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.
Really! If they had such agreements (lol, lol, the tune of 100's of millions - [gadzillions??] ), they would be been all over it w/PR's. (ooh, now my head hurts from such deep thought).
Also...
"They didn't think such a small company had the know how to carry this venture as far as they have. "
* what" know how"? All they had to do was to keep paying the fees to keep the patent process alive, reply to any letters from USPTO & post PR's regarding the progress, until the eventual awarding of the patents. What "know-how" would MS think vplm wouldn't have? Thst reasoning doesn't seem to make much sense too me.
"Golioth is about to fall! "
* is that pure speculation, same as seen on mb, or do you have a more solid reason to say this, of value to board to consider?
"Their (they're) standing in line, like the rest of them."
* I don't see this auction, if you will, as a "stand in line" event. This is not first come, first served situ... its biggest bucks rules situ. If they wanted, they could have easily bought this from vplm.
Wait a second... I'm not sure you fully got the nature of my question.. I think your "easy to comprehend" answer, sells the concept short.. You'll notice I gave 2 possible (probable..) answers, separated by an "and/or", that, because I think the 2 possibilities are inexorably connected..ie, you must consider both AT THE SAME TIME before choosing 1 side or the other.
It's a somewhat complex issue, in that MS of course didn't want to shell out the bug bucks if they didn't have to.... BUT.....1) as far as I can tell, they didn't have any great advancement of their patent application over vplm' to give them reason to believe they would win (while wasting precious time to maybe lose out totally - - which is what happened), 2) they continued the fight for what - another 2 yrs (approx) after they were denied the patent - - on what solid ground?) 3) if it (the LI patent) was so dang important to them (the ONLY argument been used here to offer "proof" of the major viability of the LI patent), then considering the amt of cash they have, the amt of big spending they've done in recent times, their well known "no one can or will stop is from what we want" attitude, the $8.5 B price for Skype, the inevitable infringement settlements, in the end, as this eventually plays out, etc etc etc....then HOW could they afford to NOT buy the patent suite?
So you see, the 2 sides of the question go hand in hand. Whether their whole set of actions WAS PART OF A PLOY (I laid it out before) OR...how & why could they allow it to slip thru their fingers since their application was denied? Esp since ours was approved (quite some time ago)? And now that things seem to be more desperate for vplm, that means a relatively smaller offer might be accepted by vplm, making it even easier for MS to lose out to a small upstart or anybody else for that matter.
The takeaway from above facts, could be construed as the fact that MS (and everybody else) is not convinced that the patents (esp LI) are all that important?????
Sadly, I have to agree your explanation sounds the most plausible to me. Usually, the big proponents are here and right ON IT...to offer at least an as plausible explanation if not a stronger rebuttal, but so far I'm not seeing it. I have to go back & reread the posts to see if I've missed something, you seem to have it nailed?? I don't think I've ever seen a stock go down like that on a major positive announcement. It is no triviality, imo, to make an inaugural announcement that you are going to get aggressive with some of the biggest (and smaller) companies in the world, about a set of patents that purport to be THE fulcrum of the future of worldwide digital communication. When I saw that PR, in my naivete', I about flipped out..
And I should add... The fact that hardly anyone else here expressed much surprise about the pps drop), tells me that there are far fewer believers and/or alot of confused stockholders are being quiet, maybe depressed???
I was very surprised. Then I read the commentary that put the pr in the light of "desperation". In my lack of enough experience, I failed to think of that at 1st, thinking only in more positive terms & that it was almost a monumental statement to carry this play fwd. But in retrospect, it's just as valid to see it as desperate...esp in light of the less than thrilled pps. If the reason for the lack of spiking was because there's THAT many investors that clearly saw the pr as desperate, I am very surprised. Alternatively, it couldve been the feared dumping...?
As to patience, I see patience as something exercised when one can do something about a situation, but chooses not to & to just calmly wait. In this situation, there is really nothing we can do, outside of comments, questions, so we are more aptly a captive audience (so to speak), rather than patient (altho I'm sure some are more on the patient side).
One thing for certain, is this stock is very polarizing & not simply a cut & dry story. It's fraught with unknowns & ifs. And as such, I'm not gonna just sit back & be patient & quiet. No fun in that.
The 2 biggest questions I see are:
Why did MS make a 5 yr try for LI (after vp)?
And/or...
Why has hasn't MS made a big move to snach vplm patents?
Because for better or worse, fact or fiction, the PR, in my opinion, was the biggest, most important one put out yet, from a certain perspective, so I thought it would have that effect. Far lesser PR content has spiked the ppl, so I'm just surprised. And yes, if the patents are truly foundational, as so many assure is the case, then they would be "the big, bad wolf. Would you care to venture a stab at my oft asked question: why did MS put forth their 5 yr effort for LI?
