search: results update below


browse funds: selections are stored



recently rated:

Rated by 3
1.3
 

top rated funds:

Rated by 14
4.1

Rated by 16
4.0

Rated by 43
3.9

Rated by 11
3.8

Rated by 45
3.8

Rated by 107
3.8

Rated by 33
3.8

Rated by 32
3.8

Rated by 64
3.7

Rated by 23
3.7

Rated by 27
3.7

Rated by 13
3.7

Rated by 11
3.6

Rated by 19
3.6

Rated by 10
3.6
 

Rated by 64
3.6

Rated by 15
3.5
 

Rated by 21
3.5

Rated by 12
3.5
 

Rated by 30
3.5

Rated by 28
3.4

Rated by 49
3.4
 

Rated by 16
3.4
 

Rated by 10
3.4

Rated by 13
3.4

Rated by 16
3.4

Rated by 61
3.4

Rated by 17
3.4

Rated by 18
3.3

Rated by 39
3.3
 

Please take a moment and make a financial contribution to TheFunded. If we have helped you, help us with resources to further grow the both the site and our entrepreneur training program, The Founder Institute.

Member Post

TheFunded.com is an online community of over 20,000 CEOs, Founders and entrepreneurs to discuss fundraising, rate and review angel investors and venture capitalists, and discuss strategies to grow a startup business. Enjoy the site, and be sure to join us at our Founder Showcase events to meet the community.

Sign-up for Membership

0
Agree
0
Disagree

I Am Facing a Unique Problem, How You Would Approach Such Problem or Have Any Suggestions?

TheFunded.com Open Letter

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-18

PUBLIC:

Dear Friends,

I have been doing research passionately for 12 years for achieving real CBSD (Component Based Design for Software), after I accidentally stumbled onto a fascinating new kind of software components (which are close to real software components that are capable of achieving real CBD for Software Products or Applications). The real CBSD solves infamous software crisis by eliminating the spaghetti code from the design and development of software.

If I am right (which, of course, I have no doubt), the scientific discoveries and patented inventions would be worth billions of dollars. I already secured 6 US-patents on our inventions so far. Many more discoveries likely be around the corner, where such new discoveries could be knowledge foundation for many more valuable inventions and patents worth billions more. It is hard to take this kind of claims seriously without rigorous validation by qualified experts. But fortunately such scientific discoveries and inventions can be validated upfront.

Since no one believe this kind of inventions even possible, investors must be willing to invest upfront to validate our discoveries and patented inventions, which are rooted in our discoveries and knowledge. I am highly confident that, about 10 top software researchers and/or universality professors must be able to validate our discoveries and inventions beyond any doubt in about 2 to 3 days.

It would cost about US$45,000 dollars for such rigorous validation. Many large companies (e.g. IBM, Google or Microsoft) may even use in house researchers. How can I find investors willing to risk US$45,000 for upfront validation of revolutionary scientific discoveries & technological inventions?

I believe, we need about US$4 million to US$5 million investment to build a profitable business around our patented inventions (i.e. to reach profitability). There is very little risk in this larger investment, if the investors are fully satisfied with the upfront validation (by making the initial smaller investment). Our patents certainly worth more than the investment plus interest, in case of liquidation.

I am looking for investors who don't mind spending couple of hours to understand our patented inventions and market opportunity. If the investors are interested, they need to hire about 10 qualified software researchers of their choice to spend up to 3 days for investigating the proof for our scientific facts (i.e. discoveries) and validating our patented inventions. I don't need validation or proof. But to show my confidence and good faith, I am ready to share up to 50% of the cost, if I feel that the investors are sincerely putting good faith effort.

If any one is curious, all the proof and evidence is openly provided for investigating the truth at web sites such as http://real-software-components.com and http://researchgate.net/profile/Raju_.... May be the evidence is not well organized, but all the evidence is provided openly. Also pioneer-soft.com created missing pieces such as GUI-technologies and CSE-tools for creating first ever real-software-components necessary for achieving real CBD for software.

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri,
CEO, Pioneer-soft.com

Posted by carlwimm on 2016-08-19 11:40:42

To Rajuch:

The attempt to create tools to simplify software development (or, if you will, error proof it) has been tried before. I am aware of one such attempt.
In that attempt certain problems arose that were insurmountable in the tools themselves without a radical re ordering of the approach.
The first problem was that data moves and is renamed. The second problem is that current software practices allow for infinite variability in approach along with infinite variability in file type, format and structure.
Put simply, in a world of infinite file types with infinite location and infinite naming, you cannot write a set of tools which trap all syntactical and semantic errors at entry time.
There are solutions to the issues but not at the tool level.
Best wishes

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-19 13:17:21

Dear Mr. Carlwimm,
Thank you. This is the problem I am facing. No one is taking my discoveries seriously based on prejudice and baseless beliefs. That is your opinion not a fact. I can prove the facts beyond any doubt, if sufficient time is given no more than 3 days.

Except computer science and software engineering, no scientific or engineering discipline ever rooted in axioms or beliefs since 17th century. Only example for a scientific paradigm rooted in flawed beliefs was geocentric paradox. Founding fathers of modern scientific methods wanted to avoid this kind of mistake at any cost.

But software committed this kind of mistake nearly 50 years ago. Existing software engineering paradigm is rooted in such kind of flawed beliefs. Kindly review detailed explanation in top three articles at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/... particularly

It is a biggest mistake for any scientific or engineering discipline rooted in untested and undocumented beliefs that must be avoided at any cost as explained in: https://www.researchgate.net/publicat...

Computer Science and Software Engineering is the only known scientific or engineering discipline committed this kind of mistake. I can prove it, if I can get a chance. It may be impossible to believe but it is a fact and can be proven today. I have been doing this research for 12 years, after accidentally stumbling on to a CBD (Component Based Design) that was very close to the real CBD for software.

I have very high regard for your wisdom and greatly appreciate your valuable guidance. I am now visiting Los Altos and greatly appreciate an opportunity to discuss on phone or meet you, if you are based in Silicon Valley.

Please keep in mind that I invested over 12 years to make sure that I am right, (not before but) after discovering the Truth. Any truth would shine, if it is put on open under bright lights for any one to question its validity. That is what I wanted to do.

One would be more confident, if it is concurred by other qualified experts. That is the reason I asked for 10 professors for three days, so that they can make collective decision. If I am right (of course I have no doubt), I can't afford to fail.

Mr. Carlwimm, there are no missing pieces in the discoveries and inventions. I am no able to put it under bright lights. That is the reason I need the investment. I can't even complete a full sentence without being shoot down (e.g. as you did in your reply).

For example, do you know what is the nature and true essence of CBD for physical products? If you know, you could not have said that. No one else in the world knows "what is true essence of the CBD". But every one insist that it is impossible. How can any one say, any thing is impossible without even knowing what it is?

Mr. Carlwimm, I am not asking any one to believe me. I am only asking for an opportunity for me to demonstrate proof. Software engineering is rooted unproven beliefs. What I want to replace the flawed beliefs by proven facts. For investors, the biggest risk is few hours invested for validating the facts (by learning fascinating philosophy of science). The upside is revolutionizing the software and computer science leading to great inventions such as real artificial intelligence rooted in scientific discoveries (not the rule based expert systems rooted in mathematical algorithms).

