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.
"Patent attorney expert conducting a thorough multi-stage prior art analysis could come to the conclusion that the patents mean nothing. Furthermore, the USPTO thinks the patents are something."
...
...
Actually there are other ways to determine how good/important the patents are: such as look at the years long level of recognition vplm has garnered, from the market & the media, about its patents, both pre & post approval. (note: if you wish to incl the Fortune 500 Co touts, they turned out to be bogus claims, by the company, according to huck fin, so incl that would not help your score). And, as I have noted previously, the granting of patents by the USPTO, does not give them value or lend to their possible efficacy in the real world. As patents, they have now been around for between a year & 2. As applications (well known ones) they have been around for a bunch if years. Fact is there's no apparent interest or moves by any voip player, about them or to obtain them, none. If there was, believe me, we would know something about it, by now, beyond unvalidated teases. And the MS argument never held water, because if true, then once they were denied & vplm got the award, by now MS would've snatched it up at least for LI for Skype. Vplm seems to be in the business of slicing baloney....extremely thin at that.
You're way off the marks. You need to be more careful in how you read things. 1st off, you replied to me originally, referring to something I quoted that someone else said; it wasn't I that said it, so you should've replied to that poster. 2ndly, of course I don't think presidential advisements should be public news. That's ridiculous. The point of what I wrote was a comparison about making mistakes & then hiding behind them. I specifically referred to "mistakes" when I said do you think he would hide behind them while advising presidents. That has nothing to do w/the public. What I meant was that in that capacity, when a mistake was made, normally he would be upfront about having made the mistake & explained it, so that the president or whomever he is advising, would not only know the corrected facts but also wouldn't feel it had been hidden behind, but rather, the advisor was forthright about it. In this case, w/vplm, there is a fiduciary duty to keep investors reasonably informed. If he stepped down due to making such a mistake (the sign-off) then why not simply say so, esp in this current atmosphere with ever increasing doubts about the company & erosion of pps. In such an atmosphere, secrecy adds to the wounds. Furthermore if he made an honest mistake, and it is discovered & then we are informed about it, as we were, along w/the coming plan of action, then why not simply move on from there, "his stellar-ness"? Why resign & take also away from us the benefit of his vast experience & abilities. You mean to tell me he could get thru decades of the highest levels of public/private service, but then, due to a small mistake, supposedly due to inheriting a mess, it is discovered & so he resigns? Not buying that. Anyway, the point is, there was no suggestion that presidential advisements should be public (unless the president so chose..) and you are wrong to think that this play, possibly on the brink of failure, does not deserve more transparency. There is no way in hell, that being more transparent about that item and many many more important but highly ambiguous things they have said, would be a negative & harm the company. Remember, there in fact, is not a single shred of evidence that the portfolio is valuable, and so far the market has no belief in it either & the company has nothing else & is broke. If you have some actual evidence to the contrary (not conjecture) then please present it. By the way, we were promised a timely report about the progress of "Southpark", but that turned out to be just another empty promise. They said it, not me, so where is it? And by the way, to those who seem to characterize the ideas put forth about more transparency are by ppl who are stupid & think that it should be "gutted" & spill out all the inside knowledge, get a grip, most understand there are things sensitive & better held close to the vest. It's a matter of the ability to discern what is beneficial to investors & the company, to be more transparent about.
"My personal opinion about why Sawyer stepped aside is precisely because
he signed off on it - probably in error - not having the full history - and
probably regrets that."
...
...
The above quote is not mine, so your post is to the wrong person.
"My personal opinion about why Sawyer stepped aside is precisely because he signed off on it - probably in error - not having the full history - and probably regrets that."
....
....
and my personal opinion is that if above is the case, then it would've been better for him to simply say so, rather than hide behind "for personal reasons", which leaves anything else just conjecture (mostly negative). If he made an honest mistake, man up & say so, especially with all the doubts surrounding this company...after all, such a "stellar" business figure ought to be more transparent. Do you think he was that secretive about any mistakes when he was advising all those presidents?
And as to the "new guard changeover" as you put it, isn't it pretty much all the same guys anyway...just playing musical chairs?
Sorry, I was too late to get this edit in..
...
...
And unfortunately, they don't seem to be able to, or even the slightest bit interested in showing any proof to the contrary. These things look very bad & they perfectly fit the playbill that the SEC continually sends out notices to us that these are the earmarks of fraud & we should be fully aware of it, not to mention the fact that such a similar scenario as this turns out bad WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TIME, in the pinks??? (while the blinded faithful, under the influence of kool-aid, it seems, keep insisting, contrary to the obvious, vs the contrived, that it's all chicken little..). They insist the indicators are good, when they clearly are not. They insist on loyalty no matter how much incompetence has been demonstrated It sooo reminds me of the "religious experience", where excuses are the soup de joir, regardless if how bad or ridiculous the written words are. They can't seem to digest the simple fact that if the portfolio was what it was cracked up to be, there's no way in hell thst it would be ignored for this long. So they contrive "logic" that suits the weather for them. Too funny (but sad). And the recent comment about how "we'll show them that they should've listened to us & held" (paraphrased) is indicative of a sophomoric attitude of "we win-you lose" mentality, rather than deal with the undeniable negative facts as tho none of them had the slightest merit.
