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.
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/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/03/why-patent-office-so-bad-reviewing-software-patents
=======;
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/eff-patent-office-theres-nothing-wrong-throwing-out-bad-patents
The only intention of these posted links is to provide some counterbalance to all the many posts made here during the past year or so, which basically categorically stated or tried to imply that just because the gov has granted a patent, means implicit credibility & infallibility. But that is not necessarily the case, esp not anymore & esp with the absolute glut of software patents & the fact that maybe the USPTO can't properly handle "the flood".
You didn't. I didn't know what to make of the Custer comment, but was provoked to use it as a jump off point, as the comment almost sounded as if to question the level of seriousness of my "will make history" comment & then, as usual, it turned into a rant. In trying to figure out what made you think "offended", I had to backtrack thru the comments, to try to figure it out. It just hit me... lol...what you actually meant. I didn't get it the 1st time, hence my post. Now I think I see what you meant was the allegory of "make history"...with what happened to Custer (it didn't go good, right?). So I think then that you were more likely offering your opinion on if you are one of the faithful, (no matter what) or, see it as not too promising (which is how all the developments have come to make me lean). If so, sorry I mistook your comment. Given all the various very questionable elements, it's hard not to be disparaged. I try to keep looking at what seems to be a good & valuable set of patents & all the good parts of the BOD & the hookups w/big, important patent attorneys, and this past year's somewhat austere set of PR's, but ea & every one of these seemingly good points, has not seemed to follow thru w/the results one might expect & instead, almost like some bad deja vu, is turning more into a kind-of strained, stretched, wishful thinking game, which in turn, almost looks to have been fed & kept alive (the belief & faithfulness) by what has at this point become more hype-like, perfectly timed news releases (and the undying love & hope for untold riches, (that an impeccable BOD is working to bring), by the faithful stockholders here). But some of them were so strange (like the PR about an Aussie PR) and some of the crazy wording & uncorrected mistakes (like the whole misnamed white paper section that I posted about - "The Essential Tenants of a voice service [pretty sure that should be "tenets", but they go on to use the same "tenants" about 3 more times in that section, listing them....but no one seems to care...), and the numerous ambiguous statements made by BOD, which have all been covered here, that in retrospect, seem to be "on purpose", to confuse & hide behind...
And all the secrecy about any details.. as if we are to believe that every important aspect & detail is somehow protected by "NDA's", jeez, to the point where I feel like we need to use freedom of information act requests. Where's the infringement letters? Where's the responses? I know, I know..."it takes time!" ....days, weeks, months, years, decades (??)
Please post your opinion(s) on my call for a small infringement case to be immediately initiated.
We have been told that the future of nearly all electronic communication will be via the Internet, such as with voip, text, video chat, pictures, gaming, television, etc. In fact it is already a hugely used medium & has been for years. We also have been told that every one of these communications will and in fact does, have to utilize one or more of the technologies that make up what vplm' patent portfolio embodies, especially RBR in a foundational sense. But they are all very important. All you have to do is read about legal/lawful intercept to know how universally important that is all over the world, to the point where numerous countries have banned the use of voip services until a way for the government or authorities to intercept is put into place. Without it, terrorists would have free reign worldwide communications available to them & of course that, will never fly.
Then of course there's enhanced 911 & interoperability (seamless platform switching) & gateway (eliminates roaming & makes worldwide calling local), so it is as big & important as it gets & the numbers, calls & connections wise & the value of what can be charged to users, whether individual or telecos, is mind boggling & staggering.
We have at the same time also been told that there is no way for any technology to be able to circumvent these patents due to their basic foundational nature. That is what has been categorically stated by the BOD in no uncertain terms. Therefore what it means is that the entire voip & all the other ancillary forms of Internet communications will have to GO THRU THE VPLM PATENT SUITE in order to be used, period!
As far as I'm concerned, that is akin to contemplating the amt of stars in the galaxy & their combined energy. In other words almost impossible to fathom. Also afaik, the above description does not exaggerate the overall picture & if someone thinks it does, PLEASE COME FORTH & enlighten us as to just what is exaggerated or untrue. Notwithstanding that, it seems to me that sum total of this, in terms of potential value, or numbers of users, so as to be quite HISTORICAL, to the point where it would make Custer's last Stand look like a 4 year old hissy fit in a mall.