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri

Posted by serialentrepreneur on 2016-08-19 15:12:51

You might consider breaking your approach, which you make sound like a religion, into bit sized pieces that people can understand. What is the value for a piece of it and to whom? Who has the most to gain from adapting a small element of your process?

It is a great deal easier to sell a taste of bread and wine than a whole new religion. Baby steps! Don't tell about the whole picture, since no one understands it but you. Instead, suggest an application to a small problem and demonstrate the solution and show the value. Repeat.

No one will see your mind's picture as you do. Don't try to sell it. People don't change their minds until they die. Evangelists rarely get funded unless they have been successful before.

Why don't you directly address Carl's concerns and how you overcome them?

>>>The first problem was that data moves and is renamed.
>>>The second problem is that current software practices allow for infinite variability in approach along with infinite variability in file type, format and structure.
>>>Put simply, in a world of infinite file types with infinite location and infinite naming, you cannot write a set of tools which trap all syntactical and semantic errors at entry time.
There are solutions to the issues but not at the tool level.

Posted by Anonymous on 2016-08-19 15:55:03

TL;DR.

Is this appreciably different from what you posted two months ago?

http://www.thefunded.com/funds/item/9851

Posted by Been There on 2016-08-19 16:34:23

Raju,

With respect, you need to understand that what you have written sounds like a religious diatribe. For example,

"Except computer science and software engineering, no scientific or engineering discipline ever rooted in axioms or beliefs since 17th century. Only example for a scientific paradigm rooted in flawed beliefs was geocentric paradox. Founding fathers of modern scientific methods wanted to avoid this kind of mistake at any cost."

In order to have a dialog with you, it would be necessary to argue the nature of belief systems and scientific methods. I think you will find that few investors are interested in engaging in a conversation on such topics.

Each of your posts is many hundreds of words in length. While persons with the proper education, experience and belief system would undoubtedly recognize them as masterpieces, would it be possible for you to write a three sentence description of what you have done and why it is useful?

There is a book entitled, "Disciplined Entrepreneurship," by Bill Aulet which could help you clarify your benefit proposition and focus on an initial target market.

Good luck!

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-19 17:38:48

Dear @Anonymous,

When one has been struggling to accomplish some thing, one's understanding of the problem evolves and usually gets better. Intellectual curiosity is not enough. We need to set the expectations right.

If you invent a vaccine for cancer and every one thinks it is impossible, what would you do? If you can prove and it would take 3 days and US$50K investment, you ask for an opportunity to prove your discoveries. The question is not the market size but does it really works?

What is the point, if I ask for 3 hours time and not able to provide scientific proof? Also business people can't understand the proof. Even highly qualified professors need lot of time to gain enough confidence, which is only possible if all the other professors concur (i.e. they also can't find any error in the proof and evidence). They would have million questions and I need to answer all the question backed by facts and evidence (e.g. real software components and CBD). It took me over 12 years full time effort.

I wanted to do without raising funds. But looks like it is hard and also I might fail. I am never going to give up, but really tired of uncertainty after doing research for 16 years and want to explore all possible ways including raising funds. All I want to put the proof and evidence under bright lights. This can be done effectively, if we can invest funds.

I think, I can provide scientific proof within 2 days for about 6 qualified Ph.Ds. But to be safe side, I am asking for 3 days and 10 professors.

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-19 18:12:55

Dear Mr. Been There,

My understanding is that smart Investors (e.g. VCs) are there to make money. Also to change the world to self-satisfaction or ego. We have a scientific discovery, if it is right, we can make money. I am asking to validate the discovery and inventions in a right way. I suggested one method. I am open to any other method, if I think it works for this kind of discovery.

It is very simple: Body Of Knowledge for no other scientific or engineering discipline is rooted in flawed untested beliefs. Body Of Knowledge for any scientific or engineering discipline must contain only proven facts, which are essential for inventing useful things.

No such invention could work, if the invention relies on facts that are flawed. For example, retrograde motions and epicycles were considered verifiable facts until 400 years ago, because any one could observe them by standing on so called static Earth.

My argument is very simple: How can we invent (and continuously improve) fiber optic networks without having basic knowledge about the nature and properties of light and how light behaves in optical fibers?

How can we invent ICs (computer chips) without having necessary knowledge about the nature and properties of electrons and how they behaves in semi-conductor material?

How can researchers invent cures for infections, if refuse to use right tools or proven methods to discover even basic facts or knowledge about the nature & properties of bacteria/viruses?

It is impossible to invent real CBSD by being clueless about basic facts & reality such as (i) what is the obvious nature & true essence of the CBD; or (ii) properties absolutely essential for the components to achieve & optimize/improve the true CBD.

I will be successful (and software crisis would be a thing of the past), if I can help researchers discover nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products and essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each end every know physical component. Discovering this reality and facts exposes the flawed beliefs at the root of software engineering. Once the essential properties are discovered, inventing real-software-components would be a trivial task. I already have patents for these inventions. I can demonstrate real CBD, if any one willing to give me an opportunity.

It is common sense: If you lose keys in office, you can't find them at home. Flawed beliefs/facts are like that. They divert you to research for answers in wrong places. The scientific methods were formulated in the 17th century to avoid this kind of mistake at any cost, so no other scientific or engineering discipline committed this kind of mistake.

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-19 19:08:45

Dear Mr. Serialentrepreneur,

Thank you for suggestion. I am trying all the ways. For example, we built first ever GUI technologies in the world that is capable of creating real-software-components for achieving real CBD for software.

Like Mr. Carlwimm, I was strong supporter of things like Dr. Brooks ideas "Mythical Man Month" and "No Silver Bullet". Because of that I was far more fascinated, when I accidentally stumbled onto new kind of software components (that are very close to the physical functional components) for achieving real CBD nearly 15 years ago.

I am sure, I know what I am talking about because I worked in the Silicon Valley for 12 years since 1988 after my MS in CS from Ohio University. I still write code, but not that much during past 2 years.

I sent private email to Mr. Carlwimm and looking forward to get his valuable advice. I am open to any and every method to expose the error. I would rather expose the error without raising funds, but I am tired of uncertainty and huge skepticism or resistance.

If things are not working, we need to find things that could work. I am not going to give-up but raising money would accelerate the process and eliminate the risk that I might fail even if It trey for another 10 years. Our inventions are worthless, if our patents expire starting from 2029.

I am trying every promising thing (including the one suggested by you), hoping one of them works. I am facing a unique kind of problem no one faced since 17th century: Exposing flawed beliefs (considered self-evident fact) at the root of highly evolved paradigm and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Exposing such error is very hard, since no one would spend sufficient time to investigate the evidence to discover facts. It took more than 100 years to expose this kind of error: http://real-software-components.com/f...

The scientific processes were formulated in the 17th century to prevent this kind of mistake at any cost by philosophers such as Galileo and Descartes. They mostly succeeded so far except in case of computer science. The properties of physical components are facts, which can be discovered by using proven scientific methods. But the properties for software components are beliefs and assumptions.

I can prove every thing, if sufficient time is given. All the proof are backed by real software components and applications created by assembling real software components. The proof is put openly on websites. No point in taking few hours and wasting their time and leaving disappointed. So I am looking for investors, who don't mind spending US$45K to validate the proof, if they think I may be right after initial meeting and they are interested in exploring the opportunity. There won't be any misunderstands, if expectations are set right upfront.