Thx Mr Moo, even w/the delayed reaction, lol. Yes, I think it's was pretty quickly established those guys were not exactly coming from the best side of things...oh, and looking back, I think I got confused about your initial post cuz I just read it wrong. I figured out what u were saying shortly after. Thought I followed up to let u know. Thx
Very surprised to not see price surge today on that PR...and suspicious
If you think the key is to execute on any measly offer, that's weakness & would be a giveaway of something not believed in. If the technology is as important as touted (and there is significant evidence it is) then you find the way to work it. If for real, that way will surface, basic economics. They must not give it away for peanuts. You play it SMART & force an agreement with a small infringer & the dynamics will take over from there to step it up & the big dogs will see the writing. Our lawyers need to step up here. Let's see the letters PR'd.
A good point I think you bring, about the dynamics, and how the smaller infringers are more vulnerable & subject to what leverage vplm can muster, to get the snowball effect started. And what about the 5 legal firms on board for vplm, like Stubbs & Smart & Biggar...won't they step up to the plate?
For what it's worth, I predict a 1st inked agreement will be announced very soon. It will probably be small, but effective. Whether or not all for real, I don't know.
Beings that you say this as fact, not opinion... what is the highest level of proof or evidence you can provide?
What companies in the industry of any size do you think arent aware of vplm? Fully aware!
"Plus Negotiating individual licensing agreements with
each company could prove to be very time consuming on the BOD"
....................
Lol, lol... What BETTER way to spend your time, lol, lol!!! .....counting dead presidents!! (besides that's what the lawyers are for...)
$.30 today
Easily the best PR I have ever read, hands down! Thank you VPLM!
now kids, stay tuned for the latest reality show: Bluff or War! Ya gotta luv it! Let's get it on!
This morning's news. Now we're talking! Bring it! (I knew they'd listen)
Sorry, I 4got2 speak about the Sawyer side of it. You're right. I forgot about the ambiguity factor. He started out sounding all gung ho about upgrading (to pay lip service to those asking for that..) but then somehow twisted it into 'nah, forget about that...too costly. We dun need no stinking upgrade. (it's masterful. I wonder, given the luxury of questions in advance so we can prescription some good answers, if this one was actually written by Mr Inza? I think it was. All just my opinion.
Before I provide the info about Chang's promises of upgrading & his plans I spoke of, to grow the telecom massively w/the patents, 1st I need to back up a bit, because as I was looking for that info, I came across an even earlier Co PR by Chang that I hadn't seen before & which relates to this.
I didn't know this but here well over 3 yrs ago, the Co is uploaded from whatever, to "current info". I thought things were much worse then & had gradually become better, but according to this, Chang says he reported tons of Co financials. I'm very ignorant about this kind of thing. Maybe he means they uploaded this data to the website rather than gov, in which case, I don't know how truthful the records have to be? He notes also that the data has somehow gone thru the overview of an attorney in some capacity? I don't know if it means it further validates the veracity of the data or what. It sure sounds like it though. It doesn't sound to me though, what is considered "reporting", but if it is just fantasyland, can you just get away w/bogus reporting of whatever you find convenient.
http://markets.financialcontent.com/prnews/news/read/18645403/voip
http://markets.financialcontent.com/prnews/news/read/18952174/voip
A few months later, after having acquired digifonica & along w/the patent applications & technology, here you see what I told you about. Actually, this was a surprise & maybe is still yet earlier than what I was referring to, as here the process is not just called for & promised, as I had remembered reading about, but is well underway. I had not even seen this before now.
http://markets.financialcontent.com/prnews/news/read/21443426/voip
Next shows what I was talking about w/regard to the plan to licence the patent techno, however, once again I was surprised to find this particular PR, as it is much stronger & more definite than what I thought I remembered. In fact this pr is very upsetting, in retrospect. Just look at the blatant promises/pumps to shareholders & the public at large, about what they are on the verge of doing... except what a minute...hold the (points) phone... er, ah, umm... it never happened, none of it. It sounds like a parallel universe. Listen to him... so surprised at the level of big company interest so looks like we'll be forthwith licencing the techno to them, blah blah blah. I wish I had the ability to look at the charts right after that PR. They must've skyrocketed!! But as we all know, this was all fantasy Island, none of it happened. But what did somebody reference earlier about Chang having some sort of public relations degree or was it the obama-esque "community organizer", lol, or something along those lines? (hypnotherapist perhaps...?, doctor of ouija?). This is one heleva pr, lemme tell ya. Even tho I had already learned my lesson (well, I was supposed to have, anyway...) with the 50 yr company gone scam, had I been aware at this early date I think I woulda thrown my money at thst pr (along with a bit of supporting dd).
