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.
Ok. Thanks for that. Just wanted to make sure we were on same page. I'm not ready to go so far as to say its all bs. It certainly looks that way 99:1 vs anything shown to date to validate it (on a foundational level). That article really solidified alot for me & it validated every point I had made about 911 when I posted about it. If we are correct, then there is 0 possibility of vp911 to do what some think, ie, have some magic & mysterious ability to find a caller like is done on a line phone, thus in no way a foundational patent, in its abilities or I in it's need. That said, if it helps at all, even 1%, above & beyond avg existing cellular 911, then it can save lives & should be applauded. Supposedly all patents were tested & demonstrated, but of course, us lowly long shareholder's are not allowed to see such forbidden fruit... Makes me feel I'm an idiot or a dupe, that I even reserve judgement to call bs. They have however made it very hard not to.. And when intelligent & naturally inquiring minds probe for answers, the faithful, often blinders on, resort to ridicule. Pretty transparent & expected. What outside knowledgeable source (forget expert) can point to any vp patent as being foundational (absolutely necessary) to the current/future use of voip services. (considering the blueprints for the vp technology have been around for yrs to examine & scrutinize)? And WHY.........is that TOO MUCH to ask? The dance around continues...
Great article. A true eye opener. Shows the real dilemma (rebidding) & how it's inadequacies at least seem to be pushing the gov to push for better technology above & beyond rebids. I have to ask if you have posted this article here before? I found same article awhile back & it was basis for the facts I posted about 911. Do you know or agree that vp 911 is based on improving the rebids only (automatic I think - cuts out the dispatch decision?)
I doubt very much that you understand the way the vp 911 tech works. But I'll agree that for the research I could get through, it's a fairly simple concept. You stated that it simply traces 911 calls back to their locale. Not so I don't think. That sounds like it works the way regular line phones work. It's far different w/cellular. Cellular 911 has been around a long time now & the problem is, by its very nature, it cannot quickly enough or accurately enough trace the call like a line phone does, hence it's not a good at lifesaving as a line phone. Cell calls, to my knowledge, can only use towers triangulation or GPS to trace a 911 call & that is just not accurate enough to find someone who is unable to verbally give the address. Laws have been proposed & I believe put in place, that say this process must be refined to more accuracy & quicker, so as to increase the life saving percentages. My understanding (and I read as much as I could find & grasp) is the vp software increases the accuracy level by 1) instituting automatic callbacks which occur quicker, thereby increasing the chances of reaching the caller to gain more info on location, as well as allowing the system to get more data from towers and/or GPS, to get the 911 service ppl to a more narrow perimeter of where the call originated, if the caller cannot be reached.
I hope my understanding of it above is reasonably accurate & I think it's great if the vp service can up the percentage of finding callers in time to help save lives, but I wanted to point out that I don't think it's a panacea that works anywhere near as effectively as a line phone does. It also sounds to me like it's not a process that could possibly be locked up by vplm & that there likely is other processes that could enhance what cellular 911 already has been doing for yrs. For ex, if the GPS system was tweaked, in general, to produce a quicker and/or more accurate location, well, the automatically that would make any 911 calls better & obviously increase the life saving percentages. No way THAT could be an infringement on vplm AND gps improvements HAVE been made & WILL be made, thus that seems to preclude thought of vp 911 to be FOUNDATIONAL.... to the operation of the 911 system. I would like to hear if anyone can refute above points which I believe are factual. Of course, due to the general avg demeanor in which this board reacts to things, I have to add again, that any level of improvement in the accuracy and/or response time which happens due to vp 911 tech, is a great service. My comments are not to diminish anything about vp 911 tech. I feel I have to insert qualifiers before & after every statement here, due to comprehension & misconstruing issues.
The bottom line point is: if above is factual, then it ain't foundational or billion $ stuff.
I could be wrong but all I could get out of 911 was it made more effort to automatically call ppl back quicker. I think more & quicker call backs raises the percentage of success for the conventional ways of finding the
phone & within a closer perimeter. That's all I could get from reading it. There must be more to it, cuz who would sue a phone co or gov for infringement for making more automatic effort to call back quicker, to save lives. Can't possibly be. But that's what I read...
You are clearly reading too much into what I asked you. I simply was asking if I was on the right track of understanding what you posted. You sound as if you turned that basic question into "something else". And it's a bit presumptuous to assume I've speculated about anything within the scope of the patents themselves. I'm pretty sure I have never taken that kind of tack about the patents. I simply have been trying to determine best I can, the possible reasons, not anyone else's, but mine, that can explain certain angles that I see about how things have developed. I have read some of the patents & while I'm somewhat technically minded, I fully realized quickly that there's no way most could even begin to understand their technicalities, altho I did understand some elements. I can also say that certain parts showed me that some of the technicals are far simpler, on actual use, than they read in their concept & I figure that's normal legalese type of writing or maybe even sometimes intended to throw less than the top qualified off.
