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.
It's awfully difficult to compare the 2 patent applications. But what was the reason USPTO gave to deny MS a grant? I thought it was bcuz of vp prior art? If so, doesn't that somewhat imply same technology, bcuz if different essentially, the would the USPTO denial be for different reasons?
It's awfully difficult to compare the 2 patent applications. But what was the reason USPTO gave to deny MS a grant? I thought it was bcuz of vp prior art? If so, doesn't that somewhat imply same technology, bcuz if different essentially, the would the USPTO denial be for different reasons?
MS "throwing in towel" does not prove the validity. That's why I provided a logical alternative set of possible set of reasons for ms actions. The dots were more connected in that theory, than the vast chasm that needs to be jumped to conclude that MS failing to meet deadline to continue its quest, directly equates to proof of validity of vp LI being a hugely valuable & foundational voip patent.
That's a big shark jump. If you choose to see that fact as proof of this, it is only your opinion, not proof of anything. Why don't you attempt to answer the question of why MS initiated this quest in the 1st place, 2 yrs later, and after their world class patent attorney team ignored their fruitless prior art search? Isn't that a good question?
Thx, but I will need a little more explanation, if you would, as to how this article shows my theory to be flawed. I'm missing the direct connection. Also, keep in mind, that in the case of LI, I don't know how important all those other patents were, on an individual basis (but obviously they had a big sum they paid out), but if LI is as potentially big as we have been led to believe (ours or MS applied for version), then wouldn't that kind of change the criteria for whether or not my theory has merit? I mean it alone is potentially (if for real) worth hundreds of billions worldwide, no? What about an opinion on the prior art question I asked?
... or you're under thinking things. How do you figure "overthinking", when I supported ea & every element of the theory with valid reasons, which look to me, more reasonable than the actions by MS that I delineated. It's easy to make wide brushstrokes that sweep things aside, but how about instead offering any point by point rebuttal? I made at least a reasonable stab at why Microsoft's actions did not seem to make too much sense, as opposed to everybody else portraying their questionable actions as "proof" of the validity & value of our patents. Hey, if you are apt to swallow that, you're also entitled.
Much has been said about the significance of MS's failed attempt to get their version of LI patented, and how the fact they
did so somehow validates the veracity, importance & value of our own LI patent. So far, to my notice, the box that contains that thinking process, while reasonably logical, is basically the only one I've seen. Sometimes you have to kick out of the box for another perspective..
I posit perhaps this aspect is not as obvious as it might seem, to be contained in above box...
As I heard the story over & again, it just didn't sit well w/me. We are told that before filing for a patent, an applicants patent attorneys do a thorough prior art search. That is before submitting to USPTO. Therefore seems to me that with a major, foundational types of patent application such as our LI, it would've turned up in such a patent lawyers search...
Yet, 2 yrs after the vplm application, and despite this fact, MS makes their application for what we are also told, was essentially the same technology...
Really...??? That seems a tad odd...
I have given enough thought to this to begin to wonder if it was a bona fide application & subsequent hard fought effort over time, or perhaps a diabolical ploy of "going through the motions"... for less than the obvious reasons, albeit still good reasons...(for them).
Let's add to above the fact that even though the fairly obvious to come denial was given them, they continued for approx 5 yrs to keep fighting to get the award.... or did they?, ie, was this more of the ploy?
Then, after such a supposed well played set of appeals, fought tooth & nail, they continued to try to drill through ea denial. Then, when they had not received a final & irrevocable denial, and still had options to keep up the fight, which would've cost them only a small fraction (I assume) of the prior fight to get it done, they decide to just stop trying, even w/ample time afforded them to continue to gain ground.
That seems kind of odd as well, considering the strangely bold original attempt to put thru the same thing & then to give up w/such a vested interest & given their relatively bottomless pockets. Hmmm....
Then I start to give thought to the fact that the biggest Corp's in the world are quite well known to be, by default really, also most diabolical & cut throat. YES/NO??
Then I added to the mix, a very very important piece of the puzzle (assuming it is indeed a puzzle than needs unravelling)....please keep listening....
