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.
Sorry, I was too late s/this edited corrected version: (please delete previous one)
=================
" " I respectfully disagree with you, however, in your opinion that "when, not if" is antithetical to "no idea when". (liberties on my part taken in regards to exact language you used). In contrast, I think it is very reasonable to have the opinion and belief that a deal will happen while at the same time stating the obvious - that the exact timing of a deal is beyond my knowledge. " "
.
[ I indeed find the 2 concepts antithetical & not in a mere semantics way... but more in the way you characterize and/or couch it.. I said both concepts were feasible on their own, but not together (all things considered incl the history of this play..). Now you counter by explaining your take on the juxtaposition of the 2 ideas & how they can indeed work together...but I find your detailed explanation even more faulty as well as more clear.. I think that when one characterizes this stock (or any other for that matter) as a "when, not if", they are CLEARLY stating that there is no risk (whether we all know better than that or not..) which in turn intrinsically implies a very high level of knowledge, which in turn translates to extreme certainty. It's not a matter of "semantics" in my book. It's a matter of a clear & obvious conveyance of one's sentiment. In other words, anything posted that equates with "when, not if", not only conveys "a sure thing", but by default carries w/it at least some semblance of a timeline. I don't mean to imply you should have a date or even a month, that's not realistic...but at the same time, surety of that level should contain a reasonable timeline (which would come along with the calculations & perceptions that brings one to a "when, not if" conclusion, to be fair. That said, to followup with "no idea when", to me depicts a definite conflict. Rather than semantics, I think that's a fair & more close look at the 2 rather contrasting ideas.]
.
" "Now we can argue and debate semantics forever. I'm not a big fan of doing this because it obfuscates the important thing - the patents themselves." "
[again, I reject the notion it's arguing/debating semantics. I happen to agree that debating semantics is for the most part, futile. Instead, i find the exchange to be about clear concepts on both sides and find clear fault with the lone concept of "not if, but when" on its own, and add even more to its fault when it's coupled with "no idea when". Bottom line: in my opinion, if one has "no idea when, it follows they cannot be certain as to" it's being when, not if. Hence, this dialog doesn't obfuscate anything, certainly not the patents. If you want to take that road, the patents & vplm have had more than ample time to prove themselves one way or the other, thus no discussion about "if, when, what, where, who, why..." negates that in the least. The patents, by now, can be reasonably well expected to have spoken for themselves in every possible (bought/sold, Mr. Market, outside expert evaluations, pps, overall confidence, revealing of letters of infringement, opinions by other voip telecoms, any real indications of offers, followup, as promised, about progress of Southbank, etc etc etc) way. The patents have spoken....and no one seems to believe them or even acknowledge them as anything to care about, 11 yrs after their creation. No one has done anything to obfuscate the value of the patents, they seem to have done so themselves. Years of opportunity to have proven themselves, but only maybe a couple handfuls of ppl, from BOD & msg board, combined, believe. "Not if, but when" & "no idea when" doesn't jive.
A poll on current opinion of, please:
.
1) will the company/portfolio be sold?
2) 2015 or when?
3) how much?
4) have the letters of infringement been sent out as the company said they
would?
5) if so, how many were sent out?
6) and if so, how many companies responded?
.
and/or...
.
7) will there be any infringement lawsuits ever filed by the company before
or in lieu of a sale? (if so, when?)
8) will there be any licencing of any of the patents? (If so, when? )
9) your current rating of vplm overall: (a) fully competant, great job done,
will sell this soon for big $; (b) good honest try but just don't have what it
takes; (c) scam
10) if & when the 100mil shares will be returned (and optional: will then
responsible party be identified?)
Or, none of these days it will happen...
It seems to me that the idea of such certainty that vplm will take off like a rocket, along with the notion of "when, not if" (as in "the only time it'll go to zero is when it does its blastoff"), just doesn't seem to jive real well with the sentiment of "no idea when". The 2 notions are very reasonable by themselves, but together they spell....well, lets say they don't exactly spell r-e-l-i-e-f or true confidence in something real & real predictable. More like wishful thinking...
I don't know that much about it. It seems to me that market cap means very little in a volatile, unstable, pink sheet stock in general, but esp when the stock has no income, no ongoing daily business, little to no money, all its eggs, (a small # of unproven patents) in one basket, no backup, small number of employees, majority of stock owned by a few insiders, etc. Seems to me it's pps is based almost entirely on pure speculation, unvalidated by any outside source & no tangible or liquid assets. Thus it's market cap would not have the same meaning or as true a measure of value as would a solid, more traditional company with real assets & regular income & products, which can be somewhat accurately gauged. That is my sense of things as much as I can figure. I have no real schooled knowledge about this side of things. I could be totally wrong, but I don't think above is too far off track. As to buyers raising the pps, of course it would, just as the opposite is true. I think if there's more buyers closer to the ask, the price goes up or more sellers closer to bid, price goes down. My point, if I'm not misunderstanding, was that since the market cap is speculative & artificial, in my opinion, then what does that $80 mil cap really represent, other than a mathematical formula? Certainly not real company value that could be realized by the shareholders should things quickly go bad & they wanted that money. That's why I used the $280 mil difference in market cap when pps was 35 cent, as an example. If it represented something real, then where did that $280 mil go? I think it's more of "a shell game"...
Well put. A problem is that #1 has already occurred ((including the "anticipated end date"), so that leaves only doom (#2). I hope we are both wrong & that it's not that simple.
Seems like if the portfolio was all it has CLEARLY been cracked up to be, by vplm, that voip teleco's and/or other savvy capitalists would be beating the doors down to get the goodies by now, if not long ago, rather the long drawn out, "takes time", watch paint drying process, the faithful would have us believe is occurring. But no one thought that a year or so ago, when all the multiple guessing game posts were made as to when & how many billions & then when none of the guesses panned out, start over again w/new guesses. All of them (and there were many predictions) are water under a LONG passed bridge.
.