Lastly, to speak to something you said which really had nothing to do with my question, but I think is more about you, yes, I think certain things have a "right" & a "wrong" to them, but many others have many gray areas & "in-betweens", which can be interpreted one way or the other, maybe even determined by the viewer, just like the dual slit light experiment. If just as fine for you to choose to belive in something w/o all the answers, as it is for me to look for the answers.
Thx for your posts.
Oh, by the way, no way am I trying to dissect the IP. How could I presume to do that w/o being a hi level patent attorney? That would be a ridiculous endeavor. I would never want the headache of trying to understand that stuff. I only asked what are the basic parameters of what a patent means to hold. The rest here is a for of editorializing. You have not seen me attack the patents or anything else.
Is that to say then, that patents get granted which make varying levels, maybe even less than effective claims, so to then have a kind-of paper tiger of a patent, or at least one that is far less effective in the job of proving anything or defending itself against challenge? And/or, is it also my understanding that if the patent attorneys, we're not thorough, as you alluded to, enough in their anticipation of the possible circumvent attempts, that again, that doesn't keep a patent from getting granted, but would indeed weaken it's stance against various types of get-arounds. Do I have it right so far (before I go the wrong track)? It does so far, seem to make sense to me. And if I'm understanding it ok, I'm wondering how many folks have a falsified view of what a patent affords.
Thankyou for the answer. Pardon me for this quick question, as I didn't have time to fully read/absorb your answer (as I think it's very important distinction, in light of things. I will go back later & read it better. But does this mean that the onus is not created by the patent examiners, to prove anything outside of lack of novelty? And if so, do you agree that maybe too much importance has been assigned the fact that the technology was successfully awarded patents. I hope I said that right, not too short, not too long & not without soul of wit...
In support of your well taken point here, I see it as pretty simple also, ie, much ado was made about vplm being approached and/or in talks with f500 companies. It was a big tout that I've little doubt helped spur investors to buy. Yet 2 yrs later & with patents approved, this story seems conveniently put aside. And it doesn't even seem to enter into the minds of the esteemed board, to say how that turned out. We are "chopped liver".
Does anyone know... when a patent is approved, what level of proof of concept or efficacy is included therein? In other words, does a patent intrinsically guarantee claims of "foundational technology", or, in any way validate that a given patent's technology will require that any related services, will not be able to be legally offered, without going thru (in this case) vplm 1st?
"Just trying to figure out why some believe companies would not talk to
VPLM when they did not have patents in hand when VPLM already told us
Fortune 500 approached them about acquiring the patents prior to them
being in hand."
* this is a very good point & a very important one (when you think about it). It definitely should be asked at cc. Do you think it will be? I highly doubt it, but if so, the ans promises to be very entertaining, lol lol
Not true that "nothing" could be done b4 patents in hand. It's my opinion. I posted it b4. Perfectly plausible & logic based. That is that considering the info that describes what makes up the patents was available in some way or another, for years, possibly near 10. That is fact. Info gatherers, from big dogs, naturally & very well known, would have sniffed such info out & would have done major DD, considering the obvious implications of said patents & would have therefore known, long b4 patents approvals, that they either don't want, don't care about, don't like, don't need..... OR, they fully agree with the veracity of the patents & decidedly knew they had to do whatever possible AHEAD of time, in attempt to strengthen their chances to obtain. Contrary to many fallacy arguments posited here, patents do not need to be approved in order to be desired & obtained, sometimes at great cost, ahead of time. A good ex would be vplm, who decided even after the patents were denied, that they wanted them anyway & basically bought them by buying digifonica. I'm sure it's more complex than that, but that's basically what occurred. So my point is that very possible that one or more of these big or even medium dogs, was in that mindset & contacted vplm & said we decidedly want the portfolio but we want it as soon as patents are approved, in order to pay you a large sum. We have an offer now, b4 approval, but it is much lower in comparison. I posit, that if those brilliant enough to know, beyond doubt, thst indeed the patents ARE foundational & uber valuable, then there must've been at least one or more of them to have acted as described in above scenario. And if so, by now there would have been a major offer by them on the table. I don't get the sense or impression that the offer on the table previously reported by vplm, is such a powerful offer. It sounds to me like it was a wimpy offer summarily turned down (if it's even real?). Therefore, since nothing has yet occurred & the ppl slowly slides & languishes, I am led to believe that something is fundamentally wrong here & that