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.
So, says the voice of doom, lol
Absotively, posilutely and oh so obviously, the insiders have been and keep on selling their shares like there's no tomorrow because they know and have know that the crap patents and the story that creates the drive, is just about spent at this point, having worn itself down to near nothing, esp considering news now drives the price down instead of up.... And so they sense the end is nigh thus sell all they can as fast as they can. Pretty simple and obvious. If any of them knew or believed, for a nano second, that the horizon is bright, it would simply be stupid to sell like that instead of waiting a few days weeks or month's for the price to rise. Even a mere 1.5 cent rise would give them double their money compared to what they're getting. None of the other seen here "reasons" or excuses make a lick of sense. Gee, why aren't many or all of the followers of that so called leader, lord emu of eGipped, selling THEIR shares as fast as they can ALSO????? DUH
Sure does. They have no legal ramifications directly from any shareholders.
The release says that they are advisors to the Board. I am pretty sure that is meaningful distinction.
Carnac just read your sweet rebuttal and said “May a camel chip float in your martini”.
I believe the release said they are advisors to the board, not additional board members.
Yes, and half the volume is from insiders selling and buyers only show up when the pps trades in the .015s . Lets hope the buyers are from a company that will ultimately buy us out. the prophet
Haha the petrified prophet lol and he says people are saying why buy? Lol when 130,000,000+ that's million shares have been steady and consistently buying up .016 for 3+ months I'd say that's conviction to want in. Hahaha
Hayday,, you should talk, you and your Carnac bullshit, you can kiss my arse. I would be willing to bet I own more shares than you do now. I post how something impacts me, I don't post bullshit just because I think it is what people want to hear. HD, just like DB you post crap that gives investors false hope which is more detrimental than anything I could post. Take a hike, the prophet
Funny how you always show up with your Debbie Downer words every time vplm releases any broad based news. I have learned over the years that most of the venom spreaders on the hubs are not shareholders. When you create a story line that would make any investor turn away from a company just when new and positive news is announced, it’s pure proof of driven deception. Move your sorry ass to another stock hub.
V, it is not that simple. Insider selling at these levels creates a negative optic. People see the selling and say to themselves if insiders are selling there must not be any positive news coming so why buy. Further, these insider sales are being done indiscriminately ie at any price which indicates a certain desperation which does not embolden buyers. In addition, since their shares were purchased at .005 they can make good money selling at these paltry prices. Don't you think that individuals who purchased restricted shares at the same price would like to sell some to make a profit or rebuy additional restricted shares? And the reason they don't is because the company has made the process for unrestricting shares so meticulous and cumbersome that most people do not do it. As I have said before, Emil takes good care of his employees, shareholders not so much, the prophet
Let me add my Debbie Downer take on this mornings news release. First, after waiting months for some positive news from the company this is what we get? Given we have been in Waco for over a year I would have thought these individuals would have already been on board in helping us reach a settlement, particularly Mr. Leon. We have been given the impression that we have been in settlement talks for a long time now and yet we are just now adding Mr. Leon. This addition would seem to indicate that negotiations are now just starting and nothing is imminent as many here would like to believe. Lastly, with insider trading being a real concern for shareholders (one only look at the current share price) it would have been responsible and transparent had they included the compensation for these individuals. Are they now going to have to raise the shelf from 8 Billion to 10 Billion? Disappointed, Frustrated and Demoralized. the prophet
I’m a little confused on what your point is, regarding insider selling. Haven’t you figured it out yet?
What do you think they’re doing, selling on insider information regarding bad news? Do you really think they’re that stupid?
It maybe keeping the price down some but, meaningless otherwise.
IMHO
Hahaha what's forsure is that defendants are hiring trial lawyers and expensive consultants to confer before the confer ences time to turn up the pressure strategy a good offense is a good offense Lol have fun its another beautiful day
Quite a lot to mill here. I strongly suggest that you look up the difference between an Advisory Board and a Board of Directors. This may tell you why these additions were made in this manner. You seem to watch the internal stock plays a lot and let them determine your judgement calls. Very interesting, but still not a sure thing. Like my listening to Carnac.
I DO NOT SEE THIS POS GOING ANYWHERE THIS YEAR.DOWN SIDE AROUND .01S.UPSIDE TOPS .02.
News and Barbara
No idea what the addition of the 3 new board members means. May mean they are getting close to a deal with someone but I am not sure why you need these 3 for that. Maybe hire the negotiator as a consultant but not sure why you need him on the board, The other 2 might bring something but who know.
The one positive I will state here. Barbara filed to sell 12.7M shares on 12/1/23. They were supposed to be sold in 3 months. She is selling past the 3 month window. But she only had 653,642 additional shares on he 144 as of 3/8. That means if we get a form 4 from Barbara today it should not exceed 653K shares.