The company has said they were duped & mistaken about the fortune 500 companies. They have said they were mistaken about imminent buyout deals. They have said they were misled or simply missed the improper issuance of 10% of the company shares. I ask, if one is generously willing to accept such mistakes as genuine, then is it unreasonable to think that they were maybe also misled and/or mistaken about the value of the portfolio? And as a followup to that very important question that I hope is not ignored, if it's indeed the case, or the case ultimately plead, of them being misled and/or mistaken about it, then when considering some of the time it took for other unknown or ambiguous things to come to light, such as they promised an update to the progress of Southbank, but never did, or other promises, such as the one to upgrade the stock listing level, which never was done or any followup answer ever offered as to why not, just a couple of examples.....then might that tight lipped demeanor be expected or explain why they have said almost nothing for so long, if in fact they discovered that they are mistaken about the foundational aspect & value of the patents. And would it not also explain why no followup offered to the investors about if & when & what's, as to the promised infringement letters?
What's the big deal about a market cap? All it is, is the number of shares x the current (artificially propped) pps. And if many tried to cash in on that contrived "$80 mil", the pps would plummet & $80 mil would never be extracted. It's not REAL value, based on real holdings. It's nothing more than speculative opinions & hope & belief. When it was 35 cent the market cap must've been 350 mil. Where did that $280 mil worth of value go? Is it in the pockets of the investors?
Well, I too, wondered about that (same or different technology). On one hand I thought it might be the same, thus an infringement, because vplm says there is no way around it, (with different technology) but that idea always bothered me alot... While on the other, more open minded & logical hand, I have thought there could well be other ways of accomplishing the same thing or, other techniques that fall within the "on sale bar" (I forget the exact term) aspect of the law, or some other loophole. Also, my readings of some of these other LI applications leads me to think some have been in use (or available) long before vplm LI. Remember that the CALEA laws have been in place for over 20 yrs & legal intercept discussions since long before that. I have posted everything relative to all that here, but as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to or even tried to explain away these apparent facts. I would always welcome any such explanation as opposed to automatically opposing them, as has been suggested numerous times. Instead, it's always some diversion or ignoring.
.
If, as you say, the patent is different, but redundant & not necessary, that would explain alot, but it would also greatly surprise me that the patent ofc allows inventions which are different enough to not be prior art, yet at the same time redundant in its final ability & useless, in that it doesn't posses any attributes to make it more desirable than the other LI technologies. That seems to be what you are suggesting & if so, I can't understand or belive the USPTO would actually operate that way. If it did, it would seem to me, to be a facilitator of scam stock schemes based on patents. Can this be so? I hope sunspotter chimes in about this..
.
As to your question asking how possible no one knowing about this company possessing the elephant in the room, youre right, that could not be the case & indeed is not the case. I have posted many times here about how vplm & it's patents have been far & wide publicized for a long time. I've posted copies of the company PR's being picked up by all the major (and lesser) financial news agencies & papers. And don't forget about all the numerous fortune 500 company's been in discussions w/vplm going back yrs now. That also would obviously equate to vplm patents being quite well known. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THIS! Oh, and don't forget about the infamous MS LI failed application, where posters here have repeatedly said it was MS trying to undermine vplm for their LI patent. (I explained a logical alternative theory as to what actually happened in that case, but it was ignored or scoffed at as "a wild theory" not worthy of consideration, even tho there are many wild financial conspiracies hatched, ala bernie Madoff, etc. It would be hugely naive' to believe vplm patents are some secret. However, I find it intriguing why they have not been openly discussed, in light of their claims, outside of the PR's, the CC's & the msg boards. It is a very strange thing I think. So what we have then, is real patents, that apparently don't cut enough cheese to ruffle ANYBODY's feathers (the company calls it "disruptive technology") while at the same time, numerous posts have been made here which seem to reveal a ton of evidence that the LI thing is an ongoing, thriving, multi-million or billion dollar business (as well as E911 & other forms of routing & billing) that completely ignores any & all of of vplm claims as well as the die-hard beliefs by a few propper uppers here.
.
Yes, some of these posts are long & many words, but they are also containing critical thinking & covering the bases w/many good & important points. Those who complain about the quantity of words must also think poorly of the quality also, otherwise they must feel the same about the lengthiness of newspaper, magazine, books, textbooks, lectures, interviews, etc etc. No wonder tweeting & texting is so universally popular..
.
I would love nothing more than to see real in depth & probing handling of these questions & outside proof or at least some form of confirmation of the major value of this portfolio. I would much rather be wrong than right about this, but not by "it'll happen, just wait, hold your breath, I believe, I believe, commentary. And at this stage of the game, if the so called unimpeachable integrity of the BOD & the fact that the patents were granted is enough to provide such undying faith, so be it, but I think the fact of the matter is that many have changed their outlook of this play. All vplm has to do is gather any & all resources (hasn't been a problem for them so far...) and sue one lousy small company for a small amount for infringing. Success would immediately turn this whole thing around.
HE GETS A LETTER!.... SHE GETS A LETTER!.... HE GETS A LETTER!... THEY GET A LETTER!...........(mj12-for your eyes only)
http://www.fiduscrypt.com/en/lawful-interception-mangement-solutions.html
.
http://www.subsentio.com/live/news/press-releases1/pr20141112/
http://www.subsentio.com/live/customer-care/subsentio-newsletter/october-2013-newsletter/
.
www.google.com/url?q=http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/wps/DocumentStreamerServlet%3FLMSG_CABINET%3DDocs_and_Resource_Ctr%26LMSG_CONTENT_FILE%3DApplication_Notes/LawInt_wp.pdf%26lu_lang_code%3Den_WW&sa=U&ei=fFjUVNr5No65oQSRooHgBA&ved=0CBsQFjAH&sig2=Msd7R6gaUNd2mpfc0-VnRw&usg=AFQjCNGcysxwXtTSLvxoLpgv5xzppA6enw
.
www.google.com/url?q=http://resources.wimaxforum.org/sites/wimaxforum.org/files/document_library/bridgewater%2520wimax%2520lawful%2520intercept%2520whitepaper%25200409.pdf&sa=U&ei=fFjUVNr5No65oQSRooHgBA&ved=0CB0QFjAI&sig2=f_3CkEIkQgLkvd1H1IX8qw&usg=AFQjCNFQof_TfUvrCKYtmLst27Y_PMU0_w
.
http://www.apogee.us/our-services/complete-calea-compliance/
I forgot to add #10...