How about that whole deal (so innocently???) with that PR, which found its way all around the world & been printed here in different forms, almost ubiquitously....that declared in no uncertain terms that MS had won the patent grant for LI? Yes, how 'bout dat? And as far as I saw, only in some cases was there an update posted to the story, pretty obscurely, if you ask me, that weakly corrected the big story, well after the fact & likely widely unnoticed.
Does anyone doubt the uptick in sales this spin must've generated, maybe even to this day? As that story (w/update or not) is still hit by many searches & keywords, from what I've seen.
What a freaking travesty & what a blatant lie. Does anyone believe this was an honest & inadvertent mistake or that 'lil ol' MS had nothing to do with it? What level of naivete' would THAT require? I cannot buy it.
Consider then, that the whole thing was nothing more than a ploy from the git... to steal it away, one way or the other, in effect while knowing all along, quite predictably, that they would not be able to get it for real. The shares they sold alone, along with the attention stolen away from vp, would likely have enuff value to help offset any future infringement penalties or license fees they might have to pay...
Hmmm.... maybe someone can help bring some more cohesiveness to this conspiracy theory?? I think it makes more sense that Goliath was just DUH stupid in their apparent (keyword "apparent") bid. It's been said here that MS doesn't roll over but gets what they want, by hook or crook.
I'm POSITIVE I can PROVE this...
Having a bare bones infrastructure, if you will, when all you have to play market with is a set of patents & no income, is very very smart & appropriate way to operate for vplm. And they OBVIOUSLY have accomplished getting ALOT of work done, when you consider what it has taken to steer & maintain this ship to date. Gotta at least hand em that. And 1000's of percent growth in pps carried on a long moving avg, w/o blatant pump, ain't nothing to sneeze at either. CC's were wanted and granted (well, not quite CC's, but still pretty informational anyhow). Some damn serious looking patents approved amidst a time of tremendous growth & competition of technology being written in this arena, seems to be a pretty big accomplishment & so far while no one has proved it's efficacy & value, well, no one has disproved it either & all the past hokey stuff overcome & no debt.....and keeping it going w/o income yet a pps most have benefitted from. Alot of weird stuff & questions still threads throughout the whole thing, but overall, it doesn't smell too scammy to me, but I'm awfully concerned about the strength of the patents and I wanna know why no knowledgeable 3rd party entities ever steps up to validate the technology...???... only inside touts, mb touts & "supposed gnostic friends & friends of friends... This fact is very bothersome to me. Anyway, vplm deserves some props amidst all the boos.
That's correct. It's been covered here ad nauseum. It was an honest mistake of how it read then grew major legs (nah, that would never happen here, lol..). It was just shaky sentence structure. Vplm said it. Think about how ridiculous it would be for Schmidt to say that, no way
Virnetx is a big patent player & vp has been recognized pretty far & wide in finance publications, for at least a couple yrs now. I bet virnetx is aware of vplm.
No way that can be true (oh-oh, incoming..)
I said the same exact thing immediately after he said it, (made that quote) but it was suggested to me that the quote really more innocently meant what was originally said by the speaker.
My problem w/it was the fact that the quote was carefully trimmed to perfectly result in a completely different deed done.
It does not say it's a paraphrase nor does it appear random in terms of where the partial quote (complete with quotation marks) begins & ends. It looks to me to be purposefully crafted as it was and for the purpose to mean what IT says, as opposed to what the original spkr said.
Further, if you look at the context of the point being made when the partial quote was made, it clearly makes perfect sense to have trimmed it as such but if you instead inserted the actual original FULL quote, it just 'doesn't work'. If you then put this whole explanation in the context of what had been recently discussed, re: twisting words & things other ppl said, to make out of context manipulative statements, then I would put this as a shining example. And this particular example is non-trivial imho.
I'm spiting myself here, as I realize I already deferred to someone's else's opinions about this & then let it go, but I just saw your post above that says you saw it same as me & wanted to ask you if you agree this partial quote, coiffed as it was, was inadvertent or accidental?
