple of one liners.

Im hoping you wont be a "one post wonder" because if you can grow up a little and not try to belittle others because they have a different view, id love to debate with you.

My opinion is you wont come back and this will be your final post.

We'll see.

To Portuno:
Why the insult? maybe it's a bad day for the stock of VCSY? What makes you different from those who have not other way to defend themselves than by insulting other people? I hope it was merely a bad day, and would hope you apologise.

Well, talking business now. What's so bad with doing business-except, of course, bankruptcy. (For example, I descend from and ancient Italian merchants' bloodline). I am going to tell you this: It is not the doing itself but how you do it. many times in business there is a fine, fine line from what is right and what is not. I will always fight those who trespass that line. And if that earns me the adjective of 'fool' or something of the sort, so be it (and yes I know that you were not speaking directly to me).

Sure, goblin. Let's debate. I think I can pretend to have grown up as well as anyone.

And, Marco (if that is your real name) it's a bad day for the open-source industry and blowing smoke over the scene doesn't hide the fire.

Fool. (Don't be so certain).

"it's a bad day for the open-source industry and blowing smoke over the scene doesn't hide the fire." - Qoute Portuno_diamo

You see this is what all posters without argument will put, a vague "blanket" comment without any justification or reason. Their intent is not to inform, its merely to spread propaganda and adverts for revenue they are so desperate to protect. I did hope for a sensible discussion with this person. It seems like Im in for a disappointment. Andre's realized and "got it" (although it did take a while) and just as soon as one leaves, we get another.

Anyone notice the similarities with Portuno and Andre? Notice how the reply did not seek to answer any of the questions put to him, it was just another blanket statement (albeit not as eloquently worded)

What Portuno has not yet "got" and lets hope it doesnt take as long as Andre, is the fact that Opensource supporters dont get any financial rewards for promoting its use, It matters not to me if overnight everyone boycotts MS and comes over to Opensource (or vice versa) we dont gain anything from it.

The ethos of software freedom for me is for users to know they have a choice, if after that choice they choose an MS product, then I have no problem with that what so ever. I have many friends who find that Vista is best for them, theyve tried Linux and didnt like it. I respect that opinion and am pleased that they have a system that is right for them.

MS agents wont like that viewpoint, and as you can see from Portuno's style of posting, they wont want you even trying an opensource product.

Portuno, I ask you, could you list the benefits that MS office has over Open Office? Why should the average user select the MS product over the Opensource one. And why, (in your words) is it "a bad day for the open-source industry and blowing smoke over the scene doesn't hide the fire."

If you are meaning that MS is trying to infect the opensource scene, have a look at the reaction the Novell deal had on openSUSE and look at the users boycotting it.

MS's aim (IMO) whether it be Opensource or not, is to dominate the market. Product lock-in will always be a desire of a company like MS (IMO) and the ultimate goal of any opensource project. People are not stupid anymore. Why did the recent MS adverts fail? Because people wont blindly follow silly attempts to insult their intelligence.

Vista or Linux or Mac? The debate can go on, but opensource is so much bigger than that, and Windows can run Open Office and many of the mainstream opensource packages. Thats what got the MS shareholders worried and ultimately making people realize that they have a choice.

@Marco

Maybe he thinks people who dont spend money on proprietary software are fools?

Silly me, there was me thinking that if an opensource product was what a company/user required and it was free, it would be better than spending money on proprietary products.

Marco, we must be the fools. Lets both dip into our pockets and shell out money to MS. After all if you spend alot of money on something it has to be better. Credit crunch? What credit crunch?

Back in the real world, I think that any user reading this who is considering Opensource alternatives, just has to look at the posting styles of the pro-MS. Does an opensource poster seek to insult? Dont think so. Does an opensource poster seek to make blanket statements? Don think so either. Does an opensource supporter gain anything from users? - nope. I think the best evidence for considering opensource, is in the remarks of the Pro-MS posters, thanks ms-fans, keep posting.

"Opensource supporters dont get any financial rewards for promoting its use..."

And there the need for any debate ends as the open-source advocate slits his own throat onstage.

I'm so monetarily encrusted and greedy, I'll let a Microsoft lawyer speak for me.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10068367-56.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

People who do not recognize a shift in the paradigm they supposedly call a career and continue to argue what is long since passed away show themselves to be foolish. Thus my character descriptions in shorthand.

Red Hat/IBM and Novell/Microsoft will absorb the independents like amoebas scarfing up microbes. It's "the way of the world" and THAT is the blanket constraint which naturally spreads over all open-source options to come.

The day of the one-group/one distibution mavewreck serving a self-realized business realm against all odds are as fully cooked as when the first knight's armor was pierced by the first gunblast.

The ecology Microsoft now has the ability to use (by way of license) is the ecology which will be used by IBM; and that ecology erases distinctions by its very nature of arbitrary facility.

This is ultimately good for open-source but bad for the open-source philosophy as "distinction" will be about as useful a debate topic as is parent/child relationships in a database description.

The users will no longer see the distinctions and the users will never anymore care. What will trump "free software" is the realistic and measurable economy by which services and service are delivered to the user.

The debate will remain among the techies in the soup lines.

I submit evidence the open-source movement has belatedly realized their need to brand as a unit rather than a scattered bunch of sod busters trying to build a town out of mud: "OpenSource" is proferred as though it belongs emblazoned with gold edges on a cardboard box one buys from "TheStore".

It's written "open source" still by the mainstream. That etymology preserves the constrained interconnects available to those "users" who want to aggregate and integrate while being straight-jacketed by "distinctions" in the deployment realities.

I like to see it hyphenated as "open-source" as that ascribes a particular atmospheric elitism demonstrated by the many particalized "distributions" belatedly attempting to coalesce under a single banner recongizable to industry.

Too late. Industry won't care within three years. What Mister and Missus "Open-Source" need to comprehend is the opportunity for maintaining their separate culture while yet delivering a cohesive branding to the public available in the ecology technology Microsoft has licensed.

In other words, the open-source "experts" will attempt to convince the world there really is a distinction necessary while the rest of the world will already have stampeded for the unified blend.

Must be a habit?

SO, I admonish the fools for coming to the key points of the debate far too late to learn the answers. Typical of blind adherents and shills. Always caught in the opposite swing of the pundulum (sic) because they spend all their time fighting the last warfare.

I challenge the idea "people are not stupid anymore". They're plenty stupid. But, they've learned they no longer need to be concerned about which package runs which package... at least in the microcosm.

As the ecology for living software grows and spreads, the idea of "platform" will be as antiquated as the idea of floppy disks. Some will chose to argue their usefulness while the vast majority will have long since quit using them in favor of generic "storage".

"And there the need for any debate ends as the open-source advocate slits his own throat onstage."

No he/she (please dont assume an open-source supporter has to be male) hasnt, and again your cutting and pasting (albeit being a little lazy and simply linking)

Firstly at least your word power has improved somewhat, although judging by your first series of posts, Im wondering if you have got a parent to help you there. (and yes I can patronize, just look at your first few efforts)

For all the readers who dont want to decipher the unnecessary wordage and waffle that portuno has vomited onto these pages, its just junk, and yet again another example of how some people aim to "fudge" the issue. Lets look at the hard facts:

1.Windows Mobile coming in third on the mobile OS.
2.Windows Explorer failing to make the grade when compared to alternatives.
3.Google running roughshod over MS's attempt to "corner" that particular market.

I could go on, I wont.

Next up, if you care to read my above post, Portuno has again proved that you never get a straight answer from a wouldbe MS agent. All I asked was to point out the advantages of MS office. What does portuno do? He waffles with impressive words from his parents in an attempt to confuse. BTW next time why not ask them how to spell them? I havent gone through your entire waffle, but the word "pundulum" sticks out blatantly. I think the word you wanted was "pendulum"

You said "I challenge the idea "people are not stupid anymore". They're plenty stupid. But, they've learned they no longer need to be concerned about which package runs which package... at least in the microcosm."

I think you'll find Firefox's downloads disagree with that, I also think you'll find the take up of Open Office also disagrees. If you like I give you a list.

So, I ask again. PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION. What advantages does MS OFFICE have over OPEN OFFICE? - My bet is he cant answer, because he doesnt want to.

Has the MS-Agent Andre been replaced by Portuno? I hope not, although Andre's point was silly, at least he typed in a coherent way so as to be understood by everyone.

Bring back Andre, all is forgiven.

and one other question to leave you on Portuno, where are the supporters for your "posts"? A quick search on Google will reveal what people are saying about your products? Come on folks who supports Portuno's view?

Oh and thanks for the link Portuno, I encourage everyone to check it out. Have a look at the responses to the article.

Portuno are you trying to claim nobody cares?

Try reading your own links properly before making a comment.

Well I hope Portuno comes back. In the meantime to quote a once famous WCW wrestler "Whos next?"

In the meantime, whilst pro-MS supporters would have the debate distorted and make out that Open source users are in someway out of touch, or deviants from the rest of society, check out a popular UK celeb, who shows his support to the opensource movement in a classy, educated and open way.

http://www.gnu.org/fry/

No, dear, it's "pundulum" (sic) as I intended the funny to be.

Didn't you bother to read the editorial signage "(sic)" indicating I know the difference? Those who pay attention read it. Why didn't you?

Apparently you don't know what (sic) means. It shows your age, mentality and training. That or your emotional level outweighed your intellectual effort and you just HAD to write on impulse.

It shows.

Are you a Richard Stallman operative? You reek of the kind of hack-turned-barker effluence those who can only imitate have. It's like a clinging body odor on old clothes stolen from a homeless guy's (or gal's) shopping cart.

Just becasue you can copy and distribute a product doesn't mean you've done anything earthshaking. Just ask Microsoft's legal department. They're still smarting from the slap.

Mister Gutierrez has had a chance to rethink the posture required to pick up money and now claims Microsoft is in a much better position. I agree. Much better.

What's with you people, goblin? Is this the dumb attempting to elevate their thinking but they forget their baggage outside the elevator door?

Arguing about the value of open-source is simply an exercise in swimming to the next island these days. I would like to chalk it up to your not hearing the news, but, I think it's far different from that.

'Lipping Larry' Ellison and 'Recalcitrant Richard' Stallman protesteth too much and on the same subjects. Your choreographed cha-cha with chips smacks of a commercial... where you claim none is needed.

As a defense, you cite comments to the Microsoft IP lawyer's article???!!! HA Sweety, noise does not an orchestra make. Crying out "It ain't so!" doesn't make "IT" any less real no matter what key you use.

For the record, I have no admiration for Microsoft's management or tactics or business efforts. They're all low-brow, stinking and sub-human.

But, that doesn't mean I can't ride their fat backs and make a fortune in the rodeo.

"What advantages does MS OFFICE have over OPEN OFFICE?"

You ask the wrong question. You should ask: what does Microsoft have that open-source et al does not have?

Microsoft has use of a license allowing them to treat the internet, and any computer running on it, as an arbitrary (non-proprietary even if it's prorietary) platform for delivery, deployment, management, and governance of any of their products... including Office.

In fact, what I'm talking about is the ultimate "open" software because it treats your beloved Linux and other sausage bowl of freeware on par with any other software ever written... in any era.

To me, you're just another proprietor crooning the beauties of your displayed products when all the customers want to know is "why do your onions have warts?"

In fact, the technology Microsoft has licensed looks at it all as a data/code parts house by which any new applications may be built using any combination of any content, any format and any functionality.

