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.
I will not post anything for the next number of weeks/monthes. I will let things develop as I said they will....good luck to all longs....mays the mm"s get thier ASS handed to them....things are going to get interested very soon.....keep selling....the buyers say thank you....
Hmmmmm.....how do I know this isn't some shrewd pump on your part, especially considering how deeply entrenched the "boy who cried wolf syndrome" is with vplm and getting that pps to budge anymore.........hmmmmmmm..
Oh yes, the Hunt bros. I remember now. It was a huge deal, their trial if I recall. And seems like that may have had something to do with your earlier remark regards govt involvement with silver. I know that dollars are long ago not backed by govt silver. But I know that's nothing to do with what your reference to govt was. I'm thinking it has something to do with that 44 yr old hunt bros debacle. I've also been wracking my gray matter as to the correlation to vplm. The only thing I can think of is something to do with electronics, which silver is used in some cases but gold is more widely used even tho silver is a better conductor, but Vplm doesn't manufacture anything. So I'm forced to think that it has something to do with switches and relays which are employed in the use of voip use devices, thru some mind of non partnered correlation but one that would activate if......only IF......vplm was victorious in some infringement case and the correlation might be how such a win might stimulate the use of the patented technology......BUT........as I write that I realize I've just ventured so far out on a stretched limb, I've already fallen. No matter as I like to write. Guess I'll move on to your next post. Maybe the pulling of teeth has lessened a bit there with some added hint...?
Get ready for some fun....I could be wrong...and it might take til the end of next week....but its here!!
Mr Squirrel, reading this post, I wish I knew what the correlation is.. I have no clue. Vplm doesn't manufacture anything in terms of silver so what could the correlation be? If you have some reason to not want to divulge the correlation (here we go again..), then could at least explain why you wouldn't want to divulge that info. Maybe you're a bit shy about not wanting to affect the pps 1 way or the other...? I believe someone with your background could indeed have an effect, especially if that correlation is a rock solid one. Ok, it's hint time again!
Hunt brothers....1980
Notice how 26.25 on silver is acting as support tonight....tested it 3x...has cracked yet....
Why would anyone listen to or believe in what Richie Rich "inYA pockets" Inza has to say when he just is supposed to say what he's told and obviously always try to make Vplm smell like roses regardless of truth? Plus always has worked only for tiny loser pennystocks that never make money I'm told? I've posted about his loose lips numerous times. I recall when the bosses had to shut him up because he was going too far with BS. And I'd love to hear what you think of Chang..
And don't they (mms) have to make market when there's all those shares out there?
Ok well I was gonna still ask what's the connection to vplm however I think I do recall you mentioning it was a commodity, but I totally, duh, missing the correlation between silver and Vplm. Did you mention what that is? Should I go back to read your original post about it? Havent had the chance to yet. I remember many years ago, can't recall those brothers names who majorly destroyed the silver market. I'm sure you are well versed on that. I just recall the big news event. Back then I think silver was far cheaper, no? Those 2 bros are on the tip of my tongue....are they still in jail? Seems like that was like 25 or 30 yrs ago? It's killing me what does silver have to do with vplm price? I know you mentioned a big short squeeze but I still don't get it. What did I miss?
I wasn't ready to disclose my number, 26.25, until we got above it. We have retested it already tonight....presently trading @ 26.30 in silver. I truly believe this will be a BIG MOVE in VPLM. patience is a virtue.....now nyt let me tell you this, I spoke to Rich 3x a week from fall of 2020 til Nov of 2022. I caught him in a lie and he would not take my calls any longer
Since then I have talked to Emil on a regular basis. I have learned Rich had loose lips...Emil keeps his cards close to his chest.....all my analysis is non news driven...if we get some prs that is a bonus
...keep selling....the buyers thank you...
Does the mm buying count into the listed volume?