Best Regards,
Raju

Posted by carlwimm on 2016-08-20 09:03:00

Raju

Two quotes from your reply to me

1) there are no missing pieces in the discoveries and inventions. I am no able to put it under bright lights. That is the reason I need the investment. I can't even complete a full sentence without being shoot down (e.g. as you did in your reply).

My Answer : I didn't "shoot you down before you could complete a sentence" .... I added in elements from a project in which I was involved some years ago, which tried to do the same thing. CBD.

I simply named two problems into which we stumbled for which we did find solutions (and also got patents). I also said that the solutions were not at the tools level. The solutions that we found were at a different level and required a new set of tools to be built which did not focus on the tools themselves but on the underlying fundament which we did change.

As is the custom on this forum, I tried to be helpful. Your answer to me was not to ask "what do you mean" or "Can you explain what you found" but rather that it was some sort of attack on you personally.

People on this forum will try to help you but you have to want to be helped.

2) For example, do you know what is the nature and true essence of CBD for physical products? If you know, you could not have said that.

My Answer : You could be right. I don't know anything. I couldn't possibly know anything. Only you can know everything. The same goes for everyone else in the IT business.

Good luck to you on that one.

Summary : finding mindshare for your approach is a tough one. You are in an industry and in a place (The Valley) where many people are successfully doing something that works for them.

They are under no obligation to meet you or talk to you. Those that you do meet will have opinions. if you are lucky, they will offer them to you, for your consideration. If you are not lucky, they will give you the unhelpful VC response .. "this does not meet our criteria".

You may find that commercializing your innovation is more difficult than finding it in the first place.

I did.

Best wishes to you on the journey.

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-20 19:54:06

Dear Carlwimm,

I had lot of respect for your opinions and wisdom. I read many of your advices and I found them very insightful. I didn't consider your feedback is criticism and I didn't mean to disrespect your advice.

I just gave you that as an example and not indented to be disrespectful. Please forgive me, if you think my response appear to be disrespectful. My patent number are 7827527, 7840937, 8527943, 8392877, 8578329 and 9058177. I would like to know, how you solved the problem. I greatly appreciate, if you could share your patents numbers.

The way I solved the problem is by strictly following scientific methods to discover the nature and essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical components in the world. That is, if the essential properties are {R, S}, any physical part can be a component, if and only if the part has the essential properties {R, S}. In other words, no physical part can be a component without having the essential properties {R, S}.

It is a trivial task to invent real-software-components having the essential properties {R, S}, once the essential properties are discovered. Likewise, I discovered the true essence and essential aspects of CBD (Component Based Design) for physical products, so that we can achieve the equivalent CBD for software products by using real-software-components.

Our approach is unique and unprecedented because, I haven't found anyone using scientific methods for addressing unsolved software engineering or computer science problems. In fact, no software researcher even believe computer science is hard science and it is even possible to employ proven scientific methods address unsolved software engineering or computer science problems. Requesting to employ proven scientific methods (to gain knowledge or to expose errors) is not a religion but is a science.

Likewise, it is possible to solve many unsolved or unaddressed software problems such as real artificial intelligence by using scientific methods to gain essential body of knowledge (BoK) about the neurons and how they function or form in neural networks. Based on my experience, I believe, it is a trivial task to emulate the neural networks in the brains of smallest insects (e.g. flies or ants), once this BoK is acquired.

The nature and essential properties of physical components (or neurons) are objective facts, which can be discovered by employing scientific methods. Scientific methods have proven track record for discovering essential properties of not only far more complex physical things (e.g. viruses, bacteria, light, particles such as electrons) but also uniquely and universally shared properties by far more diverse species/beings (e.g. animals, plants or chemicals). Most of this knowledge comprises of objective facts and demonstrable evidence.

This knowledge helped mankind invent things like fiber optic networks, ICs (computer Chips) and cures for infections. Since many such inventions are working is a proof that the knowledge good enough for the inventions. Advancement of knowledge have been helping researchers to improve the inventions. My goal is to convince software researchers to use scientific methods to acquire necessary knowledge for addressing outstanding problems. Believe it or not, today no other software researcher is using scientific methods. In fact, most software researchers are shooting down even such proposal as if it is a heresy (e.g. refusing to even see evidence such as examples for real CBSD).

Mankind's 2000 years old belief that "the Earth is static" (is a self-evident fact) eventually lead to scientific crisis. Exposing the error in 17th century transformed basic science into real science. Except computer science and software engineering, no other mainstream scientific or engineering discipline repeated this kind of mistake since 17th century. Discovering the facts about the properties of physical components and essential aspects of the CBD for physical products (by employing proven scientific methods) prove that the existing definitions for so called software components and CBSD are fundamentally flawed, which lead to the geocentric paradox of software engineering.

Scientific methods have proven track record to acquire valuable knowledge, which is not only extremely useful but also absolutely essential to address many huge unsolved or outstanding problems in software. My objectives are to transform computer science into real hard science and software engineering into real hard engineering, which is logically no different from hard engineering technologies such as automobile, aviation or aerospace.

Today it is hard to find even a single example, where researchers of computer science is using scientific methods to acquire knowledge to solve hard software engineering problems. On the other hand, I can show many examples where software engineering concepts or processes are in clear contradiction to scientific principles and violation of scientific processes.

I am looking for investors, who don't mind doing a preliminary due-diligence by acknowledging my expectation to do final due-diligence by investing US$45K, if they are interested (e.g. if it meats their criteria). Unfortunately at this time I don't know any other way for providing irrefutable proof (but I am will be keep trying to find better ways to provide proof).

Mr. Carlwimm, I admire your wisdom and have high respect. So nothing in this message is intended to be disrespectful, but only to summarize facts as I know them. I agree, it is hard to find like mined people or people who can see a problem in the same perspective. But it is impossible to find them, if you are not actively looking for them. Also one needs to try many ways and face failures to learn from, before one can get it right. I think, that is what I am doing.

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri

Posted by schrodingerscatt on 2016-08-21 21:29:33

Raju,
You spent a ton of time and words responding to the folks who shared some good advice with you. You should be taking some of that good advice and instead of writing several books in response, you should have recast your original post to see if it passed the test of those who have already given you counsel. As a brief summary to some of the best advice already given in this thread: your passion doesn't currently translate into the business and/or financial objectives of most seasoned investors because the language that you are speaking isn't the one they listen to. Go find a seasoned businessperson who understands the value of what you are proposing, make them the CEO, give them whatever they ask for as equity, and let that individual go sell the proposition to investors. After all, if the IP will be worth the billions that you claim, it should be worth a measly hundred million or two to get the right person to run your start-up.

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-22 12:54:59

Dear Mr. schrodingers catt,

An interesting suggestion, which I was also exploring. If you were the CEO, how can I prove it to you that IP is worth billions of dollars? Why would you join as CEO, until you are 100% sure that I am right. I have a pure scientific proof backed by irrefutable empirical evidence. But only sure way to prove is hiring 10 software researchers for up to 3 days. That can only connivances you. Then we need to go and connivance the investor, who again need 10 software researchers for up to 3 days.

Let me give you an analogy: If research-X invented vaccine to prevent cancer. If he can prove that it works, it is worth billions. It doesn't work, it worth nothing.