"Arbitrary"? It means "any". "Any" means "arbitrary". Just ask Steve Ballmer. He finally learned the hard way. I await with baited breath (heh heh, figure that one out) your own education. It will be fun. Like a fishing trip.

"Name the difference between Office and OpenOffice?"

Here's one: The ability to treat all other document applications as arbitrary.

That's Office, mind you. Not OpenOffice.

OpenOffice is going to be confined to the target operating system for some time while Microsoft will take their target platform and their products and extend all onto any other system including legacy mainframes. (meaning pre windows - won't that be magic?)

You fail to understand what's taking place in the industry. Don't feel bad. You're not alone. Most of the techies that try to shoot it out over this subject have been immersed in 20th century technology to the ignorance of all other capabilities and said ignorance shows badly.

"Next"? HA Typical stinkbait. You haven't even dangled an appropriate lure and you already claim to have landed the fish. I guess I don't have baited breath.

BTW, your "celebrity" effort smacks of the kind of the kind of commercialism soap sellers use when they have to unload product.

Advertising execs will tell you the least useful advertising method is using celebrity endorsements. Why is it used so often? There are so many mediocre products and woefully stupid ad men (and womens - sorry to leave you out of the club).

I could be magnanimous and tell you all will be open due to the coming paradigm, but, Stallman's latest reactions show folks like you and he are in pain over what's about to happen. That's why I surmise none of you are as truly altruistic as you want to appear.

I would say you're commercially threatened.

Again, the subject is arbitrary platforming with distributed computing and that means you've been beaten before you got to the fishing rodeo... ma'am.

As I said in my post, you went from a childish profanity style post to an "adult inspired" one in the space of a few hours, I did not fully read the metaphor and supposition ridden post of yours because frankly it was alot of waffle that said nothing.

The (sic) remark I did not pick up on, I am sorry, but I dont think you can blame me when I was trying to pick through your text to see what the point was that you were trying to make. I ask again, why wont you post clearly? Why cant you put your points across without trying to confuse. I confess I am certainly no English expert, my degree is in the software engineering field, and I doubt many people can be bothered to follow your posts (after all wheres your support?)
If you have an argument to make, why not make it clear for all?

Youve now avoided my question for the second time. I asked for the ADVANTAGE, not for you to change the question and answer that. Lets see if you can get it right this time around.

Youve also made assumptions again, you do not know my gender, so why assume? Its not relevant to any discussion here.

Just some other points that Id like to pick you up on: "BTW, your "celebrity" effort smacks of the kind of the kind of commercialism soap sellers use when they have to unload product."
- And MS havent done that with their recent failed ads? and the difference being Stephen Fry is advertising FREE software. Theres no financial interest for the producers of this video.

To be honest, you are coming across as a little immature. You started posting in a offensive way and then when challenged have gone out of your way to use the most convoluted way of fudging around the argument with your use of vocabulary.

and what do you mean by "I would say you're commercially threatened."

As Ive said repeatedly, I have no problem if after research and experience people choice proprietary software over opensource, I gain nothing from it. That is the point. I want people to know they have a choice. If you notice on my previous posts, I have not attempted to argue with those who have said, after trying alternatives (and that does not need to be opensource) they are happy with an MS product. I do not consider this a war between platforms or opensource and proprietary. I consider this more of a battle between misleading propaganda and freedom of choice.

Please I repeat, answer the questions I put to you. Please do not try to change them and please try to be direct. As much as I am in awe of your "wonderful" use of words, it would be nice if we could have answers to the point please. Try to refrain from metaphor.

You know what the tragic thing is Portuno? I use MS applications for software development. It is because of MS applications I have a living. Why is it then that I am a supporter of choice? Could it be, because unlike you I have a sense of fairness? Could it be that I would like communities to have an impact on software they use? Could it be that I dont see why your elderly aunt should have to spend money for proprietary software, when she would be quite happy with opensource?

For everyone else who may be considering purchasing a proprietary office solution, why not try out Open Office? It wont cost you anything, it wont install any spyware, and if it is right for you could save you money. Whats the harm in giving it a go? This is one example of software freedom, who knows? it could set you on the road to others.

http://openoffice.org-suite.com/

Lets see Portuno how you are judged by your comments, lets see the deluge of support Im sure this site will get because of you. In reality you wont because the only one who truly understands your point and agrees is you.

Oh and im sure youre patronizing typing style you employed when you believed you were speaking with a female will get you alot of support.

Good old portuno, makes assumptions about someones gender. You still dont know if im male or female though do you?

@Everyone reading.

Whats wrong with encouraging people to try out free alternatives?

Whats wrong with wanting people to know they have a choice?

and whilst Portuno seems to think there is some pantomime going on between me and chips, I have a "conspiracy" of my own:

Has anyone noticed how Andre has disappeared from here? Could it be that after failing to counter the opensource awareness on the microsoft-watch site, he has been replaced by bigger (and more eloquently worded) guns?

Tit for tat Portuno I know. It may be childish but you have lowered the benchmark for maturity since your first post, so I believe its justified.

Whoever you are Portuno (and its of no consequence to me) the one thing your awesome intellect has failed to grasp is that whilst you were busy trying to belittle my views, you were actually "grabbing the juicy grub off my hook" and allowing me to further promote software freedom. Thanks.

As I said before pro-MS supporters, keep posting. I keep my awareness campaign going because of you.

@Goblin,
Nothing. Nothing at all. Encouraging people to try out alternatives is perfectly acceptable.

Calling people names is not. But that's how it is with trolls. They hate it when the bright light of truth shines, and they resort to name-calling.

And don't you just love the word "ecology" applied to the mish-mash of legal mumbo-jumbo in those VCSY-owned patents? Ecology is actually a branch of biology. Which is to say that it is the study of the interaction of organisms and their environment. How and why biology and software keep being associated with each other time and time and time again is nothing less than bizzare.

And you've noticed too that several of the more rabid posters are unable or unwilling to answer questions? Like, what's so special about VCSY? After all, they are composed of a number of subsidiaries. Only ONE of them, "Now Solutions", has any revenue, and they are losing money. ALL of the others have no revenue, have no operating expenses, and yet have had investment by their officers. VCSY is in default of all of those loans to those dead subsidiaries. What ecology is present there? The study of the interaction of rotting corpses and their environment of fraud and incompetence? That's the only ecology that exists with VCSY.

But it is entertaining, I must admit. I don't live in New York City, and reading those posters you mention is the next best thing to watching a lunatic standing on a street corner and argue loudly with invisible beings from outer space.

No, goblin, I don't know if you're male or female or something inbetween. Nor do I care. You're the one who put the question out there. Perhaps you're conflicted.

What's obvious is you choked on what I said and you have nothing more to say. You may "promote software freedom" all you want. But, as long as you do not possess a license, you won't be talking about the future of the software industry.

Only the past.

Awareness? You demonstrate you don't even know the meaning of the word.

@ philosopher

You don't have any answers for what Microsoft is about to introduce either, do you?

That's fine with me. I only need wait while time works against you. The license for the VCSY 6826744 patent (you brought the company and the patent up - not me - I write about it only to inform the reader what "legal mumbo-jumbo" allows Microsoft's chief IP lawyer and MSFT's CEO to speak so endearingly about arbitrary software) ability is what is allowing Microsoft to say things they were not able to say before this summer.

You'll naturally ignore that because it works against your agenda. You'll simply ridicule what you can't debate... as "philosophical" as you might be. I suppose you're furthering your own "awareness" program. Do you guys wear a ribbon? What color is it? Black and blue?

If you were as informed as you play yourself up to be, you would be able to tell the readers "ecology" is a word applied to the method of "living software". Living software is content/format/functionality installed and cocooned in an all-inclusive environment for conceiving, developing, deploying, managing and governing within a community of users and servicers.

The "living" part of the concept has to do with a software that constantly evolves in adaptation to an ongoing discussion between all hands touching the software... at any time throughout the life of the software.

Never heard of such a thing? Microsoft did some time ago. Charles Simonyi is the proponent of living software and their ecologies. Don't know who he is? Microsoft's former chief architect. His notable concept? "Don’t build systems, rather build systems that build systems."

Where will Microsoft get the ability to do such "system within a system" construction? From ongoing development of the ideas you refuse to learn yet ridicule.

Two notable works citing 6826744 are patents by IBM for machine constructed software and Microsoft for automated simulation of generated software. That's right. Dinky little VCSY has such IP as a foundation.

Didn't know that? No wonder. You don't read, yet you have the gall to call yourself a "philosopher". You might as well call yourself a nanygoat because you certainly do know how to put out cheese.

Microsoft settled quickly. They stood to lose a future by continuing in Ballmer's childish game of hooligan chicken. Now, they can pursue Simonyi's concepts and envelope flacid and crippled open-source villages into a well secured community of (as IBM calls it) open-commerce.

And I suppose you'll still be selling firewater to the savages by telling them they're getting "free" software. Do tell, doctor.

If you bothered to read, you might know something more than 20th century claptrap and boogery.

You mock what you do not know as all ignorants will.

What you don't know has already cut off the futures of many "programmers" as they won't be needed within self-deployed and self-managed ecosystems (gee, I guess you don't like that word either). The machines can do what they do and with all the component stockpile out there (most of it "free" to the owners by the way), there won't need to be another reinvention of a do loop wheel ever again.

"Ecosystem" as applied to Microsoft SharePoint once referred to the human network applied to further SharePoint's aims. But there's another work afoot; one that will take off where humans fail and where they can no longer manage the complexity.

This machine "ecosystem" applied to build and deploy and govern software to vertical communities and disciplines will require an ecology all its own. That ecology will outstrip the ability of the most fervent open-source cult to keep up...and your "philosophy" will go the way of all hand-made niceties. Replaced by efficient and productive commoditization of services available everywhere, enhanced within minutes of a need, and thoroughly inexpensive and flushed of the need for human hands.

You fail to tell the readers about these things because you haven't been reading out in the hinterlands where you live. Or, if you have, you're afraid to talk about what is coming.

The "troll" you deride is dragging a carcass behind it. It's the rotting stink of perpetually learning-curved "experts" and their multi-refried half-baked technology recipes.

Good riddance as those things you open-sourcers used to celebrate will be chopped and cannibalised up for commodity applications... by machine - not by the likes of 20th century buggy whip makers.

Oh thats good Portuno. How about answering my questions. Third time of asking now.

Im not going to justify "I don't know if you're male or female or something inbetween. Nor do I care. You're the one who put the question out there. Perhaps you're conflicted."

As I dont like the direction you seem to be taking with that response. Grow up, why do you need to go down this route?

As I said, theres no supporters for you Portuno, but to be fair I dont think thats so much a case of people not being pro-MS it is more of people not really understanding what message you are trying to put across. You've also come across as a rather rude individual (please someone correct me here if Im wrong)

Portuno, you imply a connection with Joe (as per your first post) although, if your awesome intellect had read his post properly, he believes that Android is everything WM should have been (and thats only one example of MS playing second fiddle to another product) and heres the quote from Joe himself "Om captures my sentiments. Apple took the mobile market forward, in terms of hardware and software design, and now Google follows behind. Microsoft is where?" - Do you agree with this statement Portuno?

I put it to you that it is you who have nothing left to say. You wont answer my questions and you know seem to think it a relevant point to start bringing into question someones gender.

