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.
Welcome to another day of nothing. And another week of nothing. And another month of nothing. Don't forget to generously donate to the lord emu go fund me page. They need your help desperately.
Exactly, especially when no one reads past the third sentence. Wasted energy with zero substance.
You devote more time and energy to this stock and this board than any other person by far and all for the purpose of continually bashing said stock? Do you have any positive thoughts at all on any subject?
The "process"... What a laff. The only thing that's been processed is the brains of the believers that the Vplm story is real.
1000 IPR so called "wins" would not make the patents any more valid that the day they were born. If you travel back to the days of the procecutions, all you hear about from the same ppl who now keep leaning on ipr wins, is how great and un-trumped by ANYONE for their thoroughess and high level of expertise. So all those 36 rulings (by known corrupt leader and judges, lololol) were and are to be expected and they did not strengthen the validity of the patents except in some peoples minds I guess. Any of those additional claims upheld are fine except they most likely do nothing and never will in my view. This is why none of the alleged infringers has never bought or settled or licensed. Would you, if you had the bucks, NOT buy the patents? And if not why not? Why would you wait for the infringement damages and other losses take you down? And why would you sit back and wait for any competitor to get froggy? You can't adequately answer those questions so don't even bother trying.
There it is.....exacy what I was talking about.... arrogant nerve whereby you think you possess the knowlege and ability to tell me I can't process. Same old insult you've tried to lay on countless ppl here, with your smarter than thou personality issue, to put it nicely. You've said the same thing so many times to so many ppl, can't even begin to put a number on it. It's THAT MANY! And if anyone doesn't believe that, all they have to do is check your history. On the contrary, I process quite well. I've taken 3 IQ test over my lifetime and while I won't quote any numbers, I will say that one of them mentions that my top ability lies in processing. To be honest, I really didn't even know exactly what they meant by that but I just find it ironic that you would say the opposite. No one else has ever said anything of the kind to me.
I understand the process you speak of totally, however I don't subscribe to it because, well because I've explained my whole overview of this company and if you understood that, you would understand that sometimes the normal process of things doesn't apply in some cases because the normal process assumes certain regularities which I happen to find are not present with vplm. It's the same thing that has often left your processed brain perplexed at the actions, inactions and mysteries shown by Vplm. So happens process doesn't always work. Often times non processed is better or more practical.
Vplm is unusual in several ways and the usual processes seen in patent cases ain't gonna fit it...
Big surprises, in my opinion, will rear their ugly heads regarding the patents and that's all I'll say here and now because I've delineated the entire alternate process as I see it, more than enough times. What I will say is that while the normal expected process has already brought many surprises, still, admittedly, there is a certain amount of the process you are thinking of, that IS indeed playing out and I have not denied or negated that at all. It just hasn't gone and will not go, the way you expect it (even tho I've seen you move the goalposts and switched teams several times over the years, unsurprisingly when the process doesn't fit your template).
What that means is there is a certain different kind of process going on which I called 5 yrs ago to last another 5 yrs or so and it is going strong. But it's not the legal system process you speak of. That system is awfully corrupt. It is the Vplm system that has been the boss ever since they did their great renege and became the poster child patent troll. The irony is the obvious patent troll is only part of the mirage. They are not a true patent troll. They just use that persona as part of the front. What they are is a very sophisticated and highly thought out, big, mean green, fiat share printing and selling machine that is very successful at it for years ever since the big lie around 2013 or so. When looked at in that perspective, all the dots connect and process, at least for me and a few others. I've seen this before and been through it before with a company named TIV.
You don't get away with a scheme/process like what vplm is, without making it look very real in some ways which are enough to pull the wool over enough eyes to get lots of new shareholders (years ago but not anymore) and sell lots of shares that came from the company and allowed the scheme to happen and grow. Lord Emu of eGipped has said and DONE so many things over the years that many recognized as nefarious and sneaky and disingenuous. And still lives up to that but he's probably planning on getting out soon, like Imelda and Ferdinand Marcos and Tammy Faye and Jim Bakker. They will likely flee the country.
So you see I can PROCESS with the best of them but it's just a different process I see in place. If you choose to believe in this farce, I won't put you down for it. Your entitled to your view. Some day it will play out and I hope I'm wrong, being a shareholder... but I've mentally written off those shares long ago so no sweat for me to use them for wallpaper if I dint ever see 50 cents. I call it the way I see it. Truthfully, I am usually found to be right in the end with my sometimes unorthodox views.
