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.
In this PR, Southbank again mentions their "mandate" to seal a deal for this oil & gas Co, and they claim to have done so or at least assisted. I don't dispute that's true, but I checked out the PR's for this Mosman co going back to mid August & while they have been in acquisition mode to takeover Trident, which is now all but completed according to the news reported, never once was Southbank mentioned, by Mosman or anyone on their msg board.. Seemed odd to me... that they don't seem to have been given any credit for accomplishing their "mandate". Maybe that's just how it's done..?? Seems a bit short towards them, while the company notes they have unconditionally taken over Trident. So I'm glad to see Southbank has "tooted their own horn"!
http://prwire.com.au/pr/46800/southbank-capital-secures-trident-energy-for-mosman-oil
It sounds to me like the use of "mandated" is at least slightly presumptuous on their part, as if seeing themselves chosen for a command performance.. But that's fine, if they can deliver one.
And while you're at it, it would real cool to start putting some infringers on notice, imho, no?
That's the way to do it vplm! No holds barred & in a timely fashion. Good deal!
The reason I posted the article was I thought it was a very interesting explanation of telephony from the beginning to voip.
The 1st half describing the history & basic workings of it, referenced US & Canadian systems, I suppose because it was a US invention & development, which probably 1st spread to Canada since we border them. But it was more about how it works than national concerns.
The 2nd part got into voip. Voip is an Internet application & the Internet is global. There was a part that described a more global type scenario. That excerpt is below:
.....................................................
"VoIP that usually
connects through a user’s computer and does not have its own traditional
phone number for receiving calls. Some non-interconnected VoIP services
are free. Although interconnected VoIP entails a monthly charge, that may
include low-cost calling to much of the world, with an overall bill that is
often far less than that for traditional phone service. Moreover, an
interconnected VoIP user can obtain a phone number unrelated to his
actual location. A user in Australia, for example, who has family and
friends in New York City, can request a number with New York City country
and area codes. Calls from New York City to Australia become local calls at
local rates, while calls from Australia back to New York City go at low VoIP"
....................................................
But actually, the article was written for the purpose of speaking to the US gov't handling (fcc) of regulation. It was written by us telecommunications lawyers. The gist of it is the dilemma faced by fcc due to the pressures it feels from various sides of the issue of regulation & because so far it cannot regulate certain (non-interconnected) forms of voip while others (interconnected) it does.
It doesn't cover global regulation because it's about US regulation as authored by us telecom & fcc regulation lawyers.
Again, I just thought it was an interesting short explanation of telephony in general & the other reason & point of interest, for why I posted, was due to the last question at the end of the comments at the bottom, specifically about our company & asking the big question.. Unfortunately, it appears that the replier is not one of the lawyers who wrote the article, because they had no idea how to answer the question.
Remember, the article was titled & about...the fcc (handling our voip telephony) so it wouldn't have been appropriate for it to talk about global regulation concerns.
* correction: article written by Mitchell Lazurus & published by the lawyers
Excellent well written, comprehensive & easy to follow article on telephony from start to voip. Current to within past year. Followed by a few commentaries, the last of which is about voip-pal. The big question is posed there but goes unanswered (as usual) but is open ended so good page to bookmark & check back with.
http://www.commlawblog.com/2013/12/articles/cellular/can-the-fcc-handle-phone-service-over-the-internet/
"there are no known applications..."
Do you honestly think that means what you appear to be characterizing it to mean, even after I have posted what it is likely to mean (ie, this technology has not yet been applied anywhere, because no one had it to apply it yet)?
I see no evidence of any lawsuit, period.. And while "confidence in BOD & negotiations" may be the case, that doesn't necessarily demo any validation of patents. These "chaser" lawyers, have been sending out large numbers of basically the same PR to any company who PR's about activities towards a sale, merger, etc.
If you Google the firm, you will hit on pages & pages full of the same plea-to-shareholders (weak hands) msg. To me, that speaks to their tactics & reaching for even a tiny percentage "hit rate" on "fishing", way more than it speaks to any realities of vplm BOD, patent value, etc. That, in the same sense as how an ambulance chaser is not all that concerned about whether or not the victims he wants to represent, was at fault or not in the accident..not the true extent of the victims injuries. He is interested in how to exploit, period.