Please keep in mind, exposing a flaw at the root of a deeply entrenched conventional wisdom is one of the most complex tasks. As far as I know, this happened only once in the history of science: Saying 500 years ago that the Sun is at the center offended the common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. It was impossible to even imagine that "the Earth is moving".
Likewise, exiting paradigm for software engineering in general and CBSD in particular is rooted in such flawed beliefs. I am sure, most business persons don't want to sell such thing (perceived to be the most outrageous claim) to investors and loose all his credibility. If your were the CEO, would you be willing to risk your credibility on some thing you don't understand?

Ultimately only way you can convince a investor or VC firm is by hiring 10 researchers, if you can find an investor who would like to validate such thing perceived to be outrageous.

Best Regards,
Raju

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-22 13:41:47

Dear Mr. schrodingers catt,

Thank you for your interesting suggestion. There is a huge error in the BoK (Body of Knowledge) for the software engineering. I am prepared to do any thing and everything legal to expose the error. And I will not give up until I expose the error. The problem is, finding such a CEO, who can understand my discoveries and has such commitment, passion and perseverance.
All this commitment and effort is to prove a very simple point: Many unsolved software engineering problems such as real CBSD or real AI (artificial intelligence) can't be solved without using scientific methods for acquiring necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge. Only reason many such problems are not yet solved because software researchers refusing to use scientific methods to gain necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge).

My reasoning or argument is very simple: How can we invent (and continuously improve) fiber optic networks without having basic BoK about the nature and properties of light and how light behaves in optical fibers? How can we invent ICs (computer chips) without having necessary BoK about the nature and properties of electrons and how they behaves in semi-conductor material?

Is it possible to invent cures for infections, if researchers refuse to use right tools or proven methods to discover even basic facts (e.g. for BoK) about the nature and properties of bacteria/viruses?

Likewise, it is impossible to invent real CBD for software products by being clueless about basic facts and reality such as (i) what is the obvious nature and true essence of the CBD; or (ii) properties absolutely essential for the components to achieve and optimize/improve the true CBD.

No scientific or engineering discipline can avoid crisis, if it is rooted in fundamentally flawed beliefs (by considering the beliefs are self-evident facts) and have been evolving for long time by relying on the flawed beliefs. The basics sciences ended up in crisis, when it was rooted in flawed belief (i.e. the Earth is static). If the essential properties for components are {R, S}, no part can be a component without having the properties {R, S}. Software engineering cannot avoid such crisis, if it is rooted in flawed beliefs (i.e. flawed properties for so called software components/CBSD).

Unfortunately, most software researchers think it is a heresy, if I insist on using proven scientific methods for grasping the reality and discovering necessary facts, as if I am demanding to expand the religion, for example, Christianity (i.e. religion of Mathematics) by adopting other religions such as Buddhism & Common sense (i.e. religion of Science & sound Logical reasoning). Mathematics or Computer Science is not a religion.

Many software researchers believe (by clearly implying in many published scientific papers and open discussions with me) that Computer Science is a sub-section of mathematics, hence there is no room for knowledge and facts (acquired by using proven scientific methods) in the BoK for Computer Science and Software Engineering. It is impossible to even start addressing huge unsolved and outstanding software problems (e.g. software crisis or real-AI) until this attitude of the researchers of computer science is changed.

I solved CBSD because, I used right tools to gain essential BoK. If I am successful in my effort, I am hoping to convince Google or IBM to use scientific methods for acquiring BoK to address AI. Understanding the reality of Neural networks is not as simple as comprehending reality for CBD of physical products.

Screwdriver (mathematics) is a great tool but one can't use screwdriver to unscrew lug-nuts and bolts. One needs wrench (scientific methods) to unscrew lug-nuts and bolts. One must use right methods or tools to gain necessary BoK for addressing each problem. The problems such as real CBSD or AI are not yet solved, only because researchers are not using right tools or methods for acquiring essential BoK. Mathematical methods are useless for discovering the nature and essential properties of physical things, while scientific methods have proven track record discovering the essential properties of physical things.

If I am right (which of course I have no doubt), start using scientific methods to expand the BoK would save trillions of dollars to the world economy. Isn't it essential for the USA to maintain the leadership in software. If people in the taxpayer funded research organizations are not taking such important groundbreaking discoveries seriously, how can I compel them to take the discoveries seriously? Isn't it their basic duty to prevent wasting tax-payer funds pursuing the geocentric paradoxes of software?

The classic scientific method is: Scientific process requires gathering evidence and observations diligently and methodically and investigate the evidence with open mind to go wherever facts lead.

Let me quote Newton: “The best and safest way of philosophizing seems to be, first to enquire diligently into the properties of things and to establish those properties by experiments and then to proceed slowly to hypotheses for the explanation of them. For hypotheses should be employed only in explaining the properties of things, but not assumed in determining them; unless so far as they may furnish experiments.”

The software researchers blindly defined the nature and properties for so called software components over 45 years ago (without any basis in reality - but based on wishful thinking - building software by assembling 3rd party components - Software-ICs) and have been working hard to fabricate the evidence to alter the laws of nature (i.e. expecting the nature to change course to fit the fantasy). The problem is because, computer science is considered sub-discipline of mathematics. Mathematics is an abstract science that is not suitable for addressing many software engineering problems, which requires replicating physical phenomena and processes in virtual world such as real AI or CBD of one-of-a-kind products such as an experimental jet-fighter or final pre-producing working models next generation jet-fighters). Designing of software is like designing one of a kind physical product: http://real-software-components.com/C...

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
CEO, Pioneer-soft.com

Posted by schrodingerscatt on 2016-08-22 18:31:55

No disrespect intended, Raju, but your responses remind me of the classic example of one who is asked, "What time is it?", and you then explain how the watch was built. If that is your approach to constructive criticisms and wise counsel, you've got a long and hard battle in front of you.

Why can't you do what most of us did to start our own businesses? Work full-time at a well-paying salary position; live frugally and save as much as you can; and when you have the $45k that you say you need, spend it on the market validation. If you're a smart guy, getting a well-paying job should be pretty easy to do. And, in my humble opinion, even if your concept is validated, you will still need someone to run your business.

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-22 21:00:20

Dear Mr. schrodingerscatt,

Thank you. I already did all that. I saved enough money. I have been doing this research for over 15 years full time with passion and commitment. I already secured 6 US software patents 7827527, 7840937, 8527943, 8392877, 8578329 and 9058177 investing my own money so far. They are the largest patents according to the USPTO. I had to pay money to lawyers for describing scientific discoveries and inventions that use the discoveries.

I invested savings to build a first ever GUI technologies in the world capable of creating real-software-components for achieving real CBSD. A team of 12 engineers working in my company in India for more than a year.

I am committed to continue this effort until I expose the error, even it takes another 12 years. I ran successful small business before both in India and Silicon Valley, but I closed them to focus on this research.

I don't need to prove it to myself. I need to prove to the experts selected by the investors and I am willing to share the cost (which I clearly mentioned in my first post).

Being an entrepreneur I am sure you might already know, each business is unique and we need to find a business model that fits the opportunity. I am in that journey of finding business model that works for this kind of opportunity.

Also luck plays a role in the business. For example, 15 years ago I meat a dozen VCs for a product, but none of them have no clue what I am talking about, but one VC is completing my sentences. He is already thinking in that lines and pre-disposed to such idea.