VVVVV…and not only 36 IPR wins but also came out of ex-party re-exam on RBR with many new claims, I think it was 8, which made the RBR patents stronger than before the re-exam. Talk about backfiring on the defendants. MG patent currently in re-exam and believe the same result is possible.
The more we know…
NYT, you just can’t process the importance of 36 IPR wins means. This is a “you”‘problem, not an “I” problem.
These infringers don’t have a leg to stand on in terms of patent validity. ZERO chance of proving this patent invalid! PERIOD
The best thing is to go to court and get the damages public and it’s off !
IMHO
I don't need to ask them anything. I also did not ask you anything even tho you posed your reply as tho I did. I did not. After seeing years of the attitude and arrongance you have taken with ANY and ALL here who did not agree with you or see things your way, I would never ask you anything, because of that years long observation. When I think of all the hundreds of times you've admonished ppl and DIRECTED, almost ORDERED them to go back and read what you had said previously about any number of subjects, as if, no, not as if but definitively as tho you considered yourself THE authority on the subject. You have told many posters off here who refused to accept your opinions and that is many many times. A perfect example is right here right now. I did not, as you stated, ask you any questions and in fact I did not even address you. What I DID do was present some clear cut facts and conclusions. I challenged anyone to show the facts were incorrect. I challenged anyone to dispute my facts and conclusions by showing any law, court or judge that has categorically said that IPR positive decisions were instrumental in a trial finding. That is the correct thing to look for. That is the ONLY way to determine if the positive ipr decisions are important to infringement trial outcomes. Very simple and indisputable is looking in that direction. Instead of dealing with those appropriate places to look (law, precedence, judge opinion) and acknowledging the critical thinking, you just dismiss in your cranky way, as you so often do.
At this juncture I was about to say that all above said, I would take a quick look at the cases you noted but on a 2nd look I noticed you said ask the defendants... Hate to break it to you but defendants do make the law, or precedence or the opinions of judges, not to mention the final judgment they make in a trial outcome. The fact of the matter is, as I noted in my previous post, people, litigants, whoever, may come to think that past ipr decisions (only when it's a positive outcome for patent owners) lend weight and validity to a given patent, but that is not what matters because they are not the ones to rule on trial outcome. If you can't see and acknowledge that, you're missing a big thing.
My challenge and one that makes light years more pragmatic sense than confering with trial defendants, was simply simply show where a judge has ruled on a case based on or at least based partly on, positive outcome ipr decisions. Arguing with that challenge is futile.
You may now go back to direction ppl what to think and to always make sure they better go back and read your infallible words on some given subject. Hundreds of times that's exactly what you have DIRECTED peeps to do as though your posts are the end all be all final word on the subject.
Afaic, anyone who finds fault with looking for case law or precedence or the opinion of patent law judges, is on the wrong track.
I don't need to ask them anything. I also did not ask you anything even tho you posed your reply as tho I did. I did not. After seeing years of the attitude and arrongance you have taken with ANY and ALL here who did not agree with you or see things your way, I would never ask you anything, because of that years long observation. When I think of all the hundreds of times you've admonished ppl and DIRECTED, almost ORDERED them to go back and read what you had said previously about any number of subjects, as if, no, not as if but definitively as tho you considered yourself THE authority on the subject. You have told many posters off here who refused to accept your opinions and that is many many times. A perfect example is right here right now. I did not, as you stated, ask you any questions and in fact I did not even address you. What I DID do was present some clear cut facts and conclusions. I challenged anyone to show the facts were incorrect. I challenged anyone to dispute my facts and conclusions by showing any law, court or judge that has categorically said that IPR positive decisions were instrumental in a trial finding. That is the correct thing to look for. That is the ONLY way to determine if the positive ipr decisions are important to infringement trial outcomes. Very simple and indisputable is looking in that direction. Instead of dealing with those appropriate places to look (law, precedence, judge opinion) and acknowledging the critical thinking, you just dismiss in your cranky way, as you so often do.