Maybe I misunderstand something.. but: "...get Southbank to do their searching for them..." was how I was thinking at 1st also, until I focused on the part about "existing relationships who have expressed interest". Doesn't that seem to negate "to do their searching for them"?
I've distilled to this: why hasn't Microsoft bought vplm patent pkg?
That's away from the point. The gist of it was to counter the belief that some dubious law firms sending out of PR's to any company they can find who has indicated monetization attempt activity, is in any way (that I can see) equal to some kind of validation of vplm patent value. The firm not only has no special info on vplm, but they are trying to fabricate a lawsuit & they apparently lied by posting a misleading headline that claimed one & implied some breach of fiduciary duty by Sawyer I think it was..
That only thing that validates is the standards of the law firm. They send those letters out to high numbers of msg boards addressed to shareholders. It indicates the only money they think is gonna come from vplm is money they can bilk from shareholders. I figure they could care less about how real the patents are or not.
Ok Thx. That makes sense now. I "read" it different. I think you're right about buy mode for biggy. That said, care to venture a guess why MS or Google or Apple hasn't yet bought vplm patents?
I explained why I thought your "validation of vplm" opinion seems flawed, esp true if you agree the law firm knows nothing apart from us. You believe it's true regardless. I'd be interested to know specifically how you reach that conclusion, if you know that this law firm simply fabricates it's whole deal out of thin air, and lies about a takeover?
I'm guessing you figure that if the law firm sends out the PR, it somehow means a deal is imminent?? (which in turn means value). Do you think the PR is based on anything other than the fact that a couple of days earlier vplm announced a signing w/Southbank? If so what? I'm sure you know by now that dundumb & dundumb law firm has been sending out these pr's by the hundreds (or thousands) for a long time, to any company who announces they are hoping to soon make a deal. I just can't see how that validates anything other than they are proverbial ambulance chasers (worse than, because no actual victim or
legit case. But if that's what you believe...
What in your link supports selling?
I disagree that this "law firms" actions "validates the legitimacy" of ANYTHING.. All it validates is the fact that for yrs, all this branch of the law firm does is search for companies poised for major change & then automatically sends out the PR to them pleading for shareholders (whom they hope are dissatisfied in some way or other) to contact them so they can get them to sign onto a phony lawsuit that doesn't even exist & collect compensation in some way, period. It does not reflect upon anything else about the company they send the PR to, good, bad or otherwise, as they are simply fishing. If you think different then please explain what they could possibly know, above & beyond what we know, about the veracity if the company. I don't see how they could.
It's also possible, very possible I think, that they are manipulating the share price with what amounts to scare tactics & then uses that reaction in some self benefitting way.
When you say that the only conclusion you can reach is it makes vplm legit, you are assuming something that doesn't exist, that being that this law firm has info about vplm that you don't have. They don't unless they have insiders & which case they are playing inside info & get into big trouble, but they have been doing this for a long time so nothing more than scare & fish.
The so called law firm sends out the same basic PR to every company they can find who is poised for a buyout, merger, etc. They then hope to get calls from less than satisfied s/h's so they can fish for prsnl info & possibly to get $ to represent them in a contrived lawsuit. Their reach outs to vplm and many other companies reflect nothing whatsoever about those companies, thus mean nothing & prove nothing. They are sub ambulance chasers in that there is no victim or wrongdoing having had occurred, for which they want to step in & get a piece of the action, they attempt to create the appearance of that when it doesn't even exist. That's my opinion of their M.O. They wish to sign you onto a bogus lawsuit. In my opinion, it's false to believe their actions mean ANYTHING about any company, outside of the fact that this contact guy, spends all his time searching for companies ready to transition & then sends the PR out to them. They send them out by the hundreds.
That should read: "...who do you think..." is on the list
Nevermind I was too tired when I read your post & was reading wrong. I just looked at it again & it all makes sense now. Lol. (not that u answered anyway)
Later on I did some checking and these guys send out zillion s of those notices, and I found where there were political movements to put a stop to stupid, frivolous, unsupported, opportunistic lawsuits (in Texas) & in at least one case, one of this firms layers was running for political office as an incumbent I think & was ousted due to revelations of his participation in the wacky lawsuits (of which it sounds like this campaign for vplm s/h's is just another try for same, of their many.