If you are referring to my setting the price of 50 cent in order for me to sell, I beg to differ. Remember, not being a stock analyst, my reasons are gonna be different than yours. Doesn't mean it's stupid, rather my way of seeing it is all. I mean look.... even tho I'm somewhat technically minded, not in stock charting or analysis. I work in electronics. Admittedly, even tho there's technically no cost basis because of the total money I recouped and added when I wised up and quit listening to the self appointed elite "true longs" re: not letting go of any shares, in the final analysis but I did originally get in for 2 cents and it went to 8 cents before I stopped buying buying and more buying. But that doesn't matter. I simply decided after I came out to be in the black in perpetuity (so long as I stuck to my vow to never buy vplm again), that for all my trouble and time, I deserved 50 cents or write it off, because I don't want to become geeked out to stock technical analysis. I prolly could if I applied myself but I don't want to go there. I just want my 50 cent or it's wallpaper. If that's stupid, ok, I can be stupid. Like you, I can never be in the red with vplm. And truth be told, I took a fixed amount of money, a few grand, when I decided to try to take advantage of the crash opportunity back in 08, 09 and I picked a few big boards and the rest these crazy cheapo pennystocks, which except for what I was able to do with vplm, the other 10 or 15 of them were the usual duds. But the thing is, I never once went into the red with the starting cash amount to this day and I cannot because I stopped because I'm better at pushing buttons on the msg board than risking my money on pennystocks in the otc. I feel like. It's not all that difficult to make quick cash in these pink or near pinks but that just shows you how stock dumb I'd be if I pursued. Even the chicken of the sea guy, orca would prolly agree it's not that easy even WITH tech analysis of stocks acumen.
Haven't read your other post yet.. I'm just a high school dropout. I have no experience in the market or trading other than what I've picked up since I saw opportunity in the 2008/9 crash simply based on common sense. Getting back to the post number I gave you you didn't reply as to whether you were able to see it or not so I don't know if your decision to explain your deal was because you did find the post, showing I did what I said and what you asked for (although you still haven't to my knowledge, explained what you meant by showing my intention) or if you simply decided to quit being so cryptic for some other reason. Regardless, if you couldn't locate the post and if you still want to see it (it was posted a couple hours before the date changed to 4/1), I can retrieve it or copy/paste it. I was not able to see it in the regular posts list and if you also couldn't there's a reason for it but it's hard to explain. I found it in a different ihub Vplm folder.
So anyway, I'll bet you might feel better just having explained yourself. Even tho I've obviously learned at least a few minor things about trading, I don't really have the head for it and if dd gets too technical it gives me a headache. I excel in common sense and psychology.
Your story about silver, while I get a sliver of it, mostly escapes me. I loosely thought silver prices were somewhat up and pretty stable for years now but I don't follow. I did have some occasion to very recently check the spot price for some reason I can't recall and I think it was fairly close to that price you just quoted and I do have a very loose understanding of what a short squeeze is, but honestly, that's as far as I am in comprehending how your story works in any cohesive way. I just don't see the correlation but I take your word for it, that there is. Maybe if I read your post a couple more times, I might begin to understand. For now, it sounds like a somewhat convoluted stretch to me and my intuitiveness tells me nothing will become of it. However that's mostly because of my diametrically opposed view of Vplm compared to anyone who is pro vplm and not because I don't believe your view of this has no merit. I'm sure it does considering the background you laid out as having. I should note at this point that I didn't really wish to be rude to you but your secretiveness about it left me with...well, let's just put it this way...you have to admit I fleshed you out, lol. And I truly did find your posts as sounding phony and I wouldn't mind knowing what exactly drove your need to be so cryptic. It doesn't sound like you had to divulge any kind of hidden secrets, did you? I apologize for my devils advocate method of dealing. I especially find amusing the need to reverse the pps number, lol. You might get a kick in knowing that for shits and giggles I did a search on that reversed number, as it might correlate to stocks in general and what came was that exact number, in fact a price today for some Japanese concrete pipe company. It was something like TVO or some similar. I scratched my head for a 3 second before I told myself no way there's any Vplm correlation here.