Bottom line - over a year since patent approvals & outside of the PR's & white papers & faithful long msg boarder's, there is not a shred of outside evidence to so much as suggest that the patents are what they have been touted as & the market & the pps & all the big dogs that are fully aware of vplm (that is an undeniable fact) have shown they couldn't care less about our patents, period. It is simple economics that a commodity or a technology that is worth multi billions, to say the least, would be left ignored like this, plain & simple, but the faithful will continue to find ways to explain it away, to save face.
And unfortunately, they don't seem to be able to, or even the slightest bit interested in, showing any proof to the contrary. These things look very bad & they perfectly fit the playbill that the SEC continually sends out notices to us that these are the earmarks of fraud & we should be fully aware of it, not to mention the fact that such a stick similar scenario as this turns out bad WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TIME??? (while the blinded faithful, under the influence of kool-aid, it seems, keep insisting, contrary to the obvious, vs the contrived, that it's all chicken little..). They insist the indicators are good, when they clearly are not. It sooo reminds me of the "religious experience", where excuses are the soup de joir, regardless if how bad or ridiculous the written words are.
Nice "story" and last week's post about all the numerous companies involved with the ongoing and fully active market in LI, was also very informative. Too bad vplm was not included in it in any way, shape or form & garners absolutely 0 recognition from ANYONE outsider wise. Why? Nobody has an answer to it.. (oh yeah, I know, I know, "it takes time", doesn't happen overnight, lol, lol).
Assuming that the vplm patent suite is as necessary & foundational to the future operations of voip, in its numerous forms (which the patents cover all of), I would like to hear opinions on what retroactive penalties the biggest of those in the voip business might wind up having to cough up, in the eventual lawsuits that everyone seems to agree will happen once the patents are in the hands of those that have the money to buy & then initiate the lawsuits. I'm pretty sure that every investor here agrees that is the eventuality to occur, right? So then, what do you think when that finally happens will be the damages that will have to paid, ballpark, say from MS/skype, or Google, etc etc or any other Big Dog that is not the one who buys it? I'm only interested in what you might think the damages will be for 1 of the the big infringers. This figure could be expressed as an "up to now" estimate, or any other time frame from when any of the patents were approved, up til as much as the 20 year long patent rights. I know it's not an easy amt to figure, esp since we are not even told if the promised letters actually went out or not (which changes the amt of damages due) plus you can't know how long til such a suit & a judgement might take to happen. Therefore I'll make it easy. It's already somewhere between 1 & 2 yrs of infringement (assuming the patents actually are being infringed which we don't even know that for certain) going on, so base it on that kind of time frame (incl of course the minimum amt of time it would take til such a case was brought to the point of judgement, which obviously would be another significant chunk of time before that gets to that point. So that would make it a minimum of 2-3 yrs of infringement having had occurred up to that point. And and you can assume it's not "aggravated" by having had been sent a letter beforehand. (even tho that is doubtful to believe that a major infringer would never even get notified they are infringing..but just for sake of making this estimate of infringement penalty, that I'm asking for your estimates of, to be on the most conservative side of things.
So pick a big dog & make your ultra conservative estimate of what damages they will eventually have to pay. After all, that IS what will happen eventually, right? (because w/o that belief, then there could be no belief in ANY value, right?... which would make the whole idea of being a stockholder a moot point in terms of the portfolio....but fine if all you're interested in is to surf the waves that surround the PR's & the ensuing speculation, until the gov steps in or BK.
Yes, I remember all that & it bothered me then as well, but I disagree w/your takeaway.. Either the patents are truly necessary & foundational to voip, or they ain't. If they are, then one doesn't have to be a genius or a math wizard to project a massive value, even quite conservatively... or they are not needed nor of any value whatsoever. I don't think there's any middle ground. Therefore, if they are as touted, anyone can project out to an eventual huge amt of $ the portfolio will garner, by hook or by crook, one way or the other. That's the very nature of a product being needed & foundational, period. Otherwise, (and "otherwise" is what it is looking more & more everyday, for month after month, after month), it has NO value whatsoever, at least not any real, bona-fide value. So if they are for real, then it is simply stupid to sell out on a 10+ year long effort to bring then to fruition, by selling it cheap, quick, easy. This company has the resources of 5 (or more) law firms, that have been said to, in large part, specialize in patent law & voip technology, not to mention that as stated before & not ever refuted, there are any number of legal ppl, or teams, who, if they saw the said necessity & huge value of the portfolio, could & would step up and SEE IT THRU, to happen...you know, like: "engage!"..."make it so!" It is said: "where there's a will, there's a way"... I'm this case, "where there's a massive fortune, there's a way". That...is the bottom line. All the rest of the "explanations" are merely excuses for what's what...
A very recent post stated that this play is nothing more than a stock selling scheme... and every indication that has become evident about this company, for a long time now, seems to support that theory almost completely. How does 99.9999999% of all other penny's, with any similarity to this "touted story" turn out. We are the one in a billion who is gonna prove to be different, right???
If this is for real (hard to believe at this point) then immediately what needs to happen is:
1) offer proof that there was an offer to monetize months ago
2) offer proof that you have kept your (vague) word & sent out said legal letters
3) using any resources available (Malak...?) initiate a small infringement suit against a small infringer, ie, an easy, simple, open & shut case. That would result in either an offer to settle out-of court, in quick order, or a court imposed penalty. That, would get the snowball a rollin' & then, sooner or later, a big dog would pretty much realize that they had better get off their duff and pay the big bucks to put an end to this world shattering voip threat.