Next, is more confusing at least to me.. Chang excitedly talks about how the patent techno will be integrated w/it's soft switch techno & the website, to bring on serious revenue very soon, but then you read that it won't be for cash but for "airline points" (?) huh? And that's for long distance airtime. Uh.. ok.. sounds like a killer biz model to me, but ah,.. ah.. wha happened to the joint venture & the licensing, and the revenue streams in the 10's of millions & hundreds of millions (or wait, he hasn't mentioned the hundreds of millions yet, but is on the cusp of the prophetic channeling of Mr Sawyer's "gadzillions" (oh wait, maybe that was the comedy post on the MB, but still only one off from Sawyer's "100's of billions" (except I think that was left not dollars - - in dollars that indeed would be gadzillions). When Sawyer came on board, I posted the opening lines to Rush's "Tom Sawyer" as it sounded so apropos & flattering. The lines were uncanny. It was immediately deleted, but I digress...
http://markets.financialcontent.com/prnews/news/read/22286314/voip
Next, we hear (once again..) about the interested big dogs who wanna but the patents once theyre issued. Yip, bona-fide F500's, (uhh, don't look now, but they started being issued like a long time ago & all have been for quite some time now...). Hey, big dogs, where did you go? Whaa happened? And there were "several" of them. Who let the dogs out?
And then, 10 yrs in the making, 7 yrs ago filed, 2 yrs ago allowed for issuance, and most likely in about another 10 yrs to be purchased by MS (in a garage sale for $20). Hey, "it takes time!
http://markets.financialcontent.com/prnews/news/read/23301792/voip
Throwin this one in, just for the poster's I've seen who say that the BOD doesn't read the MB..
http://markets.financialcontent.com/prnews/news/read/23740469/voip
OMG! 100 million shares promotion!! What? That must be a typo?
http://markets.financialcontent.com/prnews/news/read/24000550/voip
(I know, I know... I was only supposed to be replying about the Chang questions, but I already did that... and heck, these durn pr's are just just too fun (and informative, esp in retrospect). Besides, it's like being back in kindergarten w/all the cut/copy & pasting. Weeeeeeee! .... so easy ta push dem buttons.)
But wait a minute... Chang had a plan... To turn vplm into a telecom giant w/the patents... and now the patents are all coming in...!!...???... so what happened to that plan? Where did it go?
Thankyou. Ok, so then if it's not worth the upgrade, then why did Chang promise to upgrade (and stated the wheels were in motion) & why did Sawyer (I think it was Sawyer) in latest infomercial, whoops, I mean cc.....say also say they are in the process of doing so. Do you think just an appeasement or a dilutive waste of time, effort & $?
Your not up anything unless you have sold enough to recoup initial. In your case, if you bought enough at that kind of price, I'm guessing you did recoup + +. And yes, daytrading the waves, in this case, would've been an excellent source of making $. Wish I had been able to do so. It wasn't practical for me. But I did spend my last money (long after my initial investment) on vplm & the belief in all the info & DD I could gather.
Regardless, still none of above answers the questions about how valuable the patents are and/or about the negative things raised, or why MS would let it slip they their pwr hungry fingers.
Everything you just said above, that can't/won't happen, in fact, HAS happened many times & I have seen it.
If you are rewarded already, then that means you sold enough to recoup, plus whatever you're considering already nicely rewarded. If so, I have more patience than you cuz I've been in for about 2 yrs & my situation has not allowed me to do that, so I've gained nothing. If you haven't sold you haven't been rewarded. If you have, and made out & still have a sizable position, then I'm happy for your good fortune.
Moreover, it's not a "matter of patience" AT ALL! it's a matter of if the questions raised, are valid.......or not.
Lemme put it this way... What is your honest best guess for how much money MS stands to lose over the 20 yr patents life? That's LI & EVERY possible other infringement they might be incurring. And keep in mind that eventually, if the patents are that valuable & all-encompassing, thst SOMEONE at SOME POINT, is gonna collect on the patents.
I've never said they are not in talks with them. What I've said tho, is that it sure doesn't appear so, all things considered. The simple point I've tried to say, is thst sure, big deals can & do sometimes take a long time... but in this case...I see it as a whole different venture, that is IF the patent portfolio is what is has been touted, promised & believed to be. I have spelled it out, in detail, why in this case, there is just too much to lose, by fooling around for many mos & yrs and/or to lose it to some upststart or big competitor.
That us why I ask over & over... How can those big dogs afford to lose this... IF IT'S REALLY THAT BIG?? But especially MS.. All the folks here who have said over & over that the proof of the foundational & humongous value of the patents, was Microsoft's so called big 5 yr "fight" for LI. Ok, that was a long time ago, so why haven't they grabbed the all important patent (with the rest), since they were defeated?? How much of an offer do you think it would've taken to get vplm? What good is $8.5 bil Skype w/o the rights to use it?
