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.
I remember reading digifonica saying they had 15 or 20 developers working on the patents. Now it's only 2?
Ok, now I remember the 15/20 numbers. The raised $15 mil & hired approx 20 developers to create the voip technology.
http://voip-pal.com/news_jan28_2013.asp
Oh & note that LI was "allowed" as a patent, closer to 2 yrs ago... I know, I know...MS, google, Cisco, Skype, Apple, etc need more time to figure it out...its only been barely 2 yrs since approval, geez, ya experience instantaneous action....they've barely had time to look at it yet...what with the pony express & all... lol, lol
Well wait a minute... if you think that MS doesn't care at all about vplm patent, then would you explain why you think they applied for a supposedly very similar patents, esp 2 yrs after MS, and then continued to work to support the application for 2 or 3 yrs (or whatever it was), even (I think) after initial denials? That doesn't exactly sound to most ppl like they don't care about LI (or vplm LI). So I'm very interested to know why you think they did this, if they don't care about it. I have my theory & it sounds like you maybe have a new one? I'm curious if you think that maybe the MS technology application was more significantly DIFFERENT than has been the general opinion (the only denial reasons I ever saw was due to prior art).
"You guys keep saying this over and over and I can't disagree more. The fact that Microsoft didn't even give up on their own patent until this year, counters your argument that Microsoft would have picked this up by now."
...................
* I don't know offhand exactly when MS stopped filing what was necessary, but I know it's been quite awhile (especially in the mindset of how fast things occur today). In my view, it's a fallacy to even connect the 2 events (MS ceases it's bid for patent/MS has not purchased patent or suite), as any reasonable length of time, even a week, is all that is necessary, once they decided to give up the "quest", if indeed it is sooo important & needed by them. It's AS SIMPLE AS THAT.. I cannot see any merit whatsoever in this "reason" given. It seems to argue that a year (close to) going by since the action, isn't enough time to get froggy about something that if they don't get, will cost them DEARLY, for yrs to come. Makes no sense to me. The fact that they (MS) did not follow thru afterwards to just buy this sucker, tells me (and others here) that there is something much different going on here than meets the eye. It simply doesn't add up.
.........................
"You don't know if Microsoft has bid on this and are in discussions since giving up on their own patent."
.............
* it not too hard to infer that MS has not bid. It's possible, but unlikely, when you simply go back to the baseline argument, that if the technology is as good & foundational as has been touted, then it's a MUST HAVE for them & a few others, especially for Skype.... because w/o it, the inevitable payout scenario is someone at some point WILL (buy it) & then they will ultimately be responsible for massive retroactive (and current & futue) penalty pymts. If thst is not the case, or there is some way around that scenario, please explain it. Notwithstanding that, entities such as MS cannot really afford to "let it go" (not snatching it up equates to letting it slip thru their fingers very likely), because it simply will cost them much more, sooner or later, compared to what they could grab it for now (likely "a song" in comparison). And as to "discussions", the only real discussions would be WHAT exactly??
...................
"Were not putting value on this patent just b/c Microsoft tried to get it patented."
............
* I don't believe I ever said that was the case...however you & others have indeed pounded the point about how APPARENT it is that Microsoft's patent application (supposedly quite similar to vplm'...) lends MAJOR PROOF... of the value of vplm LI patent. But NOW it sounds a bit like back pedaling on that. That point was made OVER & OVER & OVER here. I refute it & offer good, solid reasons.
...............
"There has been many posts that talk about the market value of legal intercept. When Microsoft claimed to have had the patent, their was that article of how important they thought this technology was. There's plenty of info out their to make you excited that we have this technology or like we VPLMers like to say, the GOODIES."
................
* in keeping with the rest of what I've been saying, this is still way off the mark. "many posts that talk about the market value of legal intercept"...does not market value itself make!
"when MS claimed... ..."
If you're talking about the fallacious 2012 article, I don't know that it was MS who actually made the claim or not (I found it highly suspicious..), but I believe it was some paper called "The Register" who 1st reported that lie & many other publication's also had their own stories, saying the same thing & there were countless examples of it out there on the net & in fact, a search for LI patent even today, will still bring up many if that false story & in many cases, the obviously old & false story is NOT followed up by any correction!
Do you think perchance...that MS sold any shares due to that story (that has circulated for yrs & to this day)??? ??? ??? ...which brings up the other VERY PERTINENT element...... Why did MS apply for essentially the same (reportedly) patent, 2 yrs after vplm? As I've started numerous times (but no one acknowledges), Microsoft's mega legal teams would have naturally done an exhaustive prior art search, RIGHT???..... seems to me that such a search would've easily revealed vplm prior art & stopped it cold, no? That true, especially, if indeed the MS application was close to the same as vplm' application...
It simply doesn't make sense.. It does not add up...
MAYBE BECAUSE IT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A PLOY TO BEGIN WITH!
A ploy to 1) appease their Skype member base, who were concerned about privacy issues, by applying for a patent that they knew ahead of time they could not win, while at the same time, 2) appease the govt's pressure being brought to bear for MS/Skype (and others) to provide LI.