Simply put, anyone can, if the portfolio is truly foundational, just project out to the eventual natural outcome of dealing with these patents, which would HAVE to amt to a massive fortune. And we already have it established that the penalties will be retroactive to one degree or another, sometimes tripled. THIS SET OF FACTS CANNOT BE DENIED OR IGNORED BY THE BIG BOYS, ie, MS, GOOGLE, CISCO, etc......
......yet, no one is jumping or even shows the slightest care about it, and the pps is tanking & the bod plays tiddlywinks, so most likely, the patents are worthless. In fact, I challenge anyone to show a single shred of direct evidence of value of the patents. (saying that they were granted by USPTO, or that MS tried for their version of LI, is not "direct evidence").
I thought he had 40%? Did he aquire an additional amt equal to control?
Thank you for reminding & explaining that. I think you are right, but I don't know how much it matters, save the bod stepping up YESTERDAY w/some words for the s/h's, some explanation & encouragement. And how about news on the letters progress & Southpark progress. I'm afraid moot points..trying to be open minded, but they aren't helping at all..
I think that is profoundly true. Even if by some miracle it turned around & made it big, the basic philosophy is true & renders such proclamations as utter nonsense.
Sadly, it may be as simple as that...
Here we see that painful & steady & deep erosion of the pps, but the "stellar" bod, who finds it necessary to put out a PR to announce a reissue of a PR already published (the Aussie version of the Southbank pr), has NOTHING TO SAY NOW. sad, very sad
Convenient to not have the energy as all those so called strong points have systematically, one by one been shown to be not nearly as strong as originally believed. Paper tiger strengths. Wishful thinking strengths. The tech has been with us pre & post bpatent awards, for quite some time now & fact o matter is it gets no respect whatsoever. No one has made any serious or significant move to buy or licence this earth shattering techno, perhaps none at for all we know. We've been strung along for so long, the majority here now recognize it as such. None of the touts have proven to amount to anything but talk. There are so many actual, factual, negatives vs mere hopeful conjecture you could list. No proof of anything. No sales. No income. No letters. No infringement lawsuits. No licence agreements. Promises broken. CEO can't handle it & is secretive about why. Meaningless, fruitless deal w/Southbank. Malak gets almost everything. Phony degrees. Phony bio facts. Unprofessional spelling, grammar & use of terms in white papers. Now old promise to be reporting turned out to be nothing more than hot air. No real valuation. turns out MS doesn't give a crap about the LI after all (was just a ploy). Candy refuses to identify himself with vplm while around the world prompting all things voip (what a freaking joke that is...). The whole fortune/s & p 500 tour turned out to be bogus BS. I could probably go on for the rest of the nitd by just thinking, but my fingers are hurting.. Promise to incorporate the techno into our supposed (contrived?) "cutting edge", VoIP telephone company. Magic jack affiliation turns out to be another fallacy (while magic jack itself, continues to make sales everyday to this day). Recent report posted here which reveals a booming legal intercept business for everybody but vplm. Promise to update us on the progress of Southbank, in a timely fashionable turning out to be another empty promise, no confidence around anywhere except a few "wishful" stockholders who got in so cheap it's hard for them to ever feel the losses too seriously. Oh man, I can't even hold the phone up anymore... A chill that never gets lifted. 5 or more major legal teams whose work has achieved what for us...squat? All the sold off shares. Only negative buying, as the pps continues to tank, tank, tank. PR's filled with mystery and ambiguity as many here agree. Conference calls that aren't conference calls at all, but really just infomercials & all scripted. Gotta stop for dinner. Getting dry fingers... One hell of a bag o goodies, I'll say. Anyone care to add to this list?
Delusional based on illusion. Twisted facts (for convenience--saying you have no dog in this fight is like saying I have no car, except this one I'm driving--fuzzy logic). There's been PLENTY of news--on a regular & ongoing basis...but all secretive, ambiguous, misleading, mistaken & unsupported & not a shred of it has been shown to come to fruition... They report "news" & then there's no followup ever....hmmm....a HALLMARK of technique derived from "the handbook", perfectly delivered "tenants" of the playbill??
Stating "It will remain a good investment" is not only just a wishful thinking opine, but is couched like advice, but actually isn't such hot advice at this point for others.. What have you to back up such a claim?..."stellar board"?.."MS tried.. "?.." foundational, world-changing patent portfolio"?.. 'Southbank throwing around their heavyweight'.. A reported "offer to monetize", lol, lol, lol.. "in talks (or not) with F500's or S&P500" &and/or several/multiple big players?.. WHAT?? Please list your basis.
"...one doesn't just throw a penny in the fountain, close one's
eyes and wish. That's not what investing is about..."
condescending & grossly assuming, as if all the DD done as best as we all could do, amounts to something that falls far short of your own personal level of DD & investment smarts. If your pocket is currently in the black, congrats, if not, blowin smoke is all... And, since time has PROVEN nothing solid w/this company (outside of the fact that a set of patents exists...big deal), then you also did nothing more than throw some dice, period.