At this juncture I was about to say that all above said, I would take a quick look at the cases you noted but on a 2nd look I noticed you said ask the defendants... Hate to break it to you but defendants do make the law, or precedence or the opinions of judges, not to mention the final judgment they make in a trial outcome. The fact of the matter is, as I noted in my previous post, people, litigants, whoever, may come to think that past ipr decisions (only when it's a positive outcome for patent owners) lend weight and validity to a given patent, but that is not what matters because they are not the ones to rule on trial outcome. If you can't see and acknowledge that, you're missing a big thing.
My challenge and one that makes light years more pragmatic sense than confering with trial defendants, was simply simply show where a judge has ruled on a case based on or at least based partly on, positive outcome ipr decisions. Arguing with that challenge is futile.
You may now go back to direction ppl what to think and to always make sure they better go back and read your infallible words on some given subject. Hundreds of times that's exactly what you have DIRECTED peeps to do as though your posts are the end all be all final word on the subject.
Afaic, anyone who finds fault with looking for case law or precedence or the opinion of patent law judges, is on the wrong track.
NYT……you need to go ask the defendants in all cases versus ParkerVision, Virnetx and Netlist. I’ve answered your question, gave you examples and you just can’t seem to either admit it or process it. PERIOD! Checkmate
Eww this stock should be trading higher.
IMO
Big Tech lobbied tirelessly under the Obama admin to get the PTAB established. They argued it would “save time and money” for the judicial system, but the obvious intent was to weaken patents and drag out the litigation process for years.
It worked out just as Big Tech hoped it would and why wouldn’t any potential patent infringer use the PTAB and IPR challenges to gain an advantage.
Well said and articulated, V..
Either way, I still think that positive ipr outcomes for the patent owner do not add any more validity that the day the patent was born. Remember, any and all possible challenges should theoretically already been looked into by the examiner if he did his job fully. Each and every one of any possible challenges, should already be addressed in the patent itself because a challenger would presumably have to choose some attribute of the patent already written in to the patent.
Bottom line: as far as I'm concerned, unless and until someone can show me where a judge has ruled positive on an ipr challenge, in favor of the patent owner, based even partially on the fact of such "wins", then I maintain they add zero.
That said, it occurs to me that in the case of a jury decision, a jury presumably could vote however they want, regardless of case law or precedent......except I don't think ptab trials ever use a jury. I think they use one of those "corrupt" 3 judge tribunal panels, you know, likd the 3 seperate panels it took over a years for them to get the balls to finally come up with their ruling.....which, hahaha.....was the DIRECT RESULT OF THE WARNING BY TOM SAWYER THAT THEY BEST DO THE RIGHT THING OR FACE FEDERAL RICO CHARGES.
That's wrong imo. The question being begged by the challenger, would be to see if he can throw a challenge and see what sticks. I say that because a specific challenge to some claimed attribute of a patent is just that and seeks to invalidate on that basis, whereas the question of infringement is a whole other question. The 2 are mutually exclusive (if I said that correctly). In fact when you think about it, it soundsike such a challenge tried to remove itself from the infringement question. Maybe that's what you were saying and I missed it... In fact, the more I think about it, maybe that is what you meant, ie, the alleged infringer should know if they infringed or not and so if they know they did, then the only way to proceed is to try to invalidate. Is that what you're saying?
That's wrong imo. The question being begged by the challenger, would be to see if he can throw a challenge and see what sticks. I say that because a specific challenge to some claimed attribute of a patent is just that and seeks to invalidate on that basis, whereas the question of infringement is a whole other question. The 2 are mutually exclusive (if I said that correctly). In fact when you think about it, it soundsike such a challenge tried to remove itself from the infringement question. Maybe that's what you were saying and I missed it...
IPR "challenges" beg the question: Does the challenger think he is infringing on that if it is a valid claim? Why else challenge it?
Thanks for posting your ipr info however I was in no need for the ipr lesson. I already was very well versed on it because when the ipr challenges 1st began, years ago, I studied everything about it and the history. No one on this board, at the time, nor apparently on the bod, seemed to have ANY knowledge whatsoever about ptab or iprs. As far as I could see at the time, the initial iprs came as a complete surprise to most if not all here, including myself of course. But I did study up on it a great deal at the time.
I disagree with your assessment or interpretation regarding how a positive ipr ruling for a patent owner strengthens the patent. I think that's an opinion of yours that I don't believe you can back up with an legality. It is 100% true and factual that a patent is 100% valid at birth, by virtue of the rigors of the USPTO. It is also 100% true and a fact that no amount of ipr so called "wins" (which are not wins but are successful defense of. Nothing was won and you will notice that lord emu never refers to them as wins either), legally adds any attribute to the patent that it didn't already possess at birth.