.
10) if & when the 100mil shares will be returned (and optional: will then responsible party be identified?)
.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=110572642
I came across this article & thought the faithful could probably use it to help bolster their case for vplm LI value...
==========
Lawful Intercept FAQ
1. How do Cisco solutions for service providers address lawful intercept requirements?
Most countries require the handover interface between the service provider and law enforcement to meet globally recognized lawful intercept standards.
Cisco service provider network equipment can function as an intercept access point (IAP) within the service provider network but does not directly support the handover interface to law enforcement. The Cisco Service Independent Intercept (SII) architecture requires a mediation device from one of Cisco?s third-party partners for management of lawful intercept authorizations, provisioning of the intercept within the network, and presentation of the intercepted information to law enforcement in the
appropriate format.
Cisco network elements based on the SII architecture combined with a mediation device from a third-party partner address the lawful intercept requirements for the handover interface between the service provider and law enforcement for most recognized lawful intercept standards.
2. How does the Cisco lawful intercept architecture work?
In response to requirements to support lawful intercept for its service provider customers, Cisco developed the Service Independent Intercept (SII) architecture. The SII architecture offers well-defined, open interfaces between the Cisco equipment acting as the content Intercept Access Point (IAP) and the mediation device. The modular nature of the SII architecture allows the service provider to choose the most appropriate mediation
device to meet specific network requirements and regional, standards-based requirements for the interface to the law enforcement collection function.
The Cisco SII architecture is standardized in informational RFC 3924 and is supported by Cisco's partners for lawful intercept mediation devices and by other equipment vendors.
===========
So I guess this means that Cisco is high on the list of buyers, right?
.
Or if not, it's good for another thing to ignore or amusement, no?
.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/technologies/tk583/tk799/faq.html
I'd like to take a pulse on current opinion of:
.
1) will the company/portfolio be sold?
2) 2015 or when?
3) how much?
4) have the letters of infringement been sent out as the company said they would?
5) if so, how many were sent out?
6) and if so, how many companies responded?
.
and/or...
.
7) will there be any infringement lawsuits ever filed by the company before or in lieu of a sale? (if so, when?)
8) will there be any licencing of any of the patents? (If so, when? )
9) your current rating of vplm overall: (a) fully competant, great job done, will sell this soon for big $; (b) good honest try but just don't have what it takes; (c) scam
.
I will refrain from comment...let er rip
I wonder how many investors who spent a large amt of money on this stock at prices averaging more than a nickel or a dime...are honestly as happy, comfortable & faithful about the company & the product, still....... compared to the few who have been fortunate enough to take early profits that paid for the investment & can't lose in effect. No point in asking here really... but it would be interesting to know...
I think there's been a lot of "thick & thins" in the last 3 mos, last 6 mos, last 1 yr & last 2 yrs. The links give graphical examples of how well the pps help up...
.
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=staticchart&s=VPLM&p=3&t=17&showctype=1&width=336&height=190&delay=1
.
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=staticchart&s=VPLM&p=4&t=17&showctype=1&width=336&height=190&delay=1
.
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=staticchart&s=VPLM&p=5&t=17&showctype=1&width=336&height=190&delay=1
.
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=staticchart&s=VPLM&p=6&t=17&showctype=1&width=336&height=190&delay=1
Not sure why you responded w/a link to PRISM, but here's a link to CALEA:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act
.
As far as I know, CALEA far precedes PRISM or the PROTECT AMERICA act or PATRIOT act, or FISA, as CALEA became law over 20 yrs ago. It's difficult to sort out the differences, but I think the CALEA laws are more USA based & insures the installation of back doors into all communications equipment. But all of it and more (from my research) is basically all the tools the gov needs to intercept any and all communications over phone lines & Internet. And I cannot find anything that indicates any need for the gov't to pay any voip providers or vplm for vplm LI. I just cannot find such a connection, but maybe those resident here, who say it's one of the "goodies" can explain & not just say "it's so", how so? Otherwise, where exactly is the value?????
I know there are many companies in the LI business. I have posted that fact here more than once & posted links to some of them. Vplm IS in the business of LI because they have said they want to sell or licence it, so in order to do that, puts you in the business. But to truly be in the business, you have to actually make sales, or licencing & produce revenue. Vplm has not. I don't know if any of those others have or not, but from my research it appears to be a forgone conclusion they are.. It is very important, in my opinion, to establish whether or not the gov't, who has put the LI laws I to place, is using LI or not & if so, are they just freely using it or have they contracted w/anyone for it. Very important question because if the gov't is enforcing the CALEA laws, they would seemingly have to be doing so in conjunction w/the VoIP providers. Hence, they would be doing so either by right of law and freely or paying some kind of fee, one would naturally think, to get the "wiretapping" done when they want it. If they just get it done freely, by virtue of law, then that would seem to negate any value whatsoever, of the vplm LI, since such technology is by virtue of the law. And if they are paying for it, who are they paying & how is it accomplished w/o infringing on a patent that vplm has stated clearly, that there's no way around it (foundational)? Is that not THE CRUX of the matter?? (and the same all above goes for 911)
So over 2 yrs after vplm has stated that they have either serious interest, are in negotiations and/or have offers (they have made note of fact of offers several times now), there still is not a shred of evidence of any of it, outside of what they said.....and people who consider themselves to be smart, savvy investors who have all this "networked" info, after all this time, feel this is a good basis to believe vplm has got the goods & nothing has happened except losing shares & losing value. Ok. Cool
Hmmm... not sure about that. I think I see what you mean, but vplm does have an LI patent & I believe it's software based, thus they would have the software, or "produced" it & supposedly they tested it on their own voip phone e system when they had one & it was also supposedly tested during the patent process. So if that is true, then they produced it & obviously they hold a patent on it, so if you are correct, that would mean that the gov't has contracted with other companies who produced other forms of LI. If so, are those other forms of LI patented or just produced & sold or leased? I just don't know about all that. So do you have any evidence or links to info that reveals any such other LI and/or any such deals made between gov't & other LI producers. I just want to get to the bottom of this. It all doesn't make sense to me. Is it simply open source LI or what?
