Oh well, the webmaster has shut down the VCSY - A Laughing Place at ProgrammersHeaven site.
We've known for quite some time he intended to shut the site down and now he's made good on it.
Oh well, we would be stupid to not plan ahead and we're not stupid.
May I introduce to you VCSY - A Laughing Place #3
http://vcsy.blogspot.com/
It will take a bit to get the place in shape but we got time.
Here I am dragging the mountain to Mohammed to have a Come to Jesus meeting with a tribe of heathen Wanga Pangy just like my mother said I would end up. You have to wonder why I do this sort of dangerous work. It's because I'm a wild game guide and hunter... and this looks like it's going to be one of the wilder games of the 20th Century.
From Professor R. R. Squared of the Department of Vertically Antiquated Cultures, late of the Boston Belfry movement and... well Saint Ferdinand's fuzzies, I do declare! By great synchronicity and serendipity, I do believe his field of study is precisely the Wanga Pangy. We are most fortunate to see this transcript of the professor dressing down a novice enthusiast. Quiet please!
bart2: You are the easy one to answer first, so I will start with your poorly thought out post.
You state "I hope, however, that the serving and processing of lawsuits doesn't become the main business strategy of the company. Vertical would have a lot more credibility if they were actually selling Siteflash - and other products and services - through their own salesforce. A license or two would also do wonders".
The company IS using 'SiteFlash' and other patent(s) in other products, along with a big partner. Hold onto something when we get the news, or you WILL get blown over or blown away, either works for me. Not only does the USE of 'SiteFlash' with a partner bring in money and/or other things in the future but also REINFORCES the lawsuit, both in URGENCY and AMOUNT of the suit...That means MORE money because of damages (HARM) done to VCSY with infringing on the VCSY patent(s) and selling competing products that take money away from VCSY and their partner. PRIOR USE of a patent is MUCH better than just filing a lawsuit and saying someone is 'using' the patent(s) with no harm because it wasn't being used anyway. MORE CLOUT in the court and MORE CLOUT for a settlement and license agreements, with royalty a year for income. NICE! FOR VCSY...NOT FOR MSFT!
If anyone thinks the partners of MSFT are going to be silent and play 'ignore them' when they learn that the product they BOUGHT or DEVELOPED with MSFT is using software illegally, YOU ARE WRONG and IF it can be proved that those 'other' partners of MSFT KNOWINGLY used the STOLEN software in their development of other products...Watch out. And, for those innocent MSFT partners that are in the middle, THEY WON'T LIKE IT AND THEY WON'T BE SILENT TO MSFT.
And this statement indicates you still don't understand management or the business of VCSY. You state "As was rightly pointed out, 4 years of stealth for 2 million dollars was hardly worth it. In fact, in retrospect, if that was what was going on, it was complete nonsense".
Duh! Sorry for being rude but I have been through this all with you before and I 'guess' you either didn't understand it or simply forget you knew what was going on when you first complained about these things on THIS board and YOU HAD the information in front of you to read from the response of LONGS on this board.
Forget the money from the Ross suit, although I think getting CASH of about $2.5 MILLION from Ross is nice and don't forget Ross also paid almost one million to the VCSY lawyers and add another million Ross paid to their own lawyers and the amount of the award is more impressive. IF VCSY lost, they would have had to pay those fees. THEY DIDN'T LOSE IT, THEY WON IT and arthurarsley...IT WAS NOT A TECHNICAL WIN for VCSY...The company did it with PROOF, FACTS and EXCELLENT WITNESSES! Ross wouldn't have settled if it was some made up 'Technical' win as you made up and posted today. VCSY did it the hard way, THEY EARNED THE WIN. I just don't know where the heck
Those of you in denial and angst regarding the allegation (heavens me how could those nice young boys and girls in Seattle do anything like what has been alleged?) of patent infringement and general bad acting by Microsoft development and management (and I suppose that includes the lawyers) should check out the conversation at these various points.