Not to make a big deal but just to set things straight. Curious also, it seems, that the spotter guy immediately makes note of the fact that the opening statement is a lie, but conveniently DOES NOT note that the statement was then taken blatantly out of context on the MB. He has no problem w/that (for THAT wouldn't fit within HIS agenda...). And while I'm at it, ya gotta luv HIS viewport, that EVERY person involved in vp & every word they have said & every bit of past history, as well as current doings is...... is a complete lie & part of a major carefully crafted ponzi-esque scam. Now THERE'S a well balanced viewpoint, LOL.
I wonder if maybe I was misunderstood. By the way, thanks for the part about being entitled to my opinion. I just didn't want my opinion to be incorrect due to being based on my own misconception. And yes, the back & forth, so long as kept respectful & is a good thing.
But back to what I wondering... My complaint was about how the OP (sorry 4got at the moment who it was) apparently took the excerpt out of context from the full comment, not what Sawyer said HIMSELF.(ie, not Sawyer misspeaking). Just had that occur to me, but on 2nd thought, I think u know that.
To clarify, I read your transcript & that opening statement from Sawyer & took it exactly the way you just described your take on it. I also had no problem with the statement as made by Sawyer & was actually somewhat heartened by it, in light of all the more recent arguments & interpretations, et al. It was the trimmed down excerpt posted, which I found trimmed in a way, perfectly, to change the whole meaning, while using it to make a point (which I forget what point now that OP was making), from basically a 'we hope to do' style point, to a 'this is what is to be' point. I saw pure manipulation of words, but the reason I deferred to what you said (& I think the OP also tried to say same, in a subsequent post) is because I felt that maybe I was missing something in my interpretation, hence wrongly accusing. It really does still look like taken out of context to suit a different tone of what Sawyer actually meant. But I'm more than willing to accept if OP didn't mean it that way. I'm often (understatement) taken waaay wrong, so the last thing I need is to sound hypocritical. Put it this way, I'm betting if I was the author of the post w/the partial quote, I would've been taken to the whippin post. Lol. I really didn't think I read too much into it.
In any event, thanks for the kind of moderation & balance you bring. I appreciate it. I don't mind saying it enhances discussions far more than the censorship technique does, in my opinion.
I cannot help but see the quote made, as an example of a vastly different meaning, as quoted out of context from the whole actual statement, at least it "appears" so to me. However in light of the caliper of your answers & info expertly & generously given so far, I defer to your interpretation & have already offered an apology if I assessed this wrongly.
I will say tho, thst when I read the quote, I was like..no way.. I don't remember him saying that & I thought if he did that it was much more huge (and definite) that a "we hope to" attitude. When I went back to check how the quote we delivered, I was very bothered by it.
I have to take this to task, at the risk of being wrong. (if I'm wrong, I apologize). This looks to exemplify exactly what has recently been discussed here about misleading, taken out of context, statements. Maybe you inadvertently did so out of your enthusiasm, but saying "we hope to see"... this, that or the other happen "by the end of the year".... is imho, light years removed from what you quoted...but maybe I read it wrong....so i have to go back & reread what you posted.....
..... ok, i reread & you posted: "But the billion dollar question was answered by Tom as he said" A deal will be done by the end of this calendar year".
Sorry, that don't stand I don't think..
Pretty true I think & good points... except that I have seen it happen... in the face of all the earmarks you list above, it happened & it took many many yrs to unfold & play out & as I've reported, hundreds of millions were lost. I think what happens sometimes is everything is on the up & up & then at a certain point later, corruption creeps in for various reasons, thus not a quick "bank robbery" scenario. There's ALWAYS another angle to consider, hiding around the corner..
Did Mr Sawyer say that as a standalone statement or is it out of the full context?
Ok... so why isn't the government stepping up (w taxpayers money, lol) and ending this by buying the portfolio? Why why why why why??