Post #24206 of 24238
.......
Again I ask...
.
If the ability & right of gov't to intercept voip communications is the law, as I believe it is (calea - in usa) & has been for many yrs, and it is necessary to use that ability on a regular ongoing basis, then I assume they indeed do.. If so, (how could it not be so?) then why is there no gov't contract with vplm LI?
I just read that quote. I remember it. It wasn't that long ago. As soon as I saw it just quoted here, my immediate thought was: No way does that statement reflect a person's long time impetus & diligence for being here to report on and ask hard hitting questions about things that don't seem right. I just thought it was a passing remark jokingly made about some fantasy party. At the same time, to attribute such an importance & characterization of the author to it, to me says alot about the poster's intentions.
Personally, I never said that the other patents had no value, I simply said my opinion was that LI & RBR were the most valuable & that comes from what the company has said & the majority of opinion here over time, that being that RBR is the foundation for voip service, not to be gotten around, and it's quite obvious that the worldwide laws, mostly already in place, which mandate LI, as well as world security being where it's at, equate to a value to the patent owner of LI, to dwarf any measly few billion collected for vplm voip 911. Unless of course, the case is, that vplm LI does not for some reason really have the value, while at the same time, the E911 element of vplm does. That's possible, but from what I've seen (and reported on, here on this msg board w/respect to 911) I don't believe so. I don't think what the vplm patent entails is what you think your article & reported charges collected for are. They are not one & the same. Not even close I don't think. The vplm patent is supposed to be an enhancement over what already existed before vplm 911 patent, as I understand it. And that enhancement, as has been studied & reported on, does little to enhance that which already was in place & does not meet the standards called for by governments, to take up the slack in the inability of existing voip 911 to shave off location time & save lives. Furthermore, as with all the other patents & their so called foundational future of voip communications, if vplm 911 was what you are cracking it up to be, then why hasn't the government already made a contract with vplm for it? It appears to be that the truth is, with respect to patents such as LI & 911, the ones the government has laws about & the ones that are so important to the security of the ppl of the world, that the government doesn't give a damn about vplm or its patents & everyone now also seems to know that not only does vplm not have the resources to defend their patents, nor has any venture capitalists stepped up to cash in on the supposed value of the patents, nor has any outside source whatsoever ever once said anything to the contrary about vplm patents, any or all of them. Only the few on this msg board & the few on the BOD have said so AND THAT, after several yrs of this, IS VERY TELLING...
Stock company's, esp in the pink, are well known to take advantage of investors. It happens all the time & is well documented. Just as a company has fiduciary duties to its investors, so do those with intelligent & inquiring minds, have a duty to themselves & their fellow investors, to excercise skepticism, as much as it takes, and ask all the questions, as many as it takes, esp when actions/non-actions, performance/non-performance, have consistently left a trail of less than expected and/or desirable results. Esp when those overall results, in the longer term, are akin to the 'seahawks' decision to pass, although it's my opinion in that the seahawks dumb decision to pass, had far more chance of success, than the vplm decision to secretly & mysteriously drop all their plans, which were deeply set in place & supported by a complete infrastructure they had built beforehand towards the goal of being a voip teleco. And when they obtained the patent suite, purported to be the foundation, baseline & end-all/be-all of the current & future voip communications realm, just as Chang said (and oromised), they had all the ingredients to take over as the king of the hill. That is really true too, because they would be the sole owners of the controls, the patent suite. They would have had to worry, at some point, about becoming a monopoly. Unless of course, things were not truly as they appeared to be (what a concept..) and/or were crafted to appear that way, but then, some party or parties, didn't like that future & stepped in to change the whole plan. Not too hard to conceive, given that in fact all above WAS the plan & all those element WERE in place & a complete abandonment & 180° turnabout DID in fact take place & with no warning or explanation or announcements WHATSOEVER. Ironically, or not, now, 2 & a half yrs later, this mysterious & unannounced change in course (and directorship) has resulted in a failure so far to accomplish what the company assured & all the shareholder believed, would've happened long before now. And additionally, has resulted in far more dilution, a few directors who own I believe half or more of the company, in fact a top boss who owns near half, and the apparent wrongful giveaway of 10% of the company, with no coherent or detailed explanation for, and a share price that has for the past year, save one short lived spike, steadily eroded. Thus, those who ask so many question, directly or rhetorically, are a big attribute to the readers. Regardless of getting straight answers or not, the manner in which they are answered & how they are characterized, manages to speak volumes about what may or may not be going on. Thankyou to the intelligent and well informed skeptics, who diligently keep pushing for the truth. Unless you were fortunate enough to get into a lg position, at far below where the price is now and smart enough to have sold enough high to make a big profit, then you have either essentially gone nowhere at this point, or lost alot, or are facing that prospect. It's also possible that the ship will come in, but far less likely that appears now than it did 1 or 2 yrs ago. If you got in at 8 or above or avg that or higher, which I believe is many, and stayed long, your in trouble. I've little doubt that many are hoping only for an exit point now, rather than the promised land. If pr'd spikes come, many will sell. If there is no scam going on, nor simply a big mistake made about the value of the patents, therefore still a chance for a homerun, then I implore the company to come forth with all the info about the real deal about the offers, the letters, the replies, the 100 mm shares, what were and who told any lies about any if above, going back to the original statements about the fortune 500 companies as well as the subsequent deals spoken about in pr's. If confidence were high, the pps wouldn't be steadily slipping. Regardless, they need to show proof of the value, otherwise the price will continue to fall or if there is a sale, it will be on the cheap.
If the ability & right of gov't to intercept voip communications is the law, as I believe it is (calea - in usa) & has been for many yrs, and it is necessary to use that ability on a regular ongoing basis, then I assume they indeed do.. If so, (how could it not be so?) then why is there no gov't contract with vplm LI?
9/29/14 - 05:00:00 am
.
VPLM News: Voip-Pal.com Announces Aggressive Continuation of Initiatives Aimed at Securing Patent Licensing Agreements & Monetizing its ...
.