Edited version. Was too late
Ok. Thx for the explanation. Strange choice of a word for promoting, since it usually means to beat down. That's why I asked the stock price thing, thinking the flogging reference was to beat price down.
As to the pink listing, I thought maybe there were also certain requirements that comes w/uplisting that maybe they couldn't meet or afford, such as the auditing costs, etc? And so I accepted the only excuse I've heard so far, that being they were saving $ which they don't have and/or more dilution. I also thought that regardless, they still had option to report certain financial info, required or not & thought maybe they had been doing so because of the several times in last 2-3 yrs where they said they were taking steps to be "reporting". I assumed then, that they had done so, but from what you say, it seems not...
That's why I asked asked if the fact that they said they would, multiple times, and didn't (if they didnt) had any other possible explanation, than the apparent negative one. Since, as you say, it can fully shield insider sales, which otherwise would shed much light on the veracity on the company, then it would seem to be a big big deal. But I've seen nothing but promises from them & excuses here by pumpers, or, as you noted, the smart alec replies, indicative of not having the answers.
My read has been that from Chang to Sawyer, 2012 - all the way up to the recent (non) conference call, they indicated that reporting would happen, but apparently it hasnt (unless someone has info to the contrary).
If all that stands behind becoming reporting is a $30k auditing fee, while at the same time, I hear about all the very dilutive spending they did, which sounds in some cases awfully "rewarding" to certain people, it is then hard to accept the reason is frugality & it then seems to point toward cover up, for all I know?
So wouldn't it be easy enough and in fact in this case, be incumbent upon them to disclose some kind of official numbers to show & to to back up their claims of not having been selling off shares. Is it as simple as that or no?
I agree that all these things/questions, add up to be non-trivial. I think the questions raised about non accurate bio's deserve serious answers, when weighed against the level of self promotion the bod has given themselves & esp with the level of props been given them on this mb, ever since the bod change (mostly same guys as before w/Digifonica). The pumpers & proponents simply brush these facts aside....
I noted also, that the original plan was (as I thought made more sense) to develop the existing voip service provider, software & hardware provider business that this company was already "supposed" to be...into the real & true super leader in voip services, by virtue of the foundational patents, which would absolutely (supposedly) facilitate it to happen. And then, with that base, be able to also do the licencing thing, etc. That was the stated company plan, but instead, this other route has been taken, which has led to where we are now (15-20 cents & alot of blind faith)
What happened to the voip service, points phone, platinum, long distance, soft switches, etc etc ?? Why was there or is there no income from that?? Isn't that what Chang was gonna to use to get licencing going?? If not, how then? It was the stated company plan..
And if vp is able to pay 5 (or more?) legal firms for whatever the heck they do, then how is it that the sum of that resource cannot start at least getting some infringement or licencing actions initiated???
We dun care 'bout no stinking wrong photos, wrongs spellings, wrong bio's, wrong tweets, wrong PhD's, unkempt promises to be more transparent, candyman globetrotting to speak on current & future of voip, but never mentioned voip-pal of worldwide communication controlling techno, silly PR's about PR's, ambiguous word choices everytime it comes to something about the impending "sale", etc etc etc. We dun care cuz baby we gotz da goodies & that's all that matters. They're beatin our doors down
for the goodies, doncha know!
WHY HASN'T MICROSOFT BOUGHT IT???
Ok. Thx for the explanation. Strange choice of a word for promoting, since it usually means to beat down. That's why I asked the stock price thing, thinking the flogging reference was to beat price down.
As to the pink listing, I thought maybe there were also certain requirements that comes w/uplifting that maybe the couldn't meet or afford, such as the auditing costs, etc? And so I accepted the only excuse I've heard so far, that being they were saving $ which they don't have and/or more dilution. I also thought that regardless, they still had option to report certain financial required or not & thought maybe they had been doing so because of the several times in last 2-3 yrs where the said they were taking steps to be "reporting". I assumed then, that they had done so, but from what you say, it seems not. That's why I asked asked if the fact that they said they would, multiple times, and didn't (if they didnt) had any other possible explanation, than the apparent negative one. Since, as you say, it can fully shield insider sales, which otherwise would she'd much light on the veracity on the company, then it would seem to be a big big deal, but I've seen nothing but promises from them & excuses here by pumpers, or, as you noted, the smart alec replies, indicative of not having the answers.
My read has been that from Chang to Sawyer, 2012 - all the way up to the recent (non) conference call, they indicated that reporting would happen, but apparently it hasnt (unless someone has info to the contrary.
