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.
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?
It's difficult for an unbiased open mind to disagree w/any of that. The misspelling means nothing these days with the stupid "predictive" text, which is nearly uncontrollable, but then again, I would assume that a "white paper" is supposed to have been much more close editing b4 publishing. Amusingly ironic tho, the word that got misspelled, classic actually! Guys like Sawyer, w/his stature, must've felt a tad "uneasy", lol, lol, upon having it pointed out. A Kodak moment expression, no doubt. I think one of the questions should be who wrote that word, haha.
The thing about "no know applications" is to obvious to me, that it's supposed to mean something different. A poor choice of words, regardless of if something different than the obvious was meant, or if it indeed means simply what it says, then why in the hell would you say it. Apparently the same "writer" as Mr "technologys"... It looks so ridiculous in its seeming context, it makes ya wonder, if maybe it was intended to mean that no one yet had ever applied such a technology (as if to say & follow;" but it's very needed & is coming"). But that theory is shaky, since one of the patent listings does indeed show some applications, so hard to figure. That should also be a question, but oh wait, I forgot, they have a week to come up with a way to smell like a rose in answers, or just not answer.
I am really driven to say that all these things considered, (the possible negatives that is), the folks that have unwavering blind faith in the positives alone (mostly just dished out by insiders), and have no worries (yeah, right..), and who have an automatic, never fails response mechanism to shoot down every single one of these doubts & complaints with their "stalwart" mentality....well, I think they are sitting ducks (same as myself, but for good reason).
"They do that so if it ever goes
to court for misrepresentation, VPLM BOD can say they never said it."
..............
* if so, I think that's lame of my Co to do. Not surprised, just lame & par. But since they preface the CC as: "a format in which
Voip-Pal’s Board of Directors can directly address some of the most common questions posed", then in my opinion, giving him a mic equates to giving his words bod sanction as they are said & broadcast under auspices of bod. Simple.
A week to prepare answers huh.....lol... pretty gutsy. Not that I would expect it, but if shareholders wanted to see some real candid & honest reality, they would hold a cc w/o initially submitted questions. Which would you rather see happen, lol.
Well, there's no photo or graphic there showing on my phone (that's all I have), but the text looks nice... Maybe by the time you get your millions, you can upgrade..
VPLM = Very Possibly Likely Maybe
"Good luck to you sir in your decision to invest (or not) in VPLM and I hope
this DD proves valuable to you. It may be only a matter of time before you
too become a proud VPLM share owner :)
There could be some potentially explosive (in an excellent way) news on
Tuesday..."
...............................................OR............................................
Hey, ya never know...ya wins some & ya loses some...
GLTA...........but, if it doesn't exactly go the way you hoped, please accept this free subscription as a consolation...........
Umm, maybe so, lol, but I based it on simple fact wiper blade is proven 1sg time it went on a windshield (but I know nothing about any patent infringement circus that prolly did occur, as anything good & valuable is always subject to the long lost relative who just heard about uncle Jakes $300 mil lottery windfall, syndrome). And as to the vp 911 & out there cellular 911, I DID research it & I posted my observations about that side of things. I'm all DD'd out! All I ask (what a concept - what nerve - 50 lashes) is to see any proof of vp 911 claims to be foundational in scope. Hell, forget foundational, how about just something that shows it to go above & beyond being slightly quicker or slightly more accurate than conventional cellular 911.
I didn't think he was agreeing w/you. I thought it was facetious sarcasm, but maybe you already know that, or maybe I'm just wrong..
Fallacious argument. The wiper blade obviously works but there is no evidence (that I know of - death to those that dare ask for proof of claim) that vp911 works in the manner it has been characterized by vp & this board. It may be a help against the inadequacies (previously clearly pointed out in the wsj posted article) of what has been in use and/or currently used, but where is ANY SHRED of evidence it goes above & beyond that. That is the important question, when discussing "foundational" tech.
"If you have any concerns or doubts as to the legitimacy of any facts presented by VPLM I would urge you to direct your questions towards persons who can better provide you with real answers Because I can't. I would suggest that you reach out to Dennis Change himself though I'm not sure he'll respond to any inquiries about past alleged wrongdoing:
dtchang@voip-pal.com
Additionally, you should reach out to Richard Inza the IR guy:"
.......................
Imho, this advice above starts out as very sound & honest advice, but, then is followed by pure illogic (while even being recognized as such by the writer..), ergo, suggesting to reach out to the person who is accused of the wrongdoing for the truth. But on 2nd thought I should qualify thst, because it would be the right common courtesy to check w/the horses mouth 1st, and then, look for validation elsewhere. That's the American way (or simply the right way). That said, can it really be expected that he would fess up to wrongdoings such as have been pointed at & especially w/such a major need for vp to look good right now? And to then further suggest to go to vp for the truth, well....at this point, I'm more comfortable with your admittedly non-knowledgabke opinions that that route. I mean c'mon..... there are simply too many dispersions cast to date. You don't trust the used car salesman for the important facts, you ask carfax.
I thought the same thing upon seeing the IBM thing after having read all about the Antares debacle. Who knows when there is so much manipulation of facts in this cutthroat biz?
As to Malak as a developer, I thought it was a different Emil & another person credited, but actually it's been explained in the hkstory that there were supposedly 20 developers working on the tech at digi & that they had raised about $15 mil for the development.
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.