Hmmm... for some reason they never finished the above sentence, but in any event, it says: "continuation" so that was going on 5 mos ago, so apparently they were doing this thing (whatever it was..??) for some time before that.. Anyways, then they rewrite it below...
.
09/29/2014 05:00:00 AM
Voip-Pal.com Inc. ("Voip-Pal", "Company") (OTC Pink: VPLM) announced today they have renewed initiatives...
.
[this time they speak of "renewed initiatives", so if I read it right, these actions are post 9/29/14, 1st "continuing" & then "renewing", and so apparently a 3 pronged effort, began some time before 9/29/14, so to be be clear... ahem... 1st doing it, then renewing it, then continuing it...and they also said AGGRESSIVELY! and I think somewhere they also noted assisting Southpark to assist them (?) (plus they have like 5 or more banks of lawyers assisting) SO SURELY, they must've had some level of success by NOW!?!?. RIGHT? (aggressive, continued, renewed, lawyered up, w/a Knight of Malta on top...jus sayin..)...so it's done, right?]
.
... geared towards securing non-exclusive licensing agreements for its proprietary patent suite of VoIP related intellectual property. Management has begun the process of...
.
[what exactly does this mean...?...they went down to the dollar general & bought some nice envelopes & stamps, and were last seen still trying to locate a US mailbox...?]
.
...notifying targeted companies of highly probable and perceived past, present and potential future patent infringement. Each of the targeted companies will receive written notification ...
.
[when, what year or decade?... and does that incl registered mail or are the letters still sitting on a shelf or wound up in the round file?]
.
... from Voip-Pal attorneys and given an opportunity to negotiate a non-exclusive licensing agreement. Failure to secure proper licensing of Voip-Pal’s technology will result in legal action initiated by Voip-Pal in order to fully protect the integrity of its intellectual property and the best interests of its shareholders...
.
[what is the time frame for this, or IS there even a time frame?]
.
... Management is hopeful that companies receiving these notifications will give Voip-Pal’s intellectual property the same level of respect and consideration as they demand for their own.
.
[cool... so months later, what's the case?]
To my knowledge, the only time an actual & definite value has been placed on them was by the original owners of the patents, who also, by the way, originally developed them, and also by the way, tried to make a go of it pretty much the same way as vplm did. I posted the info of it recently here. It was digi-phony-ca. They tried all the same & failed & then stated that they wanted to make a complete business change & filed all their assets & debts. They stated their ONLY asset was the patents (still applications at the time) & I forget the exact amt, but they quoted the value of the patents to be approx $381k, which was about $100k more than they had spent on them at that point. (that later went up to some $400+k). They couldn't even get that for them so they basically traded them off to become or merge w/vplm.
There was absolutely no diversions tactics. Only correct & factual data & timelines presented, which clearly showed the fantasy to be just that... When faced w/irrefutable facts that fly in the face of false wishful thinking, sometimes things seem to move from diversion to delusion.
.
The correlations made are fabricated to fit the "belief" or "story"...
.
The stock was up in the same range it is right now, before it was at the .004 referenced. It would've been at that level intermittently, around the time of acquisition. After, it went up, but still sometimes fell back to that level. However it did make a slow & steady rise. The rise is attributable to pumping, not any value in the any patent applications, as there was none. There was a deluge of paid pumping, and much of it was paid for by vplm. But there was no revenue to support anything & so any price rise was artificial & blind speculation. No outside source ever put a penny of value on the patent applications (or patents). It was all contrived value, contrived by members of vplm. Same is true for all the teleco end of the "business" which proved to be thinly sliced baloney.
.
After Mr market caught up with the baloney, the price fell again. Then more innovative pumping & false bold promises pumped it very briefly way up to .35, which was short lived & then it again has seen a steady drip in price to levels seen before any acquisitions. That, is fact. Ppl can cherry pick rather isolated events in time & then attempt to attribute them to whatever time line or actions they want to, but it's not a coherent model of what occurred, as above explains & is checkable. And no one ever said anything to the effect that any prices reflected PointsPhone activity.
.
The point made that about Sawyer being lied to, telling him a deal was imminent when it wasn't, may be true, but I should add that if so, a guy with the 'superb, flawless, hugely experienced, beyond outstanding resume & multiple doctorate education, with a lifetime of service, and stellar career.....esp in business, esp in communications sector, esp in stock companies, esp in directorship & on & on & on....well, that makes not, a gullible or unsavvy company leader, who would simply believe unsupported bs fed to him. Having the resume of a Greek God if you will, is certainly what separates great & accomplished leaders from ones easily fooled by stock scammers or mere incompetence. Otherwise, maybe said resume is not, in the final analysis, all its cracked up to be. You're either a near god in the world of service & business & a "doctor of psychology", or your a naive, easily manipulated old man, put in charge of a company as a figurehead or token gesture. Sure, as a ceo, you can't know everything, but when you supposedly sign off on 10% of the company, (with much if the stock seemingly going to the likes of kipping, all things considered...), then you are responsible & should step up and admit it & explain the details, as opposed to stepping down mysteriously & w/o explanation, in my opinion. Not to mention that this debacle has already reached the status of old business, with no explanations, official or otherwise. Ample time seems to have passed for any investigations and answers, but mums the word...as has become the byword & m.o. of vplm, ie, the letters, the Southpark updates, the explanation to investors of the complete dissolution of the entire teleco infrastructure, business & plans, all the supposed "offers", going back for yrs now, and on & on. The "playbook" has added up to be so "in your face" undniabkenby any truly objective viewer, that it's become increasingly hard to not call scam, whether it started out as such or just evolved to it. Such a near 3 year long (being only the more modern iteration) set of bs & missteps & false pumps, chock full of it, cannot be reasonably ignored. And the only accomplishment which would have the only value of a 10 yr company, that being the patents, have shown zero value to anyone, after all this time, except to the few shareholders who flipped enough stock to make out and/or the die-hard "beliebers". Since the pps keeps going steadily & predictably down, after pumps, apparently such beliebers are in the minority (lack of support beyond them & those hanging on to hope or a better exit point).
.
