Joe
Going by your chart is actually wasn't as bad as you made out (so what's to know).
When third had 3.3Billion and Yahoo 8.5 Billion.
Plus what about the others below microsoft ??
Overall not bad ...but could do better !
And probably will ...in time !
Besides why is it "bad news for microsoft" ? Were they bottom of the rankings ... NO... they weren't so I wouldn't say that it was bad.

Joe , you proudly wrote " No surprise, Google took the top spot"

Your statement is stupid and rubbish , as , of course ,needless to say , Google will dominate content searching arena as this is where Google excel and founded. Google then build the rest of the software services on top of it.

Your statistics that you copy from the analyst firm is lousy as well. Since Google dominated the search engine and most of the world is using it , therefore it occupies the first place.

Of course , since Yahoo started in DotCom booming time, it is still carry subtantial market share although its position is taken over by Google

Of course , Baidu will defintely in the third place as it is Mandarin language oriented as it is use by China with one of the largest population in this world as Mandarin is the official language in China. It is a native China product (For exsmple , I think you prefer to take US burger rather then the burger imported fro India.)

The amount in billion search unit can not be the barometer in position determination as the number in billion search is biased based on language preference and geographic distribution

Overall , I assume that you have fixed Microsoft in fourth position in your mind before you start to write . Therefore your argument will be based on your own perference .

Based on this content , I can deduct that you are :

a) A rubbish writer
b) A lousy analsyt with no clear mind
c) Never study statistics before
b) Do not have clear ojective in figure analysis

Based on the profile above , we can further confirm that you merely selling snake-oil

I think you are getting worsen by every minute .

I suggest that you take a long vacation and regain your sanity before you comtemplate to write the next entry

Microsoft and open-source are the same on IP issues. They both don't like patents. And I would suspect both Ballmer and Shuttleworth are freaked over the VCSY patents since it stands in the way of both Windows and Linux.

No wonder it's mostly anti-MSFT posters on the Yahoo MSFT board that are venomnous toward VCSY.

The MSFT posters (as evidenced here) are either cowed or too stupid to know how to deal with the questions.

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6358901134.html
Shuttleworth on Ballmer
Oct. 10, 2007

If Microsoft has any real IP issues, Shuttleworth said that he "would be delighted to work with Microsoft to resolve any IP issues they might have." Of course, "That requires them to tell us what these infringements are," he said.

Shuttleworth continued: "Ballmer is saying that Linux is not a safe neighborhood for users. He's implying that simply using open source is somehow dangerous. They need to back off on those claims. They're simply not true. Microsoft must actually state what the infringements are."

Shuttleworth said that it is not like Microsoft has any right to throw stones since they live in an IP violation glass house. "Microsoft settles an average of one billion dollars in IP claims a year. Microsoft trades on IP violations all the time. It seems to wrong for them to use that same framework against open source."

What perhaps upsets Shuttleworth the most is that, at the end of the day, Microsoft doesn't seem to realize that open source and proprietary software developers have much in common when it comes to IP laws.

"Microsoft and open source both have the same interest to create a level IP platform. The patent system is not good for anyone. It's not good for Microsoft. It's not good for the little inventor next door. It's not good for FOSS [free and open-source software]. Companies that make money by doing nothing but holding on to patents until someone creates a useful program are the real problem. It's these patent trolls that are dangers to both."

Joe wrote " The worldwide results put Microsoft behind Chinese language search engine Baidu.com and slightly ahead of South Korean-based NHN Corp"

Joe , do you know that :

a) www.baidu.com is defaulted in Mandarin
b) www.naver.com is defaulted in Korean

If you were a Korean or Chinese , do you go to Yahoo or Google or even MSN live search first ?

Surprising , we don't think you answer these question yourself before posting this entry

It seems Eweek really need an CRC -Chief Rubbish Collector to take you back

joe, true to form... always on the lookout for microsoft bad news.

To eder:

I would suggest you polish your spelling and grammatical skills, then work on your logic, before attempting to tackle a polished writer like Joe Wilcox. Otherwise you'll continue to come off sounding quite "stupid" and your posts will be utter "rubbish."

Better luck next time?

How much dod ComScore pay Joe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comscore

Just a little education for y'all!

everything that's been done in these conversations have been speculation based on teased out views of capability and current technology state and possible technology implementations.

Verizon put NOW Solutions SaaS platform to the test. We know that from various sources.

That SaaS platform would necessarily need to have elements of patent 521 at the very least as emPath appears to be specifically built to glue applications together (interoperably integrate) in order to run them all as a unified application or "framework". 521, however, would allow the interoperated data store locations within that framework to be transactionally expressed on the web using http protocol and standard XML for data and commands.

Now, that combination alone (emPath and 521) could be used to fashion SaaS as emPath would handle all the unification and integration of applications sitting on the servers (server-side automation) while the client/local machine operations including off-line service (enabling users to continue working with applications during periods of disconnet with the web) would be handled by 521.

So, that works if you're going to do one-off frameworks each going to individual users.

Now, look at that same one-off framework operation compounded by attempting to provide that integrated framework to ANY usrs on ANY platform. Hair-raising, ain't it? Imagine trying to field a single framework (unless you want to build a specialized framework for each new user having something different in their hardware and software use requirements) out to all those multiple platform and multiple application and multiple content and format and functionality users... by hand...

Can't be done, little children. Not enough people could fit in the framework just to provide the service in a timely and accurate manner.

Sooooo... what do you do?

You use 744 which can fashion arbitrary (equally useful) frameworks (as many as you need) using arbitrary application frameworks (any number of empath/521 integrations) syndicated to an arbitrary user pool (any user requirements on any platforms).

Now, if you can find another set of technology properties that can provide that (Plan9/Inferno? Please. Don't insult the reader's intelligence. If Plan9/Inferno could, they would have long ago - it's an attempt at a proprietary approximation), please (anyone - this has been my request for 8 years) please show that and I will eat the VCSY certificates.

So, will you make money on this? If you own VCSY shares you will. Verizon has the neatest niche out of all them. Here they are a phone company acting like a software manufacturer and platform provider. THAT's innovation. THAT's competition. And THAT's being done in Europe where the EU commissioners will see what true agnostic competition can be provided instead of being forced to rely on Windows excllusively or Linux exclusively or any possible application exclusively.

Read it again: virtual and arbitrary hand in hand provide an elegant way to present and manage and govern all applications on all platforms for all users.

And also note, that all that could be made available to Verizon through NOW Solutions without putting any other subsidiary of VCSY at risk or entangled. Plus, VCSY subsidiaries could apply that same capability to other vertical customer bases (who all use the various off-the-shelf applications and operatingn systems of any kind) without anti-competition and as a support/infrastructure construct open to all users. Thus, no monopolistic structure as all you will need is a license to emPath/521/744 and off you go to build whatever kind of system you wish.

NOW Solutions is the testbed. That's what Wade was saying years ago when he said all VCSY technology would be developed along with emPath.

AND emPath can be repurposed (note what repurposing says: same application framework repackaged with different content and format for a different industry use) and affiliated so the amount of work to move from one framework to the next is cut to a minimum. That's the SOA concept in a package.

So Verizon/NOW Solutions is simply an entry point for VCSY even though the potential for just that teaming alone can mean a huge future. There are many many more possibilities.
- - - - -

Because of kantuc's post here and here: http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=199722 I thought it important to first say;

VCSY has two software patents that are solidly astride an elegant architecture for building web applications and platforms. This capability in the hands of a holding company offers multiple information tech industries the opportunity to fashion a wide array of processing roles across the established infrastructure offered by standard http and XML.

That choice of infrastructure was made by VCSY inventors long ago before the current crop of internet workers moved from their own proprietary models to an XML model in late 90's early 00's.

If companies are performing what they are doing today in a manner consistent with the claims of 744 and 521, they will have to contend with patents that are not "obvious" (or else all these companies kantuc notes would have been doing all this much much earlier - not AFTER these patents have been granted), not "too broad" (C advocates can create proprietary versions of VCSY methodolgy so there is no monopoly and VCSY technology does not preclude construction using past methods like DHTML and XHTML), not trivial (kantuc worked hard to redirect readers away from XML because, according to him, XML was already "old technology" - he understands less about XML use than he understands about virtualization), and is now coming to maturity.

If you want to take your money and invest on an established company like VMWare, you are most welcome to. It's your money. But, don't blame me or anyone but yourself and kantuc when you could have bought 5000 shares of VCSY for the price of one VMW share. And don't blame anyone but yourself and kantuc when you could have bought 1500 shares of VCSY for the price of one Microsoft share.

So, since I nailed the hottest new company out of the dotcom era and that company is just now about to come into its own, I am taking this opportunity to boast ONLY because if I don't kantuc and minions like him will cheat you out of the knowledge.

I am not the issue. The issue is VCSY technology and the work they've had done in the background for the past 8 years about to come into fruition... while kantuc and others like him work feverishly to cheat you out of a golden opportunity that comes along very few times in a lifetime.

So, with that, I also provide you with this:
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=199728

VCSY has two software patents that are solidly astride an elegant architecture for building web applications and platforms. This capability in the hands of a holding company offers multiple information tech industries the opportunity to fashion a wide array of processing roles across the established infrastructure offered by standard http and XML.

That choice of infrastructure was made by VCSY inventors long ago before the current crop of internet workers moved from their own proprietary models to an XML model in late 90's early 00's.

If companies are performing what they are doing today in a manner consistent with the claims of 744 and 521, they will have to contend with patents that are not "obvious" (or else all these companies kantuc notes would have been doing all this much much earlier - not AFTER these patents have been granted), not "too broad" (C advocates can create proprietary versions of VCSY methodolgy so there is no monopoly and VCSY technology does not preclude construction using past methods like DHTML and XHTML), not trivial (kantuc worked hard to redirect readers away from XML because, according to him, XML was already "old technology" - he understands less about XML use than he understands about virtualization), and is now coming to maturity.

If you want to take your money and invest on an established company like VMWare, you are most welcome to. It's your money. But, don't blame me or anyone but yourself and kantuc when you could have bought 5000 shares of VCSY for the price of one VMW share. And don't blame anyone but yourself and kantuc when you could have bought 1500 shares of VCSY for the price of one Microsoft share.

So, since I nailed the hottest new company out of the dotcom era and that company is just now about to come into its own, I am taking this opportunity to boast ONLY because if I don't kantuc and minions like him will cheat you out of the knowledge.

I am not the issue. The issue is VCSY technology and the work they've had done in the background for the past 8 years about to come into fruition... while kantuc and others like him work feverishly to cheat you out of a golden opportunity that comes along very few times in a lifetime.

So, with that, I also provide you with this:
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=199728

Bill Beebe ,but you on the Linux camp too, at least from the contents that you have published sa far on your blog

I think Eder might not command good English , but his argument is valid.

To let Korean and China search engine to compete with other search engines is silly and not logical as the huge population in China would make Baidu more pupolar.

Have you totally forgotten that ComScore installed spyware for information collection ? Their finding would be as dubious as Jupiter Reserach and Gartner

The "polished" writer like Joe Wilcox...I reserve my comments and recommendation

Thanks