If all that stands behind becoming reporting is a $30k auditing fee, while at the same time, I hear about all the very dilutive spending they did, which sounds in some cases awfully "rewarding" to certain people, it is then hard to accept reason of frugality & it then seems to point toward cover up, for all I know? So wouldn't it be easy enough and in fact in this case, be incumbent upon them to disclose some kind of official numbers to show & to to back up their claims of not having been selling off shares. Is it as simple as that or no?
I agree that all these things/questions, add up to non-trivial. I think the questions raised about non accurate bio's deserve serious answers, when weighed against the level of self promotion the bod has given themselves & esp with the level of props been given them on this mb, ever since the bod change (mostly same guys as before w/Digifonica). The pumpers & proponents simply brush these facts aside. Wonder why?
I noted also, that the original plan was (as I thought made more sense) was to develop the existing voip service provider, software & hardware provider business that this company was already "supposed" to be...into the real & true super leader in voip services company, by virtue of the foundational patents, which would absolutely (supposedly) facilitate it to happen. And then, with that base, be able to also do the licencing thing, etc. That was the stated company plan, but instead, this other route has been taken, which has led to where we are now.
What happened to the voip service, points phone, platinum, long distance, soft switches, etc etc ?? Why was there or is there no income from that?? Isn't that what Chang to use to get licencing going?? If not, how then? It was the stated company plan..
And if vp is able to pay 5 (or more?) legal firms for whatever the heck they do, then how is it that the sum of that resource cannot start at least getting some infringement or licencing actions initiated???
We dun care 'bout no stinking wrong photos, wrongs spellings, wrong bio's, wrong tweets, wrong PhD's, unkempt promises to be more transparent, candyman globetrotting to speak on current & future of voip, but never mentioned voip-pal of worldwide communication controlling techno, silly PR's about PR's, ambiguous word choices everytime it comes to something about the impending "sale", etc etc etc. We dun care cuz baby we gotz da goodies & that's all that matters. They're beatin our doors down
for the goodies, doncha know!
Interesting & eye opening stuff to me. I have a few questions.. 1) what do you mean by "flogging the value of the patents"? Sounds like beating the price down. If so, how are they doing that? And how does that relate to helping to allow cheap sell-off - - is it to say that if the price went higher, that there would be different requirements that would stop them or make it more difficult to do this? Also, isn't there somewhere a public record of the shares they own/sell... or no cuz not required to under "non-reporting" status? And is that to say thst all the PR's & promises & purported applications for the last several yrs (which I have seen, but never the outcomes) to become "reporting" or partially reporting, have just been lies to mislead? (I must say, that I sure did wonder why I had seen them say several times since way back, that they were applying for higher reporting status & yet to this day, they admitted to zero reporting status - - so what happened to those moves to upgrade their status? I just read 1 or 2 of them yesterday, from Chang & from more current. Is this blatant lying, because THEY CAN? And will the proponents/pumpers just once again BRUSH THIS OFF, as meaningless fodder OR answer to it?).
As to "foundational patents don't seem to be stopping anyone"...
I believe I posted something about this yesterday.... and that is
to say, maybe I'm misunderstanding how this works... but my take is that the patents are not voip itself. The patents are protocols & protections to support the use of the voip services. In other words, voip service obviously does not require the patents in order to work. It seems rather, that what is claimed is that voip service cannot be commercially implemented w/o using certain technology that is now patented by voip-pal. More accurately, some, such RBR, for ex, would already be in use by virtue of it being needed to run a voip service, or at least that is what vplm has said is the case???, while LI, for another example, may or may not be in use by any providers yet, but it is clear that governments have already called for it or made it mandatory, in order for voip to operate in their countries. So I just wanted to make sure that you are taking this fact into account - - that the technology is already being used, obviously, but the patents are not needed, unless the patent owners take steps to stop it via infringement actions against them. That distinction being made, then what do you mean by saying "... don't seem to be stopping anyone from developing voip goods & services..."? It doesn't stop them because they don't need it, if no one calls their infringement.
And that is why I have been saying for along time...if the whole voip industry is indeed infringing, then the writing would've been on the wall & the big dogs, realizing the humongous infringement penalties, would have by now, nay, long ago, made their moves to snap this goldmine up!?!?
