Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Oooh flirting with the 13s now. Don't worry, it'll be several years more before trips and the end comes. Lord emu of eGipped and queen Sellalot are working towards a burial with cash not dirt.
"But you continue to respond to them though"
Good point. Oops, there I go overdoing it again. Just can't seem to help myself
Got it, lol!
(oh, sorry for the length of my post. Shoulda just used a thumbs up)
My advice to you would be for you to police what you think and post and I'll do the same. I do just fine posting exactly what I wish to. Don't look now, but I am not here to please you or your expectations. Incidentally, newbies, prospective shareholders are always here, mostly by virtue of the paid pumpers who drag them here.
Also, your crap about not being able to read to the bottom of my posts is indicitive of what a bullshitter you are since if you take say the last couple days as a random sample, you'd find that the majority of my posts were far shorter than yours is which kind of makes you sound foolish. Perhaps a secondary reason might be a lack of comprehension tires you out prematurely. Understandable... For your lacking information, I'm fully capable of making my posts be exactly the length I want them to be, ie, long, medium or short. No problem for me only for you. Also, I further advise you to speak for yourself as when you speak for others, you amplify your wrongs. I think you may be the perfect person to use your AI. I think it would be very suitable for you. Myself, I prefer the realism of my own well spoken words thankyou very much.
Yeah but at least my cost basis in this stock is zero. Vplm paid for my trip to TN last year! Cheers 🥂
I survived. Also i’ve been in this stock for 18 months and my cost basis is zero. How bout you?
Sadly, to inform you that there was a suffocation event. He won't be getting back to you. Condolences
Let me be clear. Vplm is a farce. It's an eminence front, for a share selling scheme. Many know that. The patents are just the vehicle they used to fuel this ripoff. They are of course, real patents but being a real patent, in no way shape or form implies value, need or real world beneficial use. The patents are useless and have PROVEN themselves, ever since their creation near 20 yrs ago, to be worthless. In fact they are the definition of worthlessness. Things of real value can always be put onto the appropriate market and be able to sell for what they might be worth, in a reasonable amount of time. The Vplm patents are well know by the industry, to be useless and that's why no one has ever bought, licensed or settled despite the otherwise humongous cloud of darkness that hangs over them, that is, IF they were actually guilty......of triple infringement damages potentially in the billions. Anyone with 9/10ths of their brains tied behind their back, know that they.......and their are many many of them out there (emu said all voip service provider are infringers) would be risking their entire companies unless they knew the patents to be bogus. For years the self appointed true longs (I am far longer than 90% of them) have tried to promulgated the dumb excuse that the big dogs would be able to easily knock Vplm out of the box by running them dry....... BUT.... BUT.... BUT.... guess what?....... Vplm, being the fiat share printing jokers they are, have proved them wrong beyond any shadow of doubt. And so that FURTHER exemplifies how much they, the alleged infringers, ought to be shaking in their boots and making deals to avoid the incoming bombs with their names attached. And their are MANY! Not just the 50 or 60 that Vplm named (and then, removed the list, lolol.) But there are many more than that. I once counted a hundred, yrs ago. They could not POSSIBLY ALL be that stupid. And everyone knows that but cannit/will nor admit it.
Yeah, hold your breath on that one and see what happens. Get back to me when they get financial judgements that are in-line with the "billions and billions of ongoing" infringements that the CEO has spoken about. If not then it's a complete failure and confirmation that the patents aren't worth near as claimed.
But you continue to respond to them though. The FACT of the matter is that VPLM hasn't received a single dime in any financial judgement and there is no indication at this point that they ever will which only confirms that the patents aren't worth near the "billions and billions" as claimed by the CEO. Prove me wrong. Results matter and VPLM has been just one big ole goose egg. Hey what happened to that for sure thing Amazon settlement? LMAO!!
I think that he just likes to preach the TRUTH!
I forgot to mention.....if it's "the only explanation"......... what a fertile and open mind you have
Allow me to show you what a poor judge of character you are. I am not paid (unless you count how much Vplm paid me) nor am I a basher. In my view, a "basher" would refer to someone who puts the company down, just for the sake of doing so. That's not me. I believe in every word I've said and can back them up or support them (except for the lies that I've said things I never said and there are a few bullies like that here. They will feed you with lies they can never back up and if you don't challenge them to, and just believe, you support your own fantasies).
I'll add.....if you offer words of support and are fully pro vplm....and you consider that is normal and good, then why would any opposing view not be equally normal and good? Can you answer that. Also, what is your opinion on the name callers? And why do you think they do it? Don't shy away now. Answer the questions.
Newbies? I have seen no newbies.
There have only been those making excuses and those pointing out how silly the excuses are....well, and there's you....if you got paid by the word, you'd have made a fortune already.
You may be one of the only posters I've ever seen on IHUB that annoy both basher and pumper alike.
Run your posts through an AI reader and it will be condensed for you. Probably come out as....
"Duhhh".
I read everything and yet, can't make it down to the bottom of one of your posts.