The potential good new is she has not filed another 144 as of today. She can't sell more shares until she files another 144. As of now that means she is not selling late last week and today. Waiting to see it she files something this week.
If she doesn't file it is good news for investors. Either she was forced not to sell after this 144 ended by the lawsuit that required she give back 50M shares or the trial is planned to move forward and a PR will be filed shortly regarding the trial date in Aug.
The thing that bothers me is that Clifton and Williams filed to sell shares Clifton for 15M shares to be sold beginning 2/20. Something inside me is telling me the courts told Emil/Barbara they could not sell additional shares after this 144 ended. It interesting that Cliftons 144 is for the same 15M shares that Barb normally sells. I will let people here come to their own conclusion regarding that coincidence. Clifton hasn't sold shares yet on the 144. Let's see if Clifton sales start as soon as Barbara stopped selling.
I am waiting a few weeks to see what will happen. If Barbara files a 144 and Clifton and Barbara sell 1.1M shares a week the share price is likely to fall further. Probably faster. If Barbara is done and replaced by Clifton there is no change in the situation. If neither are selling and Clifton filed thing there might be an event when he can sell at a much higher price we are good.
I see this as a big week. We will get form 4s from Barbara, Chang, Williams, and maybe Clifton. Let's see who is selling and who is not.
I am a conspiracy theorist. I think Barbara is done. If not she would have a 144 filed in early Mar. I expect Clifton Sales of shares start the day Barbara's ended. If that is the situation you can draw your conclusion as to what happened. I expect a form 4 from Barb for the final 650K shares on the 144 from early Dec today and no additional 144 filed. I don't know but speculate the settlement was to return 50M shares and stop selling. I expect that Clifton will sell shares from here forward at a pace of 1.1M shares a week. Hope Clifton doesn't sell. The 144 was on 2/20 and no sales yet.
The other big thing is the trial date. If the board changes and Barbara not filing a 144 is a positive you will see no form 4 from Clifton and a PR issued in the weeks to come announcing the trail date in Aug. I hope this is the situation.
There are at least 3 of us on this board that have seen a CEO that lies that cost us a ton of money. I hope to god that is the situation now.
If the selling dries up and the trial date in Aug is announced I would anticipate the share price increasing into the trial. I would still set the odds of the trial at 50% after the announcement. If we get to May and the date has not moves I would increase the odds of the trial or settlement at 70%, June no movement to 80%, and if we are in July and the date has not moved I think the trial is 90%+, likely it stays in Aug. My price targets for the shares are $.02-$.03 on announcement, $.03-$.06 in May, $.04-$.08 in June, and up to $.05-$.10 in July. There will be a lot of speculation of a settlement again.
But I will worry about that after a PR from the company. Until they announce the PR my expectation of an Aug trial is more like 10-20%, and that is just based on the court documents filed.
But hey, this is the first potential positive I have seen for a while. Maybe something is starting to happen. I am going to watch carefully in the near term. Next few weeks should tell us a lot.
Positives:
New board members,
No 144 from Barbara
No selling yet from Clifton yet.
Issuance of a ton of shares to insiders in Jan. Could be a sign they wanted to get additional shares in employees hands cheap prior to announcements.
The negatives,
144 filing from Clifton
Continued selling by Chang
Williams 144 filing last week to sell 3.65M more shares.
Fingers crossed.
Does anyone know why we are putting three more men on the board? Is this a little late in our journey to be doing this? Unless we are actively/currently engaging in a buyout with one of these companies. Please speculate.
MORE SHARES TO GIVE TO THE 3 NEW GUYS=MORE DILUTION.THEY HAVE ZERO OF ANYTHING TO ANNOUNCE.THEY ARE PUMPING GARBAGE TO GET SOME BUYERS.THIS POS IS NOT EVEN FOR FLIPPING ANYMORE.PUT A FORK IN THIS B4TCH.
We were told that there was a for certain announcement about a settlement with Amazon coming and nothing happened. Par for the course with VPLM which has been a complete bust. Not even the almighty(??) Hudnell has been able to help and he has produced zero financial judgements.
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.
There's nothing to be thankful for.
This is lord emu of eGipped bringing 3 more pals in, in a futile attempt to get the pps pumped and for them to become the latest insider beneficiaries of the big mean green share printing/selling machine/insider ATM. Don't expect stock to do much. It's just more monkey wrenches that will help extend the misery another 4 to 5 yrs. Watch and see... 3 more nothing burgers. Just more laffs for the alleged infringers. Millions upon millions have been spent on the patents so that they can in turn provide the big "STORY" that allows Vplm to keep creating more fiat shares that they then sell for income. Meanwhile the retails are played like a fiddle and strummed like a banjo. Standby for all the incoming accolades about the news. Same thing been going on for 2 decades..