Sometimes it appears that way, but I'm not ready to resign to going that far.. because some of the hype is "perceived" not necessarily actual, esp as coupled & bolstered by the mb. It's been shown to my satisfaction that at least in some cases, what vp says officially, can be misconstrued, at least possibly. And in other cases just not enough info. I cannot call scam but the possibility is there w/o a doubt, but seems less likely that more. Blind faith is stupid in my view, based on supposed reps alone or patents granted. In depth scrutiny is needed to validate things, or ppl can just believe if they want, but that is dangerous. There are many many scams or good intentions turned scammy when push comes to shove. I have presented my premise for why I can't believe it's all for real, and regardless of opposing opinions, it's a very logical premise, but I also realize that I don't know everything & can't account for certain things, especially as ignorant as I am to the inside workings. My premise states basically that given the portfolio value in terms of the vast & humongous claims been made or implied about them, means a very simple thing to me. Money drives almost anything & is at the bottom of almost everything & when you are talking about what I see as potential tens or hundreds of billions at stake, without a doubt (this is where proof of concepts & patent strengths matter..), and such knowledge would have been available to know for yrs...then, no one can make me believe that it could go this far w/o having been snatched up by now. But it's a premise & doesn't include every known possible fact. But it does point me very strongly in the direction of not believing the value of these patents is as foundational & voip controlling as many believe it is. Or maybe it actually is, but I just cannot fathom someone like MS allowing it to potentially slip thru their fingers, as well as the other big dogs. In other words, you don't play chicken with many multiple billions future worth, when you could likely grab it now from vp for much much less! Not to mention the possible/probable (?) infringement penalties that they will owe retroactive. That is what I am saying & I know that is good logic. Knowledgeable entities are not gonna simply let it slip their grip of truly that valuable & I don't believe anyone can modify that logic.
Thusly I predict this: if not a scam or at least a very faulty play by the company... then... it not only will purchased or rented by a sizeable consortium, for alot of money, satisfactory to all shareholders, but it is already deeply in the works and will happen not necessarily real soon because if it is the case, I believe adequate assurances have been made to vp that it will happen along with very strong NBA agreement. I'm sure the more knowledgeable folks here will tell me this is nothing more than a fantasy, but that's my call on how this will payout. I further believe that vp wouldve, under such an agreement, had to impose a time line limit, and so I give it a guess of a 120 day time line from now, for some level of announcement in this vein. in the meantime, any & all offers from others, should be announce as having occurred like the 1st one was.
And I think the consortium deal will be support for litigation & licencing, which is the logical way for this to proceed towards the ultimate big buyout. And it might be a pioneering & groundbreaking agreement, setting the stage for numerous future IP plays (or for all I know, maybe such precident has already been set?)
Ding, Ding, Ding!!!
I hope the above concerned parties read this...and in the interest they do, you should bump it about 10/20 times in the future. I'm serious, it's a pump that rocks..
Too funny... The reason I think...I know it's a mistakes, regardless of misspoke or not, is cause I think he said hundreds of billions of subscribers, lol!.... It will take at least another 100 yrs b4 there could be that many subscribers & prolly a couple more planets while we're at it.....so would have to be m not b, to be viable.
Haha.. That was rhetorical question
Yeah, that was kinda whacked, huh? Lol. Maybe just a transcription issue...lol... hundreds of billions of... I think he was having a Carl Sagan moment..
Dear Mr greenbacks
I have so much I have thought of I'd like to say, and am so provoked to, both to the great answers you provided earlier, on several questions, and now, having read the CC transcription..
1st, I want to thank you on behalf of all for the tough job (pretty sure) of gittin it done, (I think you did, right?) as it is invaluable, ironically, kinda like the IP... I remember how frustrated I was last time when I had such a hard time understanding the audio & I don't know if that was as much an issue this time, but the transcript appears to be pretty accurate & complete & make it so much easier, that I almost feel guilty reading it, lol.
I really felt alot of things reading it. I don't where to start. I should say that I think, at least initially, (but I think it'll effect me w/some lasting feelings) ...that the read leaves me with some degree of renewed faith, at least on a certain level, certainly not 100%. I liked a lot of what my minds ear heard, almost in a theater sort of way, like how radio conjures up lots of imagery, in this case, on a more heady level.
I'll also give that I feel still somewhat ambivalent, in general, and towards certain specific issues, which I don't think are yet covered well enough, but this Q&A definitively went some distance to to help in that regard & covered some the questions better than they had been previously, if at all.