And if above is on the right track, does it also mean therefore, as I wrote last week, that the whole of the motions, by MS, to get their version of the LI, was just a ploy....which, by the way, would also go far to explain, how & why, to this day, there are still hundreds or more likely thousands, of articles online, from many many different news sources, that report how MS was awarded the LI patent (they usually say this occurred in spring of 2012). In fact just yest, I found one of these articles that actually provided an actual date AND PATENT # of the "awarded" patent. I don't know if I saved it or not, but anyone can simply Google "MS awarded LI patent & then spend the rest of their lives reading the endless stream from numerous different sources . And out of the hundred or so that I've read, I only saw 1 or 2 add postscript to correct this mistake/lie. I swear I have even read comments directly from MS, AFTER the articles were printed, with their own red herring response to how many folks, who we're asking if this now meant ("this", meaning the contrived lie about them having been awarded the patent) that Skype users now would have to worry about being "wiretapped" (so to speak..)... a red herring, because they they answered with some obscure doublespeak, which actually was a diversionary tactic, away from the fact, that there was no patent awarded to them.... AND, in fact, I believe it was only mere days, before or after this (MS's red herring response about Skype vulnerability/insecurity) that indeed, Microsoft was actually denied the patent. So far, no one has offered any alternative explanations for these crazy facts, nor acknowledged this theoretical explanation.
I'm glad you offer this case about FONR, because the cautionary tale company case I have talked about, is not about patents, so ppl don't want to take it seriously, comparison wise. I will have to read up on this FONR story. Appreciate any good links to if you have any.
As to "vplm hasn't created anything"... well no they haven't, but they did wind up getting the patents applications & did see them thru to being awarded. According to my read of the USPTO process, testing of their viability & effectiveness had to be done, at least to some degree to validate them (facts that no one offered me as I kept asking for 3rd party validation, (instead offering only the fact that MS applied for LI). so then, what do you think of, or how do you explain the patents away?
Can someone explain this to me.. It looks like a granted patent for legal intercept, applied for in 2002, but I dont see who it was granted to or when (says published 2008?), altho it list some original assignees. Really confusing..
Tia
http://www.google.com/patents/US7382881
Update:
Maybe I answered my own question, as I've been reading thru it & I think the difference is it seems to incl data only & not voice..
This is from Cicero. What do you make of it?
http://www.m-cam.com/patently-obvious
And this..
http://www.allpatentsconsidered.com/
No one claims the patents do anything, in terms of what others are already and have been doing. Patents are to protect one's own developed techno, from being used w/o rent paid. The question then, is not so much who was first, as our patents are not voip implementation techno, ie, what makes voip work, but rather supposed to be "foundational" and/or "controlling" in the "use" of the already developed voip technology, if I understand it correctly..
If so, then it doesn't matter, imho, how much it costs to realize the awards of the patent protection, because (and this is key I believe), if the tech is truly foundational & anyone using voip is infringing, then SOMEONE will invariably step up at some point & put up the buy or licence or partner $ because if they don't, that is the same as all involved to say there simply IS no infringement or we just don't care. In other words, if the patents are truly such that voip cannot be used w/o infringing on the patents, which is what vplm has told us is the case, then the value is unimaginably astronomical & some way would naturally be found to collect on those protections. Otherwise, it means the patents are NOT all that.
If not needed as you say, then what was the meaning of all that 5 yr "fight" for LI by MS? (I'm asking rhetorically & academically) & why hasn't MS then, since losing the "fight", bought the pkg?
So you may be right that they are not needed, but the distinction is, only because the patented technology is not required, in order to use voip services, as opposed to who was 1st with voip services, or the costs associated with collecting on any infringement.
The whole, entire question, regardless of any other banter, and the only thing that matters in this play, is whether or not voip services can be used w/o infringement, period, end of story. Vplm tells us no. But no outside or other source backs that idea up, as far as I know. And that is a big deal & that is the crux of the matter.
This could be a scam, or it could be nothing more than a cacophony of misunderstandings that went too far. It seems that as time goes by, for every positive & valuable attribute, shown us, w/regard to the bod & company, there are big questions and mistakes & inconsistencies been brought to bear, which, like it or not, do degrade the shiny, sweet picture handed to us initially. Very cloudy it now is. If a ceo & advisor to multiple presidents is not the Dr. he calls himself, then he should get right about it or offer proof of, in the face of the refutations that came to light, etc etc.
Above being said & on balance, in my quest to find outside, unbiased validation of patent testing, I noted that during the patent award process, apparently the efficacy WAS tested in Europe & then elsewhere, by way of the process & protocols of the patent offices involved. At least that's what I think I read. However, even if that is true, it did nothing (as far as I can see) to validate the "foundational" aspects, ie, those that dictate that no voip services in the world can be used w/o infringement. The only one to say it is true (than no voip service providers can get around our patents) is when vp said as much in the CC. Who else agrees with that?
Currently stated:
.............................
About Voip-Pal
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, ”Company”) is a publicly traded
corporation (OTC Pink: VPLM ) incorporated in December of 1997 in the
State of Nevada and headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. Voip-Pal is a
technical leader in the broadband Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”)
market with the ownership and development of a portfolio of leading edge
VoIP Patent Applications.