I don't WANT to be negative, for the sake of itself, as you clearly suggest is the how many are dealing here.. If the facts are negative, it's negative facts, not negative ppl. Conversely, one can employ all the positive nrg they want & that is just fine, but it makes for a positive personality, not a positive fact. If it works, great, but it doesn't seem to be working too well here..
"...and there are some minor points that I hear... "
Characterizing all the hard work, DD, facts, which have not been debunked, such a long & serious list as it is... as "minor points", and calling it as nothing more than "sour grapes" is insulting & reveals the blinders.. For EVERY so called "negative" I have posted, it was preceded by a hopeful, faithful, believing POSITIVE commentary made, but then the actions, lack of actions, unsupported, unfulfilled promises, created the vacuous conditions to make followup comments. I defended every word & action first, before THEY made a mockery of themselves & I explained ea & every negative opinion, rather than make shallow, passing zingers. As well, many others here have done the same to one degree or another & I defend & applaud their efforts to dig to the core truth, ESPECIALLY in lieu of much proven truth from the BOD & the comic book PR's.
"...nothing but sour grapes and FTW.
Failure to wait."
I beg your pardon - - see above! And "FTW"...is only a valid argument up to a certain point...and then becomes nothing more than another common but empty catch phrase, all too transparently stubborn... Although I will give that we were basically promised (pretty close to) a sale or other action that would make us all happy by the end of the year. Sounds great for 5 minutes but they have a way of leaving me more wondering & doubtful almost as quick as the PR mill churns out the good news gospel
"There is a legitimate and rational reason for a delay right now. Speculate to
your heart's content, but not a single one of us has the true inside
information... "
Thankyou...for such a beautiful example of your circular & self propping logic. 1st you DECLARE there are legit reasons for delays, something that you cannot support with any known facts & blame "speculation", and then you answer to your own fallacy, by immediately following that by declaring it's ALL speculation, including your own declaration that there is a "legitimate reason". I find THAT to be nothing more than crafty wordplay. Either there's "a legitimate reason" OR just you SPECULATING, sorry, ya can't have it both ways.
"...not a single one of us has the true inside
information... "
That is more doublespeak, illusionary, baloney, sliced too thin, not buying.. The truth of the matter is that ALL OF THE INFO WE HAVE... HAS... (wait for it...) been GIVEN TO US BY THE INSIDERS!!!!!! (and then, and only then, when the crap doesn't pan out, in one-way or another, a combo of facts & speculation naturally follows, quite RIGHTFULLY so..). So what "sounds childish to you" is really your mischaracterizations of the legitimate reactions to the disappointment action/non actions of the company.
"Those who wait, and play their hands
looking at what IS happening, not what one hopes to happen will be
rewarded. "
More talking out-of both sides of your mouth. Remember, what Is happening...is, according according you, nothing beyond pure speculation (when what you ACTUALLY do is cherry pick what is fact & what is speculation, to suit your theme ("..goin' where the weather suits my clothes", lol, lol). Where do you get your RIGHT or AUTHORITY to guarantee stockholders that they WILL be rewarded, if they hang tuff? Isn't that famous last words of shucksters.
"The portfolio is worth something far greater than it's traded now."
Is THAT a FACT? can you offer proof of it, any reasonable proof?...or is that more not your wishful thinking, SPECULATING?
"If the company were put on the market for.12 there would be a line out the
door of buyers just to put a lid on these patents and make them go away.. "
More pure speculation & quite unlikely based on the fact that no one but us, has demonstrated an iota of belief in the patents to be what theyve been cracked up to be, and in fact, seem to have simply ignored the patents and voip-pal, as clearly evidenced by the recently posted here (by a "child", right?) article about the huge legal intercept MARKET that is & has been...marching on their merry way, without our patents or voip-pal. Thems the facts, not speculation.
And you cap all this off then, with: "but trust me"... too funny
Nice list...I also like the list of "tenants" in the white paper. Maybe you should fwd this list now to "down under" so they can read it too! (I think it takes twice before it gets all the way to southern hemisphere...) No worries.. Stellar board..and surely MS is almost ready to pounce (within another year or three..) and they're real patents, really, Really, REALLY! Im not kidding
Looked him up, saw his site, seems genius in this endeavor. Have no doubt he's the artist, so noted. But he doesn't sign his work or ask for any recognition. If you recognized it as such, Thx for giving credit where due.
I didn't forget to acknowledge anyone. Several times on this board, I made reference to the experience I went thru w/another stock, not a penny, that was built up for many yrs to be a heleva investment, but eventually went belly up & was shown to be a scam at least with respect to the ceo & biggest money raiser, both busted by the SEC. I tried to use the example of that company here, as a cautionary tale, regardless of the fact it was a totally different type of company, because the pertinent part, was how a stock & it's PR's & it's msg board promoters, could look great for many years, only to eventually wind up being a loser for the majority, to the tune of hundreds of millions of $. The point was not well rcvd here, but I tried. The graphic was posted on that site, for that company. It was not signed (as far as I can see) & there was no other reference or acknowledgement made to any such author. It appeared to be a kind of stock photo, where you can put whatever company name you want to it, which is what I did. While it is sad to all those who lose money on these things, I found the picture hilarious & very apropos, potentially. I have no idea who created it.
"There is virtually no
exposure anywhere else on the web involving VPLM."
....
....