That said, many ppl obviously view such positive ipr outcomes, as adding additional validity. There are clearly many on this board who wholeheartedly believe the patents are more valid than not, due to the many positive ipr outcomes. And I understand that but it's only an opinion held by those who think it. It's not actual or attached to any legal tenet. What's important is not what you or I or anyone else opines on the matter, rather what the law, courts and judges say about it.
So a couple years ago, I became tired of how no one seems to agree with me on this, so I decided to do some research on it. It's a simple question of whether there is case law or precedence shown by any judges, as to whether or not the law or judicial opinion lends any weight to positive ipr results for patent owners suing for infringement. I could find NONE! In fact the ONLY info I could uncover that related to it, was I believe a law firm take on it. I think I may have that article in my files but can't remember if the source is identified. I'd have to dig it up and look. Anyway, it basically states that no court or judges have given any opinion whatsoever on the question, one way or the other. And that, by default, would seem to imply that there is no case law about it. I tried to search for any judge in any case that used ipr positive outcomes for patent owner suing for infringement. I couldn't get any hits on it at all. It seemed to be a non issue. From that I concluded that the ONE AND ONLY purpose and action or effect of it, was in order for the defendants to win their challenge. It's a totally different ballgame when an ipr challenge is upheld because then the patent becomes invalid which is a true loss for the patent owner. But when it's a positive outcome for the patent owner, nothing is gained and nothing is lost. It's a wash and a successful defense which obviously is a good thing but does not add any weight or validity because solely of the assumption of validity that comes with patenthood and the fact that the highest authority of patents, the USPTO, has diligently already explored all the necessary avenues of scrutiny of the patent application via their deep prosecution.
So you or anyone can argue the point all you want, but unless the situ has changed since I looked into it, then I think I'm correct about it. As I already asked for.....if you can show me any opinions by judges that differs, I might have to modify my view. But for now, I think I've made a solid case for my view of the question.
NYT…..
The positives of winning any IPR PTAB challenges. IPR’s were originally created by the BIGS, as an alternative way for defendants in a patent case to knock out a patent and its patent claims before they even got to trial. IPR’s at the PTAB are filed to INVALIDATE a patent and its claims.
Conversely, if a plaintiff, aka, patent owner “VPLM”, successfully overcame any patent/claims challenge via the IPR review, the patent in challenge would become STRONGER, as the IPR challenge failed to undermine the integrity of the patent.
Winning (overcoming) IPR challenges only further strengthens a plaintiff’s position in trial court as they attempt to enforce their patent rights by providing the presumption of validity leaving the plaintiff with the sole task of proving the defendant has actually infringed.
OVERCOMING AN IPR CHALLENGE IS A MUST-DO STEP IN ENFORCING ANY PATENT RIGHTS!!!! Which was accomplished by Voip-PAL.COM, 36 times!
Oh, I almost forgot, how about having a successful ex parte reexamination, in the ‘606 patent case, originally filed by Twitter?
Therefore, here you go. Please refer to the court cases won by; Virnetx, ParkerVision and Netlist. Need I say more?
Can’t wait until August 19th.
IMHO
Fung…totally agree, Emil should never be talking directly to individual shareholders. Then have that shareholder run his mouth on a public forum like he knows information, no one else does. Not very good optics. IMHO
No wonder why Warren Buffett hasn’t been returning my calls.
Show me any patent cases where the judge, not a jury who might misunderstand the scope of an ipr positive outcome, states that his finding for a patent owner suing for infringement, based his decision on ipr "wins". If you can show me that in a clearcut way, I'll back off or modify my opinions on ipr outcomes/patent validity.
Begs to differ WHAT? Your 1 liner shows that you don't understand the legal nature of a positive ipr outcome. It is not a win of anything. It is simply the successful defense against someone's challenge to validity. And validity, as I have explained many times does NOT equate that a patent can actually do what it claims.......plus, as I just pointed out in previous post, the USPTO who is the agency that provides the validation of a patent, does not automatically require proof of that be provided nor is source code provided to them. There is the clear proof of my statements. Perhaps you need to delve somewhat deeper before making such a sweeping but shallow 1 line determination, as opposed to a set of circumstances that show the logic of a determination. Also, as of a few years ago, at the least (but the question may have been answered by now..), judges and courts have never decided whether or not positive ipr outcomes for a patent owner, is anything that sways a court one way or the other. In other words, unless you can show me where the court system and judges accept such ipr outcomes as evidence that it has any bearing on the question of infringement.