This is a well known, well written about dilemma that has faced teleco's for a long time. Make no mistake about it...a major, well published dilemma (customer privacy vs govt pushes for intercept ability). All you have to do is Google those search terms to see it. I believe that validates this theory, to at least be plausible and/or more reasonable than a genuine MS attempt to get approval for a patent application doomed to failure from the start.
Ok, now I see the connection, but I never saw this aspect as any sort of consideration.. I know MS did everything they could for several yrs to support their LI application, knowing from the git that vplm was already 2 yrs ahead of them with [what has reportedly been] essentially the same technology. To my knowledge, they kept up with the quest almost until the bid was completely exhausted, but quit before that point. I'm not clear on how soon they quit after vplm rcvd the award (LI)?
Obviously, they (MS) go thru an awesome number of applications, more than I ever would've imagined (thanks to who provided that info), but also then obvious is the fact they must have a huge legal component, adequate to the task. They didn't get to be 1 of world's biggest companies by failing to be up to the tasks & obviously they have the necessary money. And so I'm not seeing the connection here to what you guys seem to be saying about how this huge number of patent applications has anything to do with any possible vplm purchase bid, or the time it takes to get it together, since they quit their try for the LI patent?
That is the consideration here, yes/no? And yet you agree that MS should've by now snatched it up, so I don't get it...
Yes, amazing patent numbers, but I don't get the connection you're making... "alot of checking" - - of what?
Wow.. Those numbers are far beyond anything I would've imagined, even for something as big as MS. But does it somehow relate to anything I've said? If so, sorry I'm missing it.
...and,
I want to remind those that need it.... having patents does not equate to value or usefulness. And MS failed patent application does not, contrary to the opinion of a number of folks here, go any length whatsoever to prove any value. If it did, the fact remains that they would have, after losing there patent bid to vplm, acted to obtain the LI or the entire suite. It simply is too big a risk, for MS, to play some cat & mouse game of chicken & lose it in the process to someone else (unless there is some secret, behind the scenes, negotiations which include some kind of promises or agreements between MS & vplm, which if so, is that fair & legal?).
The only intended point, by me, in those posted links, was to say that the infos suggested to me, the possibility of prior art or, as has been pointed out to me, "for sale bar". I don't who said what at this point, but it sure looked as tho I was being painted as having provided info that "rendered vplm LI as useless. No way I did that.. But the questions & doubts certainly do remain. You do at least seem to agree that as solid & powerful a picture has been painted by the BOD (and most on this mb), regards the portfolio in general, the fact remains (I think this is what you mean by "useless") that there doesn't seem to be ANY positive developments in the way of real offers, infringement letters, or responses to, licencing, or anything along those lines. All we hear basically amount to to fluff & self touts, no beef.
It was a whole different vibe & general concensus, here on this mb, back about a year or so ago, when the patents were beginning to come thru approved. The main thrust then, was that all we were waiting for was the patent approvals & then, immediately this whole thing would take off like a rocket & a sale would them be imminent & would happen quickly & for a big big price. Many said basically that. But then the patents came & nothing happened (reminds me greatly of "Y2K") & then much of the commentary took on a whole new tack, basically ignoring it back pedaling on those earlier predictions, instead taking on the whole" it takes time" theme. Plenty of time has passed for plenty of development to have happened, in one way or another, but basically, other than a few excitable PR's, not a damn thing appears to have happened, except a slow but sure erosion of pps.
All this talk of offers, but apparently none there. Talk of infringement by many, but no action taken, when with all the powerful legal representation we supposedly possess. Now the talk of infringement letters, but no evidence or indication of any kind that such has occurred & no one anywhere seems to give a dang about that. All the talk about fortune 500 & S&P 500, whatever, having expressed major interest in us, going back near 2 yrs ago, but there also appears to be no evidence of that either.
This is not bashing. This is not negative. It is simply & purely observations of the apparent reality, which quite reasonably & logically, raises all sorts of questions. With all the ancillary revelations that have been made here, that do a fair job to raise doubts at least, I think it's not exactly critical thinking or balanced, to characterize vplm as "all is fine & good" and/or "stay the course" and/or "the pot o gold" at the end of the rainbow is there & will be realized but it just takes time...
Something just doesn't seem right... anymore
I was confused by it. The way it shows up on my mobile screen, hard to tell who is saying what, plus I was in a hurry. So apologies if I got it wrong. It also somewhat appears that what you said to him, agreed w/him, about what I was trying to say. So I just hastily made my post & figured the 2 of you, (plus there was another poster being replied to, earlier on) would sort out what I was trying to say. I guess I'm not clear on what your point was to 'thrill'.