As to the points made about pumping not being for PointsPhone but for the patents....thats totally inaccurate.... as the reality is that the pumping has been done for every possible thing they could think of & get away with, certainly including PointsPhone, magic jacks, India, airlines miles, long distance, world leading edge technology, internet phones, patents, company development, plans to licence, and on & on & on. All one has to do to to see the indisputable truth if this, is to go to the website, click on news" and click back to the earliest shown PR's & read them. There is no arguing to be made, just read them. And that is the engine that propped the pps to its long wimpy but artificial levels, not any actual proven or demonstrated value, to this day..
.
A couple ppl swear that inya & Sawyer have provided answers to the questions been validly raised, and almost call liars to this who say their calls/emails are not answered, yet every single time (it's all here on the archive of this msg board) they are asked to share what they transparently are trying to get ppl to believe they have rcvd, answers wise, then they take off ramps, left turns & dead ends, in every case, because their purpose was not to share from that fountain in the 1st place. The readers can decide what their purpose was...
.
The head scratching is easy to explain... When msg board participants state that "questions are irrelevant if you don't believe what people say anyway", it's fallacious. It includes the false assumption that intelligent, objective ppl, automatically disbelieve everything they are told, which is so outlandish & untrue (which is easily demonstratable from the archive of this msg board), when the truth is that they only disbelieve what they specifically have noted & have provided valid explanations to those disbeliefs. There's a huge difference between shallow, out of hand dismissivness and validly handled specific arguments. The former is lazy..
.
"Simply saying", "it's my understanding the letters went out"... perfectly exemplifies such "diversions" and/or laziness, transparently failing to reveal the actual basis for the understanding. Without that revelation, the statement has the value of this stock so far, the patents so far, and is reminiscent of the PR writers.
.
The stating that the teleco aspect of vplm was "not the focus of the company", is not the right answer, because it fails to address the original & quite clearly posed question. And, as with other clearly posed questions, the replies repeatedly, but not surprisingly, divert from the original point. In this case, the original point was not "the focus of the company", but rather was questioning where was the announcement, disclosure & explanation of the huge decision, to drop the yrs long development of being a teleco and to suddenly steer the ship in a different direction. Failing to acknowledge such distinctions, seems to demonstrate a lack of comprehension. And there is no point in further research into the question, as it's pretty clear vplm never explained it. The only reason the question has been repeated a few times is because 'someone', early on, said the company did indeed disclose & explain it.. .
.
The stating that "we have already established the patents are worth vastly more than .08 is false, as no one has or can establish that.
"Well, that would still make your post incorrect.
I said BOD and patents. Do you have any other reason the stock would go from .004 to as high as .35."
.
[I find that clearly misleading. Here's why...
Originally, the statement made was:]
.
"Seems pretty reasonable that many still believe in this stock, since the stock has been in this range for sometime."
[it does indeed "seem (a) reasonable" assumption, but there are clearly other or additional factors to explain pps ability to maintain for awhile in a certain range which, by the way, is a price range that BOD members have repeatedly said is far below what it should be]
.
"Up an incredible amount since the new BOD and patents came aboard. It went to as low as .004 prior to that time."
.
[close attention to above, shows the 2 sentence, while written to appear as one agreeing with the other, is actually like "slight of hand", diversionary. The 1st sentence clearly places the timeline of the claim to be since the BOD & patents came on board. But the 2nd sentence actually has nothing to do w/the 1st one, except maybe an attempt to make a hedge, because the 1st sentence is easily shown to be wrong. So next, in reply, beer gives the complete & correct data to counter the false claim, as shown next]
.
(beer) I pulled some dates together for those interested in the real truth.
.
9-26-2013 VPLM PR - Enhanced 911 & Routing, Billing & Rating Patents Have Been Issued PPS .15 - .16 range - your investment is worth 42% less today.
11-14-13 VPLM PR - received patent certificates. PPS .18 range; your investment is down 50% today
01-07-14 VPLM PR - Mobil gateway patent receives issue date PPS .26 range, your investment is down 65%
05-07-14 VPLM PR - Announces Receipt of Advanced Interoperability Solutions Patent Grant Certificate PPS .17 range, your investment is down 47%
7-14-14 VPLM PR - Routing, Billing and Rating Continuation Patent Has Been Issued by the USPTO PPS .24 range; down 63%
and when the BOD came on board, PPS was slightly higher than today and VPLM has been in discussions for couple years already.
.
[that clearly looks to show the allegation to be wrong. Simple cut & dried. Instead of conceding so, it's followed by what appears to be yet another red herring or diversion from the above correct timeline data]
.
"If you really want to look at dates, you left off the MAJOR one.
April 11, 2012
Voip-Pal.Com Inc. in Final Negotiations to Make Acquisition of Intellectual Property
The PPS was in the price range I talked about around this time.
.
[but "...around this time" is not the intended time the original point was predicated upon]
.
"Over the next couple of years, the PPS gradually increased."
.
[again, not the time specified in the original claim. I think ppl usually say what they really mean the 1st time, then sometimes modify things, as needed..]
.
"IMO, it increased as the excitement built over the patents."
.
[or maybe the hype about the patents]
.
"They got approved, the new BOD. It became evident that the company had the "GOODIES".
.
[not very valid "evidence" of that, given that the pps had been much higher long before any thought of the patents or that BOD]
.
So after those apparent diversions from the original clearly stated claim, beer correctly responds w/this "back on track" response:
.
(beer) "Maybe because I was going off of what was said.
" "Up an incredible amount since the new BOD and patents came aboard ." "
.
[that's the right response, and really should be the end of it, but to go full circle, it garners this response:]
.
"Well, that would still make your post incorrect. I said BOD and patents. Do you have any other reason the stock would go from .004 to as high as .35."
.
[again, this attempts to couple "BOD & patents" timeline w/a whole different timeline (.004 - .35) which is way outside of the new BOD & patents timeline, and fails to note also, that the pps was actually hundreds of times higher long before either of those things (which directly addresses the assertion of: "...do you have any other reason for the stock to go from... ..."
