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.
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
I went back to look at the post I made that you replied to. It is crystal clear. I quoted things that had been said in reference to my points. Under the quotes, I made short, clear replies. For example, at the top: "you can't say such & such" & below, my reply: "who said that?" (meaning I never said that). And the rest of the post was formatted the same. Looks simple & straightforward to me. I think you maybe didn't realize the quotes & my answers. And I was right ON the road, not all over the map, because I answered directly what was said. I hope that clarifies it for you. And it is all under the same theme of my doubt as to the foundational & infallible nature of the patents.
I didn't think I described how patent litigation works....other than to point to out that it has always been said here, that plan B would or should not be used because of the lack of vplm $. I simply & logically tried to bring out the point that if so, while at the same time the patents are universally foundational, thus worth a huge huge fortune, unimaginably so... then why don't qualified patent attorney firms step up & offer to make it happen for everyone's financial good? That seems like very sound thinking to me, on my part & I don't see where it presupposes any lack of my knowledge of how litigation works. I know there's always been ambulance chasers, so why shouldn't there been bona fine patent infringement remedy helped along by those with the ways & means to do so.... BECAUSE THEY KNOW AHEAD OF TIME EVEN BETTER THAT WE KNOW.... because they are patent attorney experts..... that the value is there for them & everybody else, and they also know they can be the logical FACILLITATORS!
how is that not true, please? How does not "not work that way"?
"NOBODY here can say, definitively, that Microsoft, or any other Big Dog,
has NOT given any offers for these patents"
......................
* nobody has
"To claim otherwise would have to be based on opinion only"
........................
* no kidding? I thought everyone already knows that. Goes w/o
saying
"I, myself, am not here to try to convince anyone that this investment is good or bad"
.......................
* I could copy/paste 40 miles long of what the avg reader would most definitely call as clearly "trying to convince", regardless of this spin, poste haste
"Long winded rants or twisting of information is not going to
do it"
...........................
* so here, w/this & all above, we see the "shining examples" of positivity, so thick you can cut w/knife. And the kind of veiled points that seem so right & appropriate (if you cut away the condescending & constant reminding ppl of what they already know, about how things work) always have to be proceeded by something like this here, that HAS TO BE THROWN IN... ok, so if it has to be thrown in, compulsively (it must fall under that "agree to disagree thingy"..?), then in fairness, I guess the difference between long winded rants & long posts that keep telling ppl over & over how they should think & that they must understand how these things work, etc al, but are not long winded rants category. I'm sure the defining difference between one & the other will be made nice & clear. At the same time the "twisting of information" should be clearly identified. After all, if it twisted enough to note as much & post it, then it deserves to be specifically identified, because we don't want to: "just throw stuff out there