VPLM News--- WACO, Texas, March 18, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is pleased to announce three new advisory appointments. Clay Perreault, Austin McDonald, and Ray Leon have been appointed as special advisors to the Board of Directors. Mr. Perreault will serve as Technical Consultant, Mr. McDonald as Business Advisor, and Mr. Leon as Mediation and Settlement Advisor. Each of them have very successful track records in their specific areas of expertise and long histories of collaborating with VoIP-Pal.
Clay Perreault is the founder and Ex-President of Digifonica (International) Limited of Gibraltar and the founder and Chairman of SinoCan Telecommunications Technology Co Ltd, China. He has an extensive background in telecommunications, software development, wireless infrastructure, and web-based technologies. He is also the first named inventor on many of VoIP-Pal’s patents including the RBR ‘815, RBR Messaging ‘005 and the RBR continuation ‘606 patents which have been asserted in previous patent infringement lawsuits. Mr. Perreault will be the chief advisor to the Company on all technical and patent related matters.
Austin McDonald has more than 36 years of international business experience throughout the EU, USA, and Asia. His expertise spans all facets of business expansion including development, management, and oversight. He is also a named inventor on several issued and pending U.S. and international patents. Austin is a past Adjunct Professor at Stevens Institute of Technology, NJ. While his career has been dedicated to working in the pharmaceutical industry, Mr. McDonald brings to VoIP-Pal his decades of overall management experience and business acumen.
Ray Leon has an MBA from Harvard Business School and an engineering degree from Villanova University. He is a former engineer for GE and IBM, has founded and or cofounded multiple successful startup companies, and has extensive business mediation and arbitration experience. Mr. Leon has been certified as a Circuit Civil mediator with the Florida Supreme Court, a staff mediator for the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) in Washington, DC, and a certified arbitrator for FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority). Mr. Leon will be assuming an important role for VoIP-Pal in its discussions and negotiations with potential buyers of its technology as an advisor to the Board of Directors on such matters.
VoIP-Pal CEO, Emil Malak said, “We are very pleased to have Clay Perreault, Austin McDonald, and Ray Leon join our team at this important time in the Company’s history. I have known them for a long time and have great admiration and respect for them all. We look forward to working closely with them as we march down what we hope is the final stretch towards monetization of our technology. Patience is a virtue.”
About VoIP-Pal.com Inc.VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Waco, TX. 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. While the Company believes in the circumstances that legal action is needed to monetize its patents, patent litigation involves various risks and uncertainties that could affect its ability to monetize the patents. We recognize that it is impossible to predict the specific outcomes of litigation.
www.voip-pal.comIR@voip-pal.com
Corporate Website: IR inquiries: IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600
THERE IS NO EXCITEMENT.THUS IT IS DOWN 87% FROM ITS HIGHS.A YEAR AGO.I SEE A LOT OF BAILOLOGY.INSIDERS BAILING WHILE THEY STILL CAN.
If it looks like a lost cause and quacks like a lost cause....and keeps on doing so for a dozen yrs or so, well.....you finger it out...or guess.
$.01575 This week? Sure LOTS of excitement out there; lots and lots AND LOTS... Wonder what it might be? Luck a the Irish to us!
Keep Selling....the Buyers Thank You!!!
THE STOCK HAS NO REASON TO MOVE ANYTIME SOON.OTHER THAN MOVING LOWER.INSIDER SELLING CONTINUES.DAILY.
BUYERS GET TRAPPED FOR THE NEXT 10 MORE YEARS???LOOKS THAT WAY.IMO.
Hay Day I like the positive vibe you show on this chat board for VPLM.I do believe as several of us do here in this group that there is an old friend to the company & Emil onboard again so expect some accumulation.
In our opinion.
Have fun making money!
Eludes? Lol...excellent Freudian slip, as that's exactly what vplm and the emu from eGipped has always done and will continue to do. Perfect word choice!
Too funny
Been waiting over 10 years for Emil and vplm to “Get em”. Your short statement eludes to the possibility that finally some real action is taking place that may create the positive outcome we have long been waiting for. Hoping for the best with a timeline that allows me a few more years to enjoy it.
If some can’t take reality, I’d suggest selling if you don’t have the guts to wait this out! Hopefully, this’ll be over by 2024! IMHO
ANOTHER 10 YEARS OF NOTHING OTHER THAN INSIDERS SELLING.PUT A FORK IN THIS POS
Apparently, 04/04/24, was a typo by clerk. T-Mobile set for November 4th!! Hopefully, it won’t matter! INHO
Apparently, T-Mobile is in November.
So says the voice of doom lol the prophet
And your reasoning is…..?
Look for 2025, IMHO
Agreed, too early for a pretrial for it to be in April.