It seems that most of my posts are misconstrued. For the record, the reasons I posted those links about LI, were only because the info contained in them seemed to raise questions about possible prior art or possible "for sale bar", in that the info contained demonstrated a vast body of work & considerations had been applied to the whole idea of legal/lawful intercept, for voip, long before the digifonica patent application was made, and on a very deep & thorough basis, therefore I could not see or understand how it could be possible that some rinky-dink digifonica could all of a sudden, as if out of nowhere, develop the technology, and begin the patent process, WHILE NO ONE ELSE DID??????......even tho in the info I linked, and, I'm certain in a plethora of other old, ubiquitous info, show this whole voip legal intercept question was very deeply considered & written about & constructs were developed & plans were drawn up & every step-by-step way of how it would be handled, was out there & on the table. The Cisco papers I provided, show they had in place a total plan of exactly how to deal with legal intercept, before 2004.
Whoever it was that said those posts by me, were me somehow saying that info "rendered LI useless" was wrong & had no clue what I was trying to say. Also, whoever it was that suggested the info i posted was about legacy communications type wiretapping, rather than the same type of voip lawful intercept that vplm patent is about, either has no comprehension of what was posted, or, just threw that comment out there w/o actually reading what was in the links I posted (and ironically, they also suggested I read what vplm LI patent is, as tho I didn't know).
I'm just using this post to clarify those points, even tho there were several different posters involved. Sorry for any confusion & I still don't really understand what you were saying to the other guy, in case you want to clarify that part.
An excellent point. No different than in many other cases where out of court settlements are reached, because if you know you've committed the infraction, or crime, or infringement, etc etc...and you know the victim has a good case & will sue you, then it's smarter to save alot of money, potentially, by settling.
Funny thing tho...
According to vplm, they have been taking steps (unknown/unidentified) against infringers for some time, in their "ongoing" ("we continue to.. blah blah) campaign to go after them. And now, supposedly, they have been sending out infringement letters to those who are guilty. So one would expect therefore, that due to lg # of infringers, that at least a few of the smart ones who would like to get a good deal now by settling out of court, would have begun doing so......but apparently there are none!? Why? Where are they? They know they are infringing.. They know that eventually, they not only will have to pay some piper, but also that the infringement continues accruing, and is retroactive to some point, so surely surely, at least some of the vast army of infringers are realizing this & making offers after rcvg their "scarlet letters". So where are they? I know I know, it takes weeks, months, years, decades, before these things unfold (even in this brave new world where everything is interconnected).
And don't forget... we've been assured, even by the BOD, that there are perhaps countless infringers & infringements going on continuously & going back awhile, by companies of all sizes. Obviously they all should know that sooner or later, the penalties will come to bear upon them, unless of course no action is ever taken by vplm or whomever might buy vplm or licence the techno. So there's no way out for infringers, right? Accumulating & retroactive penalties is inevitable, right? And just about ANY deal they make now, would be a bargain & save them alot compared to later settlements or court ordered penalties. Right?
So surely, already, some of them, the smarter & more frugal ones, are already throwing money at vplm, begging for "good deals" settlements to get them off the hook... no?...yes? But we won't hear about any if that, nor see any if it in the way of dividends or whatever, cuz these things take time.....maybe more mos or yrs. So don't hold your breath.
"What happens if the companies infringing on the vplm patents are only infringing on a partial part of the patent?
Would the judge throw out the case? I'm under the impression that if the patents are not being 100% infringed upon, then the courts will rule against vplm."
................
If above was the case, it lessens the apparent value of vplm patents, not makes it look so much better than licencing, infringement..
............
"I think we all know that the best case scenario is to sell the patent portfolio. Licensing will be a far second best. "
..............
Not necessarily so. If the patents are as good & as valuable as we have been led to believe, esp in the foundational aspects, then infringement & licencing could provide major income x up to 20 yrs x all the potential infringers. There are groups who would support that effort, no problem & it's been done many times before. That's why they came up w/the saying: "follow the money". No way vplm lack of cash would begin to put the kibosh on such an effort, if the patents were really so valuable.
".. the talk about 10 years is nonsense. You can't be out there selling what you don't have, until you have it. This company has only HAD something in hand, to sell for less than a year. Not a lot of time at all. "
.............
Here is a good example of the ridiculous leaps, assumptions, & spin that is done. Where did I say anything about the info I posted, as to "render anything useless"?? I said no such thing. I am normally far more fair minded & cognizant of what I'm saying. I'm pretty sure what I said at the bottom of those posted links, was something like: "SO WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THIS"?.... a far cry from saying it renders anything as worthless, but it shows how ppl spin, irrationally, on this board.
"the talk
about 10 years is nonsense. You can't be out there selling what you don't
have, until you have it. This company has only HAD something in hand, to
sell for less than a year. Not a lot of time at all."
...............
Not "nonsense" at all. The interpretation of the info is nonsense. The main point t about the 10 yrs was to show that the technology has been around for that long, so that the big dogs would've known all about it, inside out & upside down, long ago, in order to know if it was going to be needed as "foundational", which in turn, means that all this talk about "not enough time for these companies to have acted yet, is sheer nonsense. It gave a far better perspective than the more two dimensional points about how there hasn't been nearly enough time. What I said above (and spelled it out before, just like this) deems that argument as nonsense, clearly. And to cement that, even more, is the incessant claim that MS proved the value of LI, by their try for it. That is so shallow a view, when you consider that they did so 2 yrs after the fact, (incl their required prior art searches), AND THEN SINCE, LIKE FOR A YEAR NOW....HAVE NOT MANY ANY SERIOUS MOVE TO BUY...what you yourself, lol, lol, say they proved is so valuable. THAT seems NON-SENSICAL, imo.