Want some good reading?........ ESPECIALLY NEWBIES! Go back to the beginning of the acquisition PRs and read this board. Many amazements to be found within. But most of all, what you can read is all the self proclaimed, elite, "trueongs"... EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM....predicted every single aspect of what would happen along the journey. THEY WERE WRONG......BLATANTLY WRONG.......on every single count!!! Don't take my word for it. It's ALL THERE in the HISTORY... On thother hand......Ive been right all along...Its a great read but very very long.
I invested in vplm approx 13 yrs ago cuz I believed in the up and coming voice over internet protocol and Vplm was a voip service provider (or at least they were faking so). The price then was 2 cents. 13 years later, look at the progress. Wow.
We came... We waited.... and waited..... and waited...... and waited.......and waited...... We never SAW! and never will.......except the big mean green fiat share printing and selling machine, personal insider ATM. We SEEEE that every day!
I have not done that. You speaketh with forked tongue... I'd love it if you would explain how I have cursed my investment. Do you actually believe my honest commentary and Vplm sentiment is going to drive the price down? Regardless, I won't sell for less than 50 cents and in my opiniom, that will never happen. Maybe you think my comments have kept the price from reaching that mark? Lolol
Your snake comment is further folly. I made good money on Vplm many yrs ago and then, after realizing what a rip it is, vowed to never buy any more of their stock which I haven't. So how could I be swallowed up? Try making sense
VPLM will come out on top! You wait and see. GO $VPLM
Buddy.. why do you curse your investment? Maybe it’s the snake sizing you up??
Blah blah blah...... We've waited. We see...
Yes, it was tough losing "EMAIL", but they brought in Text, Telegraph for the calls and Mr. Morse Code is overseeing... Not a big dealio and VPLM is fine!
Great call on your part! Bet SELL! Buy @ $.14, sell @ $.014? Gett'n RICH!!!
Hang on. I’ll answer your question in a sec, but first I gotta shake off this lion that’s been chasing me for 3 days through the jungle. Brb
Really...? What's your timeline on that happening? 10 more years? How much longer do some people need to live out of their yugo??
VPLM will come out on top! You wait and see! Go $VPLM!!
The fact that Email no longer has investor calls is a sure sign of failure!
Yeah kind of like that for sure Amazon settlement huh that was guaranteed to happen last fall? LOL!!
And VPLM is preying on you!!
WhatEVER mr Squirrel..... Another nice story... How does it apply to me? How does it apply to anyone? How come you back so soon after claiming to be gone for a long time? Is it something I said? How come you never explained "intentions"? How come you never explained what the correlation was/is? Why must you be so cryptic? The question is........what are YOUR intentions? What's the point of your posts if no one understands? Please excuse all my questions I've got an inquiring mind. Anyway, you really should explain the silver connection and if you dont or can't, why should you not just be considered a desperate pumper dumper?
You got some 'splainin to do, Ricky...
NYT perhaps he is speaking of manipulation around the silver deal because it was exactly that
A lady had a pet snake that she loved very much. The snake was about 7 ft long and one day it just stopped eating. After several weeks of trying everything the lady still couldn't get the snake to eat. The woman took the snake to the vet and explained her situation. The vet replies "I see ..has your snake been sleeping with you at night or snuggling real close and stretching himself out?" The woman said "Yes. Everyday and it makes me so sad that I can't help him feel better." The vet says to the lady "Ma'am your snake is not sick. It has been preparing to eat you. He's been sizing you up everyday so he knows how big he has to be. He's not eating so he has enough room to digest you.
Moral of the Story:
Recognize the snakes around you. Everyone’s intentions aren’t pure. Just cause they seem close to you, doesn't mean their intentions aren't to devour you.
Some ppl aren’t PRAYING for you they’re PREYING on you!!
That whole 2026 thing reminds me of:
Quick, someone start some more rumors/speculation about an imminent positive surprise before the stock goes below .014. Where is Deerballs when you need him we are running out of buyers. the prophet
I think atltraderken's story was totally contrived ahead of time to sound like it makes some kind of cryptic sense but in reality, it was a pretty good pump try......and especially the way he abruptly ducked out after his half ass explanation and how he wouldn't directly answer some of my questions. And that whole "state your intentions" bit was bizarre. I also believe he most likely is sending as many newbies, DumbBell style, as he can to read his fake out and some will almost undoubtedly buy on it and there might even be a slight spike. Notice I point blank asked him several times about the correlation and he totally sidestepped that question. The reverse number thingy was nothing more than attempted believability within the whole story but I think that had a backward effect. It was stupid sounding. Another failed stock broker it appears, lol. They prolly bunk in the car.
The only way anyone is gonna believe that bunk is if he comes back out of his self imposed hideout and tells EXACTLY what the silver short squeeze correlation IS and how it would have any effect on Vplm........or.........if the price shoot way way up in a week...........or..............if you are a dumb newbie who doesn't have a mind of your own and buys big time on it. I don't think any will happen. I think he was sent by his buddy lord emu of eGipped and is currently laughing his ass off. I put his deal in the same category as the Dr Gil story. But NOTHING WILL EVER BEAT THE LOW DOWN LOWLIFE BULLSHIT STORIES THAT CHANG PRd FOR YEARS ABOUT WHAT VPLM WAS GOING TO DO. THE FACT THAT THE FCC DIDN'T PUT HIM IN THE POKEY FOR IT, TELLS ME HOW RELIABLE THE FCC IS (isn't)
Certainly not enough to sell 100’s of millions of shares, that’s for sure.
the whole "silver - VP" being relative is absolute horse sh!t, total freaking non-sense. Might've been better to say the next moon/mars mission and vp have something going on.