could only be (as far as I can determine) the true value of the patents. I might add, that as complex & difficult as it is, to be able to really ascertain the veracity of the patented technology, in a no nonsense empirical way, still, when those who would recognize the major game changing implications, to the industry & to their own companies', my common sense tells me that they would have looked very very deeply into the patents (bolstered of course by the actions of MS). So this set of ideas & the picture I'm painting is no screwball, way out there on a limb, discombobulated, view of things... I believe it is critical thinking based on logic & supported by the facts stated above. Lazy ppl call bs & circular thinking. It is not all over the road, as has been suggested. I have stuck w/the same theme & ideas & supporting points, from the git & stayed very narrow to it. I have tried to use various angles to depict & demonstrate the theory. I have never once called this or any of the players a scam or crooks because I don't have any solid reason to subscribe to that. I haven't accused anybody of anything wrong on the bod (w/the exception that as I previously stated, I was alerted to something being less than fully on the up & up, approx a year ago, when the new legal team was announced as having been brought on & someone, I think it was the bod, said stuff to make it appear as tho that legal team was responsible for pulling off the MS/skype acquisition. Maybe I'm mistaken but that's how I called it & as far as I remember, I'm the only one who said it & so I researched it & reported my findings here, which showed who (lawyers) actually was responsible for that. Conversely, I also showed what role was played by our newly hired legal team, in contrast to the hype). So, I have said only, that I want to see 3rd party patent validation & that something seems wrong based on the scenario I drew out.
I predict that most likely, the upcoming cc will reflect all this, when said & done & all deciphered.
"Whatsapp had 500 Million users."
Touche'!! (small little detail there, lol)
1st of all, you quoted what someone else said, not me, but I fully agree with what they said. It was not a good answer in the context of what was asked in cc. But on the other hand, it was just a safe thing to say. It wasn't appropriate enough tho, considering they get the questions ahead of time & pick & choose what to answer (if I understand that aspect correctly). Again, like many others, you are playing the "not enough time to know" card & I just don't buy it & I have fully listed & tried to validate my reasons why for the last few days. But yes, they cannot use this reasoning to fall back on this time, imho.
"It's amazing how many people think they know a better way to run a company than guys who have been doing this for 40+ years and have actually sold companies before."
If you actually believe the above statement is the way for a shareholder, esp a smart s/h (especially in the cutthroat biz of penny stocks) to look at it, then I very got a company for you. They have been in the the same biz for going over 50 hrs now, are an American company, and had very longtime & very well respected ceo & accomplished other board members. You can get pretty cheap. They would never lie, 50+ yrs, right? Oh & I almost forgot, they worked their way from otcbb to nynex. They even had government based info to back to back them up as to some of their products. 99% loyalty by investors on the msg boards.
In case I confused, I just meant that the ppl who keep trying to convince themselves & ea other that there hasn't been barely enuff time for expect or facilitate a deal to have been made, isn't valid, in terms of how I have the laid out the scenario, common sense wise & not due to any special knowledge or expertise I have. I have been deeply looking at & trying hard to wrap my head around this very sort of thing, since 2008, when as a total newbie to finances & market, I jumped into it & boy o boy, have I had some lessons.
...............
"And to tell your shareholders that it's
worth what anyone is willing to pay them, is ridiculous, to say the least..Insulting and disrespectful. It's as stupid as telling your shareholders, they don't care about the share price. Be real. No shareholder wants to hear that."
*thank you so much for echoing my exact sentiments above. You maybe noticed me speak to that yest & I really struggle to find the right words. You said it better. I still am wondering if I perhaps read the person wrong, to whom I was replying to, when I spoke directly to that above, ie, the ridiculousness, crassness, disrespect, unfairness, on & on & on, most specifically the part about him saying it's worth whatever someone wants to pay. That's true & all fine & good as a standalone sentence, but when couples w/the situation where it was asked & especially with the miserable attempt the poster offered to use that statement as an example of how he answered to what is the minimum acceptable? Maybe I read the poster wrong maybe he was in essence agreeing with me by posting that ridiculous cc statement. If so I have to apologize. Anyway, you're right, it was an insulting answer. It was just kind of a duck & cover
answer from malek & not too much should be read into it anyway. To me, it's more a matter of how much stock (no pun intended) the msg board goers put into every word said at that cc. Yes, some of it can now be viewed as somewhat telling, in retrospect, but it's alot of off the cuff stuff plus I guess alot of prepared answers too. I just didn't put that much into it.