What I don't understand how it works is: how do they or anyone else get their PR placed on our Mb? Who places it here?
And so when do you think is on the short list of buyers, all things considered w/these latest developments?
Lol lol... Were u being transparently facetious w/them from the gitgo? did you ASK for it? I'd really like to understand what transpired.. I have a little other info I found on the "Southpark" characters but been too busy to post it. They're goofy
Oh by the way they have almost an endless stream of those newswire emails they send them by the hundreds for quite awhile.. And all sorts of political debauchery
I'm sorry, I must be dense or forget what we're talking about or something.....
"I asked the law firm who has retained them and they would not tell me
even if it was a shareholder .
I asked was it a hedge fund.
pause.
we cant discuss our clients."
......................
I'm lost.. Could you please clarify above comments? What do you mean by: "I asked the law firm who retained them..." what lawn firm? Retained who? Lol, me lost. Help
Well, "who you know" still equates to "what you know", ultimately. So you think this firm, who posted no winning acquisitions that I saw, knows more, has more contacts than the 5 or more legal firms working for vplm, such as Stubbs & Co? Would that be a stretch do you think?
Oh really? How do they know any more than you or I?
"initiate a case"...
What case? Why are they spending time & money to initiate a case if there isn't any "case", no breach of fiduciary duty, no takeover attempt?? So is it then, that they put out a "hit" headline, followed by a bs plea for calls & then (I'm thinking) later, after they've compiled a list of "marks" then they attempt to get them to join a class action or whatever in exchange for shares? Is that how this works? How long could they get away w/that kind crap? Have they been around awhile & do they have any won cases of this sort? This appears worse than ambulance chasing cuz in ambulance chasing there's a victim, a real victim & they just want a piece of the victims misfortune, but in this case, unless they can show some wrongdoing (they already appeared to lie in this case by saying "a takeover" when there has been no such action shown to be..), then it just a fishing scheme & who would sign on to their scheme.... BEWARE DON'T GET INVOLVED! (shareholders have called & they offered no such case of wrongdoing)
So if this firm was to be connected w/shorting or just buying on the dip, would that be illegal? I would think/hope so, I mean there must be rules against such manipulation, no?
Can someone explain...? This morning's pr header "encourages stockholders to" call up & check into a "takeover". Then I read the pr itself & see nothing in any way, shape or for about any such "takeover"...??....so WHAT takeover attempt? is my question.
This is just another of the millions of false (and often uncorrected) articles (see link below) about how MS obtained the LI patent, a complete & blatant lie & I have reasons to believe it is part of the same plan I've brought up before that offers alternative reasons for why MS LI application was not necessarily as good a reason as many think, to validate the value & efficacy of vplm LI patent. The reason I post this one, when it's nothing new, is because not only does the article blatantly claim MS rcvd the patent, but it does so approx a month - month & a half AFTER MS application was denied! (also never seen MS deny the story in its many manifestations).
And now to add another piece to support my theory...
There is another reason why MS LI patent application was not necessarily their major quest to get it, steal it or whatever it took, because it was simply of such dire importance to MS...
There is something called "Cerea" or cerela (or something like that, I 4get at the moment). I don't remember the detail right now, but I think it is some kind of international treaty that the U.S. maybe signed to, not positive, but it basically says that all voip providers must have a backdoor of some kind (or other methodology), in place, for the governments to be able to record conversations, for anti terrorism measures. Sorry I'm not remembering the exact details but I believe this has to be in place by a certain date, if not already passed. And I think there are other rules & laws & proposals that also lead to this need to have a legal intercept capability..
I further think that I've read that these and our gov'ts, have been putting a lot of pressure on the voip providers, for some time now, to implement it.
At the same time, there is a monkey wrench thrown into this mix...
The reason (or one of the big reasons) what enable Skype to grow so big, is because they wouldn't divulge anything to the gov & user belief that they were not allowing any eavesdropping on calls.. But then MS snatches them up & my understanding is that MS has been known to cooperate w/the gov on these things and do so for free, no charge to gov...'ol buddy ol pal'..