I don't think that's actually true. Every single PR (of any importance) has been published all over the Web for a long time, to all the major financial news agencies. I have reprinted them here a couple of times. WSJ, NYT, WASH. POST, plus many many of the large & small so called analysis reports online. Bottom line, vplm is no secret, guaranteed. The whole story is well known to any & all of the major players. For crying out loud, supposedly there was the "battle" between MS & VPLM, for the patent.. c'mon...
But don't forget... Candy went all over the world speaking to all the big dogs about the now & the future of VOIP!!! but guess what....he all but denied the existence of anything named VOIP-PAL!
GIVE ME A BREAK
...so the short of it, VVVVV, is thankyou for that gesture, but I'm afraid it's too late maybe..?? I demanded they show some proof of the letters. Nothing.. I demanded a small small infringement case be brought, to show, prove & get the snowball rolling. Nothing.. So don't expect any reply from them to your efforts. Before, they would get inza or whoever to spin up some good propaganda, but now it is increasingly difficult for them to answer honestly & with solid details, to these questions. I say: if they are for real, immediately show proof of the letters & of any response to the letters....and immediately initiate a small lawsuit, as your fiduciary duty, against a small infringement case. Anything else is nothing g more than dragging out, ad nauseum, a scam or what will eventually amount to a rip-off even it it wasn't originally intended as such. No more secrets, spill it!
Well, 1st.. Thankyou.. but such a gesture it seems to me, assumes that BOD is not aware of same directly or indirectly (in general) and that...would imply a level of ignorance assigned to them which is not possible I don't think, at this stage of "the game", which I cannot buy. In my view, the levels of ignorance & the timelines, which are now history, require stockholders or any other interested parties, to accept/believe what now appear to have been fairytales, incl all the "it takes time" crap (true at 1st, then turns to crap, like iron rusts). It also "takes time" to spin, weave & produce stories that get "bought" hook, line & sinker. Reality can be verified. BS cannot. Pretty much all the negatives have been reasonably well verified. The promises & many supposed facts, have not been verified & all this, over a pretty long period of time, depending on which particular angle in question, but still there is really nothing, in my reasonable & grounded mind, that any longer qualifies to be in a "not enough time" box, except to those who refuse to analyze it in a logical, hard factual & non-biased view & instead are driven by any number of reasons which give them some need to be right, regardless of the apparent slow collapse of the house of cards. One guy loves to say: "why do you insist on explaining your foolish nonsense or "crazy theories" & that I "subtly come on here as a basher in lieu of DD". That is a good example of what I mean. My words & attitude are not subtle & I have connected the dots & made sense & backed up ea & every idea with facts or good logic. For ex, when I went into how the whole MS actions were proof enough of the validity of LI, and using all the known facts, put forth a more believable theory as to why MS went thru their "motions", it made very good sense & connected the dots in a reasonably complete manner, it is ignored or dismissed as crazy, but it is not crazy, any more that the lengths big & smart dogs will go to make $. The only explanation given that I saw, which even offered a semblance of making sense & connecting the dots (above & beyond those who simply disregard the rules in how to honestly connect the dots, ie, scribble enough all over the board until all the dots, lol, are eventually connected.. duh) is the one that stated that MS believed (yeah, right...) that VP would fail but quit within a month of the award given to VP... but even that is utterly ridiculous within the perview of the whole picture.. which I clearly noted when I presented my ideas...that being that quite simply, if MS honestly thought the VP application would fail, then it follows their own essentially same application would also fail, or conversely, if VP's would succeed, then obviously MS's would fail (due to prior art). AND.......all of this would've been quite evident to MS beforehand, what with all their myriad terms of lawyers, forensic scientists, DD, and the high level of scrutiny (and, lol..ahem, prior art..) they would've applied. And to majorly cement & tie all that together as a workable, sensible, logical theory...after all was said & done, and after more than a year has past (I posted the info straight from vplm website which showed the date of the initial USPTO approval of LI patent) the BIG POINT, the BIG PROOF, the UNDENIABLE REVEAL, is that in the end, MS has made no move nor even the tiniest indication, to buy the OH SO IMPORTANT, MUST HAVE, FOUNDATIONAL, WORTH BILLIONS & BILLIONS, LI patent. Seems now, that the reality is that they couldn't care less about having it. Them's is the cold hard facts. (not to mention same 'couldn't care less' 'tude, from the rest of the big dogs, middle dogs, little pups, or any dogs for that mstter). At the same time, I gave a very solid reason WHY they my have gone thru those "motions". I described how there is great pressure put upon the big telecoms, from opposite sides.. Pressure from the gov'ts of the world, for them to provide a backdoor... and pressure from their huge customer base, to mitigate their fears of losing their privacy/security. There IS NO complete and satisfying answer or action that could satisfy both sides at the same time, but if you look at it & think about it, their whole "ploy", which was their application for the LI patent, which was nothing but an "EXERCISE IN FUTILITY" (if taken as is...), makes far more sense, when viewed in above scenario. It allowed time to "skate", while they continue to infringe, (if they even really are..?) esp in the knowledge that they would be the last one to ever be sued by vplm. That makes sense and is not a "crazy theory".