Voip-Pal’s primary products are VoIP patent application technology
acquired through the acquisition of Digifonica (International) Limited,
(“Digifonica”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Voip-Pal. The Company is
currently developing, testing, and administrating the patent process to
ultimately license or sell the patents. The addition of Digifonica has
immediately advanced Voip-Pal as a technical leader in the VoIP services
market which had revenues of $63 billion in 2012 and is experiencing
double digit year-over-year growth. The patent application portfolio has
greatly enhanced shareholder value and is expected to contribute to
significant future revenue growth for Voip-Pal.com as the number of
mobile VoIP subscribers is projected to reach 410 million by 2015.
.......................................
.......................................
"Voip-Pal is a technical leader in the broadband Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) market.. "
** What true "leader" in any endeavor is considered to be so & announced as such, only by themselves & no one else, in any aspect of the industry?
..................................
.................................
"...with the ownership and development of a portfolio of leading edge VoIP Patent Applications... "
1) development?
2) who, besides voip-pal, says, supports or validates the notion they are "leading edge"?
..................................
.................................
"Voip-Pal’s primary products are VoIP patent application technology..."
** 1) If they are the "primary" products, what then are the "secondary products"?
2) "patent application"? ...they are patents now, not applications, and/or, they are not & have not, been "applied" to anything.
....................................
..................................
"The Company is
currently developing, testing, and administrating the patent process to ultimately license or sell the patents."
** What part of the patent process is "currently" being "developed, tested, or administered?
...........................................
..........................................
** Hopefully, the technology is more "leading edge" than the 'first foot forward' that they put out to the world, above. It is 2 yr old statements & currently non accurate, and/or not to begin with. What kind of professionalism is that?
So what does this say about the foundational aspect of vp's "mobile gateway" & "uninterrupted transmission" patents? So confusing...
Oh, you're not??... How come?
* I was looking for some info about digifonica & stumbled onto this. It's a lone msg on some blog. It sounded kind of interesting, but maybe not. So I thought I would post it.
......................................
?
‹ › Home
View web version
Friday, May 11, 2012
theyuha at 2:13 PM
VPLM
I contacted a man named Gavin in Canada from the company that VPLM
bought the patents. There is question in the VPLM message board about
the validity of the trade. The patents do exist and 2 were described to me
over the phone. I spent an hour looking for this information and yes the
company does exist.
The company is a Canadian Vancouver company called Digifonica; they
last traded at $.04 in April. They had a $800,000 debt. The former Director
was given the patents to sell to pay off the debt. Gavin thinks the patents
were definitely worth a lot more than $800,000. Gavin knows the director of
Digifonics. Digifonics Gibraltar held the patents.
here is a partial description of 2 of them:
1. "RBR" " Strong patent" very advanced technology
2. Network Voip calls to GSM network to Wi-Fi network
It looks like the patents were given to VPLM for shares of VPLM. The debt
could likely be paid back at down ( we speculated on) to 10% or 25% of
the original loan. I have heard of this done with credit cards.
if I get more information I will post it on my blog. This information is from
notes I took while on the phone.
My take on the transaction: The patents are real and useful. Stock was
given for the patents. The patents could make money for VPLM. I do not
know when the shares would be sold but they do have a debt to pay.
..........................................
* sounds like ground zero.
http://theyuha-silver.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/vplm.html?m=1
FBI forces police departments to keep quiet about cellphone spying gear
POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 IN GOVERNMENT | 192 VIEWS | LEAVE A
RESPONSE
Not only are local police departments across the United States increasingly
relying on so-called StingRay devices to conduct surveillance on cell
phone users, but cops are being forced to keep quiet about the operations,
new documents reveal.
http://rt.com/usa/189996-fbi-fcc-nda-stingray/
Analysts, smanalysts... just ride the waves, buy lo/sell higher, don't be greedy & make $. Simple.
Famous last words...
Clearly the pattern. What does the pattern mean tho?
(I wouldn't count too heavily on the other one's powers, cuz he was concentrating so hard he almost blew a gasket & had to stop holding his breath, at which point one would expect a major drop, but it only dropped about .007% (I think), lol.
1st, Thx for teaching me about "iff". Cool..
Using your own scenario, it sounds quite plausible to me, esp iff, it is the only way to accomplish it stealthily. At your approx rates, so how much monthly cash would that bring in?
I searched as much as I could stand to & I could find nothing either, that could reasonably be deemed m&a experience. That was troubling. I expected to easily find at least some meager validation, considering the choice by our highly experienced BOD & the potential value bandied about for last few yrs. But I found only emptiness, save the couple, three things they themselves list, which appear to not only be minimal, but here once again it stood out to me, the key word choices, seemingly carefully chosen to not be caught in a lie. I guess the best ex would be the mothman (might as well..) oil deal. Here they pr their big role to write home about, as having "assisted". And assisted in a 2.5 m deal. Even for myself, who has very low knowledge of finances & am pretty poor, that seems laughable to even print. And it's not as though "assisted" was a fair keyword to use in this case, to be followed up with more serious details, to give at least a tad if credence, but nuttin'. What'd they make, a hundred bucks?