THEY WILL MOVE TO 2025 IMO.THIS IS TOAST IN THE MAKING.
I have these on the calendar. Lets hope these don't get postponed.
- Verizon pre-trial conference set for 7/9/2024, jury selection set for 8/19/2024, Trial set for 8/19/2024
- T-Mobile trial date set for 11/4/2024
- Huawei pre-trial conference set for 5/19/2025, mediation deadline set for 2/20/2025, trial date set for 5/27/2025
Define volume. Not here to argue but throwing around generalities that there is “no volume” doesn’t jive with what’s happening every day. When insiders continue dumping their shares up to 10% of daily volume suggests the remaining 90% of of daily volume has to come from somewhere other than insiders, no?
Now if you’re referring to the magnitude of daily volume, I agree with you. We’re not going set the world on fire & see share prices rise to any magnitude at the current trading. IMO, we need positive & verifiable court action to get this thing moving up.
Emil has gotten way, way too many friends with private funding to reverse the stock. Especially with all the insider selling. It would present a major issue on multiple levels IMHO
It would be like, Hey, thanks for years of holding restricted shares, and funding these lawsuits, now I’m going to reverse split, after years and years of hyperbole on the billions of damages owe to VPLM…….Doubt that’ll happen.
Yeah, I don’t believe that would go over too well, especially with the attorneys that have been receiving shares. IMHO
There aren't any buyers. If there were then this wouldn't be a .015 per share stock. LMAO!!
LOL!! This is awesome. On the CMKX board, a poster tried to tie in the Irani dinar to the stock. Worked for a while as people on IHUB will believe anything. Just pick something that is going up in value right now, silver (copper would have been a better fake tie in though), and claim this is proof that a nuisance lawsuit company will somehow profit from it. Unless Barbara is buying silver in her own outside account? That seems feasible....doesn't help anyone here though.
Perhaps lawsuits will be paid in silver?? Geez, the idiocy never stops.
You do realize you admitting to having conversations directly with the CEO implies you've been provided with non public information, right? You've even stated Emil told you stuff that Rich did not. Well done. Emil Break that Chinese Wall! (are we allowed to say that still?) LOL..just looked it up. They actually changed the term to "Ethical Wall"....freakin' PCers!
BTW, while on the phone with him, did you ask him why he claims to have NEVER sold a share of stock, but allows his wife to do so daily? Does he think this keeps his promise? Since you like to thank the sellers daily....did you ask him to thank Barbara for her contributions?
Did he thank you for helping to provide him with this lovely view?
BTW, I'm curious....did you go down with the ship? You quit posting after 5 months there...
When I compare this legal battle to others that have similar fights, I can see that there's a big difference and I think and hope that we are pleasantly surprised real soon.Also , I do not see a reverse split coming because of the outstanding shares. I think when money start flowing it not going to stop.
First of all, why is Emil speaking to you on an “regular basis, or any other shareholders? He could or should be speaking to shareholders through a company conference call. We haven’t had one since 2016 or so. Why is he telling you information others aren’t receiving? You want to talk about loose lips!!
And for the record, I’ve know Rich for over twelve years, involving a number of stocks. He’s an honorable man and far from a liar. Maybe he misspoke or was mistaken in a statement or opinion. But, far from a liar.
You like to speak in riddles. Is it that you know of some large investors in silver and that are waiting to cash out and roll it over into VPLM? What else is the correlation between silver and VPLM? Just a thought?
IMHO
Yeah, well if you’re getting your words of encouragement, enthusiasm and hyperbole from Emil, it’s laughable. This was supposed to be over by the end of February. No wait, now it’s six to eight weeks. No, no wait, it’s an additional six to eight more weeks! For the love of mercy, eventually if one keeps saying it’s coming, it’s coming, hey maybe one day it will. LMAO.
Therefore, unless you’ve been told some inside information, you’re just running your mouth like you think you’re some type of stock guru. IMHO
But, I hope you know something I don’t know.
My opinion, we’re headed to trial hopefully in August.
How about the tax implications on these transactions?
Followers
|
463
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
24
|
Posts (Total)
|
133606
|
Created
|
06/16/10
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators Sheepdog GreenBackClub Russ777 Spyke37 |
11810 NE 34th Street
Bellevue, WA 98005
Estimated Market Cap $27,166,417 As of November 05, 2021
Authorized Shares 3,000,000,000 As of October 18, 2021
Outstanding Shares 1,951,330,092 As of Feburary 28, 2019
Outstanding Shares 1,731,447,863 As of October 18, 2021
(Shares outstanding dropped by 219mm++)******
Float 831,342,791 As of September 23, 2021
Revenues: $0 to date.
Voip-Pal's intellectual property value is derived from ten (10) issued USPTO patents including five parent patents, one of which is foundational and the others which build upon the former.