At the same time, Skype keeps denying (or at least not confirming) they have the tech in place to snoop in on the calls. Well, when Skype was taken over by MS, ever since, Skype users been very afraid... that they would lose their privacy...
So, on one hand, MS wouldn't want to piss off their big Skype customer base, but on the other hand, they were getting big pressure from the gov to institute legal backdoor..
Hmmm, a dilemma for them... So why not then, in what appeared to look like good faith effort, begin quest for LI patent, as a token gesture to gov. So maybe what they did is look to the vplm patent application & make a few changes or additions to make it "their" version & apply for a patent (2 yrs after vplm applied). Possibly they realized that either due to trouble vplm was temporarily having w/USPTO (w/a denial somewhere around this same time) or, because they knew they would be denied due to vplm prior art. That element is very likely, simply because it's common procedure to have your own patent lawyers do a thorough & exhaustive prior art search BEFORE applying to USPTO.
So think about it... out of nowhere there create this kind of "borrowed" technology patent application & use it to kill 2 birds w/one stone...almost like a "false flag" operation, for the benefit of the government or whatever treaty they signed onto or are being pressured about, to appeased that situation, by saying & showing: "hey, look we have "developed" our own intercept technology & we are patent pending....and... on the other front, to appease their huge Skype user base, they can show them that they the patent was denied & they actually have no legal intercept. So a dual purpose ploy, if you will. And, they, or someone managed to get the story all over the Internet, which clearly & unequivocally stated that MS had the patent, when in fact they certainly did not & it was denied (as far as I know) for prior art (vplm). These articles were so bold in the blatant lie, that even after some were forced to update & correct the misstatement, all they did was to add a one line, few words asterisk at the very bottom, stating the patent was "published, not granted", but it is very easy to miss & often times ppl don't read to the very end & it just isn't bold or stand out. It is fairly obvious to me that this was an engineered ploy. And like I said, it served 2 purposes, fend off the gov's & appease the Skype base. And in fact, to this very day, the story is still widely circulated, in some cases (I found one yest) w/no retraction or correction of any kind. And Skype continues to operate & be able to tell it's customers that there is no "back door" for any snooping to be happening, and in fact, more recently announced, is the high encryption security that MS has implemented (but not necessarily for Skype - - they are quiet about that part).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/07/22/its-terrifying-and-sickening-that-microsoft-can-now-listen-in-on-all-my-skype-calls/
If all above is not enough info to at least cast some level of doubt, about how MS LI patent application IS NOT, after all, a GOOD ENOUGH reason to use as VALIDATION for the vplm patents, which has been strongly said here, then I guess I did a poor job and/or maybe I'm just wrong.
Didn't say anything about violating any NDA's, nor do I expect them to... Little to no interest has been shown by anyone whatsoever, at any time, outside of what we're loosely told by BOD. That fact could be explained satisfactorily for a time, but that time has passed, all things considered.
Tough to swallow the notion that something this big to the world (as we have been told, could not have garnered major notice & major stories all over the media, especially in the voip arena of news. Hard to buy that.
Even w/the reportedly most secretive company in the world, Apple, the whole world knows almost every detail of what's coming out, long in advance. Where are the stories? Where are the TV features? Newspapers, magazine features, Internet, where are the investors buying up what promises to be the end all be all control of the entire voip industry?
Or maybe was/is all that hype a bit overblown (to say the least)? 10 years - - portends to foundationally control voip services worldwide - - does it get much bigger than that? - - 10 yrs & nobody turns a head to notice or care aside from this board & the vplm PR's. How can that be possible. I don't actually think the world works that way.
A year ago & more, all the talk here was the same. Soon as them patents get granted, BOOM!!! The fireworks shall begin immediately & all will be well & good in Camelot. Well, patents started to get approvals long ago & fully in hand for roughly 6 mos & nothing but ambiguous, shadowy, PR's & a "conference call" that isn't a conference call at all that sounded ok but no real substance, all fluff & the pps languishes for months & no one outside of here ever gives a word of notice & no major major offers have been made that were worthy of acceptance. That is the reality. The rest is conjecture & speculation.
