I went to Vertical's web site, and I found this diagram that describes their "patented" solution:
The definition of the patent is for the following:
A system and method for generating computer applications in an arbitrary object framework. The method separates content, form, and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified separately. The method includes creating arbitrary objects, managing the arbitrary objects throughout their life cycle in an object library, and deploying the arbitrary objects in a design framework for use in complex computer applications.
And of course, while the going was good they made sure to make the patent as broad as possible so they included a claim on text file pointers, binary file pointers, compiled executables, shell commands, remote procedure calls, global variables, local variables, local objects, global parent objects, cached objects, database queries, etc.
Huh? Doesn't this describe any modern OO application in existence? In 2004 when the patent was granted, there were certainly applications that separated content, form and functionality - we were building java based search engine in 1996 and they would have have separated content, form and functionality. The .NET framework has been around since 2000 and also provides similar functionality.
Is the problem with these technology patents that the US patent office has no understanding of technology? Surely if this went through a decent technical review someone would have decided this was a) too broad to be patent worthy and b) already existed.
Have a look at this company's latest SEC filing and you'll see a lot of legal proceedings (mainly between the company's owners and shareholders suing each other), claims of lack of profitability and no real hope in sight other than trying to protect their IP by suing other companies.
Our success is dependent, in part, upon our ability to protect and leverage the value of our original SiteFlash™ and Emily® technology products and Internet content, as well as our trade secrets, trade names, trademarks, service marks, domain names and other proprietary rights we either currently have or may have in the future.
there can be no assurance that we will generate significant revenues or that we will attain a level of profitability in the future.
Let's hope that Microsoft defends this one without mercy for all of us who are working in the technology space who believe that innovation is more profitable than bureaucracy and legal precedent.
1 comment:
Gee, no offense but your read on this situation is woefully inadequate and wrongly directed.
May I direct your attention to just of a few URLs that would allow one to be more educated on the subject of the intellectual property areas owned by VCSY and the real world business being done by the company.
You use a 2006 filing to describe the company and fail to search beyond the most shallow interpretation of what is visible.
VCSY has a wholly owned subsidiary NOW Solutions:
Try these:
http://nowsolutions.com/about/historical_timeline.html
http://nowsolutions.com/about/business_partners.html
Here are only two discussion/blog sites where you may discover to some limited degree what Vertical is about.
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=184071
http://vcsy.blogspot.com/2007/05/so-after-fire-engines-companies-left-we.html
I trust this minimum amount of information derived by a large number of VCSY longs who have been watching the dance for years.
Microsoft is not the only entity in the sights of this one small company and, just as Charles Northrup's patents block the big-house paths to the web (which is why their web development has been so stunted in the past few years) VCSY stands directly in the way of a goal desired by the likes of MSFT, AAPL & GOOG and many more.
I do hope you will avail yourself of some time to gain a more broad picture. If so, you may gain a perspective that will allow you to know more than 99.9% of the developer community at large.
Yes, I think it's quite unfair to have your development tied up by self-righteous people who think because they can build something, they don't owe the original builders any recognition or pie.
pd
Post a Comment