I am not a basher. I am going on 2 yrs long & never sold a share & needed to very badly during past year or so. I also have never accused the company of doing anything wrong. I also never found anything specifically wrong w/the patents. All I have ever said or thought, going back a year, when I found fault with a pr or something someone said (about the legal firm brought on & what was being attributed to them (the Skype deal), is that I want to see 3rd party validation of the efficacy & foundational attributes, of the patents & why, that hasn't been seen yet, roughly 10 yrs after their introduction? And even more so, now since there have been some pleas for such 3rd party validity. That's it, that's all I ask for. The rest is just kidding around & beginning to conjure up visions of all sorts of schemery going on. Also nice & heartwarming to know they pick & choose the questions ahead of time. It don't mean too much. Grain o salt. It'll be a circus.
Thanks. Care to venture a guess a to what that costs? Dats alotta legal right there, for someone w/no income & who flies under the radar, lol. Makes me think of having a bad accident while in the hospital..
Hahaha... Reminds me sorta like money laundering... hahaha.... non reporting & what IS reported is so murkily mired in a labyrinth of layers, twists & turns... lol, lol..you CAN'T HELP but wonder where the yellow went, haha, bwa haha! Pretty soon I think this will qualify for the same action by investors that I recommended for the other sad story company: write a screenplay & make a movie & invest in that, lol lol lol!! Could be way more value.....
In fairness & on balance, I don't really know but it's possible that digifonica (will the real digifonica please stand up, lol) simply found themselves unable to afford going on with patent process, etc?? and so made a deal w/vplm. It could be viewed maybe more as a merger than a buyout. And the ppl from there came over here, so who knows??? if on the up & up or an elaborate scam? Too much mystery for my head.
Bottom line $64,000,000,000 question:
WHERE IS THE 3RD PARTY VALIDATION/PROOF OF THE PATENT'S FOUNDATIONAL ATTRIBUTES?
every tout of that being the case, so far, (long time) has been either from a company man or a this discussion board. So where is the 3rd party agreement & if none, why not?
Same here. I did at 1st, but after awhile way too much to deal with & way too much irrelevance. And we all have the same Internet to push a search button, copy paste. It fine to a point, then is just something to skip over. Then I saw a very relevant & helpful one so I thankyou'd for it & the reply humbly informed me how great he was at it, rather than thankyou or your welcome, so it negated the desire to bother anymore.
Incidentally, when you found 5 different legal firms listed for vp, did it say anything about compartmental breakdown, or are they just collecting lawyers to push out a window or sell at a flea mkt or something?
"MALAK: You know that is a very difficult question to answer. If some big operator said to my company it's worth $25 billion, I think you know who I'm talking about, I mean it's worth whatever an operator can value. "Worth to "My" company".. May differ from, "worth to the buyer's offer". "
..............................
* this is a strange thing to post, in reply to what I said previous to it. 1) it clearly validates what I said about how my memory told me that Malak never stated anything about 25b being a "minimun", as he sure doesn't say that in the quote provided. (unless you posted it to back me up, which I doubt cuz out of character for you..). Or, if by some crazy stretch, you do actually see his quote as conveying a minimum, then all I can say is my interpretation of statement is as follows:
Someone obviously must've asked what is minimum to be acceptable? Malek replies, quite sensibly, that it's a difficult to answer question. "if some operator says to my company it's worth $25 billion, I think you know who I'm talking about, I mean it's worth whatever some operator can value."
To me, that meant nothing more than any other persons have said a million times, that is, a given thing is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Totally mundane statement. To read anything more than that into it, is just that; 'reading in'... It means nothing more than a play it safe reply, period. He actually validates that assessment, w/the last line. Nothing more, nothing less.
As to you like it "short & sweet", I bet you do. Sounds shallow. As to the figures on the bottom, no clue...what it is sure not about vplm.
"So, Where do you buy back in? lmao"
If anyone has a clue what above means, lemme know as I have no clue what it means. I reread my post & see no connection. As a longshot, if it possibly implies that I have sold out & looking for a re-entry point (?) I have very recently declared that I have been around 2 yrs long & never sold a share, so maybe someone too busy copy/pasting articles??
The link at the bottom of the article, where vp is mentioned, is a dead link. I tried 3 browsers.
The link at the bottom of the article, where vp is mentioned, is a dead link. I tried 3 browsers.
"You both are welcome to your own opinion I just disagree with it"...............
* whoa...Your reply is to me & while I may be a bit schizzed out, I am only 1 person. I am not so focused on this to remember or know who other one is, in "you both". I can only speak for & ans for myself...
"The fact that you don't think there are any companies out there that wouldn't want to talk to VPLM until all patents in hand."
..........
*. Sorry, I don't get what you are saying there? "don't think/wouldn't want"...sounds like a double negative or something & I can't relate to what you are referencing...?...and then you follow w/
"Again, it has only been 5 months."??? I just can't figure what you're saying. Maybe it references something the other poster said ("you both.. ")?? The only thing I even recognize there, is I have said multiple times that in my view, 5/6 mos is a lot of time, with this particular set of circumstances to have seen something serious happen.