I realize that the scenario you laid out re Vplm price rise, may indeed happen to some degree from a sort of sideways effect, but my whole thing about Vplm is that the patents are not even close to being what vplm brass cracked them up to be so many years ago now. I got in before any acquisition talks or anything about patents. Vplm has told many lies about it from the git and I've been able to connect many dots in that regard. I don't believe the Vplm ship will ever come in........ BUT.......I also am in the strange position of hoping as much as anyone that I'm dead wrong (I'm not) because after all, even tho I also have technically no cost basis for the shares I hold for so long, still, it would be very nice to be able to cash in at 50 cents or more at which time I'd happily admit I was wrong but I truly can't see that happening and I'd just as soon use the shares for toilet paper oe wallpaper before selling for less than the 50 cents I've asked for for many years.
So there you have it and I'm glad you didn't get too offended by me. I hope your right and won't hold my breath, lol.
He sure looks quite deft compared to you based on your daft post.
they don't need to sell any shares to cover the cost. they just subtract the cost in shares from the shares being warranted. I think I saw it one of the recent form 4 or 10qs.
How exactly can he do so if there’s no volume to sell his shares. Not as easy to do with pennies IMHO
I maybe wrong.
Oh, and by the way NYT, putting a random number to sell a stock is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard of...you must learn and understand Technical Analysis. It tells you where to sell!!
Keep Selling...THE BUYERS THANK YOU!!
Post 129001, I said there is a correlation between vplm and a certain commodity. I said the number 5262 is important...forward backward or whatever. Let the squirrel give you some background on me. I have been a professional trader since 1994. I was on NYSE floor in 19981999. I was a market maker on NASD and other in the 2000's. Been an independent trader since then.
NOW THE FED IS IN A PRECARIOUS POSITION. Silver is the commodity i talk about. There has been a correlation between silver and vplm since 2011, 13 years. THE LINE IN THE FOR THE SHORTS IN THE SILVER MARKET IS 5262 BACKWARDS OR $26.25, WHICH WAS TAKEN OUT A FEW MINUTES AGO. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SHORT SQUEEZE IN SILVER AND IF THE 13 YEAR CORROLATION HOLDS VPLM WILL RALLY. IT MIGHT TAKE A FEW DAYS TO WEEK TO DEVELOP, BUT I AM POSITIONED TO PRACTICE WHAT I PREACH....I WILL NOT GIVE PRICE PROJECTIONS, THAT UP TO YOU!! KEEP SELLING....THE BUYERS THANK YOU....SAYS THE SQUIRREL...MY OPINION ONLY
Hey secret squirrel, gave you a post number hours ago so now you disappear, lol.
You’re correct Butter. No need for cash out of pocket when exercising warrants or option on equity positions. The cash needed can be taken from the sales of some shares when exercising the position.
I have done it many times in my past with equity positions I held. Purchased hundreds of thousands of shares over the years without putting up a single penny out of my pocket.
Are you trying to show how much all of Emil's shares are worth using a value of $.005? If so, you need to multiply, not divide, by .005. Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to show. Not trying to be snarky, just curious.
While I'm waiting for you to let me know if you can see the post number I gave you, I must say this 5262 business is yet more ridiculousness on your part. I think you are living vicariously thru Carnac the Magnificent. It's downright silliness. You tell ppl to learn from it and know it inside out and upside down, blah blah blah. Dude....its just a 4 digit number. There's no way for anyone to attach any significance to it. It's no a dare. It's meaningless and yet you tell ppl to learn it. And you have the nerve to call my facts and pertinent words as mumbo jumbo. That's what you are.....a bag full of mumbo jumbo. If you had inside info, that would be illegal. If it's not inside info, then it would be available to any and all, but you have this childish bent to be all mysterious and cryptic about it. That's a very well known red flag for you got NOTHING aside from game playing. If you have good news of some kind, and want the pps to rise, why in the world would you be so secretive and put on this act like you know something others don't?