The five (5) core patents are:
1.) Routing, Billing & Rating ("RBR");
2.) Lawful Intercept;
3.) Enhanced E-911;
4.) Mobile Gateway; and
5.) Uninterrupted Transmission
The Voip-Pal inventions described in the ten-patent portfolio provide the means to integrate VoIP services with any of the Telco systems to create a seamless service using either legacy telephone numbers of IP addresses, and enhance the performance and value of VoIP implementations worldwide.
The Voip-Pal patented technology provides Universal numbering ubiquity; network value as defined by Metcalfe; the imperative of interconnect, termination, and recompense for delivery of calls by other networks; regulatory compliance in regulated markets; interconnection of VoIP networks to mobile and fixed networks; and maintenance of uninterrupted VoIP calls across fixed, mobile, and WiFi networks.
While there are several popular VoIP implementations, VoIP is utilized in many other lesser-known places and by practically every modern telephony system vendor, network supplier, and retail and wholesale carrier.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13148084&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13146397&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13146353&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13145009&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13144993&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13110545&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13110507&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099496&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099423&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099381&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING! COMPANY CONTINUES TO RAISE AS AND OS WITH NO REVENUES IN SIGHT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VPLM'S CASE DISMISSED BUT WILL BE APPEALED.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/VPLM/news/Voip-Palcom-Reports-Decision-in-the-Alice-101-Motion?id=222536
https://www.scribd.com/document/403267736/VOIP-PAL-Obviousness-Ruling
BELLEVUE, Wash., April 16, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) announced that at a meeting of the Board of Directors on April 15, 2019, the Directors of Voip-Pal unanimously rejected a formal offer from Dr. Gil Amelio and his associates to take over management of the Company. Part of the offer provided options to purchase only the stock owned by Voip-Pal’s CEO, Emil Malak. Fully exercised, the options would have paid Mr. Malak approximately $150 million for his shares of Voip-Pal stock.
Voip-Pal’s Board of Directors including CEO, Emil Malak, carefully considered the offer but unanimously voted to reject this proposal; however, the Company is open to further discussions with Dr Amelio. Voip-Pal is actively pursuing the sale of all of Voip-Pal’s shares, on behalf of the more than 4500 shareholders, not just the shares owned by Mr. Malak.
Dr. Amelio has held prominent positions with various technology companies, including serving as the CEO and Chairman of Apple Computer, (1996-1997), President, CEO and Chairman of National Semiconductor, and President of Rockwell Communication Systems. He has also served on the board of directors of several companies including Apple, (1994-1996), AT&T, (1995-2013) and Interdigital. He received a Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, and Ph.D. in physics from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Amelio has been awarded 16 patents and a 17th is pending.
Renowned patent and IP expert, William Sweet is one of Dr. Amelio’s associates on this proposal. According to Dr. Gil Amelio, Mr. Sweet and his team have conducted extensive research on Voip-Pal’s patent portfolio.
Emil Malak, Voip-Pal CEO, “We have great respect for Dr. Gil Amelio and his team and we are very pleased to know they see such value in our patents or they would not have tendered this offer. We are currently focused on our legal appeal to the recent Alice 101 decision as well as finalizing our strategy to move forward in Europe. In the meantime we are working diligently to add to our patent portfolio with patent continuation applications. Patience is a virtue.”
About Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB:VPLM) headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The Company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Corporate Website: www.voip-pal.com
IR inquiries: IR@voip-pal.com
IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600
“Courts should never be tasked with dealing with the complexities of patent validity because they lack the necessary technical expertise.”
I am Emil Malak, CEO of VoIP-Pal.com Inc., and a named inventor on two U.S. patents–Mobile Gateway: US 8,630,234& Electrostatic Desalinization and Water Purification: US 8,016,993. To date, our company owns 22 issued and or allowed patents, which we developed over the past 15 years. Against all odds, we have been 100% successful in defending eight Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs): four from Apple, three from AT&T, and one from Unified Patents. We are presently in litigation against Apple, Verizon, AT&T, Twitter and Amazon.
My experience with Voip-Pal has made it painfully clear that the deck has been stacked against companies who own IP being used without license by large tech companies. The America Invents Act (AIA), orchestrated by Silicon Valley, was designed to destroy the very ladder they climbed to ascend to their lofty perch, and make certain that they could not be challenged.
Owning a patent used to be the dream of every small inventor in America. For more than 200 years, the intellectual property rights of American inventors—both big and small—were protected by patent laws that encouraged innovation and risk-taking for the promise of reaping financial rewards for their inventions. That all changed in 2011 with the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which has since caused irreparable harm to the United States’ patent system and has stacked the deck against the little guy in favor of the Silicon Valley and other giants. Post grant reviews of issued patents existed prior to the AIA, but the AIA, through the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Inter Partes Review (IPR) created a post grant review process hostile towards patent owners. The lack of oversight, appointment of judges with apparent conflicts of interest, and allowing unlimited challenges to a single patent regardless of standing are just a few of the changes that placed a heavy hand on the scales of justice weighing in favor of Silicon Valley.