But the one caveat, that these big voip companies are avoiding (or hoping to avoid) assuming of course that the patents are world class important, is the retroactive infringement, "innocent" or not, that EVENTUALLY, when the patents are either bought by some 'big pockets', or licenced, or both, that they quite simply will be LIABLE!!! I can't see any way around that FACT....... but surely it obvious to them as well....so short of some secret game plan they have to thwart that inevitability...... MORE LIKELY.....it is common knowledge amongst them......that the patents are not actually what they've been cracked up to be..???
And by the way, contrary to what was said, I have made many positive posts about vplm or individual comments.
As a shareholder of this stock, which we have been assured 6 ways to Sunday, is the sole trump card holder of all that is voip w/it's patent portfolio (or should I say: "patently cornholio"?), this article makes me sick! All this info about the huge LI "market" & the long list of playas, not some future fantasy, but all the here & now....while the supposed god of it all (what a joke...apparently) the great & powerful voip-pal, not only is not so much as mentioned or recognized, but one gets the sense that it doesn't even rate as the last thing on any of their minds. What a sad freaking joke this has turned out to be, matched only in pitiful-ness, by those that come on and promulgate their undying faith, no matter how ridiculous the actions or non actions of the company, nor how much it tanks, nor how obvious it becomes that no one besides them & the bod generated hype, anywhere on the planet shows any sign whatsoever of believing in or giving a damn about vplm.
I DEMAND THAT VPLM IMMEDIATELY BEGIN A SMALL INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT AGAINST SMALL LEVEL INFRINGER, TO PROVE THIS ISN'T A SCAM OR A GOOD IDEA GONE SOUR, AND/OR TO GET THE SNOWBALL ROLLING. AND AT THIS STAGE OF THIS GAME & ALL THE SHENANIGANS CONSIDERED, AS WELL AS NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THE PROMISES MANY, COMING TO ANY MEASURE OF FRUITION, I THINK MANY OF YOU HERE OUGHT TO ALSO DEMAND SAME...
Hey watch it now...I've been taught/told/trained/tricked...that the board (esp t. Sawyer) is an absolutely "STELLAR" bunch...so I'm not sure I appreciate such disrespect. I looked up stellar & it means cream of the crop, so easy on the knocks, he's close to sainthood, no?
"What you say about his company...
Is what you say about society...
Catch the mist, catch the myth
Catch the mystery, catch the drift"
The white papers & the patents clearly explain what they are supposed to do & the how is explained in the patents as well, but as to how clearly is contingent upon how learned one is in these matters as it is extremely complicated & lengthy, but if you are somewhat technically minded & you read it, everything is explained & described. These systems also had to be tested to some degree as part of the patent process. Also there was supposed testing/demos of all the technology by the company itself using its now defunct voip system. I've never seen any entity refute the validity of the patents ability to do what they claim, but on balance, I've seen no proof outside of what I offered above, to validate the workability, efficacy & efficiency of these patents. The white papers go some distance to explain why they are "foundational" & not easily subject to "getting around" them.
I figure top voip patent lawyers are what is needed, to determine if all that is indeed for real, above & beyond the USPTO & the company PR's. It bothers me ALOT, that THAT has not occurred or if it has, what is the result of such a study?
I guess the big question is: why does this thing just flounder...?
DAT's what I'M TALKIN' ABOUT! Hey VPLM, how but giving these guys a call!!! Sheeeesh...whadya got to lose? (excuses?)
"Companies like Hacking Team refer to their products as “lawful intercept” technology. They need at least the pretense of dealing with legitimate actors because the legality of surveillance software depends on the behavior of its users. That’s all that fundamentally separates their software from tools for crime or repression. But evaluating that legitimacy becomes tougher as prices fall and customers proliferate."
.......
"Hacking Team offers the assurance that its users are all government institutions. Spyware is perfectly legal in law enforcement or intelligence investigations “if used with the proper legal authorization in whatever jurisdiction they’re in,” according to Nate Cardozo, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Hacking Team’s “customer policy” also claims that it will not sell to countries listed on international “blacklists” or that it believes “facilitate gross human rights abuses.” The company won’t disclose what it means by blacklists, how its review process works, or which, if any, customers have been dumped. Hacking Team’s spokesman refused to provide details beyond what is on the company’s website."
......
"The U.S. government has shown an interest in policing the improper use of packaged malware. The Justice Department just recently brought its first case against a spyware developer, arresting a Pakistani man who marketed StealthGenie, an app that does some of the same things as Hacking Team’s RCS – monitoring all phone calls, messages, emails, texts and more without the owner’s knowledge — except for individuals rather than governments. Announcing the charges against StealthGenie’s maker, an assistant attorney general called the spyware “reprehensible…expressly designed for use by stalkers and domestic abusers who want to know every detail of a victim’s personal life.”
.......
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/30/hacking-team/
.
.
(gee, I wonder if we should send them "a letter"?)
"Companies like Hacking Team refer to their products as “lawful intercept” technology. They need at least the pretense of dealing with legitimate actors because the legality of surveillance software depends on the behavior of its users. That’s all that fundamentally separates their software from tools for crime or repression. But evaluating that legitimacy becomes tougher as prices fall and customers proliferate."
.......
"Hacking Team offers the assurance that its users are all government institutions. Spyware is perfectly legal in law enforcement or intelligence investigations “if used with the proper legal authorization in whatever jurisdiction they’re in,” according to Nate Cardozo, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Hacking Team’s “customer policy” also claims that it will not sell to countries listed on international “blacklists” or that it believes “facilitate gross human rights abuses.” The company won’t disclose what it means by blacklists, how its review process works, or which, if any, customers have been dumped. Hacking Team’s spokesman refused to provide details beyond what is on the company’s website."