All that was necessary was the data beer reprinted above <sighs>. I believe the same exact thing or tactic occurred weeks ago, when beer diligently found & pasted the info that at least appeared to show who was at the helm & who was responsible for the 100mm shares & where they went. I thought that was real good work & if I'm not mistaken, no one else brought forth any other evidence, one way or the other, yet I think it was summarily dismissed out of hand, even tho it was a VERY important issue, which has been kept absolutely quiet about ever since, which is quite awhile, and appears to have effectively shut down the whole shabang].
.
I'm so glad we have the goodies & all the DD, and all the accuracy and all the openness & disclosure & letters & lawyers & Aussie buddies & patents & children of patents & children's children of patents & the whole thing that good ol MS did & all the offers & all the websites & magic jacks & white nights of Malta & doctors of philosophy & doctors of hotel-ery(?) & CEO's that own half the company & and soft switches & points phones & airlines miles & world wide industry leading voip services & exchange listing upgrade perpetually in the works & man o man, you could just PLOTZ!!
"It doesn't mean you are being given insider information, but your going to know more then the guy who didn't do lunch."
_______
If you or anyone else, has garnered any such "...know more than the guy who didn't do lunch..." information, and are truly "a supporter", then you should be sharing that information with the rest of us who have done our own research & shared all we know, as opposed to coming in here & making excuses for why you're not going to share such info, esp after making it very clear that you or him or whoever, indeed has such information. To me, that speaks volumes to the true agenda of such musings. Personally I don't believe any such lunch date occurred, but if it it did, Sawyer or any other director would not be allowed to give any info above & beyond that which was not already made public or to make any new info public. Therefore it sounds like empty teases, meant to impress, not inform, after clearly stating that important info was garnered & known, enough to be certain of the success of vplm sale efforts. I knew, and I bet beer knew, as well as the other posters who politely asked for the info to be shared & everyone waited patiently for the info to be posted, which obviously & quite transparently, is what was wanted..(for msg board members to ask & plead for it), but we quietly knew, just like the last go-round of this sort, not too long ago, that no answer would indeed be given, after the tease. I not only knew it wouldn't be offered but the reason given, (they would only tear it up anyway - paraphrased) was pretty predictable.
.
Another quite interesting choice of words (so reminds me of the pr authors...) is to say:
"The big difference between the guys who support this stock and the bashers is simple.
The common terms used are "pumpers" & "bashers". Convenient it seems, to refer to ones own side as those "who support this stock" (very politically correct..), while interestingly referring to opposing viewpoints as: "bashers" (negative). A more knowledgeable & honest commentary, is that pumpers & bathers alike, are both negative, because the correct use of the terms are those paid to pump up or deflate the stick, for purposes of manipulation. Same could be said & named as such for non paid manipulators who presence & commentary is indeed for that purpose, manipulation. Those who have personal & honestly presented positive or negative viewpoints of the company, based on honest fact gathering & their own evaluation should not be referred to as pumpers or bashers, because that's not they are, they are simply exercising the opportunity to express their opinion, good, bad or ugly. Furthermore, if someone is a stockholder, having bought many shares, numerous times, based on the info disseminated by the company & subsequently finds the belief they formerly had, to have evolved into something different, and does so intelligently & with a reasonable amt of info & logic to backup their new feelings about the company, that based on their overall performance, then it's not fair or right to refer to them as "bashers". Bashers & pumpers, for your information, do so for its own sake, not because they truly believe what they are saying & reporting, positive or negative, so to continue to use such wrongly applied labels would say even more about the impetus behind it as well as what level of respect is held. Personally, I have never said a word about this company based on emotional feelings, but only for well researched & legitimate reasons.
.
"Our DD tells us that the BOD is telling the truth. They are meeting with interested parties."
.
When you make such a statement, does it mean that you choose to believe, just as a general choice/path to take? Or, doesn't mean that imbedded in your DD, are specific facts that directly support they are meeting with parties? Also, I don't recall any difference of opinion re: whether or not the company has met with others companies. I remember only strongly questioning the veracity of the telling us they sent out infringement letters. I don't recall anyone questioning the fact that vplm may or may not have met with other companies (on some level). I would guess they have, most likely at their own prompt, and no one has been seriously interested.
Simple as that.
I meant to also add:
.
That this was a non-binding, non-exclusive agreement and one where Southbank’s efforts were keyholed only to deal w/existing (vplm) prospects, thus not anything of their own doing. As such, it struck me as an agreement made on behalf of Ed Candy, being an Australian, to do something for his homies. So they were almost gifted the opportunity, like on a silver platter, yet they still were not able to do anything, apparently. And nor has vplm. I see no other reason for vplm to have made the agreement. Nor do I see where they (Southbank) can be held responsible for anything not happening. Vplm is entirely responsible for all they have done, including the 100 mm shares deal. Now, they won't say anything about those shares, or about Southpark, or about the website deal, or about why Sawyer stepped down, or about the letters, or about the "offers" or about.... help, I can't stop my keyboard again... But don't worry, cuz we got the goodies & we don't say anything wrong at the ISS conference!
The way I read it, it was vplm, not Southbank, who said the words, which ambiguously were worded to sound as though Southpark had the best offer on the table & would be selling the company.
.
"Voip-Pal.com Inc. ("Voip-Pal", "Company") (OTC Pink: VPLM) announced" (keywords: "Voip-Pal.com announced...")
.
... today that Southbank Capital has issued a press release in Australia regarding their agreement to represent Voip-Pal for sale to their existing relationships.
("agreement to represent..." is all they said)
.
It was also vplm, I think, in another pr, who said that Southbank had the best offer on the table...
.
Here it is:
.
Dr. Thomas Sawyer, Chairman and CEO of Voip-Pal stated, "Of the current offers that have been presented to Voip-Pal, this may be the most rewarding to our loyal shareholders."
Let's see... lol, lol... so I'm guessing as long as vplm remains unsold (cuz they can't?), that a select few are able to make a few grand every week, lol, lol, in perpetuity. Sweet... Oh, and then there's a few other "selectees" who wait til the right time & figure out one more pump & one more jump & one more much bigger ca-chiiing! All the while, vplm, in effect, says to all the telecoms: "you just have a blast w/the patent technology. We don't give a rats behind!" We love the kool-aid drinkers who buy more every time the price drops (which naturally keeps occurring w/no product sales, lol). And we LOVE the SEC too, for not wasting our hard earned tax dollars on frivolously hiring enough ppl to do anything about it, lol. Yes, there IS perpetual motion machines. (well.. almost.. occasionally you have to dump in another cup of kool-aid). Of course this is all just playing with the possibilities, could be wrong, lol.....anyone for starting up another guess the billions pool??