Portuno, people only have to read back. You cant edit your posts and neither can I. You made the assumption I was male, I challenged that. You presumed I was female and began a little nonsensical tirade which I believe was very patronizing when you were directing the post towards a female, why did you feel the need to use the word "dear"? Gender is not an issue. It just shows how out of touch you really are when you have to make light and issues of it.

Go back to your flowery words and "End of the Opensource World" prophecies. Dont stoop to the level of insults (or in your case attempted ones), I dont have a "conflict" as you say, but even if I did, its hardly relevant on a tech blog is it?

Oh and ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I PUT TO YOU. (We've seen this before, havent we? If you want some advice on what to post, speak with Andre. At least he could put his point across (sorry advert) clearly.

Qoute Portuno "Don’t build systems, rather build systems that build systems."

Whilst Portuno's prophecy of world domination continues, I think now I understand the basis for Portuno's theories. Didnt we see something similar to his above quote in the Terminator series of films? Ill believe MS products building themselves when I see MS release products in the present day without the issues and bloat any user can read about on any tech forum. Lets take one step at a time MS.

In regards to home use, I am what I would consider "the average user" (and I hasten to add the majority of user) I could care less about any predictions of future systems, I am only interested in what I am using now and if it is functional. I would say Im in the majority (looking at the take up of alternatives to nearly all MS products on the market)

Youre messages might impress the shareholders, and afterall thats your true purpose here isnt it?

But all the rest of us have to do is a simple google search to find that your views are shared only by a small (and increasingly diminishing) group of people online.

I repeat, Im an average home user. I dont have any financial interest (or soon dependency, as a business I have been running as a second income is soon to be my main one, and Im doing very nicely thank you very much...oh and wont be affected even if Skynet (sorry MS) takes over the world)

Lets see, for work I use MS products (because I get paid to do so) at home I choose opensource.

I hope Portuno's comments act as a rallying call to anyone who doesnt want this sort of attitude involved in the future of computing. Judging by the support Portuno seems to have got though, I dont think we need to bother.

Keep it up Portuno.

To portuno:
The problem of mixing personal interests with interesting ideas is that that gives as a result bastardised ideas, somewhat attractive but of a highly limited depth.

I'm not going to stop and analyse the obvious, like why the free/cheaper and good quality things can replace the more expensive and mediocre ones. Or why a person could change radically their ideology merely out of economic/personal interest.

Neither I shall try to unravel the Gordian knot that is your insufferable writing. The result of this would be a Byzantine argument.

Simply, I shall say that your problem is that due to self-interest. Thus, you only see black or white without any other shade in between. And shades are the reality which ends up being the norm.

Obviously you could understand that this is my last post to you.

To Goblin:
Sorry about the delay in reply.

Portuno is an old acquaintance, who defends VCSY stock same as a mother does her offspring. Or an old miser defends his last coins. He is a fisherman in stirring the waters, who has neither principles or acquaintances awaiting him in either shore (not Open Source, not Ms). He only answers to his own basic instincts (in this case, VCSY stock).

@Portuno:

While you might very well be right, your argument is set in the future. As I look into my crystal ball, one thing I notice, is that a lot of people, including myself, like to, and have predicted the future. Let me give some classic example of future predictions in computer technology:

1. This is the year of Linux (as in when linux takes massive market share from windows)

2. The spam problem will be solved in two years. (B. Gates)

3. It will all be fixed, in the next version of Windows, if you all will just have patience and wait.

4. Mac OS X or Linux, will have many many viral problems like Windows, once they have 6% of the desktop market share. (Mac is now at 8.6 market share)

5. The next version of Windows will be the most secure OS ever released. (claim made by each new version of Windows)
--------------------------------------------------
Why bother to respond to a hypothetical argument set in the future with so little information on it. We have bigger fish to fry.

Or an your argument about Linux not making any money in another post. Even that I choose not to argue. But I would say something here. Outside of those selling software (like Red Hat) to businesses, I think that many many who write open source software, do so without the express purpose of getting rich. Sort of like the good neighbor who helps out another, without asking for pay. Not everything is about money in life. A simple fact that Microsoft will never understand.

@Goblin:
"Has anyone noticed how Andre has disappeared from here? Could it be that after failing to counter the opensource awareness on the microsoft-watch site, he has been replaced by bigger (and more eloquently worded) guns?"
----------------------------------------------------
Andre has done this before. But he will be back, maybe not for awhile. See, he has lost credibility with anyone reading the comments, so a new sock puppet is in order. Andre is a professional astrotuffer or MS shill. Its why he can really never change his mind on anything, or he just presents the same old disproven arguments of MS every time. It is impossible to carry on an intelligent debate with Andre, because he cannot defend that which is undefendable. Therefore he does not answer points or questions by others, except to cherry pick sometimes.

@ Chips + Marco.

Although Portuno will accuse us of orchestrating some sort of pantomime, I'll reply to you two and say, thanks. Thanks for giving the new guy here support and thanks for giving me the "heads up" on two people whos reputation obviously proceeds them.

I dont understand why people just not say why they prefer their proprietary choice over an alternative. Instead they have to lace arguments with supposition, speculation and half truths.

Its a shame, because Id love a coherent debate, based on facts of the differences between the software I choose and the software they choose.

Im quite sure there are people out there capable of posting who could engage in an interesting debate, I find it disappointing that the only ones who actually do post seem to do it because of a financial interest in it.

I really hope that shareholders of MS stock read this series of comments, I think it says alot. It says alot of the attitude of pro-MS debaters like Andre and Portuno, and it says alot about the us, people who give their opinions not from a position of financial gain, but of personal experience and honest held belief.

For the record, Portuno (who will be reading), Im a male and a family man with no identity crisis that I am aware of. Not that its relevant, however what was relevant was the fact that you spoke to what you believed was a female in such a derogatory way. I think you'll find that females (if you ever have any experience of them) dont like to be called "dear" and find it patronizing and belittling.

Maybe thats what so good about the average user and opensource fan? We believe that both men and women have an equal place in the field of IT, and value the input of everyone.

Joe wrote:
"Steve Ballmer should have been explaining how Microsoft has a better mobile strategy than competitors like Apple and Google."

Mr. Balmer can't make that argument, because his mobile product -isn't- better.

I have spent some time comparing the Google "cloud" including their calendar and docs, vs. the MS "Live" cloud product. Try to sync Outlook with Live Calender? Lots of luck...confusing convoluted instructions gleaned from some MS people's blogs.

Sync Outlook with Google Calendar? Rather easy, with clear instructions, right on the site. You can even downlad a tiny applet that will sync for you on demand from your desktop.

I'm not a Microsoft hater. Office 2007 is pretty good, and the OneNote program is killer good. Of course, Outlook is "oh so 20 years ago technology" but the rest of Office is good. Groove is remarkably easy to set up, and it works great. Why can't MS be consistent and do everything that well?

@chips

The future is much closer than we know.

You say:
"1. This is the year of Linux (as in when linux takes massive market share from windows)"
- That argument is now moot as Microsoft leapfrogs what you're attempting to do. They will take your target and put it far beyond your reach.

"2. The spam problem will be solved in two years. (B. Gates)"
Gates said Microsoft owned XML. That was over 6 years ago. Gates had no control over Ballmer and Gates believed those who told him the "problem" would be in the disposal four years ago. Gates is routinely so wrong he shouldn't be allowed to walk down the street by himself without a tracking collar. Within a living software ecology, spam is immediately rendered impotent as every participant in the community is known and trusted or they are immediately taken from that community.

"3. It will all be fixed, in the next version of Windows, if you all will just have patience and wait."
The patience had to do with Microsoft attempting to wait out the demise of a company that owned IP essential to the web platform aspirations of Gates' digital decade. Gates waited as long as he could, then he settled with the company that managed to out-wait and out-wit him.

"4. Mac OS X or Linux, will have many many viral problems like Windows, once they have 6% of the desktop market share. (Mac is now at 8.6 market share)"
You're barking up the wrong bark again. The security issues can be dealt with if the package is purchased. I can explain that if you can endure a reasoned conversation.

"5. The next version of Windows will be the most secure OS ever released. (claim made by each new version of Windows)"
next version of Windows can be the most secure OS ever released IF Microsoft has been smart enough license the whole IP set. If not, they are committing industrial suicide.

PS - Your friend goblin has some serious insecurities. You should instruct him on the ways of debate and reason and dissuade him from attempting to outshoot someone who can be much more petty, mean and patient.

PSS - You're right about Andre being a MSFT shill. A paid PR operative if ever I saw one. But, be careful about calling out the gainfully employed at posting. They have an interest that drives them to be much more mean, petty and patient than I can be (because I do this for no pay from anyone - they can't bring themselves to say that).

@marco

Thanks. I'm gad you will be put out of your suffering.

@ goblin

Oh, so, now I killed the suffragettes? Please spare us your squirming on the cross. Your moral fiber is giving me the $#!@s.

"Pro Microsoft". LOL That's rich. You obviously have not read any of my past posts or comments about Microsoft. Steve Ballmer hates my everloving fiber packed guts.

If I appear "pro-Microsoft" it is only because MSFT is now a partner instead of a thief.

Open-source, on the other hand, never intends to partner for a legal dose of the IP, as far as I can tell. Richard Stallman sounds determined to maroon all of you open-sourcers to live on an isolated island void of web services and far from any cloud.

That is, if you actually do what he is saying. I don't think the majority of open-sourcers are as witless or arrogant or steeped in denial as Stallman.

I believe you are all financially interested at heart, regardless the amount of altruism you profess. You may give your software away, but, you do not give your efforts away. If you do, you're assigning yourselves and your families into indentured servitude to cultivate some moral stigmata and sainthood.

I call bull$#!@ on that.

"people not really understanding what message you (me) are trying to put across"

People "not understanding" have to do with not reading. You show you fail to read because you attribute the "Systems building systems" to me. Do you know who actually made the quote? Do you know what that individual is saying? Do you always read something and then jump to the keyboard to trash the person who wrote regardless what was truly being said? I would suggest you slow down, take a deep breath, and quit pinching your feelings where they got hurt.

"[portuno] come[s] across as a rather rude individual"

Only to those who can't find any means of debating the issues with me. Those types end up focusing on irrelevant characteristics. You don't like the way the messenger dresses.

"imply a connection with Joe"

What "connection" have I implied? Joe seems to be a nice guy. Why would he want to be connected with such a rude individual?

"[Joe] believes that Android is everything WM should have been"

I believe the same thing (Is that the connection with Joe you're inferring?) …but, I wouldn’t say “everything”.

The only problem is Google doesn't execute well. They play at it. They poke and pry and try to make a difference instead of competing. I actually think it's more a matter of failing to make allowances for someone else owning key intellectual property that would allow them to step out and step up to the new paradigm challenges.

If they try to fight that proposition (as open-source does) they will find themselves quickly behind and losing as open-source will.
I agree Google is on the right track on many things. The problem is Google has been on the right track for a very long time - TOO long, in fact. They haven't delivered. They've only played at delivering. They're doing just what Microsoft did for the past four years since castrating Longhorn. They're acting as though they don't really own the knowledge required to pull the execution off.

We should have expected Google to finally come to some useful conclusion with their WebOS (which they announced they didn't have, never existed, when VCSY sent a cease and desist letter to Microsoft in 2007).