I'm not sure why these things are called "conference calls", unless the vp spkrs were on there own conference call, which is then directed at us. I haven't heard it yet & I always think of a cc, in my mind, as a true conference call wherein the callers call in & ask their questions while the spkrs field them, from ofc or remotely. Doesn't really matter tho as the job was done. A true call in affair would obviously be more candid & tho admittedly, not as pretty, I disagree w/the several posters who balked at such a suggestion as tho there isn't enough intelligence, decent behaviour, or sense of decorum to hand it over to the natives... Regardless, the questions were pretty damn good and so we're the answers, IF the bar on some specificity, was not nearly as high as I would care to have seen..
Overall, thanks to you for posting this, the good questions submitted and the spkrs for giving as good as answers I suppose could be expected in a mere 35 min. I think it was too short though & not enough critical specifics in certain areas.
I'd also like to say that it showed to me that I not only understood things far better than some tried to tell me & also that I gave alot of opinions between 1 & 2 yrs ago here, most specifically about the possibility of & the probable necessary direction towards, as well as the good sense in, the aspect of licencing...and at the time, here, I caught alot of ridicule & near total opposition to, as tho it was a ludicrous idea & would never happen & the bod would never go that route or consider, but in this cc, malak made it pretty clear to me that I was on a sensible track then, as well as currently & for the same reasons that I, as a stock finances newbie & dummy, who while I didn't have the financial vocabulary, still had fairly on target common sense about it, which hearing malak say what did about it, lightens me some & tells me to trust my instincts.
Great info.. Thanks.. But wouldn't this then be a case for the best patent attorneys in the country or the world, considering the supposed far reaching scope of the patents, and if so, don't you think attorneys of that caliber & armed with the knowledge of how infallible the patents are (if indeed that is the case..?) that they would then happily take such case(s) on contingency?
(which, by the way, I was suggesting about a year & a half ago & getting near 100% opposition to even THINK of such an outlandish thing)
If Mr Candy speaks at these conferences and as before, does not even so much as mention vp patented technology, which are supposedly so important to so many of the concerns amid these talks, which includes voip in many cases & many ways..... then I'm not interested in hearing anyone's excuses for why it's ok that he doesn't. No way is it not appropriate.
I'm sorry Mr bird but I don't follow you?
1) what is "the great point" I made, that you reference?
2) I did not say any of the examples you listed to make your point, so I don't get it...tho it states: "here's an example of what you just said". But I will assume you are using what someone else said to make an example of my point about paying close att to things. If so, still... I didn't say those things, so I don't know your point.
3) it seems to me that this is now several times you have ascribed to me, that which I have not said. I will go back over the posts when I get the chance to but that's what it seems to come down to.
"I'm going to make this point one more time, perhaps you missed it, and seem to still be searching for the information. I believe the confusion here is that you seem to feel..."
.............
* that does sound like it was directed at me. And rightly so. And the way you said "I'm gonna say this one more time..." (paraphrased) made me think that it was you who had already chimed in b4 that post to straighten me out about this issue, but now sounding like you did see the response I made to that 1st one... so i simply explained myself again, because you suggested I was twisting & manipulating facts to suit myself & that isn't so.
I tried clicking back in the string to see if it was you the 1st time, but I see that this string began w/someone else stating that vp911 would save lives cuz it simply traces call back to location, which I don't think is quite the case at all & posted my knowledge on same, which was validated by someone posting the WSJ article about the state of the art. While I was making this rebuttal, maybe I found it appropriate to throw in the "foundational" point (as I understood it) to help make my point & that's maybe where you jumped in & were well taken by me except for the judgement on my intentions, or so it seemed.
Your post (this one) seems to answer & validate my question, where I asked if indeed the foundational aspect as held in the "other" light (the whole package rules voip period) was thrown about on this board for a long time & even somehow culled from BOD verbiage. I hope I read you right that you do agree that's been the case here & that many have seemed to accept it as such, with no rebuttal at all & that it basically congruent w/what I've been saying, that being, that the tout is: that vp portfolio is foundational in the sense that voip as a whole cannot proceed in this world w/o paying the piper (vplm) and that will easily add up to astronomical amts of $, either thru sale or licencing. If you agree that is indeed the case, then my only mistake really, was to label the 911 patent as foundational by itself, which I didn't really mean to that, but admittedly I needed it pointed out that it's (911) not been touted, on its own, to be foundational, or some end-all, be-all patent.