"Were there people using lawful intercept previously? Yes, of course there
were. Wiretapping is as old as the hills. I recommend that potential
investors read the actual patent and educate themselves about the
differences between what was done in ancient history with regular
switched lines, and what this patent covers - and how it approaches LI.
Microsoft agrees that this technology is worth having patented. obviously."
..............
Furthermore, handjob actually read thru the 2 links I recently provided, relating to LI, you would have noticed, contrary to what you are suggesting above, that clearly included in the read, was reference to the type of NOW, lawful intercept you are trying to make it sound like I'm not fully aware of...that is, stealth, voip platform, LI, easily & quickly used anywhere, anytime, on any system. I've been around this for over 3 yrs now & have read just about everything that's out there, inside out & upside down. The Cisco stuff I provided clearly spoke to AND DESCRIBED, in detail & with graphics, the same kind of LI, that we are talking about. The articles, since they defined in general, what is LI, also spoke to the more legacy applications of the idea of LI, but I posted the whole thing, figuring you would read thru, diligently, to see what I was focusing on.
I also pointed out, but you seem to ignore, that the type & level of LI we are are talk no about here (that which is patented now), was deeply handled by all the major players, long before we (vplm) acquired & took up the completion process of our suite. My point there, was that it goes w/o saying, does it not?, that patents would've been filed by those, such as Cisco, etc, back then in '03. How or why would they not do so? And if they did, why would they be denied?
And please don't tell me, as you did, that you have the ability to read the entirety of our patent portfolio, as well as Microsoft's (to know it was same or not..) & the ability to decipher & understand it even slightly, much less to the core. You said something to that effect & I call bs on that. There is not a single person on this board that could fully digest & comprehend those patents.
That said, I also believe that LI, amounts to not much more than a setup that allows the voice conversation to be diverted from its protected realms, to a simple recording device, before it then is encrypted, or whatever they do to the signals. The knowledge & the need for such a diversion, has been well known for a long time, to thwart a safe haven for crime. Voip is about 40 yrs old & about 11 yrs old used on a major scale. I have trouble believing that there is no prior art, since before vplm's (digifonica) 2007 initiations for patents. But even more, sun brought up the thing about "on sale" bar. That, could turn out to be a very ugly consideration, far more so than the so called bitch of prior art. I suggest you take a look at that legal aspect. It sure would go a long way to explain why the apparent 'no one seems to be too worried about obtaining or losing these patents, while vplm works hard to find someone who doesn't know about it.
So how's the "infringement letters" workin' out?
......................
"Microsoft agrees that this technology is worth having patented. obviously."
* no, not "obvious" at all, for if it was obvious, then they would've snatched it up by now, for what, for MS, would've amounted to "chump change " for what kind of an offer they couldve gotten vplm to accept (1 or 2 B). But they DIDN'T, DID THEY???
"I very much doubt that Microsoft would have made such a concerted effort, TWO YEARS LATER, to secure the same patented technology."
..................
You're not paying attention to the questions being raised, instead focusing on what doesn't make any sense. For example, why would MS, as you point out above, apply for the same thing 2 yrs after we already applied for it? What is your ans to that? And keep in mind (I've already said this stuff b4) that MS's legal teams (best & biggest in the world??) would have done MAJOR prior art searches, as is the procedure, and would have found that this vplm technology (as you deem it to be so fantastically great) was as solid as.... well, as solid as you are painting it to be, with your own info pastes). So what sense does it it therefore make, 2 yrs after the fact, to go that route???... it being only the futile exercise that was easy to predict. (I have provided more sensible possible reasons to ans that question, previously). And, while we're at it, so why did they (MS) give up their "oh so gallant" fight, before they were handed a non-appealable denial? Why not take this frivolous endeavor right thru to the end? Moreover, why....have they not, since giving up on that which is a MUST HAVE for them, made an offer that would not be refused & seal a deal.....to insure that the inevitable pay thru the nose it will cost them through infringement, will not happen. Do you find those to be silly or sophomoric questions? I think they hit hard.. I hope you provide good & focused answers. I really would like to know. None of my ideas or questions are set in stone or painted as definite facts that can't be answered.
"renders LI as worthless" is an absolutely incorrect "spin" on your part (even if you couched it in "basically"). I have done no such thing. I have only raised questions, one's I deem as good questions, worthy of asking & deserving of decent answers. Ea place I go to, w/my questions, is always supported w/a reasonable platform or basis, to validate it. If you think that vplm, as a whole, or its individual parts, is unassailable & beyond reproach, that's your right. I know one thing, all this silliness about how the big dogs have just barely begun to have the time to have considered the vplm patent suite, as a purchase point, is just ridiculous & I now damn well if I owned something that promised to change the world of communications, on a level such as we have been led to believe, and I had it for sale, it woulda been long gone by now, or "the necessary legal help" would've stepped in, to fill that vacuum, to see to it that licencing was already being collected. This, by the way, is even more poignant, when you consider the fact, that for a long time now, no one seems to really give a rats petutty about the patents. End of story.