Mistake or not, something is afoot. Hold on to your hats.
Must be a mistake, I would go with the November date.
What’s this, now I’m seeing T-Mobile now reset for April 4th???
It says, Set Hearings 03/15/24 5:43 pm…..ORDER RESETTING JURY TRIAL for 04/04/24 9:00 AM. ….Which date is correct? April 4th or November 4th?
Possibly a typo?
IMHO
Gee, is it possible that the rumors of the Amazon 606 trial being announced soon was now being secured in the date opened up by this T-Mobile schedule change? We shall see.
VPLM VWAP=$.0158 VOLUME=636k Bid-side 9x
3/14 VWAP=$.0159 VOLUME=831k Bid-side 6x
3/13. VPLM VWAP=$.016+ VOLUME=1.3-mm Bid-side 2x minus
All smiles for me.... :) :) :) :) :) INDEED!
New trial date set for T-Mobile, November 4th 9:00 am. So much for both needing to be held simultaneously.
Apparently, the Vplm company peeps do not believe in any way shape or form, in utter contrast to what the fug dwelling pumpers keep saying.
I don't know how one cannot conclude that the Vplm company guys, who eagerly and gladly sell like going outta style, shares for little more than one and a half cents. They swear they don't know anything.......but I find that as disingenuous as it gets. Not only is the womb of Vplm become barren to shareholders, who no longer even have any kind of spread to work with, but as such, what can they get anymore at their blue light special sales? What....a quarter cent maybe at best, if that?
soggy toast
HERE IS THE BIG NEWS
LMAOOOO.BOLD.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 144
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SALE OF SECURITIES
PURSUANT TO RULE 144 UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
FORM 144
144: Filer Information
Filer CIK
0001934737
Filer CCC
XXXXXXXX
Is this a LIVE or TEST Filing? LIVE TEST
Submission Contact Information
Name
Phone
E-Mail Address
144: Issuer Information
Name of Issuer
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
SEC File Number
000-55613
Address of Issuer
7215 Bosque Blvd, Ste 102
Waco
TEXAS
76710
Phone
9544954600
Name of Person for Whose Account the Securities are To Be Sold
WILLIAMS KEVIN BRYAN
See the definition of "person" in paragraph (a) of Rule 144. Information is to be given not only as to the person for whose account the securities are to be sold but also as to all other persons included in that definition. In addition, information shall be given as to sales by all persons whose sales are required by paragraph (e) of Rule 144 to be aggregated with sales for the account of the person filing this notice.
Relationship to Issuer
Director
144: Securities Information
Title of the Class of Securities To Be Sold Name and Address of the Broker Number of Shares or Other Units To Be Sold Aggregate Market Value Number of Shares or Other Units Outstanding Approximate Date of Sale Name the Securities Exchange
Common
Wilson-Davis & Co
236 So. Main Street
Salt Lake City UT 84101
3648649 60202.00 698692 03/04/2024
otcqb
Furnish the following information with respect to the acquisition of the securities to be sold and with respect to the payment of all or any part of the purchase price or other consideration therefor:
144: Securities To Be Sold
Title of the Class Date you Acquired Nature of Acquisition Transaction Name of Person from Whom Acquired Is this a Gift? Date Donor Acquired Amount of Securities Acquired Date of Payment Nature of Payment *
Common 04/23/2021 options for prfessional service issuer voip-pal.com,inc. 3648649 04/23/2021 cashless
* If the securities were purchased and full payment therefor was not made in cash at the time of purchase, explain in the table or in a note thereto the nature of the consideration given. If the consideration consisted of any note or other obligation, or if payment was made in installments describe the arrangement and state when the note or other obligation was discharged in full or the last installment paid.
Furnish the following information as to all securities of the issuer sold during the past 3 months by the person for whose account the securities are to be sold.
144: Securities Sold During The Past 3 Months
Name and Address of Seller Title of Securities Sold Date of Sale Amount of Securities Sold Gross Proceeds
Kevin Bryan Williams
3933 Clayton Rd. W
Fort Worth TX 76116 Common 01/09/2024 1127281 20767.62
144: Remarks and Signature
Remarks
Date of Notice
03/15/2024
ATTENTION:
The person for whose account the securities to which this notice relates are to be sold hereby represents by signing this notice that he does not know any material adverse information in regard to the current and prospective operations of the Issuer of the securities to be sold which has not been publicly disclosed. If such person has adopted a written trading plan or given trading instructions to satisfy Rule 10b5-1 under the Exchange Act, by signing the form and indicating the date that the plan was adopted or the instruction given, that person makes such representation as of the plan adoption or instruction date.
Where's all the big news that we keep being promised? LMAO!!
Followers
|
463
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
29
|
Posts (Total)
|
133611
|
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: |