What became of that vaunted "WebOS" Google was supposed to be developing? So far, the "WebOS" they put out turned out to be Chrome - not a WebOS but, rather, a container for web applications - a platform for platforms (from which systems that build systems may deploy and control parallel applications, so to speak).

Google certainly has a long way to go to make themselves operationally trustworthy with their web platforming.

Again, I reiterate, it's execution that matters in cloud computing, not the cloud computing concept.

Goblin, if you would bother to examine the 744 patent and try to discuss the abstraction of software into nameless services, perhaps this entire conversation might be useful. The cry is that I’m somehow “spamming”. Quite the contrary. As Microsoft has settled with VCSY for a license to 744, I have as much or more “right” to post here as anyone else. I find it distasteful and I don’t intend to keep it up, but, I’m not going to sit while others post denial-based nonsense.

The reason I bother to post on this and other boards is to attempt to develop a conversation about the web platform concepts that are rapidly becoming the death-knell for traditional software. That means an end to software development, deployment, management and governance as we know it, whether the traditional 20th century devotees want to believe it or not. That also means a welcomed change in the way software is used.

The problem is I've been trying to engender a discussion about all this since 2000 when I read the first VCSY whitepaper. But, folks don't want to hear it. In fact, I was hounded off this board by commentors who accused me of being a troll.

Philosopher uses that word to ward others off from speaking to me after he first claimed to want to engage in an intelligent conversation about what VCSY has. Now, he refuses to discuss the technology. Now he focuses on the characteristics of the company. He shoots the messenger because he can't confront the message. He brands it “mumbo jumbo” but can’t bring himself to itemize his discontent.

And you do the same thing.

You want me to say open-source is a good idea. I agree it is. I am not here trying to protect proprietary software vendors. Microsoft has raped any small company owning intellectual property Microsoft needed to advance and make more money. Open-source does the same thing. You’re both the same, so climb off your morality-go-round. Your “awareness” campaign is simply a cry for more latitude to take what doesn’t belong to your movement.

I am here declaring ownership of intellectual property is a reality open-source and Microsoft fail to take into account in their calculations and claims. They must be forced to the law for the little guy to receive any justice.

Just because you can copy what someone else first develops, does not mean you should be giving it away to benefit ANYONE. That's called thievery. It's robbery. And a Robin Hood attitude doesn’t mask the fact you take from the poor and give to the rich.

Is free software "better" than proprietary software because it's "free"? No, it's not.
You want me to say OpenOffice is "better" than Office. No, it's not. It's a partial facsimile of MSOffice. What makes it "better" in your mind is it's simply free. What makes it "better" in the minds of many is that OpenOffice presents the subset of functionality that fits what 95% of users use. I agree with that opinion.

What's actually needed is a way to deploy Office in a component base so people will get and pay for only what they actually need instead of having to buy the whole ball of wax to get the ability to write simple letters. If OpenOffice serves their purpose, fine. I use OpenOffice and I use Office. Quite frankly, OpenOffice has performance issues. MSOffice is expensive overkill. A system allowing the blending of the two would be nice. That’s what 744/521 allows. And that’s why both sides have complained so loudly about VCSY.

If we hold to Microsoft's way of thinking, it would be common sense to buy a complete typesetting system to get a typewriter. That's ludicrous, but, because deployment has always been the problem, Microsoft has gotten away with that sort of thinking for decades. Not any more. 744/521 allows the user to pick and choose what they need when they need it. The combination allows for the dissection of proprietary software into the useful components people are willing to pay for while compounding that IP with open-license components.

Yes, Virginia. That's precisely what 744/521 allows. If you'll open your eyes and take the time to read and quit being "rude", you'll find 744/521 allows proprietary vendors to maintain and track and enforce their IP while allowing open-source to build truly useful applications out of truly free components.

In other words, both sides get what they want.
That's why Microsoft's intellectual property lawyer said "the war between proprietary and open source is a thing of the past". That war is over because 744 and 521 allow architects to come up with the most elegant way of building applications including repurposing and revamping of all legacy software as well. Microsoft won that war because they own a license to the technology. I don’t see open-source attempting to make that kind of accommodation. I only see Richard Stallman railing against the inevitable.

Unfortunately, many ignorant "experts" will continue fighting that war while the rest of the world will be enjoying the fortunes of peaceful co-existence.

And the supporters of VCSY say "You're welcome."
It's such a shame Ballmer is so hell bent to prove what belongs to him (even if it's stolen from others) that he delayed the public debut of this capability until this fall. Perhaps the Microsoft shareholders will have a chance to examine the history and come to some judgement about Mister Ballmers true abilities and intents.

Am I spamming when I try to get people to discuss the capability described and taught by those patents? No more so than your avowed “awareness” campaign to keep open-source in front of the readers and users.

"Philosopher" calls 744 "mumbo jumbo". Funny. Microsoft brought in a settlement expert the same day the court allowed Sharepoint to be added to the 744 lawsuit. That “mumbo jumbo” induced Microsoft to settle the day before the Markman Hearing. Some powerful mumbo jumbo indeed.
I have yet to see what earns philosopher his username. His attitude did a complete flip when he realized he couldn't dismiss the patent with discussion, only ridicule.

All of you sound foolish when you refuse to confront what the average reader can see clearly.

Am I "rude" to call you foolish when you act foolish? Or, should I call you smart when you do something stupid? Would I not be acting just as stupid? Sorry. I won't act stupid unless it gets you to think. And if my stupid acting gets you to think, then, it's not stupidity I do.

So, when you folks want to talk about abstraction of content/format/functionality through arbitration for the development of commoditized applications and platforms, perhaps you'll sound more intelligent and I'll sound less rude.

Until then, you "technologists" sound like my grandfather explaining how a Model T works when I'm trying to talk about the latest Tesla auto.
Get real, people. Your credibility is about to be taken to the landfill along with your careers. When you finally end the denial, you'll find 744/521 is actually going to do precisely what open-source has been trying to do (and failing) for ten years. 744/521 will also do precisely what proprietary vendors have been trying to do for decades.

How? Engage in a reasoned discussion about 744 without resorting to out-of-hand dismissal and perhaps you’ll see… if you want to see, that is. 744/521 will allow free software to be free and productive in concert with proprietary software properly deployed, tracked and protected.

It all goes much farther than that, but, I’m hoping you will at least be able to grasp that tiny piece of bread and will become hungry to know more.

Until then, I’ll just have to be content with rudeness and ridicule.

The questions remains unanswered:

1. Why is it that, even AFTER the Microsoft-VCSY settlement, VCSY remains a company that is unable to repay its loans, continues to have only one subsidiary with a positive revenue (but still a net loss), and has no other subsidiaries that show any signs of revenue or even operating expenses?

2. If "744/521" are so valuable, why can't VCSY make a profit on them?

@portuno:
The examples I posted of future sayings were there as examples of what has not happened.

As far as Richard Stallman, you said:
"Richard Stallman sounds determined to maroon all of you open-sourcers to live on an isolated island void of web services and far from any cloud. That is, if you actually do what he is saying. I don't think the majority of open-sourcers are as witless or arrogant or steeped in denial as Stallman."
----------------------------------------------------
Not the majority of us, but I am as "witless or arrogant or steeped in denial as Stallman." I do believe that Stallman was and is the guilding light so to speak behind the GNU/Linux movement, not Linux Torvads as some people think. That is not to minimize the impact that Torvads has on open source and Linux. Stallman's basic concept is that software should be free and open to use, change, by users. But then we go into a discussing of the GPL, and that would only get the softies in an uproar. Suffice it to say, why should we continue to pay for the same piece of code, slightly modified each time, full price, with the windows new name on it.

As far as Marco and Goblin, if you remember Portuno, when most of the softies here wanted to ban you and the others that wrote about VCSY, it was only me and them that said some discussion should be allowed, as long as it was not overdone. I even spoke up against the constant identity thief going on here. Maybe its best to know, and remember who your friends are here.

Meanwhile, back to the topic: Windows Mobile Is an Also-ran

MS would be better off conceding this battle and concentrating on its core windows OS. Even on it's Xbox. Its too late now for the web and yahoo, even if MS got that, google is going kill em there. Just pouring more M$ down the rathole.

Vista SP2 and Windows 7 by the End of June 2009
Ballmer indicates new client operating system releases by July of next year

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vista-SP2-and-Windows-7-by-the-End-of-June-2009-95990.shtml

part of the quote from the link:
"The evolution of the Windows client, involving both Windows Vista (now with Service Pack 1) and Windows 7, appears to be closer than Microsoft is ready to acknowledge officially. Of course, Windows XP, even with Service Pack 3, is the past, with the exception of customers abandoning Windows Vista by exercising their downgrade rights. Windows Vista, even with SP1, is a present that makes the future seem to not get here fast enough. And Vista SP2 along with Windows 7 and Windows Cloud (Strata) are the future. But at the same time, both Vista SP2 and Windows 7 are nothing more than the evolution of Vista, to a lesser, and respectively a larger degree.

Come the end of October 2008, and the start of November, Microsoft will deliver a rather consistent taste of where it is heading with Windows, not only Windows 7, but also Windows 7 Server and Windows Strata (the label continues to be unconfirmed by the company). Events such as the Professional Developer Conference 2008, Windows Hardware Conference 2008 and TechEd EMEA will be focused on Windows 7 and Windows Cloud, although less on Windows Vista."

What can I say, when my sources are better than Joe Willcox's sources. On the release of Seven, that is.

@ philosopher

I can not speak for the CEO of the company, but, as a shareholder who's studied the situation continuously for eight years, I can give my opinion as to what the company is doing and why.

Until Wade could prove VCSY rightfully owned the intellectual property represented by the technology in SiteFlash and MLE/Emily, I would think he was operating at a disadvantage with every large player simply working behind the scenes developing their own interpretation of the claims in the two software patent applications made in 1999.

The inability to repay loans and limping along on the revenue from only one subsidiary, to me, is akin to the broken wing strategy.

A cardinal rule of war is "When strong, feign weakness. When weak, feign strength." I believe the way to bide time as others attempt to subvert and destroy you is to appear dead while moving forward.

VCSY has been close to death, as you cite, for many years now.

Oddly, they have never died. In fact, they simply continue mounting one successful hurdle after another while others swore they would be out of business altogether. What's funny is those "skeptics" continue to insist VCSY will be bankrupt in spite of the Microsoft settlement and in spite of the fact VCSY has yet to file a 10-Q for the settlement quarter.

Meanwhile, IBM, Adobe and Microsoft, to name only three, have continued to work on their campaigns to build their own likeness of the 744/521 patents. IBM has numerous items in their arsenal that bear a striking resemblance to both 744 and 521. Likewise Adobe. Microsoft has .Net and Sharepoint to name the two mentioned in the lawsuit.

Strangely, both IBM and Adobe have been very open about their campaigns and their products, while never mentioning VCSY beyond IBM's initial touting of VCSY in 2001 for Emily.

But Microsoft has held their similar developments in secret since 2004 when Siteflash was granted. Likewise, in 2006, when 521 was granted, Microsoft sank further into secrecy, befuddling the public, their shareholders and clients.

Again, oddly, in 2006 both IBM and Adobe pressed forward on their efforts with their 744/521-like projects and claimed increasing successful portions of the internet market.

Meanwhile, Microsoft fell farther and farther behind from that period until August 2008. With the settlement, Microsoft has had a remarkable turnaround in their internet abilities.