Do you think it would help even more, if they offered some number of free shares w/the 'little dogs'. If so, what a freaking BRILLIANT, GENIUS, scheme to make MS buy up the company....w/o them even realizing they were in effect doing so. Wow! It would be even BETTER if MS hired that "Joey Chestnut" guy (you know, the one who can eat like 60 hot dogs at a sitting...). If we "folded the price of the shares into the p/p/hd (price per hotdog), heck, our pps would easy get to at least .50¢...!
That's true as well. I thought there were only a few hundred or maybe something on the order of approx 1200? But of those, I would suspect that the main stockholders, who we know are insiders, (to the tune of what...75%?), likely have many more shares held by family members & trusts, etc, so that the "regular stockholders" have even less effect on the pps. In any event, it was simply the acquisition of the patent suite & their positive movement thru USPTO, that had the effect to boost it from subpenny to where it has basically languished ever since. And only those w/enough shares, obtained real cheap, can be sure to make out, by day trading the spikes. Otherwise, it's all at a big risk to go to where 99.99% of all the rest of tiny, no earnings, pinkies wind up. And that's fact, not conjecture.
... In fact, now that you make me aware of this "osb" rule, all of a sudden, I can't help but wonder if this begins to offer some plausible explanation to answer my questions on) how this patent, (or suite) if seriously effective technology (which appears to be the case), could not be offering too much to worry about, to some of the big dogs. This is potentially a very significant thing, if I understand you right & not a good thing.
I'd be interested to hear your opinion on why MS went as far as they did, as well as when they began their quest, for their version of LI patent application.
It is too far beyond me, that which I posted, but thanks for putting up a name for what I suppose I was suggesting or wondering/asking, is this the case?
What I was seeing in those linked informations, is the fact that the LI concept was deeply dealt with long before our patents were applied for, or maybe even before conceived be the digifonica devs... most notably by Cisco it appears, and while it's hard to decipher all the info I posted, it does at least appear that this subject was so well written about, it's hard to understand how there were not earlier patents at least applied for, if not awarded. I don't see how that would be so?
http://www.lawfulintercept.org/
Check out the links here. Lawful intercept concepts goes way back, and all sorts of systems defined & described, but only digifonica was smart enough to apply for patents.???? Hmmmm
** sorry for the double posts. It's not playing nice. I try to post & nothing appears even w/multiple checks & then I repost & both show up.
.........................................................
One of those "letters" needs to go out to these guy's asap...
http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=3924
Looks like they were puttin it all together 10 yrs ago.. Guess they didnt give a crap about any patents....hmmm... ya think?
www.zemris.fer.hr/~andro/papers/Paper_Eurocon2003_2.pdf
(all moot, right? We got all the goodies, right? Not them, us, we, ours, all ours...).
One of those "letters" needs to go out to these guy's asap...
http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=3924
Looks like they were puttin it all together 10 yrs ago.. Guess they didnt give a crap about any patents....hmmm... ya think?
Hmmm..... Whadya make of this....?
http://www.verint.com/solutions/communications-cyber-intelligence/solutions/communications-interception/lawful-interception/index
Should someone be giving these guys a call....??
The "1500-1800%" argument is fallacious. It's based on speculation & conjecture & is an artificially arrived at value. It's not based on actual proven patent value. Also based on mm manipulation. The only thing real about it & beneficial, is to those who are smart enough to day trade the waves.
I tend to reject the 'no need for Goliath to swoop & grab" theory. If the techno is indeed uber valuable as has been the concensus opinion, then Goliath stands to easily lose it to some much smaller entity & at any time at all. All someone would have to do is bid an amt large enough for vplm, who doesn't appear to be at a very leveraged advantage, to decide to just take the offer & Goliath would not know anything or be in any position to counter, due to NDA.
A good question to answer that I have already asked but nobody has ventured a guess.... is, how much $ does Goliath risk losing in that scenario? When I say "risk", is it not true that if the value is all its cracked up to be, that eventually, it will be realized via infringement & licencing, over the the time of the patents, thus, all users will eventually have to pay the piper, but how much will the big pipers, like Skype have to pay? What's a reasonable estimate? And also, regards the 'no swoop necessary' theory, hasn't it already been established that all the infringers, contrary to what's been recently stated, have to pay retroactive for years of infringement?
Bottom line is that if above points are correct, and the techno so foundational, Goliath cannot afford to mess around & lose this because if they actually could, by default, that means the techno ain't all that valuable after all.
Where's the letters? Where's the bids? Where's the beef? I know...I know... "it takes time, it takes time"... The patents were drawn up only a mere 10 yrs ago...
"Either way LI is a worthwhile and valuable technology."
* apparently, all it's "worth"... is "a while"...
