% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Vertical Computer Systems Inc. Message Board

  • pokerface072508 pokerface072508 Apr 11, 2010 11:10 PM Flag

    Emily patent very close to being here!

    Looks like VCSY is less than one week from receiving the 'Notice of Allowance Data Verification' status on the Emily patent. imo

    So, is this what Mr. Wade is waiting on? After doing a comparison on the timelines between the new 744 patent and the Emily patent, it looks to be about a week away before VCSY has Emily secured, since Emily has just been 'Forwarded to Examiner' on 03-31-10 and it took the new 744 patent just two weeks from the time 'Forwarded to Examiner' to receive the 'Notice of Allowance Data Verification' status on it.
    TICK, TICK, TICK......imo

    (new 744 status)
    03-30-2010 Dispatch to FDC
    03-30-2010 Application Is Considered Ready for Issue
    03-23-2010 Issue Fee Payment Verified
    03-23-2010 Issue Fee Payment Received
    03-22-2010 Electronic Review
    03-22-2010 Email Notification
    03-22-2010 Mail Notice of Allowance
    03-15-2010 Document Verification
    03-15-2010 Notice of Allowance Data Verification Completed
    03-01-2010 Date Forwarded to Examiner

    (Emily status)
    03-31-2010 Date Forwarded to Examiner
    03-26-2010 Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
    03-31-2010 Disposal for a RCE / CPA / R129
    03-26-2010 Request for Extension of Time - Granted
    03-26-2010 Workflow - Request for RCE - Begin


    (By Portuno) It's easy for us VCSY shareholders to remember the exact date(June 23, 2009) that Obama appointed David Kappos in charge of the patent office. It was the same day that Wade put out the press release about VCSY buying Priority Time Systems, which was the only PR in the last 27 months with VCSY's name in it other than the recent Notice Of Allowance.

    I would suspect Priority Time Systems would be the same sort of thing as the Vertical Health situation: A subject matter expert (SME) in Health or Time teams up with VCSY CTO and most likely grunt resources to keep everything in house and quiet. The SME and CTO are compensated with stock. In these cases in the hundreds of thousands of shares.

    Seems like a piddling few shares at 3 cents a share for such a significant contribution, doesn't it? I'm going to build the business for the sum total of stock worth today around eighteen thousand dollars? Actually, it's the building of a new business in software to provide a "Service as a Software" offering.

    If you do well, there may be a spin-off in the future. If you don't, the company hasn't had much at risk. Do this in a few general purpose business method automation function suites you can repurpose for each new vertical and everything beyond the first sell job goes to the holding company and the owners of shares do well while the local job gets paid to maintain and keep from crashing.

    How much would those shares be worth then?

    Valdetaro doesn't have to buy stock. He earns it by having partnership in the venture with the SME and shares in the results.

    I think it a much more efficient and accountable method than a CTO owning a percentage of the corporation outright and not being accountable to advancing the technological marker? Just making sure the thing doesn't crash? What happened to advancing technology locally and not just paying for one realm's lock on an industry infrastructure?

    Just an opinion from the bare me.


    excerpt: These changes (USPTO New Examiner Count System) took effect last week (mid February) and could usher in a new era of incentives that lead to patent examiners having the appropriate incentive to issue patents when there is deemed to be at least some allowable subject matter presented in a patent application. According to Director Kappos, the USPTO is “confident the new count system will encourage quicker resolution of issues and lead to more efficient examination of patent applications.”


    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • pokerface, given the timing and initial rejection due to 'duplication' in the last submission of patent, now that the new patent claims have been accepted, it would seem possible that the prior hold up on mle was due to a duplication of claims concern between the two patent applications.

      if so, and the issue was resolved and mle if felt to be patent worthy by uspto, you are right. imho.

      also, the aapl/adbe spat is interesting. now we know that aap is interested in maintaining their hold on their niche by making software app writers use their tools for their proprietary os'es. they don't care about interoperability.

      this could bite them in the ass. the govts and enterprises might like to have interoperability...especially the eu, where major battles have been done over a level playing field. doj and eu guys might be licking their lips here.

      how do you guys think this works out for vcsy? betamax/vhs?

    • What about the eight prior rejections over the past nine years? They all happened about 6 months after the patent was "forwarded to examiner".

      How conveniently you leave off the rest of the Emily patent history, and the fact that it was applied for 9 years ago. It's gone nowhere.

      Oh, and is Priority Time Systems company the one-man show they bought for $63K a while ago?? LMAO!

      Ain't nothin' gonna happen with Emily anytime soon, pumper. Wonder why the execs are bailing out of VCSY stock?

0.0185-0.0004(-2.01%)Apr 29 3:01 PMEDT