There are others here, even as we speak, who are attributing to me that which I don't deserve, putting words in my mouth saying I said this, that, and the other, when I didn't & saying I make up crap. I choose my words carefully & always do my best to know what I'm talking about b4 mouth in gear & usually offer reasonable backup to points made.
I don't have the means to listen to the call so will have to wait for mp3 or transcript. I wonder how many of the questions were asked/answered? But am struck by your revelation that today, in the call, someone from vp, again, more or less said what I have been saying (unless I misunderstood your post..?), that the patents are foundational to the future of usage of voip. If so, then I've been right on! My complaint is that this is nowhere demonstrated to us at all, esp not via 3rd party!
...and that is why ppl should pay much more attention to the significance of your signature graphic. It so well illustrates how easy it is to see & belive one thing, when all it takes is a little turn (in perspective) to reveal the compete opposite.
I cannot believe in them anymore because if all was as touted, at this point, they would be offering real proofs. They aren't & I think that speaks volumes. The "playbook" appears sadly, to be the centerpiece of attention
That figures.. disappointing but somewhat expected
Good point made in that paragraph & if I might say...'there the twain DID meet'! But can you explain how this applies, in your view, to VPLM situ? I mean it will take a big dog, no...? (as opposed to some upstart.... UNLESS (listen up you big dogs!!...) the upstart is genius enough to licence (relatively cheaply) & then outta nowhere, becomes a big dog voip Co because they are not getting sued by vplm (in some future scenario) while the big dogs start losing weight. Of course vplm themselves could do so (quickly become the biggest voip provider, cuz I'm told they... hold ALL the cards, no?), so shy of a huge multi billion offer very soon, that's what they ought to do. (bta,wtfdik?)
I saw one other post, I think by you, regarding this. I made a response to it & to explain myself. I'm not sure if that up here or not. Have to try to find it & make sure it wasn't deleted. I wasn't trying to single out 911 as being foundational, the way it sounds. It was based on what might've been a big misconception on my part. I explained that also (how I reached my conclusions). Was not trying to mislead. I understand what you have pointed out about it. Good point t about difficulty separating BOD info from MB info. I really thought (and still feel) that I had used discrimination & discernment enough to have it right, what I was saying. It looks like maybe not.. I'd like to ask you to confirm if you could, my contention that the concept of foundational patent portfolio, meaning that it is foundational to the current & future very use of voip, period, has been propagated on this board, and heavily, for some time? If so, which I'm feeling very sure is true & that I didn't just pull it out of the air, then such propagation must've had a genesis somewhere... Also, while I have read the white papers before & must've seen the part you posted here, it seems to me that somewhere, some element of the BOD characterized the portfolio as a whole, more in line w/my above perceived concept of "foundational". I'm not sure where to start looking, to find that characterization, as there is such a vast body of info built up, but I did get that definite impression somewhere & I'm sorry if it's just wrong. But I pointed out in the 1st response, that I have been & others have been making many statements that are based on the idea of the portfolio being foundational, in the sense of voip cannot go on without these patents (w/o infringing). That is certainly what I meant all along & apparently I may have confused 2 different meaning "foundational" aspects. That is not "twisting" the facts or lying or using points out of context, for an agenda, as has been suggested. The point is tho, that such a concept has most definitely floated & until your post stepping in to correct the part as it pertains to 911 or to any patents outside of RBR, no one to my knowledge has stepped up to challenge the idea, as it was used by me & others for there own purposes. I find that odd. I think it supports the idea that maybe I'm not the only one who thought this..