We all know the famous example of Netscape. Both Jim Clark and John Doerr had been looking for an opportunity in Internet and pre-disposed to web browser, when Mark Andreessen wrote his letter to Jim Clark.

I intend no disrespect to any one but like to clarify that I am not expecting free money. I already invested lot of money and prepared to invest more money (e.g. to run the company in India). But exploring possibility of finding like minded partners and investors, to minimize or even eliminate the risk of failure. I believe, investing US$5 million and building a good team would eliminate risk.

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
CEO, Pioneer-soft.com

Posted by carlwimm on 2016-08-23 11:59:17

Rajuch

FYI

For solving the problem of data moving and being renamed .. US PT 5454101

For solving the problem of infinite data formats .. US PT 5,684,985

It is still my belief that any system that tries to auto write code needs to solve the two basic problems that we discovered 25 years ago.

best wishes

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-23 15:56:06

Dear Mr. Carlwimm,

Thank you for sharing the patents. I am not disagreeing with you. We are addressing completely different problems or in completely different perspectives. We may not be able to reduce code but we don't need to implement the code as spaghetti code. For example, let me give you an GUI application example having just 3 large GUI components: http://real-software-components.com/C...

Today no other GUI technology (e.g. from Apple or Microsoft) is capable of creating small applications such as City_ATC (Air Traffic Control) or City_ER (for Ambulances) in a replaceable component classes (or RCC), so that they can be plugged into container component by writing just 3 lines (and replaced by replacing the 3 lines): http://pioneer-soft.com/realairtraffic

Today, each needs implementing 2500 lines of code, developers are forced to merge the code bases to create spaghetti code, even if the components don't need to communicate with each other. This results in non-exclusive files, which contain code for more than one component. One need to change or remove 100s of lines of code from non-exclusive files (that contain code for more than one component). There is no valid reason, why the code bases must be merged into non-exclusive files, but today developers are forced to merge the code bases of each of such self-contained independent components.

In our method, code base for each RCC is implemented is an exclusive set of files and saved in separate folder. In both approaches, the RCC may need 2000 lines of custom application code, but in our approach the code base for each component is free from spaghetti code (for rest of its evolutionary life).

Also it is possible to generic invent tools that can create and manage the communication code between such components, even if the components need to collaborate with each other. For example, one such generic tool is summarized in FIG-3 at: http://real-software-components.com/C....

If an application has few hundred such real-time data driven components, each needs implementing on average 2,000 lines of custom code to satisfy unique needs of just one target application, each component can be redesigned and tested individually at any time and/or as many times as needed (for the first release and each of the successive releases) outside of the product free from spaghetti code. Once all the components are created and tested individually, each components can be assembled in minutes (by writing 3 to 5 lines of code).

Although I am using GUI application to illustrate real CBSD, it is possible to build any large software (i.e. compilers, ERP or OS) using such replaceable components, which are free from spaghetti code (so can be redesigned and tested individually at a fraction of time and cost).

Using our patented GUI technology, it is possible to implement any real-time data driven GUI application as a RCC (Replaceable Component Class). If 150 such RCCs are created, each RCC can be plugged-in within minutes by writing 3 to 5 lines into an application as a component or as a sub-component of a container component, and so on. A generic CASE-tool (which is also patented) can be used to allow collaboration between the replaceable components. Such components (hence application) can be redesigned at a faction of the cost/time.

It is well known and widely accepted facts that (you can ask any researcher of theoretical computer science to confirm): Existing approach is using only mathematical methods for creating BoK (Body of Knowledge) to solve each and every software engineering problem. I disagree with this approach, with discourages (and prevents) using any other proven methods for gaining necessary BoK. Our approach uses scientific methods (where mathematics is not suitable) as well, when necessary, to expand the BoK (Body ok Knowledge) for computer science to address software engineering problems. Many problems is software are unsolved (or many exiting solutions are not perfect), because the BoK is only limited to mathematics.

If I am right and can prove it today (if sufficient opportunity is given), isn't this IP worth a billion. I need to figure out and create a business plan: How much money and what kind of team can minimize or even eliminate possible risks. To give an analogy: If one invents vaccine for cancer and if it works: how much money and what kind of team can eliminate possible risks, for building a profitable business around such IP.

I hadn't expected, so much resistance from community of software researchers to using powerful scientific methods having proven track record to gain such necessary knowledge to address certain kinds of unsolved software problems (e.g. AI or CBSD). My goal is to rectify this mistake: Software researches committed a huge mistake 17th century philosophers wanted to avoid at any cost, when formulating and formalizing the scientific methods for acquiring scientific knowledge (by using mathematics alone): https://www.researchgate.net/publicat... .

Only small percent of investors would be open to exploring this kind of business opportunity, so how can I find one of them, if at all possible to find them? I will continue to invest on improving (i.e. simplifying) our technologies and tools to build awareness in research community and with developer community.

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri

Posted by Been There on 2016-08-24 04:24:42

Raju,

I was polite with my last reply. So was everyone else. You ignored what we tried to gently explain.

Enough with your "I am sure, I know what I am talking about because I worked in the Silicon Valley for 12 years..." Hundreds of thousands of people work in the Valley. If you can write a line of code, you can work in the Valley. The advice you have ignored in this thread came from executives who have built companies in Silicon Valley, raised money and successfully exited for 30 years or more.

When someone like that takes time to answer your questions, you respond with, "Mankind's 2000 years old belief that "the Earth is static" (is a self-evident fact) eventually lead to scientific crisis." That is not intelligent discussion, that is self-aggrandizing pointification.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but until you learn to listen, quit wasting our time.

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-24 17:06:30

Mr. Been There,
Often each startup business is different. Most problems are different. Many unsolved problems require new unexplored knowledge and experimentations. As an entrepreneurs, many of you succeeded because you addressed unique kind of problems, or address problems in a new and unique way.

I intended no disrespect, but I mentioned that I know a given perspective and strong subscriber of such perception, until I accidentally stumbled onto a discovery that opened new way of solving an unsolved problem.

I am only trying to explain my unique problem so that I can get informed advice. Many of you become successful because out of the box thinking and/or original ideas. I am looking for such suggestions, which I haven't thought of before. May be something I missed.

Probing for insights is not disrespectful. Many entrepreneurs and/or scientists do that (and I feel one should do), when he wants to get insights form experts he respect.

Dictatorial arrogance many people in this forum complained about VCs, who have no entrepreneurial background (whose attitude is often is: my way or highway, or know it all). Journey of entrepreneurs is humbling experience, so VCs and entrepreneurs who were in the trenches usually more empathetic with struggles of startup founders and handle problems with more open mind.

I am under the impression that this forum is about empathetic support for struggling entrepreneurs from successful entrepreneurs having great intuition. I hope I am not wrong.

I intended no disrespect for you, but I just explained my understanding of the purpose of this forum. Please correct me, if I am wrong.

Best Regards,
Raju

Posted by Been There on 2016-08-26 21:29:08

Raju,

You seem sincere, so I'll reply one last time.

You wrote, "Probing for insights is not disrespectful."

Perhaps you feel you were probing for insights. It does not appear that way from reading your replies. What is apparent is that you want to tell us that "Except computer science and software engineering, no scientific or engineering discipline ever rooted in axioms or beliefs since 17th century. Only example for a scientific paradigm rooted in flawed beliefs was geocentric paradox." You've ranted on about this on multiple occasions.

