What's your take on the msft and vcsy patent infridgement case?

Sun's newest ticker symbol -- PWNED. Well at least they have one thing in common with MSFT, if they didn't make bad news, they'd make no news at all.

Gary, I would also like to hear how Joe addresses
your question.
It looks as though VCSY could become a bigger player in the near future.

Nobody is gonna talk about VCSY because they have to obey their (NDA)Non-Disclosure-Agreements right Joe? Here's what has been happening!

Eolas was the foundation for Silverlight 1.0. It's why Microsoft settled with Eolas out of the clear blue. They had to have that technology to be able to build automation in the object stream (the same video object stream they got by settling with Burst technologies - of which they stole that patented material also).

So, all you clients who've had Silverlight versions earlier this year and were "wowed" by what Silverlight could do (like Flash)... you were watching stolen intellectual property in the form of the Eolas patent claims which a court found Microsoft GUILTY of pilfering and ordered them to pay 520+million to Eolas.

But, Microsoft with their cadre of lawyers, intended to drive Eolas into the ground by dragging the entire thing out.

That is, until Microsoft was FORCED to put out at least SOMEthing to show they are in the web-app race. So they settled with Eolas real quick and then shipped Silverlight 1.0 real quick so all of you would think Microsoft is in the game.

But, the market says no. The industry says no (we'll give you the expert opinions picking Silverlight apart shortly).

And the VCSY patent 7076521 says no... not until something like Silverlight 1.1 at the very least.

BUT! How will Microsoft settle with VCSY to obtain the legal use of 521? especially if Microsoft intends to fight VCSY 744 all the way to a jury trial?

Hmmmm? Have any of your "computer"guys been able to explain that one to you yet? Haven't got the email yet? You better hurry up. VCSY has a court date Sept 11, 2007 that can put the cork in the VCSY vs. CDC/Ross bottle and then you may just get the kind of news you really don't want to hear for the Microsoft shareprice sake.

Ahhh. Conspiracy theories. How I missed them. You have a vivid imagination I-man.

-reflections (still a shill!)

And Microsoft is sitting on the curb after working with XML since 2000... only to delay what they "say" they have.

What's wrong with Microsoft's ability to work the web? They're getting run over and they get up trying to make it look like "Well, that didn't hurt."

The whole act looks pretty stupid. Like one of those cartoon character cats that gets the crap beat out of them by a mouse and they have to glue their nose and ears back on after every whack.
Of course, all the devotees think MSFT is just playing dead waiting for the "right opportunity". But those of us who have been watching web/XML technology for years (as we have with VCSY in pursuit of there patents) know Microsoft have had one great opportunity after another to really make a mark on the web... and they ended up having to delay everytime they "almost" made it.

WinFS. Longhorn. Viridian. Just a few of the handful of 'almost great' screw ups that look like engineering and managerial incompetence to the rest of the world. But, to VCSYers, all we need do is read the patents, compare against the MSFT project architecture in question and bingo bango we see why MSFT lawyers stop them cold.

Technology deficit because they can't legally proceed (as they were held back on Silverlight until they settled with Eolas) and it's as simple as that. The difficult thing is for readers to accept it, even though they should be used to MSFT's methods. They simply go into deep denial every time... and then they end up having to accept the news later.

reflections,
If I might step in here in support of I-Man's view, I also believe someone long ago tried to short VCSY into oblivion. I also believe it was done in conjunction with an effort to drive the company into the ground via Ross/Arglen's deceptive business dealings with VCSY/NOW Solutions.

I believe someone was told the industry could be convinced VCSY concepts were old and obsolete and VCSY itself would be dispensed with, allowing the technology to be taken and used to extend the ideas nearly every two-bit software hobbyist was convinced could be done with XML if somebody could just figure out how to actually do it.

I do believe the ferocity of the effort to drag VCSY down indicates somebody somewhere has a whole lot to lose by VCSY surviving and from VCSY technology being in VCSY control.

And the easiest way for a company to be driven into the ground is by shorting their stock in a massive way.

Who would have benefited most quickly and thoroughly? Microsoft. The historic evidence in XML demonstrates that quite easily. MSFT had an excellent and plausible web strategy with their XML efforts, however, SOAP from the beginning was an outmoded methodology akin to SCADA RTU (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition Remote Terminal Unit) than distributed computing and parallelism.

SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) was a first clue Microsoft was not going down the right road. Subsequent system failures and developmental dead ends proved those inadequacies out through time leading to Sun splitting with MSFT's efforts at SOA in 2006 and taking up IBM's methods which depended more on a form of distributed middleware.

MSFT's additional efforts at "Smart Clients" demonstrated they realized the need for client side processing, but, their efforts were hindered because of the brittle nature of their architecture and the non-extensible nature of their programming methods for their Smart Clients. That development ran aground in late 2006 with a number of failures and inadequate performances.

Much has been said on other boards about VCSY going bankrupt, but, VCSY has not gone bankrupt and those who refuse to comment on the technical merits of 744/521 are in a battle against the clock now.

Microsoft STILL has the most to gain by using 744/521, but, the fact they have yet to allow daylight to see any of their XML development from the days prior to the granting of 744 in November 2004, and now continuous delays in product capabilities ranging from Vista to Longhorn to WinFS and Viridian demonstrate MSFT is incapable of handling XML in an effective way.

That tells the industry they have a technology deficit that prevents them from productizing web platform efforts that match 744/521, forcing them to take RPC (remote procedure call) methods that are typical of the SCADA RTU methods I wrote about above.

Folks can twist and turn all they like but, should MSFT be foolish enough to allow this to go to court, the world will find shortly just how impotent MSFT has been all this time and how much time and treasure they wasted hunting in futility for a work around or solution that would perform as elegantly as the 744/521 methods. They did all that only to fall into "licensing" problems that prevent them from shipping what should have been shipped four years ago.

So, I do believe somebody engaged in a massive shorting campaign against VCSY. The vociferous ridicule from various posters demonstrates there is some truth to that concept. If that is true, there really is only one software entity short of a national government that could have done such a campaign undetected and one would assume that entity would be the one most likely to benefit from a VCSY demise.

Time will tell. It always does.