"You reference 10 years but a lot happened in that time. Like the fact they were all denied. So why would you buy a company if your not even sure all patents would be approved."
............
* bcuz thst isn't what I said. I said that the 10 yrs represented the amt of time that the technical info has been available about the technology, so that any of the major concerns out there during that time, would've had much much more time, then the oft cited 5/6 mos time line. In other words I find it inaccurate to say it's only been 5/6 mos for the big dogs to have had the opportunity to do their expected job of being all over this, like flies on honey, so as to be fully up to speed & ready to get froggy & jump, when the time was right, bcuz after all, these patents don't exactly fall under the "take it or leave it" category, but rather the MUST HAVE AT ANY COST CATEGORY, no? I don't know why this is so hard for so many here to understand? I am sure I am being very straightforward about explaining & describing the scenario as I see it. I am certain it is reasonable logic (not counting my delusional episodes..). I think I am explaining it reasonably well..this has not been a secret & I have no doubt in my mind that these patent applications have been under the microscope for a very long time. Why would anyone doubt that?
"The bod also knows they have more leverage
when all patents in hand."
.............
* I didn't ever deny that. I don't think anyone has. It's true to some degree, but w/the undeniable (my opinion) facts listed above, the interested & capable "big dogs" could easily, once they did their DD on the technology, they couldve offered a major deal for the patents, simply contingent upon the patent awards. Is that not true? Why not? What's the big deal? I'm MS & we have had our spies & scouts on the case ever since the release of the info or word of the technology was put out there. And after yrs of scrutiny, by the best investigators MS $ can buy (which is near unlimited) we concluded long before the patent approvals, that this stuff was the real deal & truly foundational & worth near as much as we are...... and God knows, we tried to do an end run & sneak it thru ourselves, even tho it was a silly move to make "after the fact" (we're MS so we think we can get away w/anything), but we ran out of track, and now all the patents are awarded, and voip is growing like a teenager & this is seriously a once in a lifetime (yes, even for us..) chance to control a hell of alot, sooooooo it's time to quit pussyfootin' around.... and secure this sucker before Google or Cisco or someone else does, so hey, yo, vplm...check it out...we got xx billions w/your name on it, soon as you got the tickets, whadya say? (so what, is this not a sane scenario?)
There was some talk of that situation here about a month ago. I thought he had been long gone, but I guess not. If this keeps up, in a few yrs, lol, this play will rival the 50 yr company & scam I referenced as an example. All I care about about is to see proof of the big value of the patents. What has so far been offered here, by the faithful, as "proof" or proof enuff (haha..) is more accurately what I deem proof via convenience...or not exactly solid or empirical. Wherd is the 3rd party proof? And why is it hidden if it exists or why is it not there if patents are for real, value wise & foundational wise?
Let me tell you something about the psychology of faithful longs. Regarding the company that was around for 50 yrs & like 20 yrs at least, of so called "proof", piled & piled & piled on.....well, the faithful would hear none of it, as the house of cards was collapsing & the sec was investigating, etc etc....and then when the beloved ceo was busted, the faithful were actually still on the board denying the reality and/or making believe it was no big deal, I swear that's true. Better yet...., lol lol, that company went belly up, bk & went to waaaay sub penny yrs ago & is still like that that to this day & there is still 1 or 2 of them who are buying it up & talking about how it'll be coming back, even after all their holdings & infrastructure had been sold off for peanuts by order of the court...I hope sincerely that vp doesn't become like a sequel to that horror film. But if it pans out, how rare will that be?
Hmmm.... I don't recall them w/vp. They are the firm who was with the Skype developers from their beginnings. I'm thinking maybe I might have confused this somewhat in my last post (or a couple back) when I was talking about the stubbs firm. Sorry if I did. I know I spoke about stubbs firm & smart & biggar, but I'm so tired & so many names, I'm losing it. Pretty sure I had most of it right. I forgot what differentiates those 2 firms in my explanations. So whadya figure the cost is for 5 legal firms? Damn
Wow.. Thx for that info. I was gonna start searching for what happened to stubbs firm. So FIVE...or more (?) (you better not dig anymore.. lol) legal firms, at least one we know is a BIGGIE (in fact, I remember vp gave as one of its main reasons for choosing them was how big a firm they were, in terms of that fact to be beneficial in itself...
So this apparently humongous legal representation we have must cost a heleva lot, for a pink sheet, w/no products, no sales, no revenue, no nothin.......but an address & some patents that no one seems to know much about... or their value. Oh hell yeah...ah belieeeeeve! I hope I am wrong about all these suspicious sounding things. Everything has a reason, right?