When someone is probing for insights, their replies go something like this:

"Thank you for your reply. You said, _____. Could you explain further?"

The behavior you have exhibited here is more like that of a classic internet troll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interne....

If you truly wish to probe for insights, carefully read the replies you have received to your over-long questions, think hard about what the person is saying, then ask a brief follow-up question. 1-2 sentences should be sufficient. It is not necessary to frame your question with a rant about 17th century philosophers.

If I may be so bold, you may want to consider this a life lesson.

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-27 17:22:54

Dear Been There,

What I discovered turns the software engineering upside down. I claimed that my discoveries address software crisis by eliminating spaghetti code. I asked, if it is possible to find investors willing to validate the claim by hiring 10 software researchers of their choice for US$45K (and said I am willing to share the cost).

Keep in mind I never asked any one to believe me. I only asked for an proper opportunity to prove my discoveries to highly qualified experts beyond any doubt. My question is, is it possible to find such investors. If it is possible, how can I find them?

If you were in my position and some one implies you are a fool, it is impossible to address software crisis, what would you say? It doesn't answer your question. It in fact offends you, if you put all the evidence openly in the web for any one to validate and if you are looking for funds to sue the tax payer funded research organizations (e.g. NSF.gov, NITRD.gov) for dropping the ball big time, which already cost trillion dollars to world economy.

To be brief: Today no else in the world know what is the true essence and essential aspects of the CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products, particularly the design and development of one of a kind physical products such as experimental spacecraft or pre-production fully tested final working models of next generation jet-fighters.

Any unknown but relevant fact is not a rant. Any one can prove me wrong by providing roughly accurate description for real CBD. No one ever tried to investigate evidence to discover reality about the physical components or CBD. How could any one say that real CBD is impossible without even knowing what it is? How could any one possibly paint the picture (i.e. mental model or paradigm) of reality of CBD, if they have no clue what is the reality.

Isn't common sense: If one needs to draw a picture of something, for example XYZ, doesn't he at least try to know what is XYZ and how does XYZ look like? For example, how could any one draw a picture (or painting) of an elephant, without ever even seeing or without having basic knowing, whether the elephant is a tree, animal, bird or a landmark? If one needs to paint a picture of an elephant, shouldn't he try to know what it is and how the elephants looks like?
Imagine, you did research for 12 years after you accidentally stumbling onto real CBD and real software components to discover what it is. During the 12 years you hired consultants to make sure you are not mistaken and obtained 6 patents. They you started a company and hired 12 software engineers full-time to validate each and every aspect of your discovery. Even though no one believes you, you can see evidence and your team can validate facts every day.
Don't you feel offended, if any one imply that you are either lying or a fool? Please kindly look at the answers: Did I get answer to my question? Is it possible to find such investors. If it is possible, how can I find them?

However, I got few good suggestions such as a find a business development partners and I have been already looking for such partner, who don't mind spending time with me to grasp my discoveries and share my vision. I have a friend he questions my ideas, which helped me keep close to reality. I need a partner who discusses all ideas with me, before coming to final conclusion. Another suggestion is to solve parts of the problems, and I build software team in India to do that. I already know such useful suggestions and have been working on them actively.

Mr. Been There, many researchers and entrepreneurs question the conventional wisdom and face huge resistance or skepticism. If you were in that position, no one can imagine what you learned in 12 years of such passionate journey. Even the greatest entrepreneurs (e.g. Bill Gates or Warren Buffet) can't imagine what you learned in your journey.
I am using my real name and not posting anonymously. I will stand by and defend each of my claims. How can it be troll to defend myself from flaming? I am ready to apologize, if any one can prove any of my scientific facts or patented inventions. I spent many years to make sure my inventions for CBD are not flawed, and it took just 15 minutes to decide I am a fool.

How would you feel, if you work 15 years to invent some thing no one thought possible and a rookery VC says it is impossible, you are a fool in the first minute? You decided that I am a fool and insisting your way or highway. Isn't it hypocrisy to complain about investors (or others), if we behave the same way?

Kindly answer my question, if you know answer to my question instead of calling me due to your prejudice and preconceived notions: Is it possible to find such investors, who might be willing to validate my scientific discoveries. If it is possible, how should I go about for finding one of them? If you are a scientist you could get more information at: http://real-software-components.blogs...

The fact is, the research community has no clue what is CBD and how it looks like. But they insist that it is impossible to paint the reality. They have been using every possible excuse to validate my proof. If I have funds, I can compel them (some of them are legally responsible and obligated) to answer such questions in the courts and in the open view of the press and public.

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri

Posted by schrodingerscatt on 2016-08-27 20:47:55

Raju,

Carlwimm, Been There, SerialEntrepreneur, and I, have all expended time on your behalf. Here are 3 final thoughts that may (or may not) help you, but they will definitely help others who read this thread:

(1) If YOU are unable to explain and/or demonstrate to a savvy investor how your technology is a much-needed scalable solution to a very big problem in 5 minutes or less, then you need someone who can. My own sense is that you write/talk/pontificate too much - sorry, but that's the wrong approach, which means that while you may be very intelligent and sincere, you aren't necessarily the one who should be presenting your tech to others. Just because a topic is rather complex does not mean that it cannot be simplified into terms which sharp investors can readily grasp.

(2) Crawl, walk, run. I mean this with no disrespect (it is simply an investor fact): no one cares how much of your life has been invested into your passionate pursuit. If you haven't generated any revenue with it yet, the value is minimal and you are still at the "crawl" stage (Note: Because you have been doing this for years and apparently have no revenue, it will be a huge red flag to any investor and it will be hard, if not impossible, for you, to sell them, on "you" being the one to take the business to revenue and profitability). If you are unable to articulate, in the simplest of terms, "how" you intend to get to revenue, no investor will ever take an interest. Incidentally, $4 to $5 million is a lot of money.

(3) The USPTO represents that only 3% to 5% of all patents ever generate revenue, and only a fraction of those ever generate profit for the assignees. Disruptive technologies, IP, and leveraging the same to revenue and profitability is my core expertise. I took the time to take a brief look at your first 3 patents. I only looked at the primary independent claim of each one. I then searched to see how many times your issued patents were cited as prior art in other issued patents and pending published applications. If you REALLY want to see your passion through to a business reality, I STRONGLY advise that you do the following: approach the assignees of the related patents and published apps, and see if those assignees (but only those which are ongoing concerns) would like to license your IP, partner with you, or invest in your opportunity. By the way: if I am the first person who has ever suggested this obvious path, get yourself a new patent firm and different business counsel. Also, because you are the only inventor named on the patents that I looked at, it will be obvious to any investor that you are a "One Man Show", not a company...which is why you SHOULD approach the assignees I suggested, because they won't care that you are the only one involved, since they will want what you created (but not necessarily want you or your business).

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-28 21:14:11

Dear Mr. schrodingerscatt,

Thank you. I have been struggling to find a way. I would have said the same thing Mr. Carlwimm have said, if I hadn't stumbled onto some thing that shocked me 15 years ago and spent 12 years to make sure it is real. In fact, I closed profitable software consulting and services business to focus on this.

I am in unenviable position of exposing a huge mistake at the very roots of the CBD (Component Based Design) committed over 45 years ago by defining reusable parts as software components. Software engineering has been evolving for 45 years by relying on such flawed axiom (by assuming the beliefs are self-evident facts) and created a complex paradoxical paradigm.