......
"The U.S. government has shown an interest in policing the improper use of packaged malware. The Justice Department just recently brought its first case against a spyware developer, arresting a Pakistani man who marketed StealthGenie, an app that does some of the same things as Hacking Team’s RCS – monitoring all phone calls, messages, emails, texts and more without the owner’s knowledge — except for individuals rather than governments. Announcing the charges against StealthGenie’s maker, an assistant attorney general called the spyware “reprehensible…expressly designed for use by stalkers and domestic abusers who want to know every detail of a victim’s personal life.”
.......
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/30/hacking-team/
if... I repeat, IF...a legal team, esp. one that focuses on Internet/voip/patents, we're able to see the validity of the "industry leading" ,foundational aspects of a patent portfolio, such as vplm', then I have no question in my mind they would offer to take up the fight on a traditional type of contingency, that being: you don't pay til we win. Doing it for shares, regardless if they have them or not (that's prolly next..a call for a vote to up the issued #), sounds more like a pymt than contingent.
It has been obvious to me (doesn't mean I'm right..) for a long time, that if such a value could be discerned by a legal team, or by or in partner with, any deep pockets thst could see this SIMPLE FACT.... that said team or partner would've long ago reared their pretty head, KNOWING (easily) that THEY would be the TOTALLY NEEDED (cuz it's common knowledge that vplm is broke) catalyst to MAKE IT HAPPEN. would THAT NOT BE the common way to go? And if I'm right about it (how could I not be.. it's gazillions of $$$$ we're talking about..), then what does it say about THE PATENT PORTFOLIO that it has not happened???
You answered your own question by deeming the shares "a bargain".
What about this:
"The Essential Tenants for a Voice Service"
Isn't that a major misuse of a the word tenants (not a typo, as they use same word several times in the white paper). Shouldn't it be "tenets"? And isn't it kind of arrogant, that we know they read this board & this has been pointed out yet they refuse to even go in and make the corrections. Duh... (maybe by "whitepaper", they just mean something scratched onto a napkin..)
1st of all, lemme say..there's a "voya", a "voyage", and a "voyager", but I believe what you're referring to is Vonage.
.........
.........
Yes, I did say that, based on my limited read of the patents, at least as much as could handle...and it seemed to say that there was some hardware involved, which I think was explained to be incorporated into the phone system hardware that they had as a voip phone company. I'm not sure if vplm ever actually spent 5 minutes as an actual up & running telecom, or if that idea put forth was just some more of the oh so familiar exaggerated descriptions by the imaginitve PR & white paper writers, but in any event, I'm thinking that the hardware is on the provider side of the equation, with respect to the patents, which is where infringement would take place.
I said software also, as that aspect was definitely described in the patents, in terms of controllers, soft switching, and the like.. So i think its a combo of hardware & software that are used to implement the various systems.
Any cursory read of the patent technology reveals that it is a very complex set of the above basic components. As such, I think there can be different levels of infringement. I'm not so sure that any companies would need to all be using the same entire set of hardware/software & techniques. On the other hand, if certain aspects to of the technology were important enough on their own, to be a major integral component of any certain patent, and if it heretofore was not yet patented, but well known & understood, then I don't see what is such a stretch for multiple companies to have been using the same thing. Why not?
Further, if they were using said components before they became patented by vplm, I'm not at all sure what the parameters are, but I remember a legal aspect brought up by sunspotter, which I can't remember the name of it at the moment, but I believe it essentially said that if an entity was using technology before it became patented, that they have a certain level of right to do so, w/o penalty. Depending on those parameters, it might go some distance to explain why some of these supposed infringing companies are not too worried about it.
"That would imply that vplm gave them all the technology prior to
google/ms/apple/vonage using them."
No, I don't think it means that. Just because vplm has the patents, doesn't necessarily mean that they (digifonica) invented it all from scratch, like totally new technology. I think some of it existed before hand & as it became more & more apparent how needed these technologies would be in the future, it went from the more novelty stage to becomming an important part of the up & coming mainstream, thus creating the opportunity for some enterprising people to apply for patents. It doesn't mean that they got it from vplm. How could that happen?
As to the idea you stated, in terms of some major link between voip & legacy being facilitated by the patented vplm technology, maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that's a very big part of this. I think there is some aspects of it that involve that link, such as gateway, but my take on it is that there is indeed a major link between legacy & voip, obviously, since they interconnect to each other, but I think that is a feature of voip itself, not the vplm patents.
...and if I'm not mistaken, even non willful, "innocent" infringers, are also subject to retroactive infringement penalties.. Of course if vplm sent notice to every possible infringer, then their wouldn't be any innocent infringers & it would all be tripletake. Imagine what that could potentially add up to for 20 yrs worth of all the triple penalties! Nah...why the heck would any big pockets partner w/vplm to see such a scenario through..?? nah...never happen...why would they do that? (pssst...could someone remind me why not??)
That's why the last thing I said was:
"... Here it is now over a year later since that process
began (patent grants) & to this day vplm has not (or cannot?) shown a
shred of proof that any such notifications have even occurred..."