Again, oddly, Wade sued Microsoft, which did not have any directly overt acts of "infringement" in public view.

But, he did not sue IBM or Adobe, even though Adobe AIR used the same codename, Apollo... the same name of VCSY's distributed smart-card system built on MLE, the 521 patent basis.

Likewise, IBM used technology in DB2.9 codenamed Viper I and Viper II which closely resembled the functionality in both 521 and 744.

I believe Wade has been doing what any smart CEO would have done all this time. Given he was unable to compete against Microsoft's use of much larger market muscle, he walked as though dead. Why would he not? He would only waste valuable effort trying to beat Microsoft at the game and MSFT has been well known for suffocating small players with market speak and vapor.

One example is Looksmart's AdCenter software developed and deployed in partnership with Microsoft for facebook, only to have Microsoft develop and deploy their own "AdCenter" and pry Looksmart out of their market with Facebook.

Mister Ballmer thinks that kind of thing is funny, I would assume.

Where is Looksmart now? Owned by Network Solutions- owned by General Atlantic... founded by Charles Feeney, once upon a time Wade's boss and lawsuit plaintiff.

Feeney is the founder of General Atlantic Partners now known as General Atlantic. Look them up. Then rethink what you know about VCSY.

I've talked until I'm talked out about the history and the apparent situation that explains, to me and to a majority of VCSY longs, why VCSY has taken the stealth road. Skeptics swear that is not a valid road, but, I can't see any of those same skeptics explaining the numerous successes VCSY has had while on the deathbed all this time.

While weak, VCSY has demonstrated strength. While strong, VCSY has demonstrated weakness.

I realize that's a foreign concept for modern CEO's. US CEO's are more prone to shoot their mouths off and brag outlandishly when they are in the worst situations... That's not exactly what Sun Tzu had in mind. The "feint" must be credible... and VCSY appears credibly weak and credibly strong at once.

You will find Wade doesn't issue PRs even for business being done by NOW Solutions. One would think he would be spewing PRs out daily trying to stay afloat. But he doesn't do what scam CEO's do... even while beind accused of running a scam.

You see, Richard Wade had an interesting training period while working for Duty Free Shoppers, Chuck Feeney's first company founded in Hong Kong.

I personally think Wade learned his unorthodox but effective strategies while watching Feeney and Feeney's friend Li Ka Shing.

Here we are eight years after the dotcom bust should have wiped VCSY off the face of the corporate map... and VCSY stands.

During that time, VCSY has not only survived but they have bested in court Ross Systems, one of the preeminent industrial automation and information technology companies of the 90's and the dotcom age.

VCSY bested Chinadotcom aka CDC aka China in court, one of the darlings of the Chinese software companies.

VCSY obtained a settlement from Microsoft 15 months after the filing of the VCSY v MSFT lawsuit and only one day before the Markman Hearing claims constructions was to be heard.

During that time they have amassed liabilities as would be expected of any company in their condition... to the tune of less than $20million. I think most familiar with the long list of dotcom disasters would acknowledge that's peanuts compared to those companies

And, quite frankly, $20million is chicken feed given the circumstances VCSY now finds itself.

What circumstances? VCSY has been granted three rule changing patents:

6718103 granted April 6, 2004
6826744 granted November 30, 2004
7076521 granted July 11, 2006

Microsoft has settled for a license to use 744 as of July 25, 2008. The terms have been held confidential.

If you will simply read 744 and compare the language in 744 to the language Microsoft has been using to describe their newly found internet platform, as I've asked repeatedly, I think you will find Microsoft's future will be very bright thanks in part to the facilities of 744.

We have not yet heard whether Microsoft has purchased a license for 521. If you will read 521, you will find a remarkable similarity to the functionlaity in Adobe AIR (aka Apollo), in Google Gears and in Microsoft Silverlight 2. IBM also has a number of curious products which bear a marked similarity to 521. Microsoft's LiveMesh and SmartClient would also benefit by 521 functionality.

103 is an enigma as it describes a means that may be used to expand communications over fiber optics to fantastic levels. The 103 patent doesn't directly impact Microsoft but would be more at home in a telecom corporation such as Verizon... a company partnered with VCSY's lone revenue generating subsidiary NOW Solutions.

I leave that for another discussion elsewhere, lest I be charged with "spamming".

I must say, however, if I am spamming, those who post here with their "awareness" campaign for open-source and any of Microsoft's other competitors are likewise spamming and have no place on this comment board as well.

VCSY is now a partner with Microsoft. I'm sure it galls Mister Ballmer to have to partner with VCSY, but that is the reality and those attempting to belittle the settlement because there is, as yet, no public information (neither MSFT nor VCSY have filed a 10-Q for the second quarter in which the settlement was reached) are at a loss to discuss the subject matter in the patents lest their skepticism be shown to be utter foolishness and blindness.

Now. I have given you my opinion of the situation, philosopher. Will you now tell us how you can claim the 744 patent has nothing to do with upcoming Windows 7, Oslo and the various comments about arbitrary applications and community development ecology made by Microsoft's CEO and Microsoft's chief IP lawyer?

@chips
I agree on your placement of Stallman as the man behind the curtain in open-source. Torvalds' development of Linux was a one-shot ticket into history with little to show for follow up.

I generally agree with Stallman's contention about paying for software once. The Microsoft OS has been a travesty of greed and self aggrandizement by MSFT management over the interests of the software industry and the business and consumer industry at large.

But, I do not agree all software patents are invalid on face. In fact, a recent written opinion by USPTO lawyer (I cited it earlier) actually reinforces the validity of VCSY's two software patents because 744/521 are specifically designed to facilitate transformation and transaction processing between two or more of any computer platform: a prime factor in software patent validity per the USPTO.

I do remember who you are, chips, and I appreciate your stand on the behalf of myself and I-man during that time.

I think you will recognize I have tempered my remarks to you or about you and have reserved the bulk of my scorn for your Quixotic little friend gobblin'.

I agree with your opinion about MSFT WM. In fact, I would go so far as to say WM is worse than an also-ran. Microsoft Windows Mobile is a dead bird until Microsoft can first demonstrate something along the lines of what patent 521 does on a true internet platform.

MLE (521) is designed specifically to work in mobile distributed computer systems; first in smart cards as demonstrated by the Apollo Smartcard system built by VCSY for J. Svigal's next generation smartcard patents.

VCSY's ability to build such a system years ago was a primary indication the company had much more strength than the industry players were willing to acknowledge. There is no excuse for the industry's failure to recognize that accomplishment above Java's failed record in smartcards and mobile systems.

But, I know why the industry won't acknowledge them. We all know why. They wanted VCSY to die.

As for Windows Mobile, Microsoft must first get Silverlight 2 off the ground dependably before they can move on to mobile systems.

Besides, I think VCSY is going to hold such mobile faculties closer to themselves and license that property in 521 to telcos like Verizon before Microsoft will be given any shot at the market.

I would think Microsoft securing an opportunity to compete effectively on desktops and laptops would be sufficient until they can prove they have a new attitude on this "stolen IP as business strategy" business.
The world governments will be asked to consider telcos as a significant balance against MSFT's legacy monopoly to justify handicapping MSFT's entry into global mobile services (VCSY's ultimate aim as announced in 2000) for some time. There is nothing MSFT has going for itself to compel any reasonable regulatory body to force entry into mobile services.

I agree MSFT would be better off conceding that battle. They should get their shambles of a house in order on desktops and laptops as touching the internet first before they are allowed to go toe to toe with burgeoning and nacent telco mobile business.

The only viable competition to Microsoft in the medium/large scale computing devices arena is Linux. Apple has shown they are an elitist marketeer, content charging a premium for look, feel and "cool"... whatever that means.

The mobile devices market should be reserved for Google Android and "something else" as a balancing force in the market. Windows mobile attempting to compete directly in that mix is like fat ballerinas. Sure, they should be allowed to dance if they want, but it ain't gonna be pretty to watch.

The reason I point to 521 for mobile service (even though it is thought of first as an elegant for everything larger from PDA's to mainframes) is the above mentioned Apollo smartcard framework.

Yahoo? Yahoo is buttered toast and that acquisition now would allow MSFT to better compete with Google... especially now that MSFT has access to 744 and "appears" to have access to 521 with Silverlight 2 to compete with AIR.

I see nothing in Gears yet to demonstrate Google knows what to do other than pretend to work web applications and web platforming.

I believe MSFT shareholders should petition to regain the share value and lost opportunities squandered since 2000 by having MSFT broken up into a number of profitable entities and their money-losing assets sold to others who can make money off them.

I'm glad to see we have similar views. I hope this is an indication to others I am not an enemy to open-source. Nor am I an enemy to Microsoft or any other proprietary entity willing to work within the constraints of the law.

I am simply one voice out of the band of VCSY shareholders who have known for a long time what Microsoft's chief IP lawyer has finally come to realize: cooperation is productive competition and this phony war between the various players does nothing but serve the self-interests of CEO's who need diversion and decoys to take attention off their own failed policies and failures to perform

@portuno_diamo,
Thanks for your reasoned answers, and for your honesty in admitting they are your opinions. I do wish you could have said this from the start, and avoided the name-calling. And I post as Philosopher because my first name was stolen due to the fact that Joe's sponsors don't support a password-protected posting mechanism. The term "Philosopher" is based on an old saying and nothing more. Do NOT read anything more into it; else if you do then please refrain from hateful attacks as they are baseless and unwarranted. That aside..

It is with interest that I read about your view that VCSY is appearing weak when it is in fact strong. Again, I can only offer my own opinions and questions, as I do NOT have ANY inside knowledge of VCSY or Microsoft nor of their actions behind closed doors.

1. VCSY is a publically held company. Can it actually be strong but appear weak in its SEC filings? This confuses me, but don't take offense: I am not a corporate lawyer and can only wonder at the greed and corruption that is so common in companies these days. Which the recent financial mess has shown so clearly.

2. Yes, this is a nation of laws, and software patents are legal documents. But as I am not a lawyer, and as I can find no other techinical documentation for the patent claims you reference, I am left with only the legalese in the patent filings. Hence my term "mumbo jumbo". But hey, I once filed for a patent and it was accepted by the USPTO. But the wording on the filed patent bears little resemblence to my initial technical write-up. The patent is so broad as to make every computer system in the world with more than two attached devices of the same kind to be blatant infringements. What that company (who I don't work for anymore) is doing with it, I don't know. But the patent's legalese is no more than mumbo-jumbo based on my first-person experience comparing what I wrote to what the lawyers twisted it into.

And the case of RIM shows that even if a software patent is found to be invalid, a company can still be liable for a previous judgment of infringement. I find this bizarre. But I am not a lawyer and do not understand the often twisted ways in which they think.

So, I don't claim VCSY's patents aren't valid or don't have anything of value in them. But I cannot tell from the legalese in which they are written. Am I the be called a completely hopeless idiot because I have no expertise in patent law and legal terminology? Then so be it. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

3. You sidestepped my question on ecology: Ecology is the STUDY of ecosystems and is NOT the ecosystems themselves. (Most people make this mistake, as I have also.) But nitpicking aside, mentioned ecology with respect to living software:

Re: "The 'living' part of the concept has to do with a software that constantly evolves in adaptation to an ongoing discussion between all hands touching the software... at any time throughout the life of the software."