Bloomberg.com really on top of things... This is their current info
________
VPLM
Voip-pal.com Inc (VPLM:OTC US)
Last $0.08 USD
Change Today +0.0005 / 0.61%
Volume 135.3K
As of 8:10 PM 01/29/15
Voip-pal.com Inc (VPLM) Snapshot
Open
$0.08
Previous Close
$0.08
Day High
$0.09
Day Low
$0.08
52 Week High
06/27/14 - $0.35
52 Week Low
11/17/14 - $0.06
Market Cap
24.2M
Average Volume 10 Days
208.9K
EPS TTM
--
Shares Outstanding
291.4M
--
VPLM:US Advanced Stock Chart
Related News
No related news articles were found.
Voip-pal.com Inc (VPLM) Related Businessweek News
No Related Businessweek News Found
.
Voip-pal.com Inc (VPLM) Details
VoIP-PAL.com, Inc., a development stage company, operates as a
broadband voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) telecom company in the United States. The company offers proprietary transactional billing platform tailored to the points and air mile business, as well as provides anti-virus applications for smart phones. It also provides local and long distance VoIP services to consumers and business owners; turnkey VoIP communication and reseller solutions; and international calls using VoIP technology on the Internet, smart cell phones, and PC tablets, as well as offers network based technologies and processes that could enhance
subscriber and carrier functionality. In addition, the company operates PointsPhone.Com, a retail Internet Website that provides pay as-you-go international calling services, including a virtual number, smartphone apps, and PC dialer and calling services. VoIP-PAL.com, Inc. is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.
_____
lol <sigh>
ISS World Americas is the world's largest gathering of North and South American Law Enforcement, Intelligence and Homeland Security Analysts as well as Telecom Operators responsible for Lawful Interception, Hi-tech Electronic Investigations and Network Intelligence Gathering.
________
Does anyone find it strange that in this conference last year, no mention of vplm or vplm LI can be found? (at least not in their listed agendas).
My apologies.. The reason I thought this was a big enough deal to post & ask about is bcuz I could have sworn that on the page I had been looking on, which had the link I posted, said it was a patent. But I clearly see at the top of the linked page it says "application". I know there's been zillions of applications, but somewhere I thought it labeled it as a patent. I guess I read it wrong. Good work on the followup.
_____
Note: I think I found what led me to believe it was a patent. At the top of my screen, on the page that I provided the link to, above the address bar is a header like with a title. I don't aleays see such a header. Anyway, the header says:
========
Patent (and the #) - Stealth interception of call within a voip network - Google patents
========
Whoops
Addendum to last post:
___________
Yes, I do recall something about that prior art that vplm brought up & I remember being somewhat puzzled by the fact that so much time, money & expertise is supposed to be utilized before & during the prosecution period, ie, from the applicants attorneys & then from the USPTO ppl & it's amazing how much work must've been done in that regard & yet there is simply so much potential prior art that it's like an endless well...x's 7+ patents & it's wonder that anyone winds up having to pay big bucks for a patent or a licence or a court order AND THEN to not be overturned. Bottom line = why didn't vplm, with so little resources, drop all their teleco plans & infrastructure....which along WITH THE PATENT PENDING TECHNOLOGY, and at the prime time of development opportunity for fledgling voip teleco's, decide to DITCH ALL OF THAT and instead take on this HUGELY difficult & foreboding & cutthroat pathway???
Thx GBC, for the reply. EXCELLENT post, as usual. You know, in my research (and I have done alot..), I've seen so many of these "patents" or applications and/or whatever's....that always have left me wondering....and have helped to teach me exactly the fine points you listed as to all the "if's, and's & but's" regards them. So I was searching for some other "fresher" angle, when I came upon this one...and I'm like, ok, just another one of the pile...but as I began to peruse thru, I see these buzzwords like stealth, voip intercept, and that it was already a patent & way older than vplm's & what appeared to be written in much clearer language....and it really grabbed my attention, thus my post & followup post. I'm sure the answer lies in the points you made & it would be real interesting to know what the answer is. I've seen discussion of voip LI going back to 1995 & we are under CALEA law for some time now, so I cannot understand how things can "SLIDE" like this for so long. "Something" ain't right in Denmark.....
2/3/2014 5:00:00 AM
nyt
Wednesday, 01/28/15 03:00:31 AM
Re: None
Post # of 24155 Go
What is THIS? It says it's a patent from 2004... what's the deal?
http://www.google.com/patents/US20040165709
.
Is it chopped liver?
________________
Does anyone know or have an idea why is this patent not prior art or alternatively, a way around vplm LI? I look for or find this stuff because I can't believe that a patent as powerful as vplm LI portends to be, has not made MAJOR waves after 2 yrs of being a patent, in a world where it is law almost everywhere that service providers MUST offer LI! (and it it [VPLM LI] has been around, known about, for a number if yrs. No one but a handful of vplm staff & a few msg board posters has ever said anything about it. It is a perfectly valid & a hard hitting question, but it gets the same sort of treatment here, as vplm patent portfolio is getting in the news & communications world. Same for RBR, touted as THE foundation of ALL voip communications of every type. When points like this are brushed aside as worthless, meaningless, it says alot about, well, I guess I won't say....
No deflection whatsoever. Down yest. Down today. Price close to same as 1 month ago. The only thing deflecting is downward, "currently". A year & a half ago, approx a quarter. A year ago, approx a quarter. Now, with all said & done, hovering around 5-10 cent.
The reality is that RBR & LI are the 2 biggest patents. They were allowed approx a year & a half ago & 2 yrs ago. Within less than 3 mos of LI allowance, price was 9 cent, same as it is now, 2 yrs later. When RBR was allowed, it was around a quarter. Now, a year & a half later, it's 9 cent. Speaks for itself...the patents that is.