It's a good question. I don't know. I do remember having seen some other lawyer names more recently. I didn't think much of it cuz 1) vp has had I think numerous lawyers associated w/it & 2) cuz I'm not concerned w/that side of things. The only reason I mentioned that firm was to correct something I read here. I don't even remember....oh yeah... the deal about how that firm has been & today was, associated w/vplm as a major plus bcuz of how they supposedly were the same firm to have been credited w/doing the Skype deal. I jumped in becuz I remember how, approx a yr ago, when they were announced as having been
brought on board by vp, they were touted as having been responsible for the Skype deal legal firm (or at least words designed to make it sound that way). I cannot remember what it was that alerted me back then, that something sounded fishy about that whole deal, but it was some sort of way the words were manipulative...and so I did some checking & I hope I'm not remembering wrong, but I believe I discovered that they were not responsible for being the lawyers in the Skype deal, and that it was all very misleading. I reported everything here. I remember it was a totally different firm & mainly one woman (can't remember any names right now) who was responsible for the Skype deal legal handling & I validated it w/the court filed attorneys of record. No one seemed to give a rats petoot
about it, even tho they had no problem loving the fact that we
were led to believe we hired a firm who pulled off the 8.5b Skype deal, which just ain't so. I think someone said the same thing again today & it kicked my memory of when I spent all that time working on that DD. In fact, I think that was the genesis of my erosion of trust in this thing. It was very frustrating that no one cared. No one showed me to be incorrect about it. So, if they are no longer the corporate Council for vp, esp after all that hype, mere months ago, it would be interesting to find out how long the firm was vp Councel, after the big red carpet rollout & if they left, why? There sure are alot..... and I mean alot...... of funky, weird sheet goin on w/these guys, in between the lines. This is one of the strangest plays I've ever heard of. And for all of it, I think that blind faith investors, outside of patent approval & bod, are more naive than me.
Oh & if I remember right, 1 or 2 of the members of this firm were representing a couple of the developers of the Skype thing from the infancy & stayed w/them or off & on (?) up until the MS sale. I think at that point, the developers were just a fractional interest in the deal & the sale was made by the head members of some investment group, definitely not represented by this firm. It just seems to be another another element of a series of manipulative things that occurred alot the way.............or not
They are corporate Council to voip-pal
http://markets.financialcontent.com/prnews/news/read/25157199/voip
I agree w/you 100% on all said, except for one thing:
"This has gone on way, way too long, I am sure most would agree!"
* that's what I have been saying & using as the basis for the conclusions or opinions I've been posting & it sure doesn't look to me like "most agree". The postings have been opposite to that.
I mean c'mon...don't you agree w/the numerous posts that keep saying that 5/6 mos is nothing, time-line wise, for a deal to have been struck? And don't you also agree that the approx 10 yrs that has passed, where the info to describe what made up the patents has been available (at least to some & to the experts who could interpret them, who were from the big dogs, et al), just wasnt enough time for the big boys to yet know about the real workings, validity & value of the patents. C'mon now, be real...it takes time, it takes time, it takes time (did I mention the fact it takes time..?), days, weeks, mos, yrs, decades!
"Stubbs Alderton and Markiles is representing the founders of Skype (Joltid) in
its sale to Microsoft. They have entered into a definitive agreement under
which Microsoft will acquire Skype,"
.................
My memory of the dd I did on this back when this firm was hired, was that they represented the Skype founders as they were building Skype up to what it became, but, that they were not instrumental in the final deal & it was a different legal team who was. Maybe I interpreted it wrong, but my impression at the time, was that vplm was using the fact that this firm they just hired (at that time), had a connection to Skype (in that one or more members of this firm represented the founders of Skype as it was coming up) in a way that made it look like this firm was the firm who pulled off the big 8.5b deal, when I don't think that's the case. That is based on my search of the legal teams of record, when the deal happened & I reported it here then. The only reason I bring this up (and apologies if I'm wrong about it) is same reason I did back when it happened, which is that I took issue w/the way vplm characterized (or mischaracterized) the role of the firm they had just hired, to make it sound like they were the guys who made the big deal happen. And I also remember that indeed there were numerous posters here on this board, at that time, who kept throwing that "fact" out there, as it being another in a string of actions vplm took, to make this company be so very valuable.
