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.
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.
"This seems like a can’t miss bet for you."
apparently, the real truth of the matter is it's no more a "can't miss" bet for the challengee................than the patents are a can't miss, in terms of winning infringement trials.
Thus the crickets........
After all......someone of such a background, offering to properly setup an escrow, to essentially guarantee fairness and payout, couldn't really ask for more.......besides, namecalling, backpedaling, grossly impuning and/or ignoring such hi level accomplishments, having zero respect for others opinions not in line with, well, you know......is far easier!
Ladies and Gentlemen.... Welcome to the otc OSCARS night!
.......for the category of best floor mop of the year (maybe decade...?) followed by the back pedal of the year (maybe century?)..........
~~~~~~~~~~~ Envelope please ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The OSCAR goes to..............
"Dude I have an MBA from the University of Chicago (#1 ranked MBA program in the world by the Economist and #1 in the US by US News & World Report), graduated with Honors and I took classes in Econ and Finance from 5 different Nobel Laureates. Where did you go?"
Now, please be so kind as to provide me with your bona fides (education, technical experience, M&A or Corporate Formation experience, litigation experience etc.)
_______________________________________
" And as for your education, we’re all seeing the education the Ivy League students are getting now, aren’t we? They’re more concerned with social issues than math."
============================
"That sounds like no bona fides will be presented. Chicago is not in the Ivy League, and I received my MBA in 1986."
_________________________________________
"I never said it was an Ivy League school, now did I." ("as for YOUR education, we're all seeing the education the IVY LEAGUE STUDENTS are getting now, aren't we?)
___________________________________________________
"To be honest, if you put all the deals I have negotiated together in my life they might add up to $1billion so, clearly you must have me there, or do you?. In what industry have you gained all of your wisdom and enjoyed your success? Are you summoning your vast experience as an IP lawsuit negotiator to insult me or do you just have a hunch that you think is infallible? Either one is perfectly fine, one is just a bit more ballsy than the other."
"Just let me know and we can draw that bet up officially. If we get more than $2.5billion paid out by the end of 2025, I owe you $100k, if not you owe me. If you are serious I will set up an escrow account."
____________________________________________
(reply: return to sender. Address unknown)
Of course it would be......(utter failure) but to be expected when the whole point is nothing to do with uber super patents worth badillions nor every voip service provider in the world being a dishonest, thieving infringer (the dumbest idea and/conclusion to EVER come down the pike). It's about the BIG MEAN GREEN SHARE PRINTING/SELLING MACHINE/PERSONAL INSIDER ATM MACHINE!!!
Concern about alleged infringers is just the front.... And a brilliant one at that!
It's amusing how you feel you must talk about it instead of just DOING IT, lol!
Thx for the chuckle
"Dude I have an MBA from the University of Chicago (#1 ranked MBA program in the world by the Economist and #1 in the US by US News & World Report), graduated with Honors and I took classes in Econ and Finance from 5 different Nobel Laureates. Where did you go?"
Now, please be so kind as to provide me with your bona fides (education, technical experience, M&A or Corporate Formation experience, litigation experience etc.)
_______________________________________
" And as for your education, we’re all seeing the education the Ivy League students are getting now, aren’t we? They’re more concerned with social issues than math."
============================
"That sounds like no bona fides will be presented. Chicago is not in the Ivy League, and I received my MBA in 1986."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
^^^^ WITNESS: THE MOST MOPPED, CLEANEST, POLISHED, SHINIEST FLOOR EVER SEEN! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________________________
"I never said it was an Ivy League school, now did I." ("as for YOUR education, we're all seeing the education the IVY LEAGUE STUDENTS are getting now, aren't we?)
______________________________________
^^^^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BIGGEST BACK PEDAL EVER!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
___________________________________________________
"To be honest, if you put all the deals I have negotiated together in my life they might add up to $1billion so, clearly you must have me there, or do you?. In what industry have you gained all of your wisdom and enjoyed your success? Are you summoning your vast experience as an IP lawsuit negotiator to insult me or do you just have a hunch that you think is infallible? Either one is perfectly fine, one is just a bit more ballsy than the other."
" Just let me know and we can draw that bet up officially. If we get more than $2.5billion paid out by the end of 2025, I owe you $100k, if not you owe me. If you are serious I will set up an escrow account."
____________________________________________
^^^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RETURN TO SENDER... ADDRESS UNKNOWN..... haha hehe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The entertainment value..............is why I'm here... and certainly out values the pps
Touché... Touché... Touché... Touché... Touché... Touché... Touché... Touché ²
1st let's assume you know what whining means, which I'm having doubts on. I read his post and all I hear is facts pointed out as he sees them and your post is definity within the realm of whining.
2nd, if I sell my shares does that mean I have to leave the msg board.......or can stay just to annoy you?
Tia
Years ago, the used to have contests here on this board, several times if I remember right. That bullshitting vplm convinced shareholders that a sale was imminent. Not if but when. So the betting was how many billions of dollars and who could get closest to the sale date. It was all in the billions. One lady at least said $25 billion. I think someone toyed with the possibility of $50b. All the dates were weeks to months. Maybe a year at most. You could tell they believed it. They believed it so much, that's why when vplm dropped all their cool but bs plans to integrate the technology, instead opting to be a world class patent troll, no one here gave a shit except me and I was as right as rain to change my outlook on vplm with their bs gobbled goop, circular, dazzle you with psuedo brilliance patents. And that's why no one since the creation has had any interest in buying them except vplm themselves. That's many years. Would you leave a veritable goldmine sitting in the middle of the road for your competitor to just mosie on by and grab it? OF COURSE YOU WOULDN'T.....IF YOU REALLY BELIEVED THE PATENTS WERE ALL THEY'VE BEEN CRACKED UP TO BE.......BY THAT PINNACLE OF TRUTH, HONOR AND FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY, VPLM.
Remote? That's pretty generous. Why would anyone want to aquire? Any good reason to answer that question would, in turn, beg the question of why no one in all these years has bought, licensed or settled. It's THAT simple.
The rocket docket ain't so rocket. And to think, he (Allbright) had to have many cases stripped away as he tried to take them all. More like the speed of a rock.
The Super Lawyer isn't getting such super results. Super was a blooper...
The "Leader" of the Voip arena.......ain't got no followers. But he likes to claim it anyway. He also claims that vplm invented the patents..... Ummmm....nope..... but it's a good way to try to misdirect peeps from seeing a patent troll poster child.
ol Chang. lied to us big time for years.... Now he collects personally from all the bs he slung.
Babs, not being part of the Company is most likely being directed and used by the "Grift of the Magdi", evil emil Emu. They both care bunches about us...
The IR guy, inYA pockets, Inza, has nothing to offer in the way of truth it seems...
More monkey wrenches are coming for x-mas most likely so don't forget to hang those stockings! Fasten your seat belts for another year of zen nothingness.
Ok, I see that and I don't disagree........but you have not yet replied to the question I asked you about if Ms Emu did all the selling via the 10b5-1 rule?? So c'mon Flipper! lol
Were almost down to 6 more years (at minimum). Ilm keep reminding at 6 mos and 1 yr intervals as I have for the last near 4 yrs. Woe is vplm.
They had to take away many cases from Allbright. He thought he could be the judge for all patent cases. Now he's the "hangin judge"..........just hangin out, waitin for others to figure it out even tho they will never see eye to eye...
Ever notice how historically, vplm is always on the good, better, best trip, but then always devolves into the wait, not now, more waiting company? They should be on Nova....a study in de-evolution.
EMBRACE the MONKEY WRENCH!
Hahaha...... Allbright used to be the "head em up, move em out", "onward ho" judge....Now he's the "waitin for everybody else" judge...
Too funny
Vplm shareholders are like a mob...
Majority Of Bagholders
As stated, an insider does not have to publicly disclose use of 10b5-1. But if they do so choose to, it must be done via an 8k or a PR. Are you saying she stated as much in a PR? If so, I never saw it. Please indicate yes or no to this. If she did, the purpose would have been to mitigate accusations of illegal insider trading, so if she did do so, it sure didn't work for some reason. Again, that's why beginning months ago, I kept posting that she may have publicly disclosed. I asked certain ppl who I thought would know, for certain, and they ignored the question.
If it was via an 8k, I also missed that. Are you saying it was done that way? If so, what is the date of the 8k?
While I am no friend of vplm, nor have a pro sentiment, I still play fair always and if she disclosed publicly, as you clearly said she did, then I did the right thing all this time trying to make that possibility known. That certainly is not unsmart. And it was with the goals of quelling discontent and disseminating the rules. Nothing wrong with that. So if I made some mistake, it would be more prudent for you to specify the mistake rather than childishly calling me dumb.
If it was disclosed in a PR or an 8k, then the frustrations are unfounded, I would think. If not, then it's still possible the rule was used as disclosure publicly is not required.
All things considered, I think that even if 10b5-1 was used, I still think it was violated and that illegal trades were made.
"Under Rule 10b5-1, directors and other major insiders in the company—large shareholders, officers, and others who have access to MNPI—can establish a written plan that details when they can buy or sell shares at a predetermined time on a scheduled basis. It is set up this way so that they are able to make these transactions when they are not in the vicinity of MNPI. This also allows companies to utilize 10b5-1 plans in large stock buybacks."
That doesn't sound to me like "waiting for an opportune or fortuitous time to me. It sounds all predetermined.
"There is nothing in the SEC laws that makes it necessary to disclose the use of Rule 10b5-1 to the public, but that doesn't mean companies shouldn't release the information anyway. Announcements of utilizing Rule 10b5-1 are useful in warding off public relations problems and helping investors understand the logistics behind certain insider trades."
Like your siggy says "you were wrong once (yeah right, once... lol) and you could be wrong again". Right, like now...
1st, you state that Ms Emu said she was using the 10b5-1 to sell shares. When and where did she say that? I've never seen her say anything. Unless you are referring to the forms themselves? If so, as I already said, an insider is not required to publicly divulge using 10b5-1 rule. They can if they choose to but I thought that was via a signature if I recall the rules correctly.
Then you state "The allegation was that she was then waiting for fortuitous trading opportunities to buy back“. Allegation? What allegation? An allegation is when someone alleges something about someone or some thing. Who alleged what? Sounds like you are making stuff up out of the blue... And the 10b5-1 is for buying as well as selling, I believe, not "waiting for fortuitous times". Then you say "by definition"........ by definition of WHAT? Can't follow your writing style..."precluded by the use of 10b5-1 and in fact is the exact reason such a plan is allowed for insider trading".
The exact reason for use of the rule 10b5-1, is to help shareholders to not think it's wrongful or illegal insider trading. THAT....is the reason. I don't follow your wording, but that is the stated reason by the sec. So I don't see where I said anything wrong as you say I did. Insiders are encouraged to publicly divulge they are using 10b5-1 to take the pressure off them from shareholders. But they are not required to. So when the selling became a thing, some got upset esp one individual. So I did the research and posted the most recent modified rules a few mos and I added that it appeared to me that she was usinv that rule but I wasn't positive. No one else seemed to know anything about that nor care because as far as I noticed I was the only one to post about it. And I was trying gb also to diffuse anger about the sales IF I was right about it. No one had 2 words to say. So I don't see where I am wrong. And I never saw where she said those things. Maybe I missed it...? So I did the right thing and for that you call me dumb.
Duh
Ironically, not only are they almost mythical, so were the Greek gods he thought he was decended from...which is pretty nuts
1st, insiders are not required to disclose the use of 10b5-1 to the public, so I must ask how do you know for certain?
2nd, I think the insider can opt to disclose to the public by signing the form. I'm not positive about that but I invest investigated all about this way back when it become a controversy and I think that's what it said. As I have posted before, more than once, I researched it mostly because there was someone on this board who was getting very upset about the whole selling thing. When I learned about the rule and about the disclosure/non disclosure, signature element, I posted that as far as I could tell, all the sales were done under 10b5-1 and I did so to help I form in general but specifically for that msg board goer who was upset about it and said as much.
None one, as usual, seemed to give a shit one way or the other. I posted the info several times. It was totally ignored even tho it was very useful stuff to know. After awhile, I began to think that maybe I had something wrong about it and after awhile I began to go along with the majority that seemed to think the sales were a bad thing, because once again, I forgot my learned lesson to not listen to these fools who either dissipate misinfo directly or, in this case, by omission AND by failing to recognize and acknowledge the posted facts. Nor did the fellow who was so upset about the sales bother to say thanks.
So, bottom line is IF the the siggys, which do not appear cursively on the forms but ARE checked or block printed (I forget which at the moment) denote public disclosure, then all the bru-haha about it has been tons of wasted and uninformed energy, deservedly so, for not acknowledging the posts........OR..........i suppose it's also possible that I misread or misinterpreted the forms, regards such disclosure, but I don't think so. Plus it would also explain why all the sales and for such low prices, all things considered. Or it could ALSO still be that there simply was no disclosure as it isn't required...
And do you know what the kicker is?
Those so called TRUE LONGS...you know, the elite.... That think these JOKERS are an honest and forthright company! So all you newbies and on the fencers better consider their total LACK OF JUDGEMENT when it comes to all their alleged TRUE LONG smartie explanations, conjectures, theories, facts (self styled) opinions.....ALL OF WHICH FOR YEARS, THEY SWEAR UP AND DOWN THAT THE LORD EMU FROM eGIPped and his wifey partner in crime (it appears so, but maybe she's being forced into it?) and the other BOD members who are also selling like there's no tomorrow AND IT LOOKS MORE AND MORE TO ME LIKE THERE WAS DEFINITELY MATERIAL INSIDE INFO USED IN THIS ROBBERY OF SHAREHOLDERS, IMHO, AND THESE followers of their guru, with the same mindless pseudo-intellects as the (alleged) borg collective thinking they assign to ALL the alleged infringers.
They, vplm, have also broken lots of rules with respect to filings. And been found guilty of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust personal enrichment.
SO KEEP ON BELIEVING IN THIS GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY! AND KEEP DONATING TO THE LORD EMU GO FUND ME PAGE. THE HAVE BEEN BLATANTLY LYING TO YOU SINCE 2011 AND POSSIBLY BEFORE.
If these patents were really worth billions the alleged infringers would have figured that out long ago and been fighting over ea other to buy and reap the massive fortune.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE RIPOFF!
"Not that my opinion means anything"
Must be your loophole lawyer imitation...
Looks like my 2 to 2.5 cent avg pps prediction is holding up well.
1st, thanks for the common courtesy of at least trying to answer the question because it happens to be a most salient one...
" if my lawyers indicated it was likely that we they are going to lose at some point."
is confusing... what does "we they" mean? We means us. They means them. Can't be both at the same time. I'll have to assume you mean if your advisors think that the defendants will lose.....that you would buy...... cuz that's the only way it makes any sense........unless you have stock in all the defendants companies and see that as your hedge? I kinda doubt that on numerous counts.
So since you say you would buy, then the OBVIOUS question would be: so why haven't any of these defendants DONE SO?!? They have had many years to figure out what's what and if they concluded they were innocent of infringement and that the patents were "all that", and that damages, licenses, settlements, partnerships, as well as product sales, etc etc, are valued in the many tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, then, duh, what else could one do?
AND YET THEY, THE DEFENDANTS, SEEM TO HAVE NO INTEREST IN BUYING, SETTLING OR LICENSING. or even worrying about it, outside of they have to defend themselves in court or be found guilty by default.
On the other hand... If your answer had been no, that would indicate to me, that you don't believe the patents are "all that"......or......you don't believe that vplm has the wherewithal to continue to produce the necessary funding of their cases, thus will lose by way of that. Of course, that would be a ridiculous conclusion to reach, considering they have millions in their coffers and have come up with all the needed funding to do everything necessary from the gitgo. So that would certainly seem to be moot.
As to any of your decision making to be based on, in whole or in part, Inza's info you've rcvd, well...that's fine I guess, if you want to believe in an IPR guy that has chosen only lowly pennystocks to be the mouthpiece for and all losers so far and no regular market stocks and the fact that he has an inherent conflict of interest and is just a sock puppet. Has he EVER informed ANY shareholders of ANY negative news about ANY stocks he has been IR for?
I wouldn't anticipate or expect any trial dates to NOT be part of "musical chairs". I expect delay after delay and many more monkey wrenches to be thrown into the mix (mess). THAT......has been the 20 plus year history of vplm.
"But everything thus far indicates that the patent for that case is valid."
In my opinion and with all due respect, I think you are misunderstanding what patent validity is... I have explained it many times. It's very simple. When a patent is approved by the uspto, it is then valid. Valid in terms of the prerequisites of the uspto to qualify for patenthood. That DOES NOT INCLUDE anything in the way of value, need, current compatability, or efficacy. Very important to understand those distinctions. And don't forget that the uspto is THE authority on patentability. The put the application thru the most rigorous process of procecuting ea claim in the application. So there is no judge or lawyer, et al, who is more qualified to deem a patent to be valid, than the uspto if you believe in the integrity of the uspto.
That said, competitors bring challenges to that patent validity, mainly by way of the IPRs. but if a challenge is lost, such as all have been.....then there is nothing gained nothing lost. It simply means the patent was valid from birth.....and is STILL VALID in the same way it always was. It does not mean or have anything to do with whether or not the patent was infringed upon or if it is possible justa valid patent. Infringement and validity are 2 VERY DIFFERENT things. The trials are ALL INFRINGEMENT TRIALS. ALL CHALLENGES TO VALIDITY HAVE BEEN UPHELD.
You go on to say yes, you would buy but only if you were a defendant. WHY? If you had the money, would it not be the most killer investment? Confused as to why only if a defendant?
You also go on to say they've been stalling for years and the judge doesn't like it. Well, the stalling has continued with this judge as well and continues to happen on a large scale. Nothing has changed in that dept. So I wouldn't expect anything to change except more delays and postponements and "unexpected" monkey wrenches as I have successfully predicted for yrs.
I don't agree that if there are appeals, the pps will continue to rise. Appeals can and will take many yrs. Shareholders are growing old waiting. They can move on to more immediate things. It is likely to be far more than 15 yrs. That's why about 3 and a half yrs ago, I posted it will likely take another 10 yrs minimum. Ea year I post it's still got 9, 8, 7, 6 et al. And the best goes on.
If true....shorting... I would think it could be smart....but....we'll see how it plays out. I've never shorted a stock, but if I had, vplm would've been my choice and could've made a fortune, no?
'not a smart play for the infringers to wait until then. Great opportunity to get VPLM’s patents before then. That’s if they were smart.'
Haha hahaha...... That exemplifies EXACTLY what I've been saying for years and years! Exactly! And it's been the same true for all that time, not only recently or now... It points out that all, not some, but ALL the voip service providers, who, according to vplm and lord Emu, ARE INFRINGERS and ARE JUST TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THAT WAITING COULD BE A DISASTROUS LOSS FOR THEM.....and yet, they ALL think this way, totally without common sense and logic.......as if they were all locked into the very same COLLECTIVE of borg mentality! It's beyond foolish. It's beyond dumb. It's beyond dangerous to their future. It's beyond even the most basic common sense. It's beyond all reason for ceos and president's and cfos and all the well educated and experienced BOD members to think things thru and come up with the insane conclusion to let it sit, let it ride, let the vast (alleged) massive fortune sit in the middle of the road to be snatched up at any moment by any of their competitors. It would involve a thought process of: we don't care about no stinking infringements......we don't care about massive damages coming our way with a likely threat of triple damages....we don't care that out competitor might grab the patents at any moment which would mean the end of our use of the patents or that we would then have to pay them big time or be forced out of the voip services provision business.... We don't care that if we simply bought the patents we would then literally have total control of voip worldwide.....we don't care that we will lose countless billions of dollars by letting it go how it will without us. WE DON'T CARE! WE ARE BORG! BRING IT!!
.....of course if the patents turn out to be not "all that".......THEN... THEN... THEN.......... all the seeming stupidity of these alleged infringers.......WILL TURN OUT TO BE SMART SMART SMART!
jawswilldrop
As always....... Still........ No one will answer the question would they buy the patents if they had the money. Such a TELL... They know what it would mean regardless of the choice... Toooo funny. Especially the ones super pro vplm. So I'll answer for them... If they had the money they wouldn't risk it as they know what a super crap shoot that would be and not willing to admit it. And they won't even just say yes, because the the question the becomes...well....then why hasn't one of the big dogs done so BEFORE THEY LOSE IT TO ONE OF THEIR BIG COMPETITORS, thus losing a future fortune PLUS......allowing themselves to become the voip service provider slaves of the new owner.