Trying to keep up with a discussion here is like playing chess in a BART station.
Join in the discussion anytime you feel comfortable. Don't get your feelings hurt though if you go in like you know the score and somebody heats up your bathwater. If you don't know what you're talking about Those longs will tear your boxers to speedos going the wrong way. Just fair warning so you don't go sniveling and all.
VCSY just finished a long lawsuit with CDC/Ross Systems for cheating and fraud... and CDC settled with a little money and a little something for the road.
It's that 'something for the road' that makes us all think CEO Wade knows exactly what he's driving at.
The following appears to indicate Microsoft not only knew about Vertical's development but that they shadowed that development with their own all along. Given the smallness and insignificant profile of Vertical at the time (today is a totally different story) one might assume Microsoft was simply keeping their own development alive in the sad but likely event that VCSy would not exist past 2002... say... summer of 2002. Hmmm. We wonder who might have convinced them to think that way. Or one might wonder what source inside Microsoft could offer such an assurance.
For the casual reader, consider what Microsoft was doing circa 2001 in pursuit of some sort of.Net Framework (of which they've only recently arrived at in 2007...??? where has their XML capability been before now? Hmmm? Buried in client systems no doubt. ooooo I wonder what those clients will say to Microsoft now that they may receive a cease and desist order similar to what Microsoft received February 2007 [the 6 year anniversary of VCSY introducing the XML Enabler Agent).
Do you think Mister Softy's clients will be able to excise the offending stuff out of their systems? I don't.
#.NET in the short term The final versions of the full set of.NET components (whether this concerns the development tools, or products from the.NET server family) are unlikely to be available before mid -2001, going by the most optimistic predictions.
"Old" applications built on the Microsoft DNA architecture will still function on Windows 2000 servers equipped with.NET generation tools. The two generations of applications will be able to cohabit without interference.
We therefore do not see any short-term threat for current and future DNA-based applications.
Microsoft points out that tools and assistants to help with migration will be provided with the.NET platform. However, we do not feel that this is an ideal solution, for various reasons. Firstly, migration assistants can never carry out 100% of the modifications necessary. Consequently, it would be advisable to devote sufficient time and resources to this migration. Secondly,transforming an ASP/VBScript application into ASP.NET/VB.NET will not automatically make it a.NET application. It will in all likelihood be necessary to alter the application architecture, so as to benefit fully from the new possibilities offered by.NET.
In future articles we will try to answer some of the questions that you are undoubtedly asking yourself if you have Microsoft DNA applications in production. We will try and draw an accurate schema of the optimum.NET architecture, and will show you the best way to write DNA applications which can be ported to.NET.
#.NET in the long term Whether or not Microsoft achieves what it has set out to achieve with.NET, it cannot be denied that the way we design applications is going to undergo some changes. With the advent of e-commerce and B2B exchanges, there is already a need for interconnected applications which communicate via an enterprise network or through the Internet.
With this in mind, we can see that with.NET, Microsoft's main aim is to supply tools which can be used to develop applications as easily as Visual Basic did a few years ago, during the golden age of the client-server application.
# What's the verdict? Pragmatically speaking, and casting aside any preconceived ideas about the Redmond vendor, a clever strategy would be to carry out sustained technology tracking of.NET and as its alternatives, together with the technologies on which all of these are based, i.e. XML and SOAP.
Until the final version of.NET appears, we will continue to keep you informed of technological and strategic developments, with further TrendMarkers articles on Microsoft's DotNet. Stay tuned!
I'm placing this here in case any honest and trustworthy souls would like to examine a bit of historical and topical information on Vertical Computers and their technology. There are a number of places to look but perhaps it would be easiest if you start here with my difficult to assail opinions and observations: http://ajaxamine.tripod.com/
If folks would bother to do a little research they could avoid this kind of calamity.