"There are many, many ways law enforcement can get what it needs," Mr. Schmidt said.
It's been pointed out many times here about the misspelling of "technologys" on the white paper. It's known fact that the managers read this mb, so why is the mistake still there?
Also, in one of the 4 white papers, it says:
"The Essential Tenants for a Voice Service"
Maybe I'm wrong but shouldn't that be "tenets"? I'm pretty sure it should. I think that's far more blatant than the former mistake. In fact it looks pretty stupid.
By your own admission & definition... of everything that is said here...should I take your points of fact to be: conjecture, frustration, or spinning? I guess you would say yours doesn't count. Ok.. in any event, does "real, verifiable, intellectual property" mean it has intrinsic, real, verifiable value, on any certain level? While you consider your answer to that, please also offer your opinion on why MS tried, starting 2 yrs after vplm, to win approval for essentially the same LI patent & since the obvious (but not the only) answer is because they need it for Skype, etc, then why they have not put their money down to buy it, in the time since vplm LI approval. I think both deserve answers.
And while we're at it, why, since you are discussing Chang, would a voip company, who has repeatedly appointed itself as a leading edge in voip, totally abandon their entire voip business infrastructure, upon which Chang's plan was, quite reasonably, to, (using the acquired technology) build a voip Goliath, a monster teleco? After all, if you are already a leading edge teleco & then you get the undeniable(?) foundational patentrd control of the future of telecommunications, then what the heck? Was all that voip stuff (points phones, long distance, soft switches, magic jacks, etc etc) for real, or not? If for real, well, Chang was the head of it, no?, so whaa happened? If not real, he still was the top guy & is still here now, while you said the questionable past has been cast off...??
Isn't it, for most intents & purposes, still essentially digifonica anyway?...and if so, how is that throwing off the past? There's still Chang, Sawyer, Tucker, Smart & Biggar, etc.
In all fairness VMIR, maybe the letters were the usual vplm brand NDA letters or, maybe the early action which has now become more blatant "a continued effort", was thinking about what to say in the letters. It's not an easy task you know, when you can't get no respect..
Simple explanation.. The current administration has been really into the one world gov, er, well at least one world economy, so prolly they farmed out some of the USPTO duties to India or somewhere with a time zone almost a day ahead.
In any event, this one should be the tipping point for Skype/MS...they will have to act now. I mean how many darn patents, children, grandchildren, cousins...do they expect to get for their $25B? Remember Mr Balmer (is that the right guy?) this offer is only good for the 1st 500 Skype callers, so act now, once they're gone, THEY'RE GONE! And remember, for a limited time, with each parent patent (or is it patent parent?) comes a free child! Remember, that's VOIP-PAL, the future of voipkind! Don't get quart short!
(of course this will all be a moot point when apple unveils (shhhhh) the new "iTelepa-phone (telepathy) implants". Boy is that gonna put a hurtin' on LI. maybe MS already caught wind of it. That would explain alot..
Hurry up vplm, get those dang letters out (and maybe incorporate some subliminal hypnotherapy into the letters, or threats of knee breaking or something.
WHAT WE KNOW THUS FAR: (we think)
* 7 patents awarded/6 patents pending (somehow they ain't exactly feeling like "awards"..?!)
* One written offer still on the table (I think it's actually a fortune cookie paper & someone had too much msg & got a bit "carried away"), in talks with multiple S&P 500 parties (that's alot of partying) or is it fortune 500, or 500 fortune cookies, or Indianapolis 500, it's one of them anyway..)
* Emil Malak values patent portfolio at a minimum of @$1.60 per share (I hope he's got his generator & canned food & water all saved up for the wait, could be a while yet..)
* In a non-exclusive broker agreement with SBC ("non exclusive", well isn't that special! Make you really feel important. Kinda opposite of elite, new & improved, exclusive deal huh?)
* Letters sent to possible infringing companies giving them the option to
either enter into a licensing agreement or face litigation (oh wow really? Are there any copies? Think I could get an autographed one? Nah, there worth far, far, too much)
* No debt (and yet they are finding fiat money to spend consistently & constantly)
* No litigation (maybe they might wanna get one of them deals goin', ya think?)
For the life of me.. I can't figure out how Skype & MS don't seemed to worried.... In the least.... man oh man... I wonder if they get out their calculator & figures out how much infringement they might be liable for in the future.. and how long going back did someone say?...a couple yrs back too.... damn... aw hell, there couldn't been that many Skype calls anyhow (or xbox stuff) ... that stuff don't really work does it?... Its just for kids to play around right? ... No wonder they and papa MS ain't worried... I mean it ain't like it's the wave of the future or nothin, right? Nah. Hey, anybody know where I can git me one one a dem pointy phones & with a gel switch or gummy switch whatever the hell it is, to go with? Oh and do I get free airplane rides with it too? And I can call Indians too, right?
It's funny...
All this is known, can be discerned, acknowledged, understood, published, bandied about, warned of, disseminated, the news of spread for years now, accepted worldwide as truth, known to be THE WAY IT IS!......................