Only other example I can find (in the history of science) was geocentric paradox evolved for 1600 years by relying on a flawed axiom (by assuming the beliefs "the Earth is static" is a self-evident fact). Almost rest of the world think Kepler and Galileo were crazy and insisted it is a fiction: http://real-software-components.com/f... . If that error were not exposed yet, mankind still would be in the dark ages.

Kindly let me know what would you do, if you were in my position. If you spent 12 years to just make sure you are right by hiring teams of consultants and engineers and you absolutely have no doubt that you are right. If you fail, this error might not be exposed for another few more decades or even a century.

The well known fact is: Today software researchers think no useful knowledge for software can be gained by using science or scientific methods. But I can prove that many unsolved problems such as real CBSD and real Artificial Intelligence can't be solved without using scientific methods for acquiring BoK (Body of Knowledge) about the nature, properties and reality such as CBD for physical products, components or how neural networks function.

Mr. schrodingerscatt, thank you for your effort. I appreciate it. There is uptick in the traffic to my sites from Germany, especially to WebPages roughly painting important part of the reality of CBD such as: http://real-software-components.com/C... and http://real-software-components.com/C... . If you are one of them thank you for looking at evidence.

Mr. schrodingerscatt, what would you do? Kepler and Copernicus just wrote their discoveries and only shared with close friends, because they don't want to offend the philosophers and attract the wrath. We all know what happened to people like Galileo and Bruno who fought against conventional wisdom to expose the error.

I can give up any time and live peacefully. But I choose to leverage IP to expose the error, because I felt that it is my duty/destiny. Diamonds are also stones and are found in the ground. Over 99.99% stones or worthless. Only qualified persons can identify diamonds. I am sure, I can provide irrefutable proof that it is possible to invent real-software-components for real COP (Component Oriented Programming) to qualified people (i.e. Ten software researchers within 3 days).

Mr. schrodingerscatt, I meant no disrespect to any one. I asked my question, because many accomplished people are active participants in this forum. For me, exposing the error is primary goal and making money is distant second. Fifteen years back, if any one told me that he found solution to software crisis (e.g. real CBSD), he would loose all his credibility. But I might have given benefit of doubt, if he already invested 15 years of his time and put all the evidence openly and struggling for an opportunity to demonstrate proof. Of course, I also evaluate his qualifications, accomplishments and educational background.

I might have spent few hours to see, if he can provide sufficient evidence to proceed to more rigorous validation by qualified experts. After spending few hours or couple of days, if there is a chance for making money I wouldn't mind exploring further. I wouldn't commit until I am absolutely sure that the inventions are accurate and works. I might have invested US$20K to US$30K for evaluating by qualified experts and I would observe the validation.

Now most of the investment moved to consumer products, but 25 to 40 years ago, VCs were inventing in technological inventions. None of them would had committed funds until they were absolutely sure the invention works and there is a market for the invention. For example, if someone claims to invent vaccine to prevent cancer, no one would commit any funds until they are absolutely sure it works. In medical field, they would try to investigate the claims by hiring experts. But in the flied of software, VCs are not accustomed to such model anymore of scientific or technological validations.

I am not disagreeing with Mr. Been There, because I am sure, I would have reacted the same way. But I am now in a unenviable position of receiving end. I closely followed many patent litigations and aware of potential risks. Even my discoveries are right and inventions work 3 times better than expected, there is no guarantee we could make money. The purpose of the VCs is to assume such risks and to vet business plan to minimize the risk.

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri

Posted by schrodingerscatt on 2016-08-28 21:21:30

Raju,

Wow...if there was an Olympic Medal for going off on tangents and endless pontificating, you would absolutely take the Gold.

What would I do? #3 in my post above is exactly what I would do. It is the least expensive and time consuming avenue for you to approach, and it is absolutely something that you could pursue on your own.

Now stop writing and pontificating. Stop relating history. Go and actually "do" what I suggested and check back in with us in a few months to let us all know how it worked out.

Best wishes to you, Raju.

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-29 13:44:20

Dear Mr. schrodingerscatt,

Can we continue this offline? My email is: rajuch (at) hotmail (dot) com? You missed my main point. If the following is right, isn't revolutionary?

The well known fact is: Today software researchers think no useful knowledge for software can be gained by using science or scientific methods. But I can prove that many unsolved problems such as real CBSD and real Artificial Intelligence can't be solved without using scientific methods for acquiring BoK (Body of Knowledge) about the nature, properties and reality such as CBD for physical products, components or how neural networks function.

The scientific methods have been the most widely used having proven track record for acquiring necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge) for technological progress. I am sure software researchers have been trying for decades to solve these and other problems but such problems are not yet solved. Such problems can never be solved without gaining necessary BoK, which can only be acquired by using scientific methods (without violating scientific processes & principles).

In software, no problem can be solved without clear definition of problem and specifying the requirements. Today no one even know what is real CBD and what are the requirements. Without knowing the problem and requirements, how can any one solve the problem. Software researchers have been trying to solve problems such as CBSD and AI (Artificial Intelligence) for many decades. I am saying: No one ever even know the realistic requirements (that are possible to implement) or problem, how could any one file patents for solutions?

Ask any software expert, if he can invent solution for a problem without even knowing what is the problem? No one even know what is the true essence and nature of CBD of physical products. You can prove me wrong by showing definition of CBD problem anywhere in the world.

The reality for the CBD is not just one part or aspect but a picture comprising many parts or aspects (i.e. collection of BoK). Most of the pieces (i.e. parts or aspects) must be drawn to paint a good enough picture to comprehend the overall reality of CBD for physical products. Each of the aspect or part of this picture is already known (so nothing new) but each aspect need to be seen in a perspective that can be directly translated for software engineering. Who is not already have rough idea of component based design and development of one-of-a-kind physical products such as an experimental spacecraft or working prototype of a jet-fighter?

My contention is: Many problems (that are not yet solved) in software can be solved only by gaining necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge) to clearly define the problem and specifying requirements. Today software researchers insist such knowledge is useless because it is impossible to invent real-software-components equivalent to the physical functional components. My first two patents are creating real-software-components for building online GUI applications. Last 2 patents are for real-software-components for non-GUI-applications and desktop GUI applications. The middle two patents are for basic CASE-tools (e.g. SRO) for enabling real CBD.

The fact is today there are many software problems that are not yet solved. I am saying those problems can be solved by using scientific methods to gain necessary knowledge for defining the problem (i.e. reality) and specify realistic requirements (but not based of mathematical axiom by ignoring the reality). This kind of BoK is essential to define realistic requirements.

Let me put it in black & white: Software researchers never used scientific methods to acquire any kind of new knowledge. Rest of the community of software researchers disagrees with me. I am saying they are wrong. I am asking for an opportunity to demonstrate proof. To give an example, I am sure, billions of dollars were invested to invent CBD, without even knowing the problem (i.e. reality for CBD). We can't even understand problem without using scientific methods to gain knowledge. How can we invent solution, without even knowing the problem. If I am right, we can invent solutions for many other problems (not just CBSD - the CBSD is just a beginning).

Many researchers don't even want to tackle such problems that goes against conventional wisdom, because they loose all their credibility, they loose their jobs and carries would be ruined. If I knew what I was getting into, I don't know I would get into this kind of humiliating and humbling endeavor. But I am continuing this because, I have enough savings to retire, so can afford so not worried about carrier.