If Vertical Computers wins against Microsoft and any other development base their lawyers go after, it will be because Microsoft managers and developers used precisely this idea of 'if I don't see it elsewhere, it never existed'.
Well, that's a convenient approach if you are confident you have something nobody else has done or has worked out... but...
Vertical introduced their technology in Feb 2001. They produced a product called XML Enabler Agent
IBM retired their XML Enabler in 2001 and introduced VCSY as among the top innovators in the US.
Microsoft introduced Hailstorm in Mar 2001. It was a flop.
IBM and Vertical XML disappeared from the scene shortly thereafter.
Microsoft continued their rant on 'owning XML' due to some patents they touted. We don't hear word of those Microsoft patents any more do we? Do you want to know why? Because, when the SiteFlash patent was granted in November 2004 (right around the time Ballmer threw the chair at Lucovsky and drove XMLhttpRequest/Ajax into the arms of Google).
Do you remember the Microsoft shut down public demonstration of all but the most simple XML projects back then? Why? Did they know? If they did not know about Vertical, their legal teams and managers are incompetent. Now the question lays 'Were they incompetent or did they have criminal intent?'
Folks should get used to hearing about Vertical, SiteFlash, the XML Enabler Agent, Emily, WebOS, extensible micro-kernel operating systems and the works because the brain trust under Vertical's wing is skilled in this art because THEY are among those who have DONE the prior art... and YOU read about it in a book or scratch it out on the back of a paper bag and call it 'MINE'.
It's not yours. You only borrowed it for a time. Vertical wants it back and any of the money you made on it because you failed to look up similar art (the patent application dates to 1999 - how many of you 'developers' were out of high school then?) because your managers told you not to.
HA HA HA This is too funny. 'Honest judge. We didn't know!' 'Then what's that Dr. Dobbs magazine sticking out of your pocket? heh heh... BANG. GUILTY.'
Slashdot Mirror
Oh well, the webmaster has shut down the VCSY - A Laughing Place at ProgrammersHeaven site. We've known for quite some time he intended to shut the site down and now he's made good on it. Oh well, we would be stupid to not plan ahead and we're not stupid. May I introduce to you VCSY - A Laughing Place #3 http://vcsy.blogspot.com/ It will take a bit to get the place in shape but we got time.
Here I am dragging the mountain to Mohammed to have a Come to Jesus meeting with a tribe of heathen Wanga Pangy just like my mother said I would end up. You have to wonder why I do this sort of dangerous work. It's because I'm a wild game guide and hunter... and this looks like it's going to be one of the wilder games of the 20th Century.
... well Saint Ferdinand's fuzzies, I do declare! By great synchronicity and serendipity, I do believe his field of study is precisely the Wanga Pangy. We are most fortunate to see this transcript of the professor dressing down a novice enthusiast. Quiet please!
From Professor R. R. Squared of the Department of Vertically Antiquated Cultures, late of the Boston Belfry movement and
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?boar d=VCSY&read=183184
By: RapidRobert2
24 Apr 2007, 12:03 PM EDT
Msg. 183184 of 183237
(This msg. is a reply to 183175 by bart2e.)
bart2: You are the easy one to answer first, so I will start with your poorly thought out post.
You state "I hope, however, that the serving and processing of lawsuits doesn't become the main business strategy of the company. Vertical would have a lot more credibility if they were actually selling Siteflash - and other products and services - through their own salesforce. A license or two would also do wonders".
The company IS using 'SiteFlash' and other patent(s) in other products, along with a big partner. Hold onto something when we get the news, or you WILL get blown over or blown away, either works for me. Not only does the USE of 'SiteFlash' with a partner bring in money and/or other things in the future but also REINFORCES the lawsuit, both in URGENCY and AMOUNT of the suit...That means MORE money because of damages (HARM) done to VCSY with infringing on the VCSY patent(s) and selling competing products that take money away from VCSY and their partner. PRIOR USE of a patent is MUCH better than just filing a lawsuit and saying someone is 'using' the patent(s) with no harm because it wasn't being used anyway. MORE CLOUT in the court and MORE CLOUT for a settlement and license agreements, with royalty a year for income. NICE! FOR VCSY...NOT FOR MSFT!
If anyone thinks the partners of MSFT are going to be silent and play 'ignore them' when they learn that the product they BOUGHT or DEVELOPED with MSFT is using software illegally, YOU ARE WRONG and IF it can be proved that those 'other' partners of MSFT KNOWINGLY used the STOLEN software in their development of other products...Watch out. And, for those innocent MSFT partners that are in the middle, THEY WON'T LIKE IT AND THEY WON'T BE SILENT TO MSFT.
And this statement indicates you still don't understand management or the business of VCSY. You state "As was rightly pointed out, 4 years of stealth for 2 million dollars was hardly worth it. In fact, in retrospect, if that was what was going on, it was complete nonsense".
Duh! Sorry for being rude but I have been through this all with you before and I 'guess' you either didn't understand it or simply forget you knew what was going on when you first complained about these things on THIS board and YOU HAD the information in front of you to read from the response of LONGS on this board.
Forget the money from the Ross suit, although I think getting CASH of about $2.5 MILLION from Ross is nice and don't forget Ross also paid almost one million to the VCSY lawyers and add another million Ross paid to their own lawyers and the amount of the award is more impressive. IF VCSY lost, they would have had to pay those fees. THEY DIDN'T LOSE IT, THEY WON IT and arthurarsley...IT WAS NOT A TECHNICAL WIN for VCSY...The company did it with PROOF, FACTS and EXCELLENT WITNESSES! Ross wouldn't have settled if it was some made up 'Technical' win as you made up and posted today. VCSY did it the hard way, THEY EARNED THE WIN. I just don't know where the heck
VCSY message board at Raging Bull public message board
VCSY - A Laughing Place #1 at ProgrammersHeaven private message board
VCSY - A Laughing Place #2 at Tripod blog
Trying to keep up with a discussion here is like playing chess in a BART station.
Join in the discussion anytime you feel comfortable. Don't get your feelings hurt though if you go in like you know the score and somebody heats up your bathwater. If you don't know what you're talking about Those longs will tear your boxers to speedos going the wrong way. Just fair warning so you don't go sniveling and all.
VCSY just finished a long lawsuit with CDC/Ross Systems for cheating and fraud... and CDC settled with a little money and a little something for the road.
It's that 'something for the road' that makes us all think CEO Wade knows exactly what he's driving at.
The following appears to indicate Microsoft not only knew about Vertical's development but that they shadowed that development with their own all along. Given the smallness and insignificant profile of Vertical at the time (today is a totally different story) one might assume Microsoft was simply keeping their own development alive in the sad but likely event that VCSy would not exist past 2002... say... summer of 2002. Hmmm. We wonder who might have convinced them to think that way. Or one might wonder what source inside Microsoft could offer such an assurance.
.Net Framework (of which they've only recently arrived at in 2007...??? where has their XML capability been before now? Hmmm? Buried in client systems no doubt. ooooo I wonder what those clients will say to Microsoft now that they may receive a cease and desist order similar to what Microsoft received February 2007 [the 6 year anniversary of VCSY introducing the XML Enabler Agent).
.NET in the short term .NET components (whether this concerns the development tools, or products from the .NET server family) are unlikely to be available before mid -2001, going by the most optimistic predictions.
.NET generation tools. The two generations of applications will be able to cohabit without interference.
.NET platform. However, we do not feel that this is an ideal solution, for various reasons. Firstly, migration assistants can never carry out 100% of the modifications necessary. Consequently, it would be advisable to devote sufficient time and resources to this migration. Secondly,transforming an ASP/VBScript application into ASP.NET/VB.NET will not automatically make it a.NET application. It will in all likelihood be necessary to alter the application architecture, so as to benefit fully from the new possibilities offered by .NET.