At the time, members of Congress said they were enacting legislation that would strengthen and streamline patent protection law, passing it by overwhelming majorities of 71% in the House and 95% in the Senate. However, eight years after its passage, the evidence clearly shows they have crippled the patent system.
This was never about streamlining the patent system—in fact, it has had the opposite effect. Instead of going into court to adjudicate an infringement case based upon the merits of the granted claims, the process is all about stalling, obfuscating, and forcing small companies to burn through their capital fighting a system that has been paid for by Silicon Valley. The AIA provided the legal mechanism for the Silicon Valley and others to destroy small companies and inventors, drain their limited resources and drive them out of business.
Small patent owners often engage in the futile effort of attempting to license their patents. Discussions with big tech companies are mostly fruitless and usually prove to be nothing more than a delay tactic by the infringer. The inventor is then forced to turn to the courts for enforcement and sues the unlicensed user of the technology. A lawsuit by the patent owner will usually trigger the IPR process. More often than not, the infringer will succeed in revoking all or part of the asserted patent. Even if the infringer fails in their efforts to cancel the patent, they will have succeeded in stalling as much as 18 months, costing the inventor precious capital, and knocking many out of business.
Courts should never be tasked with dealing with the complexities of patent validity because they lack the necessary technical expertise. Patent validity issues such as sections 101, 102, 103, indefiniteness, and all other technical matters should be decided prior to a patent being issued by technically qualified examiners at the USPTO, not by the court. Once issued, a patent should only be challengeable at the USPTO, and only for a predetermined period, i.e. six months. The courts should only decide matters of infringement and damages.
No aspects of patent law should ever be subjective. Congress can fix the inconsistencies between the USPTO and the courts and put them on the same page by passing laws that clearly define patent validity guidelines, i.e. what is abstract. Life in the 21st century is dependent on computers. Consequently, many software-centric patents adding new inventive steps are being developed, only to be labeled abstract by the courts and invalidated. The lack of uniformity is responsible for nullifying valuable patents and strengthening the chokehold the Silicon Valley has on the necks of small inventors. Courts should only deal with infringement and damages based solely on clearly these defined guidelines.
Director Iancu has a very tough job ahead. He inherited a broken system, heavily biased against the little guy. Since taking the reins he has made positive changes and has shown his commitment to leveling the playing field for all inventors. He recently published revised 101 guidelines for his department that he hopes will lead to changes in how the Federal Circuit views eligibility under 101. To date, the courts have refused to apply the USPTO’s guidelines.
The current rigged system is killing innovation in the United States. In this time of special prosecutors, it is appropriate for one to be appointed to investigate exactly how we got here. There are many questions that need to be answered:
After spending the last 15 years dealing with patent issues, my advice to inventors and small companies is to not waste their time and money spinning their wheels in the current patent system. It takes too many years and often millions of dollars to secure a patent, only to have it taken away by a hostile IPR process. The USPTO has the most technically competent examiners in the world. These highly qualified experts in their field work diligently to issue quality patents, only to have their work erased by the PTAB and the courts. Despite their efforts, the value of the patents they carefully issue is often worth less than toilet paper. The AIA has reduced once valuable patent ownership into a fraudulent representation of what it used to signify.
While the Silicon Valley conspires to steal intellectual property and stifle innovation, supported by the PTAB and the court system, China’s Shenzhen is emerging as a technical powerhouse; with plans to install 7,000 new 5G base stations this year alone. If the Silicon Valley continues their suppression of technological innovation, they will be displaced by Shenzhen as the hi-tech leaders of the world.
If the United States is to lead the world again in patent protection and innovation, the AIA must first be repealed and replaced with a set of laws that protect innovators and offers them the opportunity to profit from their inventions. The patent issuance process should be streamlined. It currently takes many years to issue a single patent, often followed by several years and potentially millions of dollars in post-grant defense costs. Reduce the issue time to one year and allow a six-month post-issue period for any challenges, which should all be handled by technical experts at the USPTO. The USPTO can fund these changes by increasing patent filing and issue fees. It is preferable for an inventor to spend $30,000 in fees for a patent’s issue within a reasonable amount of time than to get stuck in a process that takes years for issuance followed by more years and millions of dollars to defend.
Is Silicon Valley attempting to turn us into a corporatocracy through massive political contributions and their influence over policy making? Have they become too big and too controlling? Does the AIA rise to the level of fostering antitrust and anti-competitive practices described in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890)? Did its passage by Congress and its eventual implementation violate any antitrust or anti-competitive laws? Was the AIA a collaboration between paid politicians, the Silicon Valley and the USPTO to stifle competition? Only a special prosecutor can answer these questions.
Some have made the case that the AIA has all the ingredients of antitrust. It has undoubtedly given the upper hand to the infringers and makes it nearly impossible for the small inventor to monetize their inventions and intellectual property. One thing is certain; if the AIA had been in place 40 years ago, the world would never have known Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell or Mark Zuckerberg. The tech giants of the time, IBM and Texas Instruments, would have used the PTAB to eliminate them in the same way Apple and Google do today.
