Question: Could the underlying technologies for the ’744 Patent, the ‘629 Patent, the ‘521 Patent, or any of VCSY's patent applications serve as an alternative to or as a replacement for HTML5 or AJAX?
One would think, that's fairly cut and dried.
Let's pose the question another way:
Could HTML5 or AJAX technologies serve as alternative(s) to or as a replacement(s) for any of VCSY's patents?
Answer that question, Zit, Stock, Tepe, Johnny, Mrrrfk.
The answer to that one is.......NO.
Or, pester VCSY for the answer to that one.... "no suitable substitute for VCSY's IP."
is the answer you'll find.
What value of VCSY's, in any area...holds your attention here?
You are not a financial expert...OK.
Then tell me, what you do know of the value of VCSY's IP. You don't need to be an expert, to know a little something...about anything.
What do you KNOW about VCSY's value...is there a moderate value, is there no value.
Or do you mean to tell me, on an financial/stock/equity bulletin board....you have NO IDEA on anything ''VALUE" based?
And you want people to spin in the crap you are spewing....
Yeah, you're a real smart fella.
I am as blue collar as they come.....wellhead tech for 20+ years, and locksmith for 20 years...all on a service station brat foundation. Have no idea where you get the information you state so matter of fact like. (well, I do know where you pull it from....)
I also have never communicated with anyone on this board, by any means....other than this board....in the open, completely so.
I have knowledge in area of patents, to the point of actually having one...yep, it's a blue collar type.
I think of myself as a ''real investor,'' too.
521 and 744 are not related or combined
521 744 and 629 are not virtual machines
521 744 and 629 are not competition to HTML or Ajax
There is not a dime coming from microsoft for the 2008 settlement
Vcsy explained what a fully paid up license means"
So you know what the patents aren't, OK.
Tell me what they ARE? What do they TEACH?
As for the MSFT settlement...NDA means something else IS there; nobody on this board knows what that something IS.
See, you know all the ''are not''s......but seem to have problem with anything that IS.
My opinion on what the patents ARE is as irrelevant as anyone else.
Here is what the COMPANY say they are ( I added emphasis to the most important parts):
What are the benefits of the ‘521 Patent?
The ‘521 Patent essentially protects our XML Agent/XML Broker/XML Portal technologies under our Emily™ product line. This patent allows multiple, distributed databases to be combined and viewed in a single location as if it was a single database. These products can be used as an alternative to using Web Services.
What are the benefits of the ‘744 Patent?
The ‘744 Patent is a method patent that enables the creation, management and deployment of arbitrary objects. “Arbitrary objects” is a term coined on the patent itself and describes a unique type of objects for a web site or an application. It allows content creators, screen designers and software developers to operate independently from each other, among other advantages described in the patent specification. This patent essentially protects our SiteFlash™ line of products.
What are the benefits of the U.S. Patent No. 7716629 (the ‘629 Patent)?
The ‘629 Patent is a continuation of the ‘744 Patent, but with a different set of claims. The ‘629 Patent is a system patent.
Interpret this part, in layman terms, please:
"This patent allows multiple, distributed databases to be combined and viewed in a single location as if it was a single database." ...and this: "It allows content creators, screen designers and software developers to operate independently from each other, among other advantages described in the patent specification."
What does that all mean, so us blue collars will know what IS.
Please use simple terms, so my simpleton self can understand. Because Lord knows, I sure don't want to be misconstruing things...things that could be adverse to my best interests.
I would forever be in your debt, if you were to show me any error in my thinking.
VCSY's opinion on what the patents "teach" (actual correct words are "what the patent claims means") is what matter. The emphasized part is to help I'm not making up my own words, only emphasizing VCSY's own words.
Etched, I thought the quote was self explanatory, but I'll try.
"This patent allows multiple, distributed databases to be combined and viewed in a single location as if it was a single database."
A database is a repository for data organized in a certain structure way. When you have several databases, probably in different geographical area, it is very hard for a single program to access all those databases at the same time, because among other things it would require many connections.
The invention allows all those databases appear as a single database, therefore making much easier for the programmer to access all of that data.
Fair enough. There are many other FAQs they could have added, why do you suppose they focused on the patents only? What about the patent applications like emily and the tiny web server? There are many FAQs about that. How about the FAQs regarding their lack of PRs for the past 2-3 years now? They are probably hammered with emails and calls about these things. Do you think they used a ranking system to finalize the FAQ list to publish to their site, or some other method?
Next Android patent suit: Vertical Computer Systems v. Samsung and LG
"The freebie operating system is proving to be quite a little suit magnet",wrote Maureen O'Gara after digital security company Gemalto announced its patent infringement suit against Google, Samsung, Motorola and HTC over Android's application platform and development tools. Meanwhile, Apple sued Motorola, and here's the next one:
Yesterday, Vertical Computer Systems, a provider of Internet technologies, filed a complaint (click to access the document) with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics, and Interwoven, an Internet infrastructure software company. Samsung and LG allegedly infringe two of Vertical's patents with certain Android-based products, including but not limited to the LG Ally phone and five different Samsung Galaxy products (four smartphones and a tablet computer).