Wouldn't this seem to mark the end of software patents? If the software is truly living, and it can grow and evolve past the original authors' creative contributions, then who would be sued for patent infringement? The software? The Universe? All of mankind? If you are right about those two patents, it looks as if they will be the death knell for the software patent system.

4. Some of your ideas you present, including those from Microsoft, seem to echo ideas in Ray Kurzweil's book, "The Singularity is Near." This is a wonderfully written book, composed in nearly equal measures of careful observation, brilliant insights, and science fiction. Bill Gates is one of Ray Kurzweil's most often quoted contributors and associates. I wonder if the name of Microsoft's "Singularity" project was related to Kurzweil's book in some way.

Something more about Android

Motorola Readies Its Own Android Social Smartphone
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2008/tc20081017_238719.htm
Quote:
The phone will appear among a new class of social smartphones designed to make it easy for users to connect quickly and easily to mobile social networks such as Facebook and News Corp.'s (NWS) MySpace (BusinessWeek, 10/10/08). Such phones let users message in-network friends directly from phone contact lists, for example. A Facebook representative declined to comment on the company's work with Motorola. MySpace.com didn't respond to a request for comment.

Motorola declined to elaborate on its plans, but said in a statement: "We're excited about the innovation possibilities on Android and look forward to delivering great products in partnership with Google (GOOG)" and the community of developers known as the Open Handset Alliance that are working on the Android operating system.

Like the world's first Android phone, from HTC, Motorola's Android-based device will offer a slide-out Qwerty keyboard. People who've seen the pictures and spec sheets for the device say it looks like a higher-end version of the HTC phone, called the T-Mobile G1. But it's expected to sell for less, at prices similar to the Krave, which is available for $150 with a two-year contract. After carrier subsidies, the G1 will retail for $180 with a two-year contract.

@Marco

Hmmm. Motorola, ehhh? Perhaps Wade is more pragmatic than I think.

Hey, look, VCSY longs: “Motorola”. Heh heh heh. Don’t fall out of your chairs just yet. We need to see more about this. Very interesting.

Thanks Marco. You may have proven one of my restrictions wrong. I should learn not to assume Wade is going to establish a wall or fence. Somebody out there is playing a very open and global strategy.

Maybe VCSY intends to ride ALL the ponies in this global circus without restriction.

Don’t believe it? Good. Don’t. I need more shares cheaper than what it is now.

@ philosopher

@portuno_diamo,
>>“Thanks for your reasoned answers, and for your honesty in admitting they are your opinions. I do wish you could have said this from the start…”
**Could you please point to anything I’ve written that would give the reader the idea I was quoting speculative information as FACT or that I was talking using inside information? Unless you can produce something tangible, I would appreciate you not smearing my writings with erroneous perception to prejudice the reader.

>>“and avoided the name-calling.”
**I simply respond in kind to attacks by people who refuse to discuss relevant issues and resort to attacks on me as a messenger to divert and redirect the readers’ attention. I will continue to fight fire with gasoline.

>>“… I post as Philosopher because my first name was stolen due to the fact that Joe's sponsors don't support a password-protected posting mechanism.”
**So you were the victim of the same kind of tactics used against me and I-Man to destroy our credibility? Pretty disgusting people would stoop to such methods, isn’t it? You don’t know the half of it.

>>“The term "Philosopher" is based on an old saying and nothing more. Do NOT read anything more into it; else if you do then please refrain from hateful attacks as they are baseless and unwarranted. That aside.”
**“Hateful”. LOL My my the PC movement is alive and well among the yoots of our nation. Dear boy, if I were to say something “hateful” to you, you would be halfway home before you realized you were missing a leg. That is not aside. That is a tactic used by posters who can’t discuss issues. If you care to discuss the issues in a genuine and intellectually honest way, I would love to do likewise. Otherwise, the asides will result in broadsides at the drop of a hat.

Let’s take a look at the character of your discussion.

>>“It is with interest that I read about your view that VCSY is appearing weak when it is in fact strong. Again, I can only offer my own opinions and questions, as I do NOT have ANY inside knowledge of VCSY or Microsoft nor of their actions behind closed doors.”
**I also have no inside information on VCSY or Microsoft and I never said or inferred I did. Again, if you believe I have, I would appreciate your providing the quote or at least a URL pointing to the offense so we can all judge for ourselves.

>>“1. VCSY is a publically held company. Can it actually be strong but appear weak in its SEC filings?...”
**Of course it can. If the company has structured their agreements as evaluation only with no exchange of money with companies they consider friendly to their IP standings, what harm is that? If the CEO chooses to not take a salary and chooses to provide personal loans to the corporation to keep the doors open, what harm is done?

>>“…This confuses me, but don't take offense: I am not a corporate lawyer and can only wonder at the greed and corruption that is so common in companies these days. Which the recent financial mess has shown so clearly.”
**Your writing confuses me. Are you attempting to infer that VCSY is doing something dishonest, greedy and corrupt by staying in a quiet posture while they pursue development of their IP base toward a maturity that would allow them to leap over the obvious attempts by larger enemies to take them down in the formative stages?

>>“2. Yes, this is a nation of laws, and software patents are legal documents. But as I am not a lawyer, and as I can find no other techinical documentation for the patent claims you reference, I am left with only the legalese in the patent filings. Hence my term "mumbo jumbo".”
**As patents go, I think the reader will find the 744 patent very clear. I thought you were a “technologist”. Am I wrong? Among the VCSY longs are people who are as far from a technologist as a hair stylist or restaurant worker, yet, they are able to effectively identify look-alike projects and products in the industry marketing and articles. In fact, they are the ones who do the searching through the mass of market speak using the internet to find items that indicate specific trends and activities… I simply take what they show me and investigate further to see who’s doing what, then I write. So far, it’s a very effective team. Why do you have so much trouble with the language?

>>“But hey, I once filed for a patent and it was accepted by the USPTO.”
**So you should be able to understand the patent language better than somebody who owns a beauty salon, no?

>>“But the wording on the filed patent bears little resemblence to my initial technical write-up. The patent is so broad as to make every computer system in the world with more than two attached devices of the same kind to be blatant infringements.”
**Who’s patent are you talking about here? YOUR patent or VCSY’s patent? Who cares what your patent said. It appears you’re simply trying to tire the readers out and convince them ALL patents are full of phony language that’s too broad. That’s the defense open-source advocates use to justify their attitudes about patents, but, they do so in ignorance to convince ignorant people. Is that what you’re trying to do here? How many shares of VCSY have you bought so far, philosopher?

So broad it covers every computer around? Not really. Only if the people with those computers build a system fitting the claims of the patent. If you don’t want a system of that type, simply don’t seek a license and don’t build one. What is so hard about that? And, if your interpretation of broadness is so accurate, why didn’t that argument accompany Microsoft’s claim construction brief? I’m puzzled you can come up with a conclusion for nothing that Microsoft could not reach by paying their lawyers well. Please explain why we should listen to you when others have Microsoft lawyers to listen to.

>>“What that company (who I don't work for anymore) is doing with it, I don't know. But the patent's legalese is no more than mumbo-jumbo based on my first-person experience comparing what I wrote to what the lawyers twisted it into.”
**“Twisted it (the description) into”. Very telling your attitude toward patents. Evil people trying to trick the world, is it?

So, let’s home in on the 6826744 patent language and let’s have you describe your problems with what’s said. Microsoft filed a claims construction brief taking issue with the 744 patent… and all they focused on was the use of the word “arbitrary” in that VCSY defines arbitrary in their framework as meaning “any”.

In other words, Microsoft couldn’t come up with anything more substantial than that, and Microsoft’s own argument fell flat when compared to the dictionary. Patent lawyers are there to ensure a comprehensive view. What’s wrong with that? And YOU contend 744 is “too broad”. Funny. Microsoft didn’t cover that other than by saying “arbitrary” shouldn’t be construed as “any”. But, then, Ballmer recently said their new Windows platform would be able to run arbitrary applications… and he put some restrictions after the word regarding .Net. The VCSY patent uses no restrictions. Is that what has you upset?

>>”And the case of RIM shows that even if a software patent is found to be invalid, a company can still be liable for a previous judgment of infringement. I find this bizarre. But I am not a lawyer and do not understand the often twisted ways in which they think.”
**OK, we accept you’re not a lawyer and your attitude toward patents, patent speak and lawyers is also irrelevant to the discussion. So, please get to the point. Personal prejudice fueled by emotional attitude does nothing for debate other than cloud the issues. Of course, some people use that as a tactic.

>>“So, I don't claim VCSY's patents aren't valid or don't have anything of value in them.”
**Well, good. We appear to be getting somewhere. As to validity, the VCSY patents are valid as they were granted by the USPTO. As to value, they appear to have value as they’ve been cited by subsequent patents granted expanding on the concepts described in the 744 patent (this is the one we’re talking about right now as it’s the one Microsoft settled on for license.) and those patents were granted to IBM and Microsoft. There are others but I like to keep the discussion simple with easily seen and remembered markers.

>>“But I cannot tell from the legalese in which they are written.”
**That’s a shame. Again, if you could simply point out the language you’re having trouble with, perhaps we could all be edified. Otherwise, you’re an unskilled reader trying to decry descriptions you don’t understand. Should you be doing this?

“Am I the be called a completely hopeless idiot because I have no expertise in patent law and legal terminology?”
**Well, you’re the one who’s saying it’s all “mumbo-jumbo” to you but that doesn’t stop you from attempting to cast doubt and prejudice in the readers’ mind toward the VCSY patents.

>>“Then so be it.”
**OK. You’re a (what was it you called yourself again?) hopeless idiot.

>>“A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.”
**Actually, no. A rose smells sweet by its nature. An idiot stinks by its intent.

>>“3. You sidestepped my question on ecology: Ecology is the STUDY of ecosystems and is NOT the ecosystems themselves.”
**“Sidestepped”? How did I sidestep? You attempt to cast doubt on my statements by trying to show I don’t know how to use the words ecosystem and ecology. You say there’s a distinct difference between the usage of those two words. You’re not correct.

“Ecosystem: a system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their environment.”

“Ecology: The environment as it relates to living organisms. A system of such relationships within a particular environment.“

As you will note, your strict interpretation of the word “ecology” might as well be a study of latin in a hiphop world. Ecosystem and ecology, in this day and age, are used hand in hand to mean the entirety of a knowledge and interaction of a systematic organization of needs and resources.

If you can substitute “machine” for organism, and you plug “semantic faculty and facility” into the representation of that machine, you will soon find yourself facing an independent organization of machines. That’s why IBM’s patent toward automation application development, deployment, management and governance rests on VCSY’s patent according the the examiner of the later IBM patent. Do you think IBM would like a “system that builds systems” such as SiteFlash? I do.

>>“(Most people make this mistake, as I have also.)”
**It’s not a mistake if the dictionary says it can be used that way, professor.

>>“But nitpicking aside, mentioned ecology with respect to living software: Re: "The 'living' part of the concept has to do with a software that constantly evolves in adaptation to an ongoing discussion between all hands touching the software... at any time throughout the life of the software."
To quote David Puddy “Yeah, that’s right.”