Above & beyond it, regardless if the 2 things became inadvertently mixed together when they shouldn't have, is this: I feel certain that the idea that voip communications in general is infringing upon the portfolio or that no voip can be used, now, past or future, without 1st going thru voip-pal, w/o being in violation of the patents........ IS CLEARLY WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, PROPAGATED , PROMULGATED, PITCHED, SAID, PUMPED...... by this MB & by certain elements of the BOD. If so.....my only point of contention, is that no entity, outside of BOD or this MB, has offered any proof or any validation of that in any way shape or form to my knowledge. That, is a BIG DEAL in my view & the only thing I wished to make more transparent.
Further, I recently singled out vp911, in response to someone saying, quite cavalierly, that it was capable of simply finding the caller, like happens on a line phone & above & beyond what existing cellular 911 is capable of. I thought not so, based on my understanding & fully backed up by the great WSJ article posted here (current to july).
I had hoped my efforts, as explained above, were genuinely helpful & truly needed saying, and were not an example, (as some poster said) of me twisting facts to fit my agenda.
I say more of a "pump and stump". (I'm pretty stumped, as opposed to stoked)
You're right it's easy to twist words & manipulate meanings (actually, it probably takes some skill to be effective & get away with it), but I don't do that. Don't believe in it so can't take credit for it.
I would never attempt to make legit statements seem untrue out of context. I believe in legit truth. I leave the twisting to the many others that do it commonly. Thus you're either doing so yourself or I've made an honest mistake.
It's like this.. I was under the impression for a long time that both counts were true.. that being the BOD at some point said this, in fact I thought multiple times and I KNOW it's been said numerous times on this MB, or at the very least statements have sounded that way to me. I will have to go back & search for those things to see where I went wrong, or show that I had it right. But there is no twisting going on here. I believe what I've been saying & felt the need to hold it to the fire to be crucial at this stage of the game because it's key to the belief in the life changing value that's been touted & touted often.
What's more, this idea of the patents being foundational to the future of voip has been thrown about for a long time on this board but only more recently had I taken to disputing it. All the while I kept using it as a contentious point, as far as I know, there was not a single comment to dispute me until you now. That seems to validate that the vast majority here also believed it, which in turn shows that I believed in an apparently widely accepted notion here on this MB. So I can't help but think that hey, you knew this was the case also, therefore it follows that I wasn't fabricating anything, so seen in that light, I could make a case that it is you who are twisting my intentions. You could have simply said hey wait, this notion is not so & it is just something started by someone & then grew legs. If you have read the board carefully, then the true CONTEXT, would've been apparent to you & you would instead have did your part to clear up any incorrect idea WITHOUT finding the need to pin on me that I'm a lying, manipulating, fact twister. Not guilty, thankyou.
Now I have to try to track this idea down. I sure don't think that ppl were running around saying that only 1 patent is foundational. In fact the use of the word foundational makes more sense to me in the context of foundational to the patent portfolio, than it does in the context of foundational to the fwd going of voip, which is what has been batted around here for so long, has it not?
I know I'm sure not the one to have started the idea. I just (thought i) saw enough to be convinced that was the tout & was looking for the 3rd party validation. Again, I've said it over & over & nobody, not even the more (seemingly) patent savvy ppl said a thing to dispute or correct me. But now, all of a sudden you jump out w/this revelation & make md the scapegoat. Ok, ok, I'll be the scapegoat. I'll take the blame.. I'm used to taking the blame.
Yeah but.... where's the REAL Sawyer, Tucker, Candy & Chang?......
I most definitely have raised valid points & supported them well. Maybe you choose to ignore, or not read fully, or only see thru your personal perspective or filter. I don't know why you don't agree w/any if them cuz you haven't specifically addressed anything I said & then demonstrated what is wrong w/it. If you have, apologies, I'm just going on "at the moment" what I'm aware of. I try to use logic & info & support/validate everything I say in a fair way.
You have also used some negativity in your responses. I don't do that. Pardon me if I got it wrong about that, but I'm pretty sure I recall that.
As to the BOD, I'm not saying there's no validity at all to gathering questions & choosing best questions, but I don't believe for a moment that THAT is their only thoughts on it. You're free to believe in their incorruptible & purely fiduciary nature. I used to think along those lines also, until a hi enuff number of faux pas (?) were shown to me, from such an "untouchable, impeccable" group. And you say inza is so professionally orchestrating this, yet he has done some very unprofessional things. Defend if you wish. Your perogie.