It’s time to take a serious look at breaking up monopolistic corporations like Facebook, Google and Amazon. Facebook and Google, especially, control the flow of information in the United States and worldwide. They are restricting the free flow of ideas, news and opinions, and manipulate search engine and newsfeed results for their own purposes. With some obvious exceptions like child pornography, sex trafficking, drugs and harmful scams, they should not be the arbiters that decide which information people receive. They have to cease in being a political platform. Information should flow freely without going through a corporation’s biased filters.
Recently, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and Silicon Valley investor and former mentor to Mark Zuckerberg, Roger McNamee, have publicly called for the breakup of Facebook. In addition to Facebook, McNamee is also calling for the breakup of Google and Amazon, which he says have all undermined democracy, violated user privacy and gained monopoly power. The transformation of the U.S. patent system over the past decade is evidence of the harm caused when companies like these are allowed to monopolize their industries. These powerful providers of information have become “governments in waiting.” Capitalism only thrives when the rules encourage innovation and competition.
I am not making accusations. I am only hoping that we can dig deep and get to the bottom of what happened that caused the radical transformation of American patent law and injured so many inventors and stakeholders. We need the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate these matters. Every day I wake up and work diligently to move Voip-Pal forward towards monetization. We are no stranger to the landmines which have been laid by the AIA, but we will keep battling until we succeed. As long as I am breathing, I will continue to fight for each of the more than 4,600 shareholders I represent. America will always be the greatest country for freedom and justice in the world.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Photo by iqoncept
ID: 10088061
Emil Malak is the largest single shareholder of Voip-Pal.com, Inc., a publicly traded company where he serves as a Director and Chief Executive Officer. He has spent the last 16 years overseeing the development of the company’s intellectual property comprised of more than twenty telecommunications patents in the United States and several international patents in Europe, India, Canada and Indonesia. In addition to his work as Voip-Pal’s CEO, Mr. Malak has spent the last 7 years involved with a medical research team of doctors, serving as the chairman of the board of Thorne BioMed Ltd. They are currently conducting cancer research in Germany where they are committed to pursuing a possible reduction to cancer metastasis.
For more information or to contact Emil, please visit his company profile page.
www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/05/28/1851157/0/en/Voip-Pal-com-Announces-the-Patent-Trial-and-Appeal-Board-Rejected-Apple-s-Request-for-Rehearing.html
BELLEVUE, Washington, May 28, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is pleased to provide an update on its current legal activities:
Recently, Voip-Pal CEO, Emil Malak authored an op-ed on the current status of the United States patent system. In his article, Mr. Malak calls for revamping the current patent system and praises the efforts of USPTO Director Andrei Iancu, who Mr. Malak believes is determined to correct the problems at the USPTO to better protect inventors and encourage innovation.
The op-ed was published on IPWatchdog.com. IPWatchdog.com has been recognized by their peers as “one of the leading sources for news, information, analysis and commentary in the patent and innovation industries”. The article can be viewed on IPWatchdog.com or at the Company’s website www.voip-pal.com
CEO, Emil Malak, stated, “We are very pleased with the PTAB’s decision to deny Apple’s request for a rehearing. For the second time in recent months three senior PTAB judges have sided with Voip-Pal. They have confirmed the two challenged patents on their merits and rejected Apple’s accusations and innuendo. Since we launched our first legal actions in 2016 our patents have been heavily challenged and we expect more challenges may come. We are very confident in the strength of our patents and we believe they will survive any challenges that may come our way based on their technical merits.”
“The current patent system favors the tech giants of Silicon Valley making it difficult for small companies to assert their patents against infringement. However, we are determined to see this through until the very end. The defendants, Apple, Verizon, AT&T, Twitter and Amazon are working together and will do whatever they can to drag this process out. We want everyone to know we are not going away. We will continue this fight until we reach a settlement, sell the Company or have our day in court. Eventually the defendants will have to deal with us and our patents will prevail. Patience is a virtue”
About Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The Company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Any forecast of future financial performance is a "forward looking statement" under securities laws. Such statements are included to allow potential investors the opportunity to understand management’s beliefs and opinions with respect to the future so that they may use such beliefs and opinions as one factor among many in evaluating an investment.
Corporate Website: www.voip-pal.com
IR inquiries: IR@voip-pal.com
IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600
THE PTAB IS FINALLY DONE!!! VPLM 8-0 VS Unified Patents, T and BIGGEST, LONGEST CHALLENGES OF ALL...aapl! aapl LOSES!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OS HAS DROPPED TO 1.75B. CEOS
BUYOUT OFFER, EMIL WAS OFFERED $150m.
Voip-Pal’s Board of Directors Has Rejected a Formal Offer from Dr. Gil Amelio and Associates to Purchase CEO Emil Malak’s Shares and Take Over Control of the Company
VPLMs data shows they are out of cash, commonsense is VERY concerned over this. The last Q alone cost $974,427 in expenses and they have $390,025 left. Sell shares machine in full effect. They made a bunch off that initial Pump and Dump cycle and burning through it since. But now, they can't get the price over $.03 really because the weight of the OS is too high, so millions more need to be dumped EVERY single month going forward.