Vplm was not required to prove to USPTO the patents actually work as described. The rules do not require it. If they had an appropriate reason, the USPTO could have asked Vplm to prove it, via a working model or whatever means necessary to provide such proof. It is my understanding that normally, such proof is not asked for by the USPTO for software patents such as vplm's. So the question is...did the USPTO ask Vplm for such proof and was it supplied by Vplm. Again, such proof would come to the USPTO by way of some kind of suitable working model and not via source code.
So does anyone out there have any information as to whether or not Vplm was asked for and supplied such proof that the patents do what they profess to do? And since the patents are public info, would the USPTO be required to divulge receipt of such proof?
Since proof of workability is not required by the USPTO, I believe that is proof that while a patent is deemed valid the moment it becomes a patent, and that validity holds throughout the life of the patent unless and until someone challenges that validity and wins, that a patent may not work as claimed or at all. And so that fact validates what I've been saying forever about a patent's validity does in no way ensure it works as claimed or is necessary to voip or has any value.
I would suppose that if the USPTO did indeed ask Vplm to provide the proof, the results of the alleged 3 city nodal testing may have been adequate proof for the USPTO. I imagine that would depend on the entire testing process and the interpretation of the results. It's possible that the USPTO might not have accepted vplm's proprietary testing procedures. Is any of this public knowledge, thus available for inspection? Does anyone know one way of the other?
That is so hurtful; do your FOUR followers(after 10 years) agree? I'm truly hurt!
I'll get back to my lack of substance/surprises later; let's go this route first: YOU ARE INVESTED HERE, REALLY?????? You say nothing is going to happen, Emil has screwed this up, court dates will get postponed, yet you are INVESTED here AND I'M THE INSANE ONE!!!!? WOW! Does that make any sense? Well, I guess it is the FOMO daz!
Do you have any idea of what it is like for a tiny company like VPLM to fight the largest companies in the world, within a "legal system" which is totally corrupt? EMIL HAS FOUGHT AND FOUGHT AND FOUGHT, within that system AND CONTINUES ON!!!! Emil could have sold his position out(sold out shareholders) to Gil Amelio for $.18/share, or $HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS...EMIL DIDN'T! Emil fights on, you say he has screwed this up, YET YOU ARE STILL INVESTED AND I'M INSANE!!!!!!?????? It has to be the soy!
You say Rich is insane, talking with me... Rich has been here for a long time and does a great job, he believes in the Emil/VPLM team and is invested...seems consistent, as opposed to your position!
With so little coming directly out of VPLM, RIGHTFULLY SO, the board is one of the few forms of advertising/communicating with shareholders; I've done my best to help. So many here, supposedly invested, come here to whine about THEIR DECISIONS. Maybe when soy mixes with the water?
As to paid bashers...BULLSHIT! Who the F is going to pay them, FEW READ THEIR BULLSHIT! Paid pumpers? Bullshit again, but I've only been around the markets for fifty+ years, many as a broker...what might I know, AFTER ALL, I'M INSANE FOR INVESTING AND SUPPORTING A COMPANY I BELIEVE IN?!
NO SUBSTANCE? Substance? Guess that might be in the eye of the beholder. I was supportive @ $.0125 and called VPLM winning the first IPRs, in the months before the run to $.45. I could go on, but... Yes, I've been supportive!
NO SURPRISES? Why did VPLM run to $.11+? Was the amzn talks and ultimate settlement a surprise? Was to me and I would guess that might still come in to play.
Might the recent signing of a swinging meat board of advisors constitute "a surprise"? It was to me..and maybe it has been in the works for sometime? And, if Emil has screwed this up so badly, WHY WOULD THESE FOLKS SIGN ON???? I guess they might be insane, like me?
You bought in, you didn't sell @ $.20 plus...way back! $.05+++ last year? That's on you and no one else! BUUUUUUH-BYE..