It is very hard and humbling. I request you, even if you can't help such people, kindly don't patronize them in condescending manner due to your prejudice or pre-conceived notions. The problems such as CBSD or AI have been not solved for 3 to 4 decades for a reason: The existing approaches incapable of addressing them. They need a radically different approaches. No one find those approaches by design but by chance. It could be anyone. It could be you.

When you have limited funds, you only patent smallest common denominator. For example, if you invent integrated circuits, you don't need to patent every kind of chip. Just patent diffusion process to make the chip, since no chip can be made without using diffusion (all kinds of chips are covered). If I have funds, I would try to patent basic building blocks for other solutions, not the whole solution but smallest common denominator. I hope, you must not have problem understanding my point of view (since you said: Disruptive technologies, IP, and leveraging the same to revenue and profitability is my core expertise). Also we have years of head start, so we just make things ready and start filing only when other closing the gap. This would also gives longer lifespan for patents (20 years from filing date). Many more business strategies one can't disclose openly. But I put all the technology openly.

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri

Posted by schrodingerscatt on 2016-08-29 15:18:55

Raju,

In 3 sentences or less (otherwise I will not read your response), please explain why you won't directly contact the assignees of the patents and published applications which have cited your issued patents as prior art to see if licensing, a partnership, investment, or the outright acquisition of your IP, is possible. 3 sentences, no more. Thank you.

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-29 20:47:48

Mr. Schrodingerscatt,

Those patents have nothing to do with my inventions. I don’t know why they cited my patents. I have been searching for years hoping to find a big company files a patent to solve CBD problem to contact them. I have on record, from almost every large company stating that it is impossible to invent real CBD for software. We are introducing a new disruptive Kuhnian paradigm shift for CBSD.

Kindly let me remind you what is meant by disruptive paradigm shift and/or gestalt shift using an example: In geocentric paradigm, every concept, empirical evidence and observation would be consistent with each other. In heliocentric paradigm, every concept and observation would be consistent with each other. Each concept, observation or empirical evidence in one paradigm contradicts most of the concepts, observations or empirical evidences in another paradigm.

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri

Posted by schrodingerscatt on 2016-08-29 23:38:33

Raju,

You responded to Carlwimm on 2016-08-20 at 19:54:06 citing the patents I examined, which you seemed to indicate represented your innovative work product. If those patents do represent what you have invented, then you are losing nothing and risking nothing by contacting the assignees on the other patents which I identified. Those named assignees are knowledgeable and represent your best starting point. So what possible reason is there for not approaching them?

Posted by rajuch on 2016-08-30 11:44:25

Dear Mr. schrodingerscatt,

I will try that, once I gather enough information and have a plan in place. I haven't put that much taught into that, so I need to put thought into it to do it right. I greatly appreciate, if you can give me some pointers to do it right by my email. Whom should I contact and what should I propose.

Best Regards,
Raju

Posted by schrodingerscatt on 2016-08-31 13:29:00

Raju,

You don't need a lengthy plan to execute on a couple of simple steps. Here are the basics:
1) Search the USPTO, EU, and several (China, etc.) other notable patent and published applications databases for IP that has cited your issued patents as "prior art". These are very simple searches: simply perform a general search on your patent #'s.
2) Identify the assignees of each issued patent and published application (assignees that are businesses...assignees that are only the inventors are in the same situation as you). If more than one of your patents has been cited as prior art within a single patent or publication, those assignees become your primary targets.
3) Draft customized cover letters to any and all assignees (identify the proper management and technical professionals within each firm...it is not unusual to send 5 or more letters to the same company, in order to get noticed). There is an art to crafting this type of letter, so get professional business help when doing so. It should be, at most, 2 pages.

No offense intended, but if you include anything in your cover letter that you wrote in this forum, your letter will never be read and you will not be taken seriously. So don't pontificate. Don't be philosophical. Don't explain "your perspective". Don't preach to the choir. You have about 30 seconds in the first paragraph to get their attention. Send the letters FedEx - those get read. Regular mail in envelopes go to administrative assistants and get shredded. Emails are a total waste of time (until you begin to form a relationship).

Your objective is to present an irresistible value proposition that can be explained in a few short sentences. Do not present the full scope of what you have developed because if you cannot secure their business interest first and very simply explain why your IP will create value for your target, you will have wasted their time and your own. Here's the simple metric: if a sharp management professional who has limited background in your area of expertise can't be made to understand the business rationale for investigating your opportunity further, your letter will go in the trash.

I can't stress this last point enough: you're not the right guy to take the lead on this. Nothing that you have written in this forum suggests that you have the skill sets for communicating to, and with, decision-makers. Get the proper help in order to improve your chances for success.

Posted by rajuch on 2016-09-03 13:10:37

Dear Mr. schrodingerscatt,

Thank you for good points and your effort to guide me. Sorry for late reply. I am just out of town.

I agree that I am not good at articulating the problem and business opportunity. It is hard to comprehend the magnitude of the problem: Bringing Kuhnian paradigm shift in software (Computer Science): http://real-software-components.blogs...

It is a risky task to tell truth, if the truth contradicts deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Who is willing to undertake such complex task? It took me several years to muster courage to undertake this complex endeavor. No one would risk his reputation and carrier, if he is not 100% sure that it is Truth (and he don’t mind retiring, if he fails – because failure likely ruins his reputation and carrier).

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri

Posted by Been There on 2016-09-03 19:37:43

Raju,

Your passion seems to be for discussing and debating the history and philosophy of science in general and computer science in particular. Your replies here do not explore our advice, but instead offer new opinions and theories. you seem to view our replies as merely an opportunity for you to catch your breath between philosophical ramblings.

On your site, http://real-software-components.com, you present relatively little information about your product or technology, but a wealth of this philosophical opinion. Even the Products and Services sections of your site say little about Products or Services; such minutiae seem to be of little interest to you.

With respect, this preponderance of philosophy over any information on the practical benefits of your ideas is clear evidence that you have little interest in building a profitable software company. Indeed, any lack of progress you have had in attempting to raise funding can probably be attributed to prospective investors not believing that you will focus your attention on the minutiae of creating a return on their investment.

Thank you for contributing all of your ideas here. There is no need to respond; I need to focus on our own profitability and won't be returning to this thread.

Posted by rajuch on 2016-09-03 20:58:26

Dear Mr. Been There,

Kindly understand the problem I am facing (i.e. Kuhnian paradigm shift in my previous message). I need to paint a picture of reality that is radically different from existing paradigm (a huge Body of Knowledge) that has been accumulating for over 50 years. For example, various links in this web page paints various parts of the picture: http://real-software-components.com/m.... For example, the first section "Component Based Design" introduces few important aspects such as CBD-structure in link-2 and CBD-process in link-3. Also the main differences between CBD of software products and physical products at link-6.

I wish you good luck with your profitability. Even if you don't read my response, I need to justify my actions for others. I am sure, you are successful because you must have overcome huge problems and by learning from few failures in the way. Many adversities and failures give you unique experiences invaluable knowledge, which is hard for others to understand. I understand this because, I am trying to solve a huge problem (that seems to be many degrees complex than my ability) and I faced more failures than many people. Success increases ego (without even knowing it) and failures make people humble :-(. Over analyzing failures make people philosophers :-)

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri