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 question has been answered repeatedly exposing the sad practice of large Companies dealing with many small innovators, including VPLM.
Why deal with the little guy when big profits can be made on the IP by stealing it.
In an earlier post I cited a typical example, SEARS vs. the Pop Wrench inventor. With 100's of millions of these wrenches sold worldwide SEARS only had to pay out $15M after 15 years of appeals.
Corporate Theft is pretty profitable, huh?
??What "positive court HOPE bullshit" and from which insiders??
So far all the news seems to be published before the Company ever releases it (including on this thread) e.g. the early Feb 7 response to the ALICE challenge.
In fact, it seems that the insiders are very quiet.
For those of you interested in ALICE (From drumming4life's post):
A. Under Step One, The Claims Are Not Directed To An Abstract Idea.
An abstract idea under §101 “is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive.” (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589 (1978) (citing Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. 156, 175 (1852)). The Patents-In-Suit are directed to improvements in clearly non-abstract technology, namely, a call routing controller specifically programmed to integrate private networks (e.g., Internet-based telephony) with public networks (e.g., the public switched telephone networks or “PSTN”) in a new and useful way. Defendants’ characterization of the claims as simply obtaining and analyzing participant information to determine where to route a communication dramatically understates the problem that the claims address.3
(See Motion at p. 13). Courts have cautioned against evaluating
claims at a stripped-down level of generality, as Defendants have done. As the Supreme Court recognized, “[a]t some level all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature,
natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)(internal citations omitted); See also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (subsequent history omitted). At best, some, but not all, claim steps involve “gathering and processing information” as part of the routing process through an improved call routing controller. But the Supreme Court has made clear that claims directed to an improved process of doing something is not barred by § 101, notwithstanding a claim’s incorporation of a law of nature, natural phenomenon or an abstract concept. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981); see also Parker v Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978).
Just wanted to say thank you suckers. I knew if I held out long enough, you'd sell me your shares for $0.055.
I tried to understand ALICE myself. As you are the second person asking for ALICE clarification, perhaps this will help.
In 2014 SCOTUS ruled against ALICE Corp. on the basis of their patent being abstract and without inventive process.
Inventors have to prove to examiners that what they are providing in their application really is an invention, not something that is common knowledge, and not some nebulous idea that can be executed without a detailed and truly inventive process -> basically what the courts call abstract.
An example of Alice failure would be claiming to make a Sky background in a painting glow or glitter with varying colors using a paint program on a computer. The glittering sky may be unique but a process to make the glow has to be declared and that process has to be inventive not simply using known software routines and devices.
That decision has affected a lot of software developers and since 2014, patent examiners have been trained to be very critical of "abstractness" in patent applications. Recently issued VPLM patents had to pass this test in order to be granted.
Execution of the whipping won't be scheduled until 2020 according to the judges current calendar. However, multiple events between now and then may drive volatility up and down. This can be profitable for selling high and buying low to increase positions. Imagine having having a big position, largely paid for by volatility, when VPLM finally wins the first suit.
PERHAPS IF YOU KNEW WHAT A PATENT TROLL REALLY WAS YOU WOULDN'T NAME CALL AND DISMISS vplm SO FREELY.
YOU CLAIM vplm IS A PATENT TROLL IMPLYING THEY JUST BOUGHT PATENTS FOR RANSOM, IGNORING THE FACT THAT DIGIFONICS DID DEVELOP THE TECHNOLOGY AND IT WAS THE DIGI PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT OUT THE COMPANY UNDER vplm.
I HAVE MET WITH A REAL PATENT TROLL COMPANY. THEY FOCUS ON MANY PATENTS FROM A VARIETY OF COMPANIES AND WITH TEAM BRAINSTORMING LOOK FOR WAYS TO FURTHER THE PATENTED TECHNOLOGY. ONCE ACCOMPLISHED, THEY RANSOM THE USE OF THE FURTHERED TECH TO EITHER THE USERS OR THE ORIGINAL COMPANY/INVENTOR. THE HEAD OF ONE OF THESE COMPANIES ACTUALLY PRESENTED A 2 DAY COURSE ON ENHANCING THE INVENTION PROCESS TO ENGINEERS AT A COMPANY I WORKED FOR. THEY DEFINITELY IMPROVED MY SKILLS ~> 20+ U.S. PATENTS AND APPLICATIONS OF WHICH SOME ACTUALLY MADE MONEY.
VPLM ONLY FOCUSED ON TECH THEIR PEOPLE PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED
Jurisdiction and trial are federal. California law is irrelevant in this case.
Unless there is negative court or PTAB news I will go in heavy @ 0.035.
Thank you Med.
So according to the Supreme Court, patent ineligiblity requires a patent application to be claiming laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas.
Obviously the first two don't apply to VPLM's patents. None of the examiners found the claims as abstract. What I think the defendants are hoping for is a finding that the concepts were already well understood and no more than that. Regarding abstract ideas in part:
(the second step of the Alice/Mayo test is satisfied when the claim limitations "In the words of the Federal Circuit: ...involve more than performance of `well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.'"
What is an ALICE attempt?
I hope so. I have a standing buy order to increase my position and average down. By the end of the summer I don't think anyone buying in now will be disappointed.
Wow!!! Apple caught in an organized act of un-armed robbery
...seven individuals from Apple, all who were involved in designing or implementing the first version of the Apple Watch, submitted fictitious names in order to obtain white papers related to Valencell’s biometric sensors
Thankyou for posting the last adm. conference - so it looks like no actual trial until the Summer if we are lucky.
Wow!!! Really complete and expert rebutle. I love the part where "Dr. Houh’s declaration contradicts the Petitioner: " He's their expert.
If I ever need a patent litigator and can afford it Its going to be Kevin Malek
It sounds like Apple et.al. went to the same training classes as liberal politicians:
Exactly. This is just good lawyering.
The price went up to $0.45 because most of us didn't want to sell. I started at $0.035 and if I had followed my own rules I would have sold off to at least cover my original cost. But since my cost was only a few hundred dollars, I didn't bother. I am following my other rule - to double up on big dips.
TO ALL NEGATIVE POSTERS - PLEASE DO A BETTER JOB - I AM STILL WAITING FOR A BIG DIP FILL AT $0.055
Sorry, I really didn't intend to annoy you with statements that go against your beliefs. I only cited examples of devices that I personally have experience with that do work. I also can cite examples of many that don't work. But I didn't make ASSumptions and generalizations. I spent my own money and time to find out.
I used to be skeptical, but the eye opener to me was a friend who built an exhaust vortex device that captured un-burned hydrocarbons and heat and sent them through a gasoline evaporator back for combustion. My participation with him was a failed effort to get his device tested by the DOE. Just after he got an appointment to drive his demo car to D.C., he received a threatening visit at his home. Similar things happened to Charles Pogue (the 100 mpg carburator) after the war, Paul Pantone (GEET processor), Stanley Meyers (the first 100% HHO water car), and others. These inventors got U.S. patents that if commercialized would have threatened the oil industry. Some of their histories are published.
There are similar invention histories related to the Electrical and Medical industries.
One of my inventions is a hot and cold therapy pad material that is much longer lasting, safer and more effective than traditional devices. My partner and I made a deal with a major therapy device producer. We thought we had a committed customer when we signed for an exclusive while they tested our device. After many samples and a year of testing feedback that the pads did in fact do everything as well as we claimed, they stalled us for 2 more years, wearing out our financial resources. Finally after they were bought out, our former contact there admitted to us that they really only wanted to keep our invention off the market because they were invested in what was already successful for them.
INDUSTRIES (INCLUDING APPLE) OFTEN DON'T WANT TO ADVANCE FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, MOSTLY RELATED TO MONEY AND TRADITION. (CHECK OUT THE HISTORY OF WATT AND APPL). They are not lined up eagerly waiting for the next revolutionary invention to come along. Even if such a device is internal to a company, management doesn't just "snatch it up" as you seem to think.
I have an MS in Materials Science and Engineering. Traditionally educated, I used to doubt all these reports also until someone asked me and my father for help on his invention. It really worked great, and during the Carter years when fuel was so scarce, we thought contacting the DOE through my dad's connections would be a first step. WRONG. That got the project completely stopped with serious threats to the inventor.
There is phony stuff for sure, but this experience with the government industrial complex was a real eye opener to me, and started me on a quest to find out what real paradigm shifting discoveries were out there. It turns out that there are quite a few of them, and the fastest way to bury them is to keep them secret from all but the Government Agencies. The USPTO has a whole section of non public patents. Inventors are sometimes cautioned against continuing work on their devices. There are also regulations against patenting certain things even if they are proven to work.
BTW, adoption to practice of VPLM's patents, even though there was no compensation, could also be considered as paradigm shiftng.
What is the claimed deception - definition of a scam? To my understanding everything posters seem to dislike about Malak is reported.
Thanks, You might have a point, but I don't think folks yet realize how major this IP property could be. The issue will be to collect.
I am not an expert on business management - Ive reported on bad stuff I actually saw happen.
I do have a reasonable legal working knowledge, and I am very knowledgeable on IP.
I understand. All major improvements are hard to believe until you see it for yourself - until the internet there was always an effort to hide such things from us and belittle anyone who made such claims. This device was a simple exhaust pipe vortex generator that channeled the unburned hydrocarbons through a bubbler and back into the carburator throat.
Another example is the Patented Charles Pogue Carburator - 100mpg+ on big Packards in the 1940s. During the Africa campaign in WWII, Patton's Tanks were adapted to these devices and had tremendous improvements in range. If Rommel had access to them, the outcome of the war might have been different. German tanks running out of fuel helped them lose Africa.
At the end of the war all hell broke lose for Pogue before he could go public with his invention.
Also check out the Stanley Meyers Water Car.
You are right. It might be a drop in the bucket, and if VPLM tries to injoin against usage in order to collect, it could be difficult.
The saddest thing about the US Patent system is that in cases of major paradigm shifts such as the energy inventions that could benefit everybody except energy companies and the general economy, or in cases of national security, there are clauses in patent law that actually encourage the government to exercise something similar to eminent domain and literally confiscate the IP rights. I had a friend that invented a simple device that was proven to increase a large gas V8 car's mileage to 100+ mpg. Within 2 days of the government(DOE) finding out about it he was threatened never to do anything with his invention again - lots similar situations disclosed on the internet. Of course its a lot harder for the government and large private interests to block a publicly held company.
VPLM patents are valid and strong. However when it comes to getting the super rich (especially those with a stingy record) to part with their money, they have been known to hang on as long as they can. Sometimes it really works to their advantage. In an earlier post I sited the example of the little inventor of the pop-wrench who fought the giant SEARS for 15 years for royalties and damages. The pop-wrench was a mainstay of Craftsman Tools and eventually most tool companies produced it.
When SEARS finally ran out of appeals - in the 1980's I think - the inventor only received ~$15M, a drop in the bucket. Of course, the patent ran out. Great deal for SEARS. In those days a patent had a slightly shorter life.
In the case of low level to senior executives and lawyers for Apple et. al., it isn't just about money which they of course don't want to part with. There are also the issues of saving face - being proven cheats, thieves and liars will do wonders for their careers.
Yes, if their leaders are smart they will settle or arrange for a buyout, but are they really willing to admit errors which could affect earnings and bonuses. And how about the lawyers who make more money by prolonging the cases? - Hopefully we have judges that see through that.
In addition, the executive boardroom often has contempt for the upstart that dares. I have experienced that myself with a pain relief invention presented to major health, therapeutic, and drug companies. In a final meeting to qualify my device, one head of R&D remarked to her management "Why didn't we come up with this?" Within a week of the board of directors qualifying my device as one of the years products to be developed, an executive killed it. Now the same industry offers much less effective devices as THE new and wonderful pain relief devices(40 year old technology and packaging THEY came up with) for sale on Walgreens shelves.
Will VPLM win in court, if the case is not settled? I think so and in short order the way this judge is handling it. But if the defendants drag out appeals, I wonder if VPLM will get an injunction blocking a major part of VoIP activity to make them pay.
Unless they get an extension, there is only a 20 year clock on patents, and the clock starts when the patent application is logged in at USPTO.
Great analogy.
I was hoping for a down spike to $0.055 to increase my position.
Who can prove it is actually friends and family receiving the cheap shares?
Is it possible that if shares are being transferred at sub-par values, it might be because smart vendors have contracts to be paid in shares at those values just like with options?
I know if I were their legal firm I would want to be paid that way, selling off part of my aquisition to cover actual costs and keeping some for the big payoff - nothing to lose that way
I agree and hope they do a good enough job scaring off the suckers so I can get more shs filled at $0.055.
Regarding VPLM downers - Too many of the same old arguments, I hope you can be more effective, maybe with new information or by contacting the company's investor dept and reporting back.
The target price to double my position is $0.05, so please work fast folks, before something actually materializes from the inevitable settlement conference likely to be scheduled today.
Maybe try
Clerk's Office
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case:
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
TWITTER, INC., ET AL.
DEFENDANT.
From USLegal.com => JUST TYPICAL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS This is what goes on today.
CASE MANAGEMENT in legal terms refers to the schedule of proceedings involved in a matter. There are various stages in litigation, such as the filing of a complaint, answers, the discovery process (interrogatories, subpoenae, depostions, etc.), and motions that occur before a trial is held or a decision is rendered. Each stage of the process has a scheduled timeframe in which it must be filed with the court or completed. When a complaint is filed and a case is assigned to a judge, the judge will often set forth a schedule for the submission or completion of the relevant pleadings, court appearances, and other matters.
For example, in a divorce matter, the judge will attempt to narrow the issues involved in the case, provide deadlines for filing schedules of assets, conducting discovery, filing of proposed visitation and custody plans, and other related matters. Depending on the jurisdiction, a case management questionaire may need to be filled out. The judge may also decide to send the parties to arbitration or mediation to settle disputed matters. The conduct of the case management conference varies by jurisdiction, so local court rules should be consulted.
Wow, you got me started reading about Digifonica.
I don't understand the significance of engineers going to MSFT. Are you saying they stole and tried to patent their proprietary Digifonica work at MSFT?
Looking at the power players who worked at Digi and their histories makes me realize how important the work they were doing actually was.
I hope the trial will expose a history of how their resulting IP made its way into all the alleged infringers as part of their regular work practice.
Please elaborate - ????????????
Wow! Thank you for that. I would love to read the rest of this invention history.
Why make a big deal about the 10k now?
If a massive but difficult to reach gold deposit is discovered, the mining company doesn't show profit until metal is being produced in quantities large enough to offset the costs = pre-market 10K shows losses. That doesn't mean minerals in the ground are worthless.
The patents <=> the mining claim
The PTAB patent validations <==> the mining assey
The court battle <===> the valuation and public acceptance (permit) to operate and collect money
The settlement or appeals <====> cash flow or intimidation and enforcement to other potential customers to pay rather than claim jump the mines property and get tangled up in the same mess
And enforcement goes back to the first proven date of concept.
With the paradigm shifts they can be credited with, they had to have an extensive prior art search just to fight the USPTO for the patents - and that process really is a battle. I have done it myself many times.
Even if other people came up with similar ideas and put them in public domain, the proof of first inventorship wins and can claim against everyone else.
EG. Tesla and Marconi - Tesla actually invented radio communications and eventually prevailed in court just before his murder. But to this day, public belief and History generally refer to Marconi.
Judge didn't say they didn't exist, just that she didn't see - but often judges are less technical and the lawyers job in trial is to make visible to her and the jury the evidence proving that infringements are a logic work product not just devices.
Basically this conference was about making the trial manageable for her and the Lawyer agreed to comply.
It doesn't matter when the testing was completed. IP is about when the idea was first conceived even if it is in a notebook in the original inventors hand from 10 years before.
Don't be misled. Infringement is not determined to exist from the date of the first patent, or even of the first patent application, but rather to the date of the first notes or other proof by the inventors of when the idea was conceived and sometimes this predates the patent by years. From old records that inventors are usually meticuluous about, VPLM will likely be able to prove the actual inventors concepts predate the first commercial usages. No less would be expected of them in court if usage predates their patent applications.
In all fairness, you should keep things in context.
The word CANCER here refers only to the case not getting too complicated - if you include the whole text - Here is the relevant and ONLY CANCER RELATED PART of the transcript from the Nov. 14 judges conference with all the attorneys --- and the correct context was that judge was speaking against endless time consuming continuations ----- not the validity of VPLM's law suit!. Her goal was just to minimize the trial's complications and delays.
AND ALL THE DEFENDANTS THINK THEY'RE RELATED?
MR. MAGIC: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. MAGIC: WELL, PER OUR MOTION TO DEEM RELATEDNESS.
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
MR. MAGIC: THIS IS PETER MAGIC FOR APPLE.
THE COURT: I SEE. I DON'T WANT THIS TO KEEP GROWING
LIKE A CANCER, THOUGH, BECAUSE I'M SURE THEY'RE GROWING THE FAMILY AS WE SPEAK, AND ARE WE JUST GOING TO KEEP GETTING MORE
CONTINUATIONS AND THEN ARE YOU GOING TO ASSERT THOSE FOUR
CONTINUATIONS AGAINST THE OTHER DEFENDANTS HERE?
MR. MALEK: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME THERE'S NO
INTENTION TO ASSERT ANY OF THE OTHER PATENTS AGAINST ANY OF THE
OTHER DEFENDANTS. I CAN'T PROMISE YOU THAT WOULD NEVER CHANGE,
BUT THAT IS NOT THE CURRENT INTENT.