Saying the bod is skilled enough & don't need any help makes me less apt to put much stock in your logic, when considering some really dumb things they did or let happen or didn't notice...... until we let them know about it. Am I trying to be so silly as to suggest they are incompetent keystone kop types?...of course not, but I've seen & heard enough now to not blindly trust all they say & do either. It's always a question of balance. I am more discriminating in my judgements & you seem to just sweep away stuff, regardless of validity, cause it doesn't fit your "all is rosy & fine & good" belief in vplm. Ok.
Re: malak... I have no problem whatsoever if he participates in cc or not. Why should I care? He's got as much right, or I should say, as much insight to offer as anyone else. The more the merrier. All ppl should be able to speak their mind for better or worse. I commented ONLY on something pointed out by the other poster, in regards to a "what they say" vs "what they do" issue. So you read more into it than I was actually saying. You mislead yourself that way to false conclusions.
As to the bod valuations, I don't remember recently commenting on that, so not sure what your contention is on that issue. That said, any so called valuations, by them, or anyone else for that matter would be too weighty w/o being scientifically validated, and that would have to include 1st, a 3rd party validation of the technology, which to my knowledge, hasn't been done so far. I think you deal more in generalities.
I think that's false. Good DD is posted here after the fact of doing it. Much of it is easy to see it's legit & not something twisted to fit someone's agenda. In that case, which there is no shortage of here (good & useful DD posted), there is plenty of info that can be used effectively from here. Obviously not all of it, but I love how ppl post their opinions here, which in many cases is definitely for the purpose of convincing ppl of this, that & the other, but then are the same ppl who say don't listen to or base any action on what's on MR. Obviously it's not smarter buy or sell based solely on mb posts, but he said he was only using certain info to guide his strategy, not your sweeping characterization.
I agree w/your entire post. Couldn't have said it better (longer yes better, no, lol). But I want to comment on what you only lightly touched on regarding your followup to 911 point. I'm pretty sure that all I posted about this issue is the correct case of how things are. And it obviously is such an important thing, it cannot be stressed enough. You note that you meant only re: dropped calls. 1st I've heard of that aspect, in learning about cellular 911. I don't know if vplm 911 tech addresses that or not. I have not seen anything to date to show it has. But if so & if the vplm tech does some measure more, of the ability to get back to a dropped call, IF THAT IS NOT ALREADY POSSIBLE, with existing cell technology, then I think that would be a very important plus and obviously would equate to lifesaving... That said, if this is the case, (and again, I haven't seen this angle spoken of in the patent or the touts) it still doesn't equate to foundational, nor would it necessarily get dispatch to the callers location. I hope you see what I mean, which is 2fold: one, that it has seemed to me that the proponents here seem to think that vp 911 simply gets dispatch to the locale of the caller, when conventional tech does not. And two, that any abilities to improve & even save only 1 additional life, are great, but not billion dollar foundational.
Thanx for getting back w/the point about dropped calls & please let us know if you have more info about that, cuz it is for sure important.
What part of it doesn't make sense. Op posted something that appeared to make the point that it doesn't make sense if ppl think vplm is a scam, but they still are shareholders. At least that's what his post meant to me. I guess if I read it wrongly, then my reply wouldn't make sense. But if I did read it right, then I simply offered 2 countering viewpoints, which attempted to show why a it would be congruent to hold shares & doubts at same time or hold shares while believing a scam, if someone who day trades the rises & falls. What could be wrong with that & how does it not make sense?
I'm simply offering valid reasons to be a stockholder with serious issues w/the company.
See if this makes even more sense:
* I hold shares, but subsequent to my purchase, developments & further DD, leaves me w/many doubts, while not reaching "I believe it's a scam" status.
OR
* I hold shares AND think it's a sham, but also have congruency enough to know I can surf the waves & make $, ESPECIALLY in THIS case, haha
To think that peeps hold shares while believing it's a scam, w/o the above caveat, is indeed in congruent, hence why think it?