>>“Wouldn't this seem to mark the end of software patents?”
**Actually, no. It means the end of unsupported software patents. One of the facilities of SiteFlash is the ability to track and govern all the meta-resources associated with the most granular pieces of the application or framework components on a case by case and independent body basis. That means if you’re a developer in the community and you add a functionality to the framework that’s novel, your contribution may be marked, identified, vetted, tracked, evaluated, valued and monetized throughout the life of that component and all subsequent repurposes and offspring of that component. Thus, if somebody says your rose smells good, you can smell that rose through the most foul sausage making line. This means the beginning of true software IP identity and ownership. Thus, proprietary components (or even components of components) and free components (likewise wheel within a wheel) are no longer lost in the code base. How is that done? The patent describes a mechanism for doing that. It’s a shame it’s all mumbo-jumbo to you. It’s not to Microsoft now. It’s not to IBM.

>>“If the software is truly living, and it can grow and evolve past the original authors' creative contributions…”
**Yes.

>>“, then who would be sued for patent infringement?”
**Nobody. The same components and form can be tracked throughout dissection and reapportionment throughout any and all phases of the systems life.

>>“The software? The Universe? All of mankind?”
**All the above. Truth and originality are unique and may not be faked.

>>“If you are right about those two patents, it looks as if they will be the death knell for the software patent system.”
**I agree. They will be the infrastructural foundations of an ecosystem for abstract intellectual property definition, apprehension and valuation. Thus, “the war between proprietary and open-source is over”. Finally. Thank God.

Houston, we have a solution.

>>“4. Some of your ideas you present, including those from Microsoft, seem to echo ideas in Ray Kurzweil's book, "The Singularity is Near."”
**Yes, they do. These ideas are a result of information processing theory. The theory is universal and owned by all. The methods for achieving the goals of that theory, however, are functional designs embodied in tangible processes transforming the information as it moves through the machinery necessary to bring the theories to life. These are called “inventions”. VCSY has world class inventors in McAuley (744), Davison (521), and Cruz (103).

>>“This is a wonderfully written book,…”
**Kurzweil is a brilliant man, having taken the science of waveform generation and transformation, melded it into electronics and human feedback and produced music simulation aka the “synthesizer”. Siteflash does a similar thing with data, code and human (and one day, machine) functionality. It’s one reason the patent examiners cite SiteFlash in the IBM application construction (by synthesis) automation patent and the Microsoft application simulation (by synthesis) automation patent.

>>“…composed in nearly equal measures of careful observation, brilliant insights, and science fiction. Bill Gates is one of Ray Kurzweil's most often quoted contributors and associates. I wonder if the name of Microsoft's "Singularity" project was related to Kurzweil's book in some way.”
**Actually, Microsoft “Singularity” appears to be an embodiment of patent 7076521 in conjunction with 744… 521 is a sister to 6826744 SiteFlash. 521 is called “Emily”. She’s beautiful and elegant in her own unique way. SiteFlash and MLE provide the two basic constructs by which a living software ecosystem and the resulting ecology toward building further ecosystems may be built most effectively. We can talk about 521 also if you like.

I do invite anyone to challenge what I’ve said. I have no inside information. All I have is what I’ve read and understand. That should put you on even par, reader. We want a discussion and not a rave or a rant.

None of this is “too broad” for the 20th century software industry to compete. It’s simply “too elegant” for them to compete… and that kind is the most novel and valid type of “patent” anywhere.

@ philosopher

Ecology: The term was coined in 1866 by the Darwinist and German biologist Ernst Haeckel from the Greek oikos meaning "house" and logos meaning "science"....The environment includes … the abiotic environment -- non-living things like climate and geology.

Ecosystem: the complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit.

So an ecological unit is an operational framework that defines an ecosystem, phil? Isn't that what I said? Build systems to build systems?
What's the problem here, phil? Do you simply want to prove you have a better grasp of the English language? Or is there something deeper you're going for? I thought you said you wanted to discuss the way the patents work.

Want to apply ecosystem/ecology to software?

"System": Origin: 1610–20; Gk sýstéma whole compounded of several parts

"Ecosystem": the collection of people and operational constructs and machines within which functional work is done.

"Ecology": the collection of information and resources used to measure, manage and govern an ecosystem.

Therefore:
ecosystem = "house body"
ecology = "house thought"

How's that, phil? Mutually exclusive definitions? I think not.

I guess what has you miffed is I try to use those two “unrelated” words to describe software architecture and software operation… and your world (the one you’ve been using since the 20th century) only allows for one or the other. Not both.
Siteflash is an ecosystem that allows for the development of ecologies that allow for the development of ecosystems. Get it? 744 is an operational environment (ecosystem) that provides all the facilities and capabilities to study that operational environment (ecology) for the purpose of developing, deploying, managing, governing (and any other work you might want to think about and then do) ecosystems for even more ecologies.

Heck. We could do this all night. BUT, it's kind of boring. Is that what you want, phil? Do you want to bore the readers to death if you can redirect them?

You know, phil. I didn't want to bring this up but... you sound angry. Somewhat upset, I would say. You don't like what I've said and you have two things to contend with: "ecosystem/ecology" and whether information about Emily exists.

I don't think you really want to discuss the subjects. I first thought you were engaging in the discussion to find a place to put a screwdriver, but, now, I'm getting the feeling you're in it looking for somewhere to stick a knife.

If you were really interested, you would ask some probing questions about how the thing works instead of putting all your energy in trying to win points on etymology.
(Uh ohhh. Did I use that one improperly? Want to apply etymology to the semantic theory with Siteflash? It can be done, of course… because of arbitrated abstraction, SiteFlash can integrate ecology into ecosystem… whether you like it or not.)

"Etymology": The history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language.

I know it's going to piss you off, but, with a Siteflash ecology you can do etymology with the semantic structures of code libraries and their histories in use.

>>"Yes, it sure would be nice to have enough tens of millions of dollars just laying around to pay for one's own top-notch legal team."

But, you argue with that expensive law team because they don't think your interpretation is in the patent language... AND THEY'RE THE ONES WHO UNDERSTAND THAT LANGUAGE!!!

Dude. What's got you so upset?

>>"But for us technical types who never attended even one class in law school, a real technically-oriented document would be nice. Is it too much to ask?"

Oh. I see. There's the typical open-source approach. “Tell me how it's built and I can go away and do better”. Great. It’s a real shame we can’t send pictures back and forth.

Well, maybe that's precisely why VCSY has put so much energy into keeping their information close to the vest. The world is full of "innovators" who can't "invent". So, the inventors choose to keep their techniques and developments quiet unless you're willing to sign a binding non-disclosure.

I went after an Emily evaluation license once in late 2000. True story. But, it was so demanding and restrictive I quit in the middle of filling out the form.

Dude, you should have seen that license! Under “home address”, there's a line in there for "name of first born child". Heh heh heh. That's a joke, son.

Lighten up, phil. One day, all you open-source and covetous proprietary guys will get to look under the hood of a ResponseFlash or a UniversityFlash or an AffiliateFlash or a NewsFlash system or even an InfinityFlash (I just made that last one up) and, who knows, you might actually be able to build one of your own.

But, just one caveat: don't go trying to make money off it without signing one of those licenses. Wade seems to be real serious about IP confidentiality.

Ya think?

And, if the CEO is so serious, I suppose a lowly shareholder should be as well.

Sorry you can't get a copy of the Emily whitepaper. Those of us who've had years to study figure if none of you are curious enough to ask questions about the actual workings of the frameworks (how many opportunities have I given?), you're most likely just asking for the material to criticize and ridicule the typos.

No thanks. I'll keep my Emily pinup on my own wall for the time being. I get the feeling you'll see her in public before long.

@Joe Wilcox,

What happened to philosopher's comment before mine of Oct 20, 11:58PM? I responded to a comment and, in fact, I may have that file copied and I can repost it for him if there was a "technical glitch" (I'm not above helping people out like that).

What he said is itemized in my response.

Just wondering what would have caused that comment to be deleted?

Portuno, forgetting about your past "indiscretions" for a minute, can I give you an opinion, which I believe applies to many readers on this blog?

Youre posts are awful. Im not sure what the purpose is of you posting. Certainly you come across as a master of literacy, certainly you come across as dedicated person to the cause you are supporting, but unfortunately I (and I would presume, from the lack of direct response you get) alot of people instantly switch off to your posts.

The reason for me personally doing so is that I want a debate, I want to see what the person is saying and either agree or disagree. The internet is supposed to encourage communication between people all around the globe, and I find myself not wanting to translate your post simply to find out what you are saying.

IMO reading one of your posts in like sifting through a legal document, and on a forum such as this I believe its something not alot of people can be bothered to do.

We are well aware of the reasons behind why you post, and even though your financial dependency makes you about as impartial as a Witchfinder General, Id still like to hear your views, unfortunately thats not happening and I believe that your long flowery paragraphs are only read by a minority.

Why not post clearly? Why not keep it simple? How do you think someone whos first language is not English interprets your messages?

Ignore me, or as you like to do, try to belittle me, its of no consequence, if it makes you feel better, reply in a flowery response that I wont be bothered to read properly. Im just trying to help you put your point across to more people.

@gobblin

Yawn. Do you have any other tips on how I might better my personality and thus have more "fans". I think I saw those in Maxim.

"Translate"? Bwaaahhh ha haaaa. Lemme guess. You're a lonely C++ developer living on the Mongolian Steppes and your horsie is named "Farts Upwind" (translated from Halh).

If you wanted to "debate" you would be attempting to disprove the usefulness of the 744 patent by discussing the technological issues - not whether I'm a likeable person. I'm pathologically anti-social so your dislike of me I couldn't care less.

Why not post like you ave som brains? Why not atack the substance instead of the messenger?

The answer is (drumroll, please) .......you can't, and it's obvious.

Just as philosopher bailed when his script notes were ripped to confetti, you come in to run interference. Very funny. Obvious tag teaming by the open-source faction here.

Ignore you? I have no intention of ignoring you. Why should I? I've never seen a better example of shill-without-a-clue.

I don't want you to help me put my point across to other people. Those who will put out the effort will get what I intend them to get. Those who can't put out the effort? They're the ones I want to simply stand out.

I simply want to illustrate how mindless and clueless the mass of "developers" and "technologists" "out there" are - and you've made my point clearly enough.

Thank.

NEXT!

I half expected a response such as that, i did hope that maybe being reasonable was within your level of maturity, maybe I was wrong.

If you notice, many people post here casting doubt over your integrity, I myself have asked the question to the readers as a whole, if anyone thought you actually post in an coherent manner.

Regardless of if your point is getting across or not, one thing is certain, your credibility and support here are next to nothing, now even your higher functioning brain must work out that there can be only two reasons for this:

1. You are completely wrong, and what you say is rubbish.

2. There are very few people here bothered to read your posts (why is it only one or two people who bother to respond to you?)

Unlike you, I respect others opinions, even in your case. I just would like that opinion to be more coherent.

You are obviously a person of issues, who does not appear concerned that they are wasting time typing something that most people are not interested in. You also appear to have a respect issue, both with those who dont rejoice in your flowery worded posts and those that dont fit into your agenda.

I like the bit about being clueless at the end, that did make me laugh. Although you claim not to care about being understood, your last post was probably the clearest of all of them.

If being a shill is highlighting my opinion that people should have freedom of choice, then fine, Im a shill. Im not really bothered about what people think of me, as I have nothing to gain if overnight everyone switched over to Linux or indeed any other platform.

Please do not put words into my mouth either. I dont dislike you. I dont know you. I dislike your attitude, but then you seem to relish in being anti-social.

I really hope your online personality is not the same as your real life one. If it is, you have my pity, you must lead a lonely life.