............... while at the same time, there's this tiny little company that knows, believes, assures, swears up & down, tweets, PR's, white papers, threatens, promises, and in general tells the world that they.... and they alone....are the man beyond the curtain, in waiting, the trap door spider waiting to spring forth....who hold ALL THE CARDS....the controlling factors of ALL of it! .....are the David that all the Goliath's, unknowingly, depend on.....the veritable 4 horseman of the apocalypse, for whom all the voip player will pay total homage to............and will take away 1/3 of all their might & power & light ($).........and none shall be able to buy & sell (their product) save for the mighty saviour (vplm) w/it's 7 heads (patents...or is it 6...or 12 or 13...ahh who's countin' anyway).... and has 1 foot on the land & the other across the waters (the whole world...) and hurt not their children & their continuences & their contingencies.....for woe is he & they that doth not heed & pay the great PIPER!
YEA, it is so said & it's will be done...... except for one little tiny detail.............
The little DRAGON SLAYER should not look now....for fear they find out....that they are invisible & cannot be seen or heard by anyone (cept the bod, Malak, inza & "southpark", dunnam & dumber & this mb... cuz I think they all have the special 4-D glasses). They appatently (Freudian slip) are a figment of their own consciousness but don't exist outside of themselves.....
Oh, the humanity.... Oh the humility...... the embarrassment.... when the emperor comes face to face with a mirror!!!! Their timbers shall be shivered..
Lol, lol, lol, just having fun... Its all good! (kumbaya)
All the wrong photos, ambivalent statements, educational degrees, tweets, PR's about & on top of PR's, misspellings, reporting (or lack of), transparency, multiple killer law firms (?), top bucks in the outback, suits threatened by ambulance chasers, impeccable bio's of BOD, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. It don't matter. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS....
........ cuz we gotz da goods! Here come da judge, we gotz da goods, here come da judge!
VPLM - what's that spell? VPLM - what's that spell?
(very promising - little money)
(victorious patents - licencing missing)
(valuable property - losing monthly)
(voip-pal - look ma!)
No worries, it's only a joke.. The great Oz shall yet (be uncovered?), (bite the bat head? ). Remember, we got the goods, we got the BOD, we got the GOV, we got MS, we got it all baby!
I never implied in any way, shape or form, that an investor should base his decision to do so on mb reading. So that is something in your mind, more conjecture.
"And I will stick with my comment that if you are investing $25K, $50K, $100K into a pink sheet and do NOT spend the $350 in airfare to visit the company or management you are very foolish."
* actually you are NOT "sticking with your comment"... You have now added modifiers, (" if you are investing $25k, $50k, $100k) to your original statement, which was if a shareholder doesn't go to visit his company, he is dumb. That's what you said & that is ludicrous. Now you are adding these big stipulations, which don't apply to many stockholders. Plus, as I pointed out & you ignored, there's a big difference in visiting an actual company & seeing it's operations...and flying off to somewhere to have a scheduled lunch w/a company member. A BIG DIFFERENCE. To suggest, as you have done more than suggest, that all who did not do what you did, are "dumb", is indicative of something else, in my view. I might also suggest, that to invest $100k in a penny stock w/no reporting, no income, and basically nothing, at the time such an "investment" was made, might be considered by at least a few, as not exactly brilliant, in most cases. If you made out, you are very lucky & it is a rarity. The only possible DD you could've done back then, to reveal any possible positives for vplm, (or digifonica), would've had to be the patent applications, for which there was no proof, I don't believe, to show them as having certain value. Everything else about the companies was shown to be kind of shady. So you took a huge risk, unsupported by anything even close to solid. If you flipped enuff to be ahead regardless of future events, that's great, but if you are trying to say that such a success was based on your lunch w/an unnamed person, well then please share w/the board what revelations were the fruit of thst lunch, and which none of us dumb shareholders could have gotten otherwise, w/o having that lunch. Your lunch cost more than the $350 airfare, so please disclose exactly what your takeaway was.
"Having a one on one meeting is more than 95% of the people who "invest" in penny pink-sheets do and gives you a great basis for trust and judge of character."
If you are saying that more than 95% of "investors" (it's all relative. All are investing...) don't do this, I bet it's more than 95%. And I might add that it is when face-to-face, when most liars or truth stretchers, are at their best. The only way you can really validate that your visit to have a lunch gave you substantial insight, is to disclose exactly what you were told & by whom. Or is that secret info?
Lastly, your car sell analogy is a poor fit, how you mold it to conveniently fit your suppositions. It's not the same. Having a lunch w/someone is not akin to test driving a car. And for that matter, a test drive of a car, does not make a car a good buy. It is well known that all sorts of unscrupulous things are done to cover up faults, during a test drive. A test drive is but one thing to do, along with an independent inspection, a check of "carfax", a good warranty, etc etc. So, in this sense, I guess your analogy is about as valuable as a lunch w/some company guy. What specific & backed up w/some kind of validation, did you get from "lunch"?