Vertical claims that all three defendants infringe the same two patents. Both patents-in-suit -- US Patent No. 6,826,744 and US Patent No. 7,716,629 -- read on a "system and method for generating websites in an arbitrary object framework." The latter is a continuation patent extending the former. It was granted this year and, according to a Vertical press release, increased "the scope of the original patent by adding 32 new claims on top of the original 53 claims".
In 2007, Vertical filed a suit against Microsoft over the '744 patent (the original one) -- with the same court in which yesterday's suit against Samsung, LG and Interwoven was filed. An SEC filing dated 28 July 2008 indicates that the case was settled with a license deal:
"Pursuant to the confidential settlement agreement, [Vertical] has granted to Microsoft a non-exclusive, fully paid-up license under the patent which was the subject of the legal proceeding."
"[...] the impact of the one-time Microsoft settlement that provided $1,533,000 of operating income for the year ended December 31, 2008 [...]"
Thereafter, Vertical was waiting for the continuation patent it received this year in order to enforce its rights more aggressively. This is another quote from that same SEC filing:
"We are waiting for the issuance of the Continuation Patent for U.S. Patent No. 6,826,744 (which SiteFlash™ is based upon) before we engage with new licensees because we believe the Continuation Patent provides better protection for this intellectual property asset."
Now they have that continuation patent. They will try to charge higher royalties than in the past, and they will point other companies to the fact that Microsoft deemed it commercially prudent to settle a litigation with a license deal. Maybe some others have already paid, but Samsung and LG apparently refused to and now they find themselves in court.
What should Google do? I can't think of any other company that would have exposed its partners -- the makers of Android-based devices -- to so many patent problems. Six weeks ago I wrote about the crossfire of patents in which Android is caught. That was shortly after Microsoft's complaint against Motorola, prior to which there were Apple's suit against HTC and Oracle's against Google, and in the six weeks since that "crossfire" blog posting, three more such suits have been filed (Gemalto, Apple vs. Motorola, and now Vertical vs. Samsung and LG).
I just commented yesterday that Google makes a really weak showing against Oracle by failing to launch an infringement countersuit in order to get some leverage.
The Android patent situation is completely out of control and there are no signs of improvement. On the contrary, Android's serious patent problem continues to exacerbate. If you'd like to be updated on patent issues affecting free software and open source, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpaten
Could accomplishing such, be of any value to users of said technology?
If so...is it a noteworthy value, or marginal value?
They're obviously improvements over anything in the arts, before...how substantial are those improvements, in your knowledgeable opinion?
We will keep coming back to the value of these patents....why can't you substantiate a ballpark estimate as to what that value MAY be?
I am of the mind that there is a substantial value to them, individually and collectively.
Again, show me where I'm off base on my thinking...and I'll forever be in your debt.
I am nothing, if not reasonable.
I'm trying to figure out your reasoning, behind the approach you've taken on this board.
Etched. This is the hardest thing to do. There are companies out there who's sole purpose to to evaluate the potential value of a patent. It is not a science, it it almost an art.
both 521 and 744/629 seems to make programming certain tasks easier. There is a cost related to that. If it takes a project 10 man/years, you could say the labor part of a project is 1 million dollars (assuming 100k/year per programmer). If a certain invention makes it 4 times easier, the same project will take 2.5 man/years, or 250k. The "benefit" for the user in this particular example is apprximately 750K. But the "value" has to be lower than that, otherwise the user would not apply the invention.
The formula is dificult , but in general you have to have a 5 to 2 benefit/value. So, you multiply the benefit by 2 and divide by 5 (don't ask me why 5 to 2, it 's a commonly used number) so, 300k is the value.
Then, you have to calculate the potential number of users, lalculaluate the potential median value, etc. You get the drift. It is complicated and I don't like to dwell in that.
All of what I just said is only if the IP haven't been licensed yet. Once it is licensed, the value is determined by the market.
For me as a developer, the value I see is that if I'm building an application that has to access many geographically dispersed databases and the same time, I would like to have a tool that implements what 521 does. The value to me will be how many times i have that kind of project.
If I'm building a website that is content intensive, such as a newspaper, I would like to use a product such as Siteflash , who implements 744/629 to make my job easier. The value to me will be again how many times I have that kind of project.
smooth, I remember reading that article when the lawsuit was filed. I thought it was a toughtfull and objective article, which was solely based on VCSY's lawsuit filings as well as VCSY SEC filings.l Didn't see anything that I remember would amount to speculation, just the facts.
I'm here to have those two guys stop hurting my investment. I'm not here for a speculative one-time profit. I'm a long.
I'm not here to convince you or anyone of my motives. It's your choice not to believe me and believe two guys that have always been wrong. When found to be wrong, they just change the story.
What came up on VCSY's web page matches what I have said before. I have been right. I hope that VCSY makes a habit to update that page and dispell the false rumors these two guys have been spreading for years.
Let me know when they're going to update that page, with anything to do with VSOE...OR anything about valuations.
Odd that a company can put such on their website (obviously driven and prompted by something).....and not touch on that, not even wisp by it...I find interesting, at the least.
How about it....isn't that interesting?