For the record, Philosopher didnt bail out on you (IMO) he appears to have simply been bored with your rants that have no basis and are dressed up with impressive wordage.

Ive given my advice, youre not interested. Thats fine, continue typing to the imaginary interested user you have been.

I do have a question to ask, if open source supporters are so clueless, why are they the majority of posters here, and why is open source popularly increased as much as it has? Thats a lot of clueless people about. Thanks for being around to keep us all right.

@gobblin

How would you know philosopher's motivation or method? Your statement simply adds evidence to the conclusion you're part of an open-source tag team.

philosopher couldn't contend with what I wrote in response to his questions so he skipped out. His last most frustrated post also skipped out.

I don't blame philosopher if he asked to have that one deleted.

So he failed to unravel even one thread of 744 and you haven't even tried.... most likely because you're not capable. You're just a PR guy.

I haven't seen one person able to contend with the substance of patent 744 or 521 and I've been waiting for somebody to succeed for eight years.

Oh, they've tried, but they can't gin up enough of a logical train to leave the station.

Believe me, if they had, you would see that stuff cut and pasted all over the place. It's nowhere. Find it if you think you can. Please post it here. I want to see what you come up with. It will at least be more interesting than the nancy sweetwater crap you're stirring about how hurt you are I'm not a likable charcter.

Thanks for the display of conspicuous compassion. I'll keep it in my garbage can in case a homeless guy needs a place to pee.

Now, why can't you hold a technical discussion?

So, I guess I'll keep looking for somebody willing or able to take up the task and make a dent. I know they can't, but at least that debate would be more entertaining than corresponding with a PR guy from a Linux phone bank.

Your questions:

>>"if open source supporters are so clueless, why are they the majority of posters here"?
**Because they've put on a coordinated effort to barrage the Microsoft discussion forums to suffocate Microsoft discussion. It's a basic strategy in the hedge fund arsenal and it works in PR departments as well.

>>and why is open source popularly increased as much as it has?
**Because people suppose owning it is free. They don't realize the limitations until they get into it.

@Goblin,
You guessed 100% correctly. I didn't bail. I've never bailed. I just got bored with the rants and have much better and infinitely more productive things to do. Just as you guessed.

And to further support my decision, I read the completely false and baseless claim that you didn't know my motivation, when in fact you openly admitted it was your OPINION (which turned out to be correct, but that's beside the point), which means that you did NOT claim to know, but ONLY to GUESS. Why that warranted such a pointedly combative remark, I don't know. I just know that you didn't deserve it, even if you had claimed to know (which you didn't) and only claimed it was your opinion.

He-who-isn't-worth-being-named claims to have no inside knowledge of VCSY and Microsoft, and yet somehow thinks we're idiots because our wild guesses are different from his wild guesses. It's not as if any of us has the facts, inside knowledge, or evidence of why, how, and when either company did anything behind closed doors. It certainly isn't worth the name-calling.

This is turning into a religious war, in which the opposing sides argue, often violently, about who has the most powerful imaginary friend.

@philosopher

And the tag team bumps over to phil.

Where did your post go, phil?

By the way, did you see the new technology news source in Seattle called "TechFlash"?

Interesting, isn't it. Brand spanking new.

And did you see the scoop in it about Bill Gates' and his new company called ?

Bill Gates' mysterious new company
By Todd Bishop and Eric Engleman
Oct 22, 2008 at 11:38 AM

Public documents describe the new Gates entity -- bgC3 LLC -- as a “think tank.� It’s housed within a Kirkland office that the Microsoft co-founder established on his own after leaving his day-to-day executive role at the company this summer.

----------------

TechFlash. Hmmmm. I wonder if it has anything to do with SiteFlash? UniversityFlash? AffiliateFlash? NewsFlash? InfinityFlash? Oh yeah. Forgot. I made that one up.

Why won't you discuss the technical aspects of 744 aka SiteFlash, phil?

Why is this a "hate portuno" fest. I responded to your comments about the patent clearly and concisely and this is what you come back with?

And, by the way, if you can only bring yourself to read things from a reputable journal, try here:

http://blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/10/23/inside-bill-gatess-secret-new-business/

Just trying to be helpful. heh heh heh

Qoute Benton, "How would you know philosopher's motivation or method?"

I didnt, thats why if you take you time and read my post you will see that I used IMO.

Id love a debate or even a chat, unfortunately we work on two different levels. Just have you have your area of interest, I have mine, and I bet youll be just as lost at it.

Benton, I dont have to argue with you, nor do I need to, I believe you to be a troll with access to a decent dictionary. I wont justify your silly and childish attitude any longer.

Benton, nobody has supported you here, you are a self confessed anti-social poster who neither shows interest nor debating skills in anything other than their own financial interests.

Benton, continue your end of the opensource world rant, youre nothing but a freak show here now.

@Philosopher

Moving on from Bentons tragic life, Im hoping that MS watch is going to do some coverage on the new Evo system. Apparently the devkit and system are going to be available to developers from November 20th. Contrary to "he who cannot be named" its not the end of the opensource world and this is one of the many new innovations that opensource is inspiring.

Regards Philosopher!

and Benton, consider the sillyness of your comment "You're just a PR guy"

A PR guy who acknowledges MS products may be suitable for some people and promotes opensource, a community of people where code and ideas are shared freely? I have no connection with any company relevant here, hence why Im even talking about giving the MAC a try.

Think before you post. Ive admitted that I use MS products at work, opensource at home, so what exactly am I a PR guy for? Ive certainly never promoted the company I work for and I have no shares in anything that relates to the IT world. (unless you count British Telecom)

My personal interest/hobby is in the demo scene area and in particular 68k asm, which Im quite sure you wont have any knowledge of, so it would be unfair for me to try and engage you in debate about it.

@gobblin

Back when assembler was all the rage (and necessity) I did my programming on Intel Multibus systems with assembler and PL/I all on CP/M to begin with. Yes, portuno has been around that long.

It wasn't a hobby then and I don't think dabbling in antiquated throwbacks is productive now.

So, no, I can't speak in detail about "68k asm", but, all I need do is browse through a manual and I can pick it up quickly enough and I would at least be able to debate you on the architecture of 68k as opposed to the 80s.

Hell, at least I would TRY.

So, you should at least be able to talk in the broadest terms about architecture and methods of computing as described in 521 and 744. Especially since your open-source future is going to depend on you knowing how to counter the advances Microsoft will use against you by virtue of their VCSY license(s).

I've asked you and philosopher to debate me on the basis of the 744 technology (I'm not even asking you to broach 521) and all I get from both of you is the wah wahhhs because "portuno mean old man took me bottle".

You and phil should grow up and develop a skin and do some study on distributed architecture before you go posting on a comment board where peole might actually ask you to contend on some issues.

Maybe then you won't come across as so petty and easily offended.

Of course, I've seen your writing. Phil's too. You can both wield a passive aggresive insult well, so, the truth is you've both latched on to hurt feelings and shock because you think it excuses you in the readers' eyes from facing the issues.

They know what you're doing and they know now what 744 and 521 are about. Microsoft is going to mop up the opne-source world using those capabilities and you're powerless to stop them. Not your fault. The fault lies with Richard Stallman and his operatives.

Linus said the future of computing will belong to "a small company". At least some of us know what small company he was talking about. It's just a shame you can't bring yourself to defend your territory.

Everyone:

Speaking of TechFlash, by the way, have you ever seen the NewsFlash look?

They've shown up in all kinds of newspaper sites for years. Here's one: http://www.al.com/newsflash/

NewsFlash is the invention of Audrey McAuley - inventor of SiteFlash aka patent 6826744.

Funny both logos NewsFlash and TechFlash should look so much alike, isn't it?

Just trying to hep you cats out (that's the kind of groovy stuff people used to say when I was a kid). At least I didn't say it's the cat's pajamas, kiddo.

I doubt anyones still interested in this thread, and it seems that Benton is speaking to himself, as people are still not responding to him (see above)

I thought you would have been able to see from my post that the point being made was that just as I wouldnt expect you to talk about my interests, I dont want to talk about yours. Please try to understand, neither does anyone else, thats why the arguments you get into are not to do with whatever it is you are talking about, and more about your attitude.

Isnt this thread supposed to be about the press conference? Isnt that the matter at hand? I want to discuss the topics joe brings up. I will say again as it obviously hasnt sunk in, I am a user of software, I have no interest in your future predictions nor have any financial interest in the outcome of new innovations.

Now Benton, you have a bit of a reputation for this type of behaviour dont you? Am I right in saying that you were banned from raging bull forums? am I correct when I put it to you that you changed your handle in order to get back on? am I correct when I say someone has created an entire blog entry to your dubious internet posting? and am I right when I say that you cannot even get someone to post a comment of agreement on your own blog?
Of course this is all "hearsay" information, but Im sure people can and have already come to their own conclusions about you.

One question that you may answer Benton, is how long does open source have left? Weeks, months? Days?
and if youre in the mood for answering questions, why did you imply an affiliation or friendships with Joe as per one of your previous posts? when I dont believe you know him personally.

about gobblin

gobblin's right: "Of course this is all "hearsay" information" because he's probably gotten emails from those who hate me. What other resources would gobblin use? Something truthful? Everything he's written has that special twist that shows what prejudice and the inability to meet a challenge head on brings to a person.

Small minds and big mouths- all supposing they know the truth. And the truth escapes them.

Rattle on gobblin, and tell everybody why you keep calling be Benton. I can hardly wait for this one.

Nah, no need to rattle on Benton. Your reputation of dubious posting proceeds you.

Im going to be the adult here and let you have the last word. Suffice to say, I recieved no emails from anyone regarding you and what I quoted was simple public knowledge.

So fill you boots Bentonn, have the last word, I even promise to come back here and read it.

In the interest of fairness, Id ask if anyone is wanting to make their own decision about your posting integrity, they can make up their own mind.
I dont seek to persuade anyone, they are grown up enough to make up their own minds.

regards Goblin

@ gobblin

"Im going to be the adult here and let you have the last word."

Meaning I beat you in a battle of wits.

So you're not going to tell the world what you think my "real" name is. LOL The problem with your acquisition of public knowledge is that you don't know how to use it.

And you have nothing more to say about the things you see Microsoft reveal every day...especially as they mirror language in VCSY patents.

And you're not going to mention the new news source writing first about Bill Gates' new business no matter how similar that source is to Aubrey McAuley's work.

And you're going to let philosopher take the beating on the technical discussion and leave him without someone to run interference when I nail him.

Hmmm. Looks like capitulation... right before the PDC, even.

Maybe you're smarter than we gave you credit for as you know Ballmer will have to tell his people where this magic technology came from so suddenly.

I have an article I would like to post, of course (I always have an article just in time for such contingencies because the treeforters are such diligent diggers - do you think I have time to dig up all this stuff? Heck no. VCSY longs have a vested interest in discovering what's going on in the industry) now that you're bailing out so gracefully, I can keep it for a later zinger, I guess.

So, gobblin, I'm going to miss "debating" with you. You're so easy.

@philosopher.

Hey phil. I told you so.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2748
October 30th, 2008
Microsoft’s cloud push lacks economic expediency, sidesteps catalysts for ecology-wide adoption
Posted by Dana Gardner @ 9:28 am

"ecology-wide"? Is that like a double-wide but for an ecosystem?

Argue with Gardner about his semantics, ok?