Don't forget how we also were trusting of the old guard, who told us the bs story about big interest from fortune 500 (now it's s&p?) which many here repeated that mantra often, "proof" of this disruptive technology & it's major value...and now, more than a year later, we are told that was just a lie, no such thing.
I'm not being negative. Those points above are negative. I guess I just don't get it...
Yeah really....true when considered like that.. It's like the more you try to make sense of it, the less sense it makes. And the key "blank spots" that could help it make sense, always seem to be strangely withheld by vplm, sometimes by way of these non sequitur type statements. Do you get that same feeling...as tho the statements they put out are carefully crafted but leave you wondering all the time, as opposed to straight up, clear, declarations?
All this has the appearance of vplm guys trying hard to find buyers (which is a good thing) while there is little to no interest. Little to no interest, at this mature stage of the game, is very worrisome & confusing, for a suite of patents, portrayed to us as being the very control mechanism, for the future of the biggest form of communication to ever hit the street. I ask, does this make sense?
Then why are offers being made, negotiated & brokered, supposedly? Is it all a ploy... or why do the supposed suitors see value in the tech? There is obviously alot more, existing & going on, than meets the eye. Questions is whether positive or negative? It all hinges on how important, foundational & exclusive vplm patents are, which is why I keep calling for some semblance of outside, qualified, unbiased proof or at least very good indication, to validate them. And why no indication at all, after such a long time since the vplm tech was 1st introduced & since patent approvals granted, that any of the big dogs have any interest (outside of the whole MS LI thing, which may have had less obvious motivations)? Nobody seems to give much of a hoot about the vplm patents. At this stage of the game (and vplm patents are no secret by a longshot), WHY???
I also saw nothing to suggest SBC had a buyer. I posted that I thought they were basically signed up as a middleman & that maybe they had skills, etc, to be able to go forth and find/bring a potential buyer to the table, on contingency basis. I think you would have to arbitrarily fill in some blanks to conclude they already had a buyer(s) & asked to be signed to insure a fee.
I think it's a great opportunity for SBC to advance themselves if they have the ways & means to pull something off, but it does make one wonder what they have in that regard, that the BOD & the 5 or more legal firms, do not have?
One might also wonder if it is some sort of legally motivated maneuvering reasons, to sign such an agreement? I might add that the "non-exclusivity" clause, suggests they approached vplm & vplm says, "go ahead, give it your best shot".
If MS has advanced their own technology (LI), then how do we not know about it? Also, it's been bandied about here alot, that the vplm voip technology is so "foundational", that there is no way around it. At least that's what it seems we have been led to believe, no? Do you have any evidence of 'a way around vplm LI technology that MS has?
That's a very good take on this issue. What do you think Southbank can do, that such an accomplished BOD, and the 5 or more legal firms on board, cannot do?
Dunno... Current score: S&P - 250 // Fortune - 250 // vplm - fiteen cent..
"....and what has that to do with yesterday's PR about
VPLM appointing a small Aussie boutique called Southbank to..."
I don't think vplm "appointed" them to anything, but simply made an agreement w/them... which supports the notion that Southbank maybe approached vplm, with an "offer" to try their hand at making a deal happen, which vplm found acceptable. I think that makes more sense overall, than vplm reaching out to & appointing Southbank.
jmo
Could've meant that Southbank, in an enterprising bid to up their game, became aware of the whole situation & approached vplm w/the "offer" to try and promote a sale, subsequently accepted & agreed upon by vplm, no?
That sounds very possible. Thx
I have to agree that innocent misspeak, such as the billions for millions slip, are a thing, which can & does happen all the time, but non sequitur's such as this (not the only one I've seen from BOD by a longshot) are difficult to not take as either the age card (?), or, more likely, diversionary tactics. That is how it comes off to me, quite diversionary. Does this "stellar" group proofread what they print beforehand?...and then say: yup, that's exactly what I wish to say & convey. Hmmm
You keep saying your so sure about it all & don't want to beat a dead horse & can't comprehend my writing, hence won't read them.............but you keep throwing it out there to me anyway.....so i reply..
I'm sure MS could provide answers but if you consider what I've been saying overall about the highly cutthroat nature of the big dogs in this game of high finance, then I wouldn't be apt to believe a word they say.