My memory says that they were involved with Skype, but not really the MS/Skype deal. I believe that (vplm law firm hired around time of new board members, instrumental on the big 8b deal) was said or implied on numerous occasions. I did some dd & reported on it here a long time ago & found it was a totally different law firm, I believe headed by some woman, who were the main lawyers to orchestrate the big Skype deal. If I'm not mistaken, I think it was vplm themselves, who pr'd or white papered, the misleading info about the newly hired law firm being responsible for that, when in fact, I don't they were. I posted all that info here long ago, after I checked the records of which lawn firm did what, when & for whom.
Yet again... I call bs on that. Going only on memory, I'm pretty sure that Malik didn't say that in the context of "minimum amt vplm would take ". I'm thinking it was more along the lines of his loosely mentioned estimate or hope, as opposed to anything remotely connected to a minimum. I will have to go check the CC for that... But it makes no sense to me that any officer of the company would speak to "a minimun" acceptable price. I mean I guess they could.. That's often done on eBay, but if someone offered the minimum, and no one bested it, seems they would then be obligated to accept it. Also, no way Malik would put 25b in context of a minimum. That would be akin to saying that if someone offered $24b, it wouldn't be accepted. Ridiculous.
There are a number of different law firms used or have been used by vplm for different purposes. You listed certain ones that were just wrong. I posted a correction to you, even tho you accuse others of being wrong.
Also:
.......
Fact:
The law firm that vplm used...
.........
Those are your words, prefaced by "Fact:"
Then shortly after, you say that you never said vplm used them for lawyers... but there are your words stating "...the law firm that vplm used". So you did obviously say vplm used them, regardless of what they used them for AND you also listed, as fact, to me, who the lawyers supposedly were for the patents for vplm. I subsequently posted to you, that you were wrong on that, both on the count that it was was for digifonica engineers, not vp (who were not yet even a part of it) and about the lawyer. It was the wrong lawyers you listed because I posted the lawyers who assisted for the patents applications, as posted in a pr, later on, by vplm. (Smart & Biggar).
Oh ok, lol.. Actually I have only heard the term here in this board. I'm not tied in to the industry. I had the impression that there were companies setup as patent trolls (even vp is a little mini patent troll in a sense, haha) & then there were patent lawyer firms & it seemed to me to be 2 different things (but could mix well..). All I meant was someone mentioned asking a coupla patent lawyers (I think?) & felt in fairness that they shouldn't automat be labeled as patent trolls. No biggie..
Which firm are you referring to? And when were they hired, for how much is it costing & results so far are? (besides dilution)
You say "excellent" but I say that to say voip-pal did this just ain't so. It was digifonica & their engineers who created the patents. Voip-pal simply bought them (digifonica) with shares I think. And as the pr shows below, it was Smart & Biggar (patent attys) who did the patents for them, according to vp's own pr:
...........................
Digifonica (International) Limited ("Digifonica") was originally incorporated
as Digifonica International Inc. in 2004 and listed on the TSX stock
exchange (DIL-H). The company raised more than $15M of investments
into research and development of the most advanced VoIP technologies. It
employed approximately 20 developers, some of them being well-known in
VoIP industry, who built an integrated white-labelled VoIP system, which
can be deployed for new Internet Telephony providers in matter of minutes.
The goal was two-fold:
1. Provide scalable and the most cost-effective solution for partners,
when prices for Internet calls go down to zero
2. Comply with government regulations of Internet communications
against illegal activities
Soon after the first production-grade
system was released for partners, it
became clear that architectural solutions developed and operated by
Digifonica, were highly advanced in the industry and required protection.
Digifonica decided to dedicate sufficient resources, both human and
financial, to work with the top Canadian firm practising in intellectual
property - Smart & Biggar. That cooperation produced the results:
Digifonica filed overall 5 patent applications, starting from 2007 (see
"About Voip-Pal/Digifonica Patent Applicatons" below). The Patent
Applications were all filed initially as PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty)
applications, came through International phase, then entered National
phases in many countries around the world, first of all in US Canada and
Europe. They all are in different stages of prosecution.
When speaking to patent attorneys, I wouldn't characterize the VP portfolio as just some "random patents". I mean aren't they supposed to be the most important & revolutionary patents in the voip industry? Not hard for them to find them listed & described as such in many places where the pr's & white papers have been features. I have seen them in newsweek, wsj, Washington post, et al. I can imagine that being enough to at least garner a look at.
You say top patent trolls. Are patent attorney's automatically "trolls"? And regardless of which category they fall into, far reaching foundational patents, whether they truly are or turn out they aren't, which have been developed over 10 yrs time & all approved after non-approval, in my book is an attention getter, not just some random fly-by-night novelty. That's why I asked.. Did they even look at it? If they didn't even look, I don't think that's all too prudent. Just a common sense point if view.
Incidentally, didn't he say he knew someone there to ask? If so, that also is not exactly "random"..