When I said: "doesn't make much sense", that followed my explanation of what & why. It was in reference to your comment that MS "didn't think vplm had what it takes", to go thru w/the patent process. I pointed out that it doesn't take any miracles for vplm to follow thru w/the process that they initiated, hence no sense to MS thinking (and state, as you did) that vplm didn't have what it takes. Nor did you offer anything to back it up. Pure conjecture it seemed to me. Your followup reply this time, about "what about the BOD"?, etc, is off the point & don't know what it references... so "most would agree" doesn't apply.
As to Goliath:
I was saying that the bringing of the Goliath reference to the table as someone/something...that was about to do something, make something happen, was & is pure speculation. Your counter, sounds like double-talk. The 1st reference I heard to Goliath was Inza's tweet, stating "Goliath was about to fall". That tweet was quickly removed. Any other references made about Goliath, were made consequentially & still are nothing but speculation. No specific backup or documentation was ever provided by anyone you might be talking about, who might've referenced Goliath, to give any credence whatsoever to this "goliath" idea. None. And your references to how I must "read in between the lines" is also just another exercise in speculation, not fact, as to any conclusions one might reach by "reading in between the lines".
As to "auction" (action), I meant what I wrote... 'auction'. It was in response to you saying that it was a "stand in line" thing, which I guess you were referring to suitors. I countered that it is an auction (for most intents & purposes). I see the stock market as an auction (bids & asks). And in an auction setting, there is no "standing in line", there is bid at will & at anytime. Therefore, trying to buy a company or its products is dictated by the amt of cash you have & are willing to pay & you don't have to wait in any lines. Hence if MS, for instance, was ready, willing & able, they could secure vplm or LI tomorrow, if they so desired. Sure, there are formalities, but that's all they are. Simple as that & there's been more than ample time for MS or any other possible suitors, to have come to know all about LI & the rest of patents, inside & out. So from this, one could extrapolate that "they" don't want vplm...
(and any references to "they" are obvious in the context of the whole discussion...ie, MS, Google, Apple, Cisco, etc).
Lastly, you say that maybe MS ain't to keen on LI, but others would value RBR in the billions. Again, same argument, ie, if they did, they would've stepped up w/a billion or so, but I see no indication whatsoever that THAT has happened.
It's all conjecture & picking at straws. Show them the money! There apparently, is no Goliath to show the $.
Ok. I don't characterize a 1 on 1 lunch as visiting the company... If one was for ex, visiting an upstart factory for some product, an actual factory, w/workers & machinery & managers, etc etc, then I can see a benefit in some cases, to do so for a major investor or stockholder. But lunch w/1 guy is a far cry from that. It fine if practical for you to do, but I can't see how it would provide you w/any info above & beyond what you could get from the normal avenues. It would be interesting to share w/the mb, what above & beyond info you gathered from this lunch meeting.
Also, in my opinion, to suggest that the avg shareholder is dumb if they don't setup a lunch meeting as you did, is ridiculous.
I disagree with this. Maybe you remember this PR?
http://markets.financialcontent.com/prnews/news/read/25157199/voip
In it, it is stressed how big the firm is & further reading lends support to that. Supposedly, they were also instrumental in pulling off some big deals. And, they are only 1 of 5 (or more) legal firms hired by vplm. If there is clear cut infringement, then it is what it is & they should be able to make significant headway to show same to a court. Also, again...seriously good patent lawyers, such as themselves, would know full well by now about the viability & foundstional aspects of the patent suite, A N D.... the kind of dough licensing & infringement will bring in, hence they would be helping themselves & their firm, by offering lots & lots of service on contingency.
What they told you, imho, is the default lawyer rap, a dialect that includes automatically speaking in terms of big bucks for them, rather than for the plaintiff, when it is not them who are representing you, or vplm, but just talking about how "other" lawyers (most likely this group was not patent lawyers?) operate.
"$350 to go and actually VISIT them (their?) company lol
Simply put, dumb."
* $350 to go to visit a $79 p/m rented address? How does THAT work? Is an appointment made to gather them together at the rent -an-office at a certain time. Does that require extra 'gathering/transportation' fees. We're they all there at the same time?
In any event, I don't see that it matters much, to physically meet w/anyone in order to determine truth or lies. And why would they agree to gather & meet w/you, being that they aren't a physical, brick & mortar company. If you knew them personally, that would be a bit different than the suggestion the rest of stockholder are dumb for not going to visit them. You must be joking... You're right, sometimes things so "simply put" are dumb.
"VPLM has never before stated they were pursuing patent infringement cases so to call this a continued effort is just not true. Unless you believe they kept that a secret, they would have issued press releases after press release if they even sent a notification of infringement..."
Hmmm... When you said that, it seemed obvious to me that you meant (in fact you specifically said), BEFORE NOW, and yet a subsequent reply to you refers & re-pastes the pr just sent out about this, as tho an example of some past notification , which it is not. Unless the reference is to a line at the bottom, which says something vague & ambiguous (par) about it being a continued effort. Thing if it is tho, whether true or not, I don't recall it having been reported or PR'd for us to be aware of it.......do you?