I appreciate DB, or anyone, taking time to try to get any information as there isn't much out there. Frustrating ,for sure. I'm pleased that Emil has held out for the best deal as I'm sure it would've been easier to sell for less and avoid the lengthy delays. We've had small runs and an Amazon deal, which I found surprising. I get you don't have any faith, but some of us still do and want any info we can get.
Well, there’s no trial date set for Amazon. If they were negotiating and intending on acquiring VPLM, why would they now bring on these new attorneys? Oh yeah I get it, it to scare VPLM that they have every intention on taking this to trial. There’s no urgency to settle, as there’s no trial date. Therefore , they have to prepare for a trial. Who knows, things could easily change once we get to the August trial.
As perviously posted, keep an eye on the court documents. This is telling. Not just some prognosticators projecting like they know what’s happening. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to predict the closer we get to the trial, the possibility of a deal, is more likely.
IMHO
You made a few good points and I laughed over one.
We're getting closer and closer to the big day atltraderken promised. Can't wait... Anticipation...... is making me wait
It wasn't easy......for moronic ol me, but I think I managed to bring you more intelligence since you asked... So apparently, this msg board supposed to be for posting about the company at least that's what the tos says but no one pays any attention to rules anymore..... So I looked at around your last 10 posts. I forget how many of them are calling ppl morons but in any event, 10 in a row were personal attacks against other posters and zero about the company. THAT'S pretty INTELLIGENT, no? I also normally don't give stock buy/sell advice but in your case, I think you should sell everything you own (if anything) and buy as much Vplm shares as you can. Remember, very soon, Vplm is gonna explode! And I think you need to reap the benefits of that explosion.
So, instead of posting about the company, you just keep posting to those ppl whom you think are idiots. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY GENIUS!
GLTY
Something intelligent? Oh, ok. You claimed to be able to count the amount of posts you've made on your hands. You've made 277 posts or if you're just counting Vplm, over 200. My question is why do you have over 100 fingers on ea hand? That must do some real damage when you scratch your head...but I'm sure all that medical marijuana helps you with that. 11 yrs with vplm I see. You must've really made out...
Your post alone points out your insanity. Why even reply? I can count on my hands how many times I have posted. You have posted thousands of times. On a stock you claim to be a scam but yet you remain. Do not talk to me unless you have something intelligent to say.
EXACTLY, I couldn’t agree more. Any scenario where the damages and or settlement amount is made public, would be best for the PPS to appreciate.
My biggest concern, as you mentioned, is the shareholders get shunned again. aka, Amazon.
We’d all love a nice acquisition but, I believe VPLM needs to win a case in court and validate the damages, prior to anyone acquiring them. I hope I’m wrong but, we’ll just have to wait and see.
IMHO
Excellent points. I’ve mentioned this before.
Keep in mind, the so called 95% settled cases, aren’t always as they appear to be. VPLM can attest to that.
Amazing. I am truly perplexed by your post...
ie:
"No one, absolutely no one would continue to bash this stock unless they were getting compensation. 12 years of bullshit on both sides and it has produced absolutely nothing. There is never any substance to any news that comes out. Even the conference calls years ago produced no new information. Emil has screwed this up from the beginning. I firmly believe Rich is as nuts as you to sit and talk to you week after week about supposedly the happenings with VPLM. Nothing will ever happen. "
* It sure looks to me that you are bashing the stock. Allow me to qualify. I have explained my view of discernment between bashing, which is simply doing so for the sake of itself and alternatively, posting negatively about the company based on DD and negative observations, which may or may not have been evident initially, but later discovered. The former, I agree to calling it bashing. But I do not consider the latter to be bashing. I see it as just as valid a commentary as any pro view.
That being said, I understand, at this point, that discernment is not paid any attention to by anyone but me, as far as I know, thus I just have to accept that con sentiment is going to be called bashing. I wanted to make that clear because I totally agree with all you said......
EXCEPT...........
saying that no one would bash the stock unless compensated or insane. Well, 1) I am not compensated and, 2) I'm not insane. Which one (or both) are you?
If you chose insane, that might allow you to explain (insanity) why it's so difficult for anyone here to "get" why it's perfectly reasonable and valid (just as much as pro peeps) to "bash" a stock that they found to be scammy at some point in the relationship, ESPECIALLY, if they are a shareholder from many years ago? So it might take insanity to explain such an insane state of that affair, lol.