Rhetorically...
......
Company A did do a patent search, but did not find this particular
patent.
Also irrelevant, at least from an infringement point of view. Just
because you didn't find the patent office doesn't have anything to do with
whether you are infringing or not. However, you are not charged
with "notice" until the patent owner actually notifies you that he
believes you are infringing -- notice is important because, up until
you have "notice." you are simply an "innocent infringer" -- you'll
still be liable for infringement, but the penalties are much less
harsh than they are from a "willful" infringer -- someone who
continues to infringe once they've been put on notice.
.....
Now, the question is, can Company B, who purchased the patent,
apply it retroactively and claim the 'prior use of prior art' of
Company A is a patent infringement?
Yes, but only to the point that the patent issued. Anything done
before then patent issued is, by definition, not infringement because
there was no patent in existance to infringe. However, once the
patent issues, there can be infringement, and a new owner is
entitled to assert all of the rights of the original owner. Patents are
freely assignable, and whoever owns the patent can assert the
rights, even if they didn't own the patent when the infringement
occured.
Now, there are the concepts of "laches" and "equitable estoppel,"
which are two similar (but not the same) concepts that basically
say it is unfair for a patent owner to sit on his rights and let
damages accumulate -- basically, you have to assert your rights or
lose them. However, even though you would raise these defenses if
you were actually sued, the time fram we are talking here is what, a
year, year-and-a-half since the patent issued, so that would likely
not be long enough to raise laches as a real defense to
infringement.
If you are being accused of infringement by the patent holder, get
to a patent attorney ASAP -- accusing someone of patent
infringement is a very big deal, and whoever moves first can often
get a decided advantage over the other party.
.....
.....
Sounds to me like vplm rightfully should've been sending out infringement notices to any & all they believe were/are doing so, ever since ea & every patent was granted... Here it is now over a year later since that process began (patent grants) & to this day vplm has not (or cannot?) shown a shred of proof that any such notifications have even occurred.
"...what harm is there to an infringing company to ignore early attempts at licensing?"
What about retroactive infringement claims/penalties?
J. Garcia: "..see here how EVERYTHING...lead up to this day..."
"...I think they knew they had something of value that was headed towards relevancy, but it was too early to know how that would take shape, and the best way to have their ideas come to fruition. At some point it was decided that energies were best spent focusing on the patent suite, rather than trying to split directions and do too many things at once. The patents are the key - they realized that at some point."
.........
This explanation makes no sense to me. Here's why:
It's beyond obvious to me, that a set of voip control patents is a match made in heaven to go with a voip telecom company. In other words, if you are one of many voip startups or an established one, a foundational suite of control software, the system & the patents is BOOM!!! the MAGIC BULLET!! now able to almost instantly transform into a "Microsoft or Google" of the voip teleco world, which is exactly what Chang stated was the next steps & goal of voip-pal after the merger. And why not? After all, if you have the voip telephone software & hardware system already in place & advertised on your website & then all of sudden you also have the patent pending technology to vault you above & beyond ALL the rest of any other telecos, and you also have the same players, ie, Sawyer, Tucker, Malak, that everybody keeps saying are such great & accomplished guys (if indeed they are & if indeed the patents are also as great & valuable as touted), then the ingredients are there to transform it to king of the world for the next 20 yrs and bring in untold, immeasurable fortunes for so many for so long, because the world is absolutely ripe for it....
....but then no.....according to your explanation... that perfect match of ingredients only produced confusion & ambiguity on their part & they didn't know what to do or which way to go with it (which is crazy because the merger is exactly what was explained by Malak to be the upshot) & decided to say the hell with all the telephony setup that I think both company's were working on, and to hell with the obvious perfect match up & the obvious monster size company it could've produced, as well as the stated and posted/PR's plan & just chuck it all for a sale of technology that wasn't even yet sure to be all patented. Doesn't seem logical to me.
More secrecy. Why not disclose the reason instead of hiding behind the oh so commonly heard "for personal reasons". I guess that means the reason is not good or positive enough to just give it..
Also the fact that no one here cares to express their opinion on the call to initiate a small infringement suit now...shows the consensus here is more interested in engaging in conjecture & speculation over all the moves & non moves of the company, than a vote for positive action (while you watch the pps slowly tank, with the apparent no sales, no offers, no letters, condition of company). The time for it is now, but no one cares enough to call for it. Slip slipping away..
My post complained about the level of apparent secrecy vplm demonstrates re: details of their past & ongoing efforts to monetize their products, which don't violate any NDA's.
And I also made another call for shareholder's to voice their opinion on my call for vplm to do whatever it takes to initiate a small infringement case one of the minor violators. That is the fulcrum needed to change the momentum of this saga, imho.
I don't see what this transcript of a complaint from at&t vs Cox has to do w/vplm or my post comment/complaint & request.
Again I call upon the bod to offer some higher level of detail on any & all aspects of its efforts on behalf of the shareholders to monetize. And I ask for readers to opine on the prospect of an immediate instigated small level infringement suit.
Interesting reading:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/federal-judges-get-no-respect-in-patent-appeals-but-that-may-change/
==
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/05/02/75-the-real-rate-of-patent-applicant-success-on-appeal/id=24525/
==
http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/mag_article/patent_lawyers_ponder_the_changed_post-grant_process/