Also, I've taken note that every singke question and request I've made of you, you have dodged. I asked you to reply about several specific things and you ignored them all. Your a big phony. You just have a need to be seen as someone who has more and knows more than your fellow shareholders. You're as phony as the patents.....you know....the ones that Vplm swore were tested but no independent testing and no results ever published. Gee, wonder why?
Well, have you looked for that post number yet?
I think the others have been exercising warrants, subtracting the purchase value from the issued total.
Piease let me know if post #128984 is visible to you. If not I may be able to explain and get it for you.
I am looking for a MEANINGFUL AND TRADEABLE LOW sometime this week or next week....it all depends on the number 5262....not news driven....live and learn...be long or be wrong....my opinion only....KEEP SELLING....THE BUYERS THANK YOU!!!
OMG......you're actually too lazy to simply look at yesterday's posts (pretty sure it was yest, could been day b4, but I don't think so) after I told you it's there!! and you need me to post the number. Wow. Ok, I'll check to make sure it wasn't deleted or that it wasn't yest, but if it's there, and you truly want to see it, then for cryin out loud, GO LOOK. I'm sure I didn't make that many posts yest. How difficult can it be? You are sounding more and more like a phony with ea post. The irony here is that my association with vplm has zero bearing on anything so my guess is you're mental ocd or something and want to see my story so you can try to twist it into something it isn't. Haha, good luck with that. You've prolly been ripped off so many times, you don't know how to recognize an honest person or take what they've said at face value. Going now to see if my mentioned post is still there. Perhaps I was dreaming...
Food for thought…….How many shares would Emiil have, if he exercised all his options? Now divide them by $.005. Now, how much money would he need to purchase all these shares?
This may explain one reason why she is selling shares.
IMHO
"the naysayers are out in force trying to keep the buyers from taking new positions."
Boy is that dumb... It has never ever once occurred to me to try to stop buyers from taking new positions. Number 1, why on earth would I give a hoot who buys or sells what? FYI, I dont and I not some wannabe market manipulator. Number 2, anyone who decides to buy or sell stocks based on what ppl say on an otc msg board, well, they would deserve whatever such a dumb tactic befalls them. Number 3, in most cases, peeps don't base their buy sell decisions on the board banter. I have never once ever had the thought that anything I've said would cause any other stockholder or potential one, to make moves. In fact I have stated previously that it's wrong in my opinion, to tell anyone here to buy or sell any stocks. That should be one's personal decision ALWAYS! On the other hand......YOU MOST CERTAINLY ARE telling peeps to sell.
Please post the post number that you have made recently about your association and history with vplm stock and company.....remember 5262....read it....know it...forward, backwards, upside down and inside out....KEEP SELLING...THE BUYERS HELP YOU!!!
Explain what you mean by posting my true intentions. I really don't know what you're asking for? Intentions of what? That's an ambiguous request. As I told you, I've posted everything there is to know about my association with this stock, many times here on this board and as recently as yesterday. You either ignore that fact or you're asking for something I have no idea what. Also, I did not post a bunch of mumbo jumbo as you called it. I posted facts and truth. And I kept asking you to keep your focus on the issue at hand which was for you to provide some backup and timeline for your empty predictions.. I also told you that I had no interest in you bragging about your zillion of shares, money, friends, etc. I don't care and it's not pertinent. So now please explain WHAT PART OF THE THINGS I POSTED, specifically, are you labeling mumbo jumbo? I predict that in keeping with your quickly made apparent M.O., you'll again divert. I guarantee it. We both know you're full of shit let's see you worm your bailed last spring way out of it.
All you should now be addressing is what specifically did I post that you say is mumbo jumbo. And back up your empty predictions and provide a time-frame. You can't and you won't. Oh, I forgot... And you need to kindly explain what exactly you are referring to when you ask me "what are my intentions"? You sound like I've asked you to marry me or something... Never before has anyone here ever asked that question.
{{{{{{.KEEP SELLING.....THE BUYERS THANK YOU!!!}}}}}}THE INSIDERS THANKING THE BUYERS.