Sorry to say but you never have said anything of substance. DB there are no surprises. There are no possibilities of what might be happening. For many years we have heard of what could be happening. 12 years of what might be happening. The answer is nothing. The paid bashers, yes they exist here, will jump on this band wagon with me because it fits their narrative. If they are not paid then they are just as certifiably insane as you. No one, absolutely no one would continue to bash this stock unless they were getting compensation. 12 years of bullshit on both sides and it has produced absolutely nothing. There is never any substance to any news that comes out. Even the conference calls years ago produced no new information. Emil has screwed this up from the beginning. I firmly believe Rich is as nuts as you to sit and talk to you week after week about supposedly the happenings with VPLM. Nothing will ever happen. Trials will get pushed again. I would bet my position on it and it is a large one. Patience is not a virtue. Eventually there needs to be results. Emil stands to make hundreds of millions he should have spent some of his personal millions to show support. Spend some money on some real bulldog lawyers if the parents are so awesome. My mistake was not cashing at .45. I truly believed it would go higher based on bad advice. Boy was I wrong. Just stop with the bullshit. It's 2024 and this dog will never run.
Exactly right Butter. Trials are public so we would know the outcome based on court docs…assuming the trails end with a jury verdict and not dismissed like the previous VPLM cases, which we still know very little about why or what was agreed to with Apple & ATT.
I couldn't agree more with you Chazzy1!
Either a buyout, partnership or trial win is where we as shareholders would benefit most from. We outside shareholders definitely don't want to end up in another settlement scenario, guessing about exactly what happened and knowing the same amount that we know now about the last settlement, which is absolutely nothing and zero impact on the pps.
And, the first 2 scenarios (buyout/partnership) wouldn't come even close without the impending threat of trials with $billions/treble damages at stake.
A buyout huh? Wow, what a novel idea... Um...do you realize that 10 or 11 yrs ago, that's exactly what this became all about when vplm, after reneging on their much repeated promise to integrate the patent technology into their own platform, all of a sudden, with no why's or wherefore's, decided to sell the company. And ALLEGEDLY/SUPPOSEDLY, that's what they've been trying to do ever since. And allegedly, when they could get no buyers or even licensees, they then allegedly decided their only option was to start sueing the alleged infringers. Did you know that? I ask because it sounds like you didn't know that. Sorry if I misunderstand.
Funny thing I heard on the way to the forum.......
The great irony that explains so much here.....
Is that when vplm/Chang told all those blatant lies about the acquisition being complete, when it wasn't, the patents being patented, when they weren't, the announcement that Vplm was in the process of folding/integrating the technology into their own ALLEGED voip service provider business, which they never did, and how there were offers on the table and imminent deals about to happen to sell the technologies, which never happened because it never was true in the 1st place (admitted to in one instance by the highly respected CEO, Tom Sawyer), and phony mandates given by Vplm to southbank, which they never did, and phony offers by Dr Gil, which was nothing more than a collaboration by him and the emu, as proven by the leak posted here 2 months prior.... DUH!, etc etc etc etc etc etc......the irony is that none of the shareholders, from either side of the aisle....... GAVE A SHIT OR GIVE A SHIT! They let it all slide and never so much as question any of it. So what do they EXPECT?
The only things they've ever mildly complained about is the lack of communication from the company but only in a light, soft way......quite similar to the so called, alleged infringement love letter that Vplm sent out to some of the alleged infringers and only suggested to them that they might be infringing (there is no argument about this, the letters were embarrassingly published here). And the other thing is the insider selling, but most accept the lowdown mouthpiece of the company, who tell you it's all good.
You should have opened your mouths and protested to the top of your lungs and demanded answers and explanations. Instead everyday you find less dough in your pockets and more peeps making excuses for it. Of course it's too late now with all the elements that built this phony insider ATM and share printing service, so entrenched. Now you've no choice but to wait for the inevitable play out that is not good in my opinion. You sit here and are forced to endure all the BS trial delays and push backs and phony "settlements" that are like mirages in the desert and believe that once the trials happen, then the billions and billions will come in to you.
Nah.....me not tinking so.
A third option, which I forgot to mention, is a buyout. In that scenario, VPLM shares would be converted by the agreed upon ratio (or multiple) to shares of the acquiring company. Depending of course upon the exact terms, this could be a great option for VP. Lots of possibilities, all good IMHO.