SO IT DON'T MAKE NO SENSE! ( (incl the double negative)....................................U N L E S S..............they already have known for a long time that the patents will eventually turn out to be bogus (for several reasons) A. N. D.....they know they are not infringing and are simply defending themselves losing by default. And they ALL know this cuz they are ALL part of the bort hive mind. After all, if they had the ability to think for themselves, at least some would've been smart enough to step up and do the right thing for their shareholders and themselves, by buying or at least licensing or settling. The smarties can't even see that logic. But they will soon....when crunch time is coming... Hope I'm wrong but there simply is no way every voip service provider on the planet stole the tech (FROM WHERE?). No way they all decided that cheating vplm was the best pathway... No way they would all infringe and decide to not settle or license or buy the goldmine laying there for the taking. Not when it has the alleged REAL POTENTIAL to bring hundreds of $billions in and take total control of the voip arena. In fact, they wouldn't even risk the INEVITABLE incoming bomb with their name written on IN TRIPLICATE, lololol. Annnnnnnd....to wait around as the ante climbs in price. All that is totally against human nature. And nothing has EVER happened like that BEFORE......OF THIS MAGNITUDE. And even if vplm ever somehow managed to get a big settlement or trial win, the appeals would go on for decades.
And that's........................the way it is.
And I'm pretty convinced they won't win anything....... But being convinced of any thing doesn't ensure it happens. In any event I hope you're right for both our sakes..... although it looks like vplm's latest craze is settling with alleged infringers and the only thing the shareholders get is lower pps. Helleva deal.
Yeah, they said they were gonna do that around 5 yrs ago.... They might as well make it $2.56 trillion. Apple won't give them 25 cents...
Pump pump pump
Pump yourself, your promo company and your shares.
(some of the stuff you listed has nothing to do with vplm or you, lol)
INah.... Prolly not. In 2011/12/13 they swore up and down 6 ways to sunday that they were immediately going to integrate the technology into their alleged voip service providing platform (rented turnkey) and that impressed ALOT of peeps to become new shareholders and to buy moocho shares but lied and instead opted to become a revenueless poster child for the patent troll title. However, they made good on the big green, share printing, share selling, personal insider ATM machine! It has worked flawlessly for them for many years now!
Too bad an 8 yr old girl with a lemonade stand made more money in one afternoon than digi-phony-ca AND vplm could muster in around 19 yrs since the creators were paid
toophony
Do you have an opinion or a guess as to why they all are selling their shares so cheap IF things are looking so good? And even more importantly, how can there be all these pieces of alleged good news, especially the remarks from malak as to how good and how pleased he is with recent developmemts and that not be considered as material inside info? So it almost sounds like all the sales must have been made under 10b5-1, which has been bandied about for some time but hard to tell for sure because the fact that her signature was in place doesn't necessarily mean it was 10b5-1 because if I remember the way the law is written, she doesn't have to publicly declare that except to the sec. That doesn't sound right but I thought I had read the law that way. Otherwise, how can this NOT be illegal insider trading, which if that's the case, then the truth must be things are not so good on the horizon if they have to be selling like there's no tomorrow. Therefore I want to conclude that the sales are more likely all under 10b5-1. Strange and confusing.
When the shareholders start realizing they are the lowest consideration of this play of personal enrichment, then they will understand they are on a less than need to know basis. Pawns for sure.
Not quite sure what your sentence means but one truth is that post by her is total bull! It's well known that the so called "relaxed rules", which in reality were a total opening up of the free for all. In other words, certain factions of ihub created the mess that it is now. It's also well known that the specific reason they did it was money. Higher ups in ihub noticed that the post count was way down due to the butcher job certain admins used, as an abuse of power, to remove far far too many posts that should not have been removed in the 1st place or were borderline (in which case the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go in favor of the poster) in a way that totally crapped on the concept and right to reasonable free speech! regardless of their bs claim about there not being any free speech on ihub due to private site. That may technically be true but free speech is the most widely coveted, "god given", adored, needed, respected and fair tenets that civilized society has ever held. Of course, there are always certain limitations, as with anything, but what the admins did for years was like the big brother agency of 1984 or the tyrannical book burning governments of the world in history.
So posting was way down and posting is tied to advertising views so that meant revs were way down so THAT is the reason for the change. But they (the admins) did not apply it in the way they initially explained. Instead what they have done is to allow anyone to say anything basically no matter how rude, hurtful, disrespectful it is and it ruined the board. I am not a name caller nor an abusive poster to other posters but I was banned on many occasions and even in their jail for a year for FAR less in my posts. Totally unfair. But the whole point is they did it to INCREASE THE POST COUNT dramatically, thus raise revenues.