Nyt...as I said, I would as soon as you post you true intentions....after 3 posts of mumbo jumbo by you, you still haven't posted your true intentions!! So the challenge stands....post your true intentions and I will post my near-term timeline....I will give you a hint....5262....KEEP SELLING.....THE BUYERS THANK YOU!!!
And I forgot to close with this: your outlandish claims meant nothing to me to begin with. Not even part of the discussion of your initial claim/prediction and my response to that which was a challenge. It's so predictable and transparent that when ppl need to divert away from their hit and run postings which they are never specific and can never back up, that's when they start puffing up about how big and powerful they are as regards their trading. It's all bs to me and irrelevant. But if you bailed last spring, the Vplm numbers tell me your claims are hogwash a d on the exact same plane as trumps wealth claims that have now proven phony as a 3 dollar bill. Again I don't give a rats petoot about any of that stuff. All I ask/challenge is for you to backup your predictions with at least something and put a time frame on it. Short of that, a total waste of time. I'll offer a prediction with a time frame.... You won't.
{{{{{ I had heard that TMobile was interested in his posts so maybe that was the impetus for deleting.}}}}}WOW.REALLY???ARREST DB.HE PUT A TON OF PEOPLE IN THIS POS.AND ALMOST GOT ME TOO TO INVEST.HE WAS THE RIGHT HAND OF MALAKAS.I WONDER HOW MANY SHARES HE GOT FOR FREE.PROMOTING IT.HOW DID HE END UP WITH 11 MILLION FOR A GUY THAT LEAVES OUT OF HIS CAR??
Well we appear to have lost our number one fan/pumper. It appears that DB is no longer posting on Stocktwits. What makes it even more peculiar is that all his handles, PM's and posts have been deleted. The real question is did he do this on his own or was he forced to. I had heard that TMobile was interested in his posts so maybe that was the impetus for deleting. Regardless, it just won't be the same without a DB prediction even if they never come true. the prophet
Are you deft or something? Haven't you seen or heard me make it quite clear that I haven't sold any Vplm stock for quite a few yrs? I've revealed over and over here that I yrs ago I recouped my losses and made a good profit via day trading and then vowed to never buy any Vplm stock again. And Ive said a million times I wouldn't sell my stock for less than 50 cents. You're far too misinformed to have accomplished what you say, imho. I've been long for around 13 yrs. And haven't sold any since around 7 or 8 yrs ago. Duh
My true intentions?? That implies that I've been dishonest somehow or somewhere. I've never been dishonest here in 13/14 yrs. No need to. And if you'd been paying attention, I've not only openly shared how I started and got to now, many times including, if I'm not mistaken, I just gave someone the whole boring story yesterday with lots of details. So I guess you see only what you want to see. So that's that. Additionally, I predict you will not commit to any meaningful time frame at all. Because your full of too thinly sliced baloney and I ain't buyin it. The wise peeps here all know this is nothing but a shrewd stock selling scheme. I don't believe a word you said about your position and friends. It may or may not be true. It doesn't matter what I believe. That's irrelevant. All that matters is you to quit skirting the issue which if for you to give a realistic and reasonable time frame for what you predicted, that's all. If you don't wa T to or can't, I FULLY GET IT.
So, to be clear, you are saying that the share price is making the company stock go to zero, not the company's lack of anything? Are you blaming the cart and not the horse?
Do penny stocks not sell their (worthless) shells all the time? What happens to the short then? I admit I don't know since I never have shorted, but it seems to me if you never close out a holding, it stays unclosed forever and risk is infinite. I have no clue how margin interest is figured on a worthless stock.
This is all I found....
A short seller who doesn’t buy back the stock before bankruptcy may have to wait until the company is liquidated to take a profit but never has to pay back anyone.
When a stock that you short-sell goes bankrupt, it means your call has been vindicated. The only downside is that you may have to wait a bit longer to collect your winnings and potentially continue to accrue stock borrow financing costs until everything is sorted.