Mind you, I do not know if all the points made above are in fact true, only that it is indeed what we have been told & if anyone disputes any part of that, speak up please, as it matters alot. It IS what I have gotten out of it & been led to believe. It's like cars & gas. The gov & big oil controls the production of gasoline, which we ourselves cannot produce. And so if they cut off the supply if gas, none of could drive anymore (which is why we should switch to alcohol). Simple as that. If people worldwide didn't pay the piper so to speak, to use the Internet for voip & the other type data communications, that is, to be licenced or otherwise authorized to do so, then, same as those with no gas to drive their cars, we would similarly not be able to use telephony. ( I predict that in this, there may eventually become a grand showdown, between Internet based telephony/communications & RF (radio frequency). But of course in the end, that would be controlled & taxed as well, and eventually, they will tax out feet & our breath.
So I ask the long & faithful...
Is above what you believe to be the case, in terms of vplm patent suite?
More like "taking ed candy" from vplm... For some strange reason the candyman doesn't seem to like his name associated w/vplm. He blatantly left his job w/the company out of his LinkedIn profile & he galavants all over the world speaking about teleco & voip but is very careful to never mention anything about voip-pal, the "foundational" technology that nearly all peoples of the world will have to pay homage to (that's what we've been told, no?), and all it "solutions", or his connection to it. Of course that's only my opinion based on what I've seen in this regard so far. Maybe someone can set me straight on it & show me to the contrary. Hmmm. So seemingly, the "candyman can't" & "today's Tom Sawyer, he gets by on you". Chang got "chocked".. Malak gets almost all of anything that happens or something along those lines (I need that part explained to me..) Inza tweets his way to new recruits hearts & has such a way w/words that sometimes they gag him ...What's the score on Tucker, does he do anything interesting? What a cast of characters! I'm so proud of them, in the knowledge that they are gonna make history soon! (and a boatload of cash for umm, some...)
Again..... I call for an immediate initiation of one small infringement case against one if the many we've been told are violating our patents. Just one small case is all that's needed.. Should be like taking candy from a baby, no? And there should be so many to choose from. We must have enough resources up our sleeve to just start one little suit for a small amt. This would be a game changer, a veritable snowballs chance in Alaska!
There is nothing you (vplm) could do more effective at this point.
Readers: please cast your opinion on this idea, or yes/no vote.
Oh yeah.. Thx for reminding me. I forgot all about that....what did they say..??.....by the end of year?? Oh boy, Im excited again...only a couple mos...!?
I was apologizing for posting incorrect info, if in in fact I did. The apology would be to any who read the misinformation. As you have by now seen, I got my info also from the company. Obviously, what I posted was correct in conveying what it says on the website. If it turned out to be overturned for some reason, that I have not yet uncovered, to explain the discrepancy, then they (the company) should have a disclaimer placed on top of that release posted, in my opinion.
"Dr. Thomas Sawyer, Chairman and CEO of Voip-Pal stated, “With the Notice
of Allowance from the U.S. Patent Office for the Uninterrupted Transmission
of IP, this concludes the five patent applications in the Voip-Pal portfolio
of technology. With these issued and allowed patents, Voip-Pal is in a very
strong position to influence the future of VoIP telephony.”
Ok, i dont know how to post it the way you did (please let me know how you do that, thankyou) but anyway, I did indeed read it correctly & I don't know what is the cause of this major discrepancy, but here is the info i based my post on & it comes directly from voip-pal. (by the way, if the discrepancy turns out to be the difference between this notice of allowance, which I consider that to be a done deal for all intents and purposes, because at that point I believe they say it is closed for prosecution, and the actual delivery of the patent paper, then I wouldn't expect it to take 6 mos & the rest is mere formality, so I don't know how to explain that? I'll have to investigate more... but I wanted you to know this is the basis for my statement.
http://markets.financialcontent.com/prnews/news/read/25311612/voip
Thankyou, but when I made that statement, I had just first went to the website to gather that fact, before posting it, so I don't know how I read it wrongly but I carefully gathered the info, so I apologize if I got it wrong & I will go back right now to review cuz I know exactly where I got the info from. I'll let you know what I find.