.NET architecture, and will show you the best way to write DNA applications which can be ported to .NET.
.NET in the long term .NET, it cannot be denied that the way we design applications is going to undergo some changes. With the advent of e-commerce and B2B exchanges, there is already a need for interconnected applications which communicate via an enterprise network or through the Internet.
.NET, Microsoft's main aim is to supply tools which can be used to develop applications as easily as Visual Basic did a few years ago, during the golden age of the client-server application.
.NET and as its alternatives, together with the technologies on which all of these are based, i.e. XML and SOAP.
.NET appears, we will continue to keep you informed of technological and strategic developments, with further TrendMarkers articles on Microsoft's DotNet. Stay tuned!
For the casual reader, consider what Microsoft was doing circa 2001 in pursuit of some sort of
Do you think Mister Softy's clients will be able to excise the offending stuff out of their systems? I don't.
http://www.perfectxml.com/articles/xml/dotnet.asp
Excerpts from end of article. More at URL.
#
The final versions of the full set of
"Old" applications built on the Microsoft DNA architecture will still function on Windows 2000 servers equipped with
We therefore do not see any short-term threat for current and future DNA-based applications.
Microsoft points out that tools and assistants to help with migration will be provided with the
In future articles we will try to answer some of the questions that you are undoubtedly asking yourself if you have Microsoft DNA applications in production. We will try and draw an accurate schema of the optimum
#
Whether or not Microsoft achieves what it has set out to achieve with
With this in mind, we can see that with
# What's the verdict?
Pragmatically speaking, and casting aside any preconceived ideas about the Redmond vendor, a clever strategy would be to carry out sustained technology tracking of
Until the final version of
I'm placing this here in case any honest and trustworthy souls would like to examine a bit of historical and topical information on Vertical Computers and their technology. There are a number of places to look but perhaps it would be easiest if you start here with my difficult to assail opinions and observations: http://ajaxamine.tripod.com/
If folks would bother to do a little research they could avoid this kind of calamity. If Vertical Computers wins against Microsoft and any other development base their lawyers go after, it will be because Microsoft managers and developers used precisely this idea of 'if I don't see it elsewhere, it never existed'. Well, that's a convenient approach if you are confident you have something nobody else has done or has worked out... but... Vertical introduced their technology in Feb 2001. They produced a product called XML Enabler Agent IBM retired their XML Enabler in 2001 and introduced VCSY as among the top innovators in the US. Microsoft introduced Hailstorm in Mar 2001. It was a flop. IBM and Vertical XML disappeared from the scene shortly thereafter. Microsoft continued their rant on 'owning XML' due to some patents they touted. We don't hear word of those Microsoft patents any more do we? Do you want to know why? Because, when the SiteFlash patent was granted in November 2004 (right around the time Ballmer threw the chair at Lucovsky and drove XMLhttpRequest/Ajax into the arms of Google). Do you remember the Microsoft shut down public demonstration of all but the most simple XML projects back then? Why? Did they know? If they did not know about Vertical, their legal teams and managers are incompetent. Now the question lays 'Were they incompetent or did they have criminal intent?' Folks should get used to hearing about Vertical, SiteFlash, the XML Enabler Agent, Emily, WebOS, extensible micro-kernel operating systems and the works because the brain trust under Vertical's wing is skilled in this art because THEY are among those who have DONE the prior art... and YOU read about it in a book or scratch it out on the back of a paper bag and call it 'MINE'. It's not yours. You only borrowed it for a time. Vertical wants it back and any of the money you made on it because you failed to look up similar art (the patent application dates to 1999 - how many of you 'developers' were out of high school then?) because your managers told you not to. HA HA HA This is too funny. 'Honest judge. We didn't know!' 'Then what's that Dr. Dobbs magazine sticking out of your pocket? heh heh ... BANG. GUILTY.'