*******WARNING ********
FALSE CLAIMS BEING MADE IN ORDER TO LOWER VPLM PPS
ALL LAWSUITS ARE MOVING FORWARD THROUGH
APPEAL OR OTHERWISE
EUROPEAN UNION IS UP NEXT, SHORTLY
VERY SIMPLE VPLM THEME:
VPLM HAS BEEN GRANTED 26 PATENTS IN THE U.S., THE E.U., INDIA, INDONESIA, BRAZIL AND CANADA!
VPLM WILL PROSECUTE THOSE PATENTS AND HAS GONE 8-0 IN PATENT CHALLENGES AT PTAB
VPLM HAS NEVER MADE A NEW LOW UNDER EMIL MALAK, ALTHOUGH VPLM HAS MADE THREE NEW HIGHS UNDER EMIL
NO QUESTION, VPLM IS VOLATILE; VPLM IS FIGHTING SOME OF THE LARGEST COMPANIES IN THE WORLD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING
RETAIL SHAREHOLDERS INTERESTS DIMINISHING AND SHARES HITTING THE FLOAT CONSISTENTLY WITH TONS OF STOCK ISSUED OVER PAST YEARS!
DEFINITION OF TOXIC IN THIS ARENA! ITS RIGHT THERE IN THE FILING!
REMEMBER, VPLMS IP MIGHT BE WORTH BILLIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Continued chaos about the patent eligibility of non-physical technological advancements imposes devastating costs on innovators and industry.” – InvestPic counsel, Bill Abrams
On May 15, SAP America, Inc. filed a respondent’s brief with the Supreme Court in InvestPic, LLC v. SAP America Inc., a case in which InvestPic’s patent claims covering systems and methods for performing statistical analyses of investment information were invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Petitioner InvestPic is asking the nation’s highest court to determine whether the “physical realm” test for patent eligibility under Section 101 that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied contravenes both the Patent Act and SCOTUS precedent. SAS’ brief contends in response that the mentions of “physical realm” are scant in the case record and that the present case provides a “textbook application” of Supreme Court precedent on claims involving mathematical equations.
InvestPic’s U.S. Patent No. 6349291, Method and System for Analysis, Display and Dissemination of Financial Information Using Resampled Statistical Methods claims a method that involves selecting a sample space, including an investment data sample, generating a distribution function using a re-sampled statistical method and a bias parameter that determines a degree of randomness in a resampling process, and generating a plot of the distribution function. SAP America filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ‘291 patent in the Northern District of Texas in 2016 and, in 2017, the district court declared the challenged claims invalid under Section 101 on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The Federal Circuit’s decision on appeal was first issued in May 2018, before the opinion was modified that August. In affirming the lower court’s invalidity findings, the CAFC panel of Circuit Judges Alan Lourie, Kathleen O’Malley and Richard Taranto noted that the appellate court may assume that claimed techniques are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant” yet may still be determined to be patent-ineligible subject matter:
“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.”
The Federal Circuit’s discussion of the non-physical aspects of InvestPic’s claimed invention mainly take place in the context of discussing other cases decided by the appellate court in which physical aspects of the claimed invention led to determinations that the invention was patent-eligible. In 2016’s McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., the challenged claims were directed to the display of lip synchronization and facial expressions of animated characters, which the court determined was physical, unlike InvestPic’s invention, which claimed no improved display mechanism. Likewise, in 2017’s Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, the claimed improvement was implemented in a physical tracking system. By contrast, the Federal Circuit held that InvestPic’s improvement in the selection and mathematical analysis of information followed by display of the results wasn’t an improvement in the physical realm despite the fact that some claims required databases or processors.
InvestPic’s petition contends that the Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement ignores the primacy of preemption avoidance in Section 101 jurisprudence stemming from Supreme Court case law. In 19th Century cases such as Le Roy v. Tatham (1852) and O’Reilly v. Morse (1853), the Supreme Court struck down patent claims that were overbroad in a way that would preempt future innovation. However, in 1981’s Diamond v. Diehr, the Court upheld claims involving a mathematical equation because only a specific application of the equation was claimed. The Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement is detached from Section 101 preemption jurisprudence, InvestPic argues, despite the fact that preemption concerns are at the center of the Alice patent eligibility test in which the “physical realm” requirement was applied.
InvestPic also contends that the Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement exists in conflict with Congressional allowance of patents on novel processes that are executed by computers. Section 101 of the U.S. patent law allows for the issue of a patent for a “new and useful process” and “process” as defined by 35 U.S.C. § 100(b) includes “a new use of a known process,” such as the ‘291 patent’s use of the known process of resampling in the new application for investment portfolio analysis. Changes to U.S. patent law under the 2011 America Invents Act didn’t amend the definition of “process” in Section 100 and the patent-eligibility of inventions that didn’t exist in the physical realm led to the proliferation of calculator patents in the 1970s and digital patents in the 1990s, the latter period including the “PageRank” algorithm granted to Google.