Also, not all the admins agree with this turn of events but are forced to go along with it as they are paid employees of ihub. So that pm you posted by her is bs for sure, as the reality became "everything goes" by more than 99%.
That said, I think I now know what you mean by "6 mos"
Maybe I'm mistaken but it looks to me like you were born yesterday on ihub and came here to pump your company.
There is no such person listed on vplm site as a director.
MANAGEMENT & DIRECTORS
EMIL MALAK
Founder, CEO & Director
Emil Malak is the largest single shareholder of Voip-Pal stock. He was a co-founder of Digifonica in 2003 and oversaw the development of the patents which were acquired by Voip-Pal in 2013. Mr. Malak also serves as Chairman of the Board for a biotech company currently conducting cancer research in Germany.
JIN KUANG
Chief Financial Officer
Jin Kuang has over 15 years of extensive professional expertise in various financial domains gained across the USA and Canada, including IFRS, US GAAP, financial reporting, financial planning, merger and acquisition, financial analysis, and tax. She has also spent over a decade in progressively responsible financial leadership roles within publicly traded companies. Over the years, Jin has served as CFO for multiple publicly listed companies, in addition to her years of auditing experience with KPMG LLP Chartered Accounts. Jin holds a BA in Accounting and an MBA from the University of Northeastern China, along with a US-CPA and CGA designation.
KEVIN WILLIAMS
Director
Kevin Williams is an experienced financial consultant with over 30 years of business expertise in the banking, brokerage, energy, and aerospace industries. He has an extensive history in funding start-ups, corporate accounting and compliance for both private and publicly traded companies/
DENNIS CHANG
Independent Director
Dennis Chang has strong managerial and entrepreneurial experience and has been an important part of VoIP-Pal’s leadership team since 2009. In 1988, Mr. Chang was included in the MicroTimes list of the 100 most influential people in the microcomputer industry. He was nominated as a finalist in 1989 for “Entrepreneur of the Year” by Ernst & Young.
D. BARRY LEE
Director / Executive VP Finance
D. Barry Lee is an experienced senior management consultant with proven abilities in all aspects of business, providing financial management, consulting and advisory services to private and public companies. He has over 30 years of experience working with public and private companies with particular expertise in financial management across various sectors including domestic and international energy, technology, real estate and resources. He has an extensive history in a broad spectrum of corporate endeavors, including start-ups, mergers and acquisitions and restructurings,corporate governance and public company compliance.
DR. RYAN THOMAS
Advisor
Dr. Ryan Thomas has served as Voip-Pal's in-house counsel since 2013. He has been practicing law since 1979 and has over 35 years experience as a litigator. Over the course of his career he has served on many business and professional boards and held several key administrative positions. He is also a teacher of law and business. Dr. Thomas has a strong technological and computer science background and has extensive experience in patent law. During his tenure with Voip-Pal he has been instrumental in advising the Company on a variety of important legal matters.
DR. PENTTI HUTTUNEN, PHD
Engineer
Dr. Huttunen has been a part of Digifonica since 2006. He is an engineer and a co-inventor on several Digifonica patents. He attained a Masters Degree and a PhD in Computer Science from Lappeenranta University of Technology in Finland. His background includes working as a Senior Software Engineer for Intel and Senior Web Architect for Nokia. During his time at Digifonica, Dr Huttenen was the R&D Manager and was instrumental in overseeing the operation of Digifonica’s three supernodes in Canada, the United Kingdom and Denmark. Currently he is working as Director of Research & Development at Mobiliya and continues to serve as a technology consultant for Voip-Pal.
DR. ALEX KRAPYVNY, PHD
Engineer
Dr. Krapyvny is one of the founders of Digifonica and has worked with Digifonica/Voip-Pal as an engineer since 2003. He is a graduate of Zaporozhye State University in the Ukraine and Moscow Sate University in Russia. He has a Master’s Degree in Theoretical Physics and a PhD in Mathematics. Dr Krapyvny has served as a technical consultant on software applications for Digifonica and Voip-Pal
* when was he a director in 2023?
Well, now you know.....not only he has never been to Waco but neither has inYA pockets, Inza, nor Chang. They can all sometimes be found in emus pizza booth in Vancouver, the one they say he stole the name for...
Does anyone know that lord Emu has never been to Waco, TX?
juswonderin