Amidst all the controversy surrounding the value, need, modern workability/compatability and efficacy of the patents, a normal, common sense question and request for the results of ALLEGED nodal tests carried out in 3 cities around the world, allegedly designed to show the viability of the above noted attributes, attributes that would be necessary for there to be any chance for the patents to be "ALL THAT".......would be something very much desired for all to see, not just the Vplm inside. And yet, there appears to be no evidence whatsoever for such results to EVEN SO MUCH AS EXIST! And if they do not exist, that is a BIG BIG RED FLAG! No source code. No secrets. Just simple results of the testing ALLEGEDLY carried out in 3 cities. OMG.....why in the world would or would anyone want to see such test results. What business is it of our. Who are we to ask for such results to be made public about a publicly owned company? Who do we think we are......???...... asking for test results. Don't you know such results need to be always be kept a secret?? Don't you know such info involves national security?
I would like to offer my perspective on which is the better option, a trial win or a settlement, as I think it is relevant here. Although roughly 95% of all infringement cases brought in Albright's court are settled out of court, I would favor a trial win over a settlement for the following reasons. In an out of court settlement, the defendant usually stipulates a wide array of non-disclosure terms within the agreement, which means that the public is often left in the dark as to the amount of the settlement. It may take months to glean this info from a subsequent SEC filing. This secretive nature of an out of court settlement, which favors the defendant, would not have nearly the same effect on the share price that a trial win would have. We often here phrases like “the parties settled for an undisclosed sum,” and “the terms were not immediately available.” Another point with out of court settlements is that, since infringement was never established (proven) in a court of law, the defendant can never be referred to as an infringer in all future publications by the plaintiff. Whereas, in a court victory, the amount of the jury award is public information, infringement is proven, and the judge can award treble damages if he deems the infringement to be willful. However, a settlement sum would never include treble damages. Thus, in my opinion, nothing could drive the share price upward faster than a court victory, however, a settlement is statistically more likely.
I’m gonna be so happy when these bears get proven wrong. I’ve decided to balance out the negativity they post by posting bullish posts. And I heard there is a paid basher on the board.. i could be wrong tho
I agree totally, other than the paid basher stuff, and that is why I've quit posting anything of substance... The "paid basher/pumper" stuff is nonsense, other than self-payment to ego, maybe.
Another thing, the "AS ALWAYS, I ENCOURAGE SHAREHOLDERS TO FOLLOW THE CASE RECORD, FILED DOCUMENTS AND LEGAL PROCESS TO GET THE BEST PICTURE OF WHERE THINGS STAND" idea is NONSENSE! Public record, including insider sales, will rarely give you much, if anything. Sure, it might make you "feel" good/bad, BUT PUBLIC INFO IS AVAILABLE TO ANYONE/EVERYONE, how would there be an advantage there?????
I speak/text with Rich Inza quite frequently and Rich does a FABULOUS job of giving an idea, NOTHING "INSIDER", on what is going on, excitement levels and such. IF RICH WERE IMPARTING "INSIDER INFO" TO ME, IT WOULD SCARE ME OUT OF VPLM, BECAUSE IF HE WERE DOING IT FOR ME I'D HAVE TO ASSUME HE IS DOING IT FOR OTHERS.
This week was slow week for on the phone with Rich, only one 30 minute conversation, but I did lose count @ large number of texts. Rich and I are buddies; lots of banter, but VPLM stuff as well.
Yes, a long rambling, "run on sentence" post, but it is my agreement with your post is why I quit posting any substance. I also dropped off another site. Sad it's this way these days.
A little add on: Some speak of Emil speaking to folks, as Rich speaks to me. Nothing wrong there, at all. WHY WOULD EMIL/RICH IMPART ILLEGAL INSIDE INFO? BOTH HAVE LARGE POSITIONS IN VPLM, DOES ANYONE THINK THEY WOULD WANT TO RISK THEIR UPSIDE?????? REALLY? Because insiders have conversations with shareholders does not mean anything inside is conveyed. Many of the my conversations w/Rich amount to banter.
Why were the Vplm patented technology global nodal test results NEVER RELEASED?
Could it be....
Is this an alter ego? No negative nancy swaying this guy. Just stating some facts.
Followers
|
464
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
18
|
Posts (Total)
|
133581
|
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: |