This makes over a half dozen times now where their keyword, describing what they can do, or have done, either comes off to me as conveniently understated or overstated, depending on which way da wind blows. In fact, if I'm right about that, the way they mix seeming non trivial w/trivial, leaves me thinking that what they are actually quite expert in, is wordsmithing?? I'm not to savvy about financials in general but I'd say the most I learned about this biz since I began to try, and considering the mostly penny stocks that I was forced to work with, is the hugely expert hype & wordsmithing used to sway. I try to stay fair-minded & not get too jaded, but the misleading info seems to far far outweigh the truth. And I find that very very little of the misinformation, is innocent or random, which the proponents seem to often use that excuse, more conveniently than convincingly, to me at this point.
If Chang was involved & has mjsrepresented himself, as you say, please be forthcoming w/any details about the IBM & magazine thing, cuz if true, then it degrades the rest of the bod credibility for allowing him to be a spokesman. But then there's the questions about Sawyers own credentials, so it is confusing & difficult to simply slough off as non worthy of mention. Because if you put bs on your website & it is later questioned as to veracity, but then neither confirmed or denied, then that's not good in my book. And the proponents are so quick to hand out "plausible deniability" (in effect, by letting these things slide). If he hasn't proven himself to be honest & forthright, fiduciary-wise, then why in the hell would this Tom Sawyer, who has been defined here as a near God, allow himself to stand & work side by side w/him? I dunno, maybe he has little choice? But then, how could he allow his own credentials, if not quite up to snuff, stand? I don't wish to minimize his or any board member or associate's accomplishments, but in effect, that's what such chunks leave behind.
The "parity in the virtual boardroom" remark is well taken, but if you take this stuff to task, you get negative labels here, as tho you simply "overthink" or are a "conspiracy theorist" etc. These things deserve to be brought to light & duly squashed diligently by the players, or they don't bode well & could very well eventually boil down to unexpected harm. All you who have been respectfully referring to Sawyer as "Dr", is it too much to ask for any of you to validate it, in the face of these claims to be bogus. You got these guys here who spend countless hrs w/the cut & paste, pushbutton DD, as proponents of vplm, but they seem to be "out of the room" when it comes to doing the same to verify or squash these apparent facts relating to credential. I mean how hard is it, to verify a 40-50 yr business demigod, as to if he's a PhD or not?
Could it be that some just don't want to know or say it's not important?
And I thank you for printing what seems to be the facts. I did the same checking when these allegations surfaced & came up w the same info. It's non trivial & begs to be cleared up, no?
I missed who said "holding long" but I can't see that as an issue at all.
The press release about a press release, struck me as ridiculous & bewildering. I've never seen anything like that. Maybe if it was the early 1900's... I guess it was a positive, but strangely done??
The Inya tweets thing, I'm on the fence about. Today's communication devices are amazing & are changing the rules of what's appropriate & not. It seems it might be ok for an IR guy to utilize, but more carefully maybe. What bothers me the most is, why some of his tweets were summarily removed, in terms of the subject matter used...?
Re: MS awareness of our patent suite, in as much depth as could be, I wouldn't even entertain listening to anyone who believes an iota otherwise, and keep asking the big question... why hasn't MS bought the suite (esp for LI), but so far no one has ventured a quess, outside of the proverbial "it takes time" retort, as though MS would play such a game w/such a must have treasure. I think they've had plenty of me what about Google, Apple, Cisco, Rockstar?
As to the question of p&d, I too, in my ignorance of how these matters really work, concluded the same idea about long term distributive dumping, in the face of other board commenter's saying it is not happening, as tho they have the expert ability to track it. And the company players swear they haven't sold anything...?
I must say tho, that there seems to be also, a plethora of positives & I don't know nearly enough to write it off as a scam. I'm locked into my position. I hope sincerely that no one gets hurt bad. If it happens & happens big, it truly will be a rewrite of the miracle on 34th. This play, along with my other experiences in last few yrs, incl the one that was a 50 yr Co turned major scam, plus a few other little ones, will be a major learning experience for me.
Thanks for touching on all the points you did, even tho for all I know, you could be a short basher. I don't think so tho.
"Southbank Capital has issued a press release in Australia
regarding their **agreement to represent Voip-Pal for sale to their existing relationships.**
Everytime I read some line about SBC charge, it just keeps getting better. The one above is so real, I think they read my opinion, haha
Let's see, it went from...
* "a mandate to sell.."
to..
* "engaged to seek"
to..
* "agrees to represent"
Ain't that somethin'? ... total coincidence, eh?