That's interesting.. I wonder why no interest? Something sure doesn't seem right to me if a patent specialized firm has no interest in such humongous value..? Do you know if they even put any effort to look at the story?
I pretty much have covered explaining every facet of why I consider it to be "this late date".. so i dont know of the reason you don't understand is because you didn't read those detailed explanations (I really covered it from various angles) or of you just don't understand the explanations? No sense me delineating them for you again since you have already deemed it moot & irrelevant. The reasons given were very relevant.
And I fail to get your connection between my opinion of why I think it's relatively late doesn't matter because I am not the one selling the company. That doesn't compute at all. Furthermore, it doesn't even sound like you understand what I'm talking about when I said relative late date. It has nothing to do w/vp or sawyer. It has to do with my opinion about the fact that no company has yet made a major bid to obtain the patents (in my opinion based on various things observed) considering the relative value of them as they have been portrayed & how that fact reflects on my perceived assessment of the value of them and/or there actual authenticity as truly foundational to the current & future state of voip based communications & other uses.
So I don't see how that has any connection to what you said, but I did my best to make it clear & I believe my point is undeniable, when considering the reasons I have spelled out to support my view. I find it very basic economics.
It's kind of funny. I have been accused of just "throwing stuff out there" even tho I go to great lengths to at least try to validate my belief about anything I've said. And that is actually true, that I have provided a plethora of support to back up my basic contentions, which is just the opposite of throwing things out there. On the other hand, it seems that the majority of recent comments by others about my points, have been offered in that just "thrown out there" kinda way. You DID offer some kind of supporting reason for your comments, but as I explained above, they didn't seem to have to do much with what I had said.
On balance, you did recognize that the pr's did indeed include licensing negotiations as well, so that might help whoever that was earlier who said that was not the case.
When do you think the description of and/or the architecture of the patents 1st became available for minds that that comprehend those technicalities?? I posted, that voip been around for 40 yrs & in a heavy use way, for 10 yrs roughly. It has been announced 6 ways to Sunday that legacy telephony is headed out the door (it already is greatly diminished in the face of voip). If the 5 patents & their ancillary forms are the foundation of voip, for real, then this ain't no disco kid, and I therefore cannot fathom the big players in the voip industry letting this baby slip thru their fingers. In fact, the only way I can believe any longer that the patents are that seriously important, is if there is a consortium of some kind, you know, rockstaresque-like, that has indeed been brewing in negotiations for last few months, and that the leadership of such a group has convinced vplm that it's a gonna happen & not to worry & so vplm knows they don't have to pressured into taking some chump change offer from some bargain hunter wanting to steal it away.
So I declare at this time that in the very near future, such a deal will be revealed or this whole thing will crumble into the reality of the fact that it's not nearly as needed as has been touted & believed in. And as to the MS bid for their version of LI, maybe they finally realized it wasn't as precious as originally thought. My support for that idea is the fact that they have not gobbled up the portfolio. Plain & simple. (but they almost certainly would be part of the consortium. Otherwise they'd have by now snatched it up for Skype & world communications domination.
Want more? Consider that voip-pal, who supposedly has tested & proven voip phone service, devices, switching network & did I mention FOUNDATIONAL, total control, total lock on the whole kit and kaboodle, PATENTS...... hmmm....well that means right NOW, they could simply open up shop... as the biggest voip provider in these outer reaches of the galaxy! No??? Why not? What's to stop them? They OWN the foundational control of voip AND have a voip company called voip-pal AND still advertise as having a complete voip platform, hardware & software. WHAT ELSE COULD YOU DREAM FOR IN A COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY?
give me a break... Consortium or bust, in the next 60-90 days.
Thankyou. I'm aware of the legal firms associated w/vplm. I don't think vplm had the patents written by this firm. The patent were written for the developers of them in digifonica. Later, digifonica was acquired by vplm. Vplm did not develop them. As to if this firm would or wouldn't be the ones to work on licencing/infringement isn't the point. The point I made was that infringement & plan B has been brought up here many times & always dismissed as not possible because of no vplm $ to carry that out AND that is one of the reasons to be biased towards acquisition. So I was asking why, considering the vast fortunes implied, has not some firms stepped up to offer contingency, esp at this relatively late date, where it all pretty much languishes & has some selling out? You say the company not interested in anything but sale, but if you read their latest pr's (before the CC announcement) I think they clearly said different & clearly included that there was also licencing talks going on. No?
I think I get some elements of it, but I'm missing the total point of it. Are you saying that the "phantom company" I used as one example to support my cautionary attitude is not a good thing because I didn't identify the company? Or something else? Frankly, I can't discern if you agree or disagree or are adding something. I will, in the meantime, go back & reread your post some more.
Thx