.
Per the IRS, I have to pay taxes if I short a stock to bankruptcy
Unreviewed ????
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p550.pdf
This is from page 55 and the key is the last part.
A short sale occurs when you agree to sell property you do not own (or own but do not wish to sell). You make this type of sale in two steps.
• You sell short. You borrow property and deliver it to a buyer.
• You close the sale.
At a later date, you either buy substantially identical property and deliver it to the lender or make delivery out of property you held at the time of the sale. Delivery of property borrowed from another lender does not satisfy this requirement. You do not realize gain or loss until delivery of property to close the short sale. You will have a capital gain or loss if the property used to close the short sale is a capital asset. The Instructions for Form 1099-B discuss when you should receive a Form 1099-B for short sales. For more information, see the Instructions for Form 1099-B.
Reporting a short sale. Report any short sale on Form 8949 in the year it closes. If a short sale closed in 2020 but you did not get a Form 1099-B for it because you entered into it before 2011, report it on a Form 8949 in Part I or Part II (whichever applies). In column (a), enter (for example) “100 sh. XYZ Co. — 2010 short sale closed.” Fill in the other columns according to their instructions. Report the short sale the same way if you received a 2020 Form 1099-B that does not show proceeds (sales price).
Exception if property becomes worthless. A different rule applies if the property sold short becomes substantially worthless. In that case, you must recognize gain as if the short sale were closed when the property became substantially worthless.
Nothing big is going to happen. My challenge stands. 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.
{{{{{Nyt....I forgot to close with.....KEEP SELLING THE BUYERS THANK YOU!!!}}}}}}I AM SURE THE INSIDERS THANK THE IDIOTS THAT KEEP BUYING THEIR SHARES.
{{{{{{My cost basis on an 8 figure position is zero, nil, nothing.....so if it goes to zero...I lose NOTHING!! BUT I DO PLAY FOR BIG BUCKS. I HAVE ABOUT 15 FRIENDS IN THIS STOCK AND WE COVERED OUR COST LAST SPRING!!! }}}}}}INTERESTING POST.SO YOU PLAY FOR BIG $$$ BUT YOU AND YOUR TEAM BAILED LAST SPRING.LOL.SO YOU GOT MORE THAN 10 MILLION SHARES.LET'S SEE IF YOU AND YOUR TEAM RIDE THIS POS DOWN TO ZERO.BECAUSE DO NOT EXPECT ANY UPSIDE LIKE BEFORE EVER AGAIN.THIS POS IS TOAST.
Nyt....I forgot to close with.....KEEP SELLING THE BUYERS THANK YOU!!!
Nyt...I will share my timeframe, if you share your true intentions.....I have been in this stock for 3.5 years trading it. My cost basis on an 8 figure position is zero, nil, nothing.....so if it goes to zero...I lose NOTHING!! BUT I DO PLAY FOR BIG BUCKS. I HAVE ABOUT 15 FRIENDS IN THIS STOCK AND WE COVERED OUR COST LAST SPRING!!! now share....and I will to.....
So, not a single person caught the April fools joke by ihub? Haha....bunch of dull knives in this drawer
Yeah, yeah, yeah.....lol......if I had a dollar for everytime we've heard that for the past 13 yrs, I might have enough to buy the suite.......except I know better than to waste my money on that. So, care to put a timeline on your prediction, Nostradumass (sorry couldn't resist)? Cmon now. A bold prediction like that deserves a time frame... I dare you to put a time frame on. Nah, you won't who am I kidding?
Apparently, none... doink
I have a feeling....
Something BIG is about to happen.....
Believe or not...
There is a correlation between a certain commodity and VPLM......
The time has come for the truth.....
The naysayers will be proven wrong....
KEEP SELLING......THE BUYERS THANK YOU!!!!
I wonder how many astute msg board goers caught the ihub April fools joke?
Followers
|
457
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
8
|
Posts (Total)
|
132124
|
Created
|
06/16/10
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators sunspotter 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: |