You can "disagree" all you want.. It won't change the FACTS that were presented to you, in response to your original allegation. 1) as to so-called "big picture", you cannot get a better bead on the effect of "the patents" until they are (wait for it...) PATENTS! As reported, that was not completed until 1 yr ago. As also reported, same time frame of getting new BOD.
A patent is not a patent until it is an issued patent. And the value of the patents cannot be properly gauged until the entire main 5 patent portfolio was issued. Everybody knows that & it has been said many times, esp by the BOD themselves. That point occurred almost exactly 1 yr ago, when the pps was .20. Now, after all been said & done, it's under .15.
You can't change the weather to suit your clothes. That's the way it happened & you are the one who originally based you so called sky rocketing pps, on "patents" (not patent applications) & the change of the guards. Now, you are transparently modifying your original prerequisites for the meteoric rise. Ok, that's fine. You can say what ever you want. We pointed out the facts, not "spun" facts.
Remember what's important according to Garp (the BOD)...they said they would do nothing & could do nothing, until all 5 patents were secured & that is the BENCHMARK point in time & accomplishment for which to base any pps change upon. All price changes that occurred of significance before or since THAT BENCHMARK, occurred by virtue of either their early major PR campaign, much of which was paid, and/or the speculative, hopeful pennystock investments made by many here. And many invested so much because it was so cheap & not much to lose.
If you look at the past 1 yr chart, you not only see it go from .20 to .15, but you can also see it was not a fluke but a trend. You see a couple big spikes, based solely solely on news, but in each case of that, it is followed by a most definite & sustained, nearly continuous slide down to a point that ain't really that much higher that it was much farther back in time. That IS NOT, imo, indicative of a great increase DUE to the PATENTS (as opposed to applications under consideration) or, to the BOD (there were big increases before the new bod also) and the new guard is mostly the same old guys from digifonica anyway.
When it comes to the reality of all this talk about the so called meteoric price rise since the patents....the fact o matter w/o the spin is that pror to a year ago, many here "explained" that what was necessary was to fully obtain all 5 main patents "in hand" and then and not before then, the fireworks would go off & we would see it happen. It was said over & over & over, 6 ways to Sunday, and the company said the same thing essentially. But they all stressed the point that the patents had to be in hand 1st before it would happen (you know, Murphy's law..), but they assured that would DO IT!
Well, the final patent was approved 1 year ago, completing the pkg. At that time, the pps was $.20. Mr market has had 1 yr to engage this momentous event in human history. Today, almost exactly 1 yr later, the price is in the $.14 range.
This time frame also included the inception of new bod.
So the true fact of the matter is that the obtaining of the patents, all 5, and the new board, has directly resulted in a more than 25% drop in pps. ("applications" are nothing...issued patents are the beef, the real thing). So to recap: the issued patents, all 5, one year ago. The new bod, around the same time. Price = .20. Today = under .15.
I think all the pps increases prior to this were the result of PR's campaigns
Why does vplm keep platinumphone.com up on the Web still? Site still works. Nothing there to inform folks it's not usable service. Last updated over 2 yrs ago.. (I know, I know... it takes time..)
So how's that Southpark (I mean southbank) thing workin out? Is a deal on the 'barbie' yet? Engage!
NEWS!!! BIG! BIG! BIG! BIGGER! BIGGEST! NEWS! YEAH!
Voip-Pal.Com Inc. Prepares to Diversify Revenue Stream with Patent Portfolio Licensing!
......................................................................
......................................................................
Voip-Pal.Com Inc. ("Voip-Pal") (OTC Pink sheets: VPLM) is pleased to announce that in response to inquiries made by VoIP industry companies, it is preparing to license several of the revolutionary proprietary digital voice technologies contained in the patent portfolio!
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
(Oops... Sorry, terribly sorry...that is from about July 2013. My mistake... hard to stay focused.. falling asleep trying to keep up w/vplm...sounded like a good idea anyway..)