I want the answers from neutral sources. If I think MS maybe had ulterior motives, then why would I ask THEM to answer why they did this, that or the other? Doesn't make sense to ask them.
I simply question the reasons they did or didn't do certain things, in the context of your whole platform of: 'if MS tried to get similar patent for 5 yrs, then that is empirical proof of the veracity of the vplm technology. I say no, no it isn't, not because I'm some conspiracy theorist, but because many facts don't appear to add up. I'm not contending that vplm was "smarter" than MS. Not saying that at all. I was simply being logical about your point-by-point contentions that MS was so smart.
You said that, not me. I only countered; ok, if they were so smart then why they do or don't do this or that, to support your contentions? But now you concede they WEREN'T so smart (after you just said they WERE...).
But that's not what I'm trying to say. I don't have any final conclusion cuz I don't have enough answers to support final conclusions. Obviously digifonica had some genius minds that saw the need & the future & developed a patent foundation to support voip. It would seem they were true visionaries. I think that they partnered up with vplm, because they needed help to keep the quest going.
That's my general belief. But I also know that when human beings know they have something huge, that is potentially major powerful, they often get wacky in their judgement & plans going fwd, depending on who is steering things.
To me, it was more of digifonica merging w/vplm than vplm grabbing digifonica & it seems a great thing THAT occurred. At that point in time, my DD tells me that the need for LI was already well-known & established. At least I think it was. If so, where the hell was MS? (don't they have a cutting edge crack team?).
Is it the case then, that MS never made any move to develop their own LI until 2 yrs after some pipsqueak pink w/no $ & no income & no brick & mortar, has applied for the patents? And since their legal team (MS) would have done exhaustive prior art searches before making their own application, then they wouldn't apply for essentially the same technology. That wouldn't make any sense as they would've known their application would be denied for that reason (prior art). Thus they would've had to change it alot to think it had a fighting chance to come from so far behind & win at the wire.
But all I keep hearing is that their application was essentially the same the technology. (except I think it was gt car who recently posted the figure of 75% the same as vplm. Don't know if that's true or not). If ms DID make serious changes in their own application, then why do I keep hearing that they were denied for prior art from vplm? (that implies they simply tried to copy/steal).
You can force the dots to connect, but that doesn't win the game in the end. So you're guessing "arrogance" or simply believed they (MS) had a "work around. Ok, that's plausible but it does not "strengthen the case for vplm", as you said, because it's only your guessing at MS reasons. If you connect dots via guessing you can easily wind up with a very distorted picture.
But remember, you are guessing, taking stabs at MS thought process & that is not exactly critical thinking...to reach conclusions that you say are "fact, not your opinion" & that you "have all the proof you need". Is that itself not arrogant?
I didn't say MS actions "discredited" anything. I'm only looking down various avenues to try to understand why MS messed up so badly, IF indeed they did. If you think they (MS) were not fully capable & even apt, to create a diabolical plan to usurp vplm, or, to just try to steal some credibility & gain share sales, by creating or allowing to stand, that bs story about how they had been granted the patent, then I think you sell them short.
But I must admit, at that juncture, that to try to do so, strongly implies that they (MS) MAY have believed in the value of the vplm LI technology. So maybe you are right, but I can't see it as proof tho.
As to me implying vplm hasn't talked to MS about infringement, no I'm not implying that, I'm saying simply how could MS let it go this far? Ok maybe they've "been in talks", fine & good, not saying they haven't. What I'm saying is that if MS has known the huge & unprecedented value & implications of their infringement & the value of owning the technology, how could they pussyfoot around for so long?
If what you say is the very proof of the value, then how does one of the richest entities in the world let it potentially slip thru their fingers, esp w/their reputation of going after & getting what they want, ALWAYS! ..unless maybe they have more on less assured vplm that they are gonna make a deal w/them. But, if that was the case, do you honestly think the PR's & vplm actions of last few month's sound like they contain such an unannounced possibility? Maybe so, but it sure don't sound that way to me.
Bottom line: If MS thought the vplm technology was so great, why would they copy it 2 yrs later after it was already applied for, knowing if it was the same, it would be an exercise in futility?
Your "dots" move around like a shell game.