The application of Section 101 jurisprudence has led to major patent-eligibility concerns in valuable and rapidly growing tech sectors. InvestPic cites to data published in July 2016 by IPWatchdog Founder Gene Quinn, which showed extremely low allowance rates in certain tech sectors post-Alice, including a 1.3 percent allowance rate in Art Unit 3689, which covers financial data processing patent applications. InvestPic also cites an October 2018 guest post on PatentlyO penned by Santa Clara University Law School Professor Colleen Chien which showed that art units affected by Alice saw a rise in office actions that rejected applications on Section 101 grounds, from 25% of all rejections pre-Alice up to 75% after the Alice decision.
The lack of predictability in patent-eligibility matters has led the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to release revised guidance on Section 101 eligibility this January. InvestPic cites this updated guidance as a result of the “crisis for invention posed by the lower courts’ [Section] 101 morass.” Petitioners also argue that the present case presents an ideal vehicle to restore consistency of the application of Section 101. Unlike the claims in Alice, the invention covered by the ‘291 patent claims is not a trivial coding project and the patent survived Section 102 anticipation and Section 103 obviousness challenges in reexamination proceedings at the USPTO, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and an appeal of those proceedings to the Federal Circuit, says InvestPic. Further, the ‘291 patent has been cited by more than 50 other issued patents, proving both the narrowness and non-preemptive nature of the patent claims.
In SAP America’s response brief, filed May 15, it argues that InvestPic overstates the application of the “physical realm” requirement, as the phrase only appears twice in the Federal Circuit’s decision. A “cursory look at the patent claims” defeats the physical realm argument, as they require physical elements such as databases and processors, which the Federal Circuit held to be generic computing components. SAP also argues that the decision is consistent with 80 years of Supreme Court precedent on the patent-ineligibility of mathematical expressions or formulas in cases such as Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America (1939), Gottschalk v. Benson(1972) and Parker v. Flook (1978).
Because InvestPic’s patent claims elements in the physical realm, SAP argues that the present case isn’t a suitable vehicle for deciding the issue of the Federal Circuit’s test. SAP also cites Federal Circuit decisions following InvestPic in which software patent claims have been upheld as eligible under Section 101, thus contradicting the notion that the appellate court has adopted such a test; these decisions include Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. and Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC (both 2018).
SAP further pushes back against InvestPic’s contention that an intra-circuit split on the application of Aliceexists. InvestPic had cited cases such as DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.(2014) and Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (2015) to argue that some Federal Circuit panels held that the absence of preemption conferred patent-eligibility, while others held that preemption was only relevant as a factor. “To be sure, some of these decisions discuss preemption in greater depth,” SAP argues, but none of the cases expressly held what InvestPic contended. While InvestPic’s claims survived Section 102 and Section 103 challenges in other proceedings, SAP notes that Section 101 statutory subject matter is a different matter than Section 102 novelty, noting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012) expressly refused patent-eligibility inquiries outside of Section 101.
Bill Abrams of Foster Pepper PLLC’s Intellectual Property Group and Counsel of Record for InvestPic in its appeal to the Supreme Court, sent the following comments to IPWatchdog:
“InvestPic v. SAP Americainvolves perhaps the most important issue in patent law today—what it means for an idea to be ‘abstract.’ Are software and other computer-implemented inventions ‘abstract’ and, therefore, ineligible for patenting? The answer dramatically impacts patent law and innovation across our modern, digital economy….
“Despite the Supreme Court’s preemption test to determine if an invention is an ineligible abstract idea, the Federal Circuit, in InvestPic and other cases, evaluated the physicality or tangibility of inventive ideas, rather than if the claimed invention would preempt basic fields of technology. This competing understanding of what constitutes an ‘abstract idea’ has resulted in irreconcilable decisions by different Federal Circuit panels. The ensuing uncertainty has made it nearly impossible to predict what inventions are eligible for patent protection. Such uncertainty damages the predictability of the incentive structure that is so central to the United States’ innovation landscape.
“This is why 18 amici, in seven separate briefs, have urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and hear this case. The amici recognize the “physical realm” test’s potential to gut patent protection in some of the highest-growth sectors of our economy….
“Continued chaos about the patent-eligibility of non-physical technological advancements imposes devastating costs on innovators and industry. Review and intervention by the Supreme Court would bring much-needed clarity and stability to this vital question of law affecting digital innovations at the heart of our modern economy.”
In the meantime, the coming weekshould provide an indication of whether or not Congress will get to the matter first.
Steve Brachmann is a freelance journalist located in Buffalo, New York. He has worked professionally as a freelancer for more than a decade. He writes about technology and innovation. His work has been published by The Buffalo News, The Hamburg Sun, USAToday.com, Chron.com, Motley Fool and OpenLettersMonthly.com. Steve also provides website copy and documents for various business clients and is available for research projects and freelance work.
Tags:CAFC, Capitol Hill, Congress, Federal Circuit, innovation, intellectual property, InvestPic LLC, McRo v. Bandai Namco Games America, patent, patent eligibility, patent eligible, Patent Reform, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, PTAB, SAP America v. InvestPic, SCOTUS, US Supreme Court
Posted In:Capitol Hill, Courts, Federal Circuit, Government, Inventors Information, IP News, IPWatchdog Articles, Litigation, Patents, Technology & Innovation, US Supreme Court, USPTO
GOVERNMENTAL/LEGISLATIVE TIDE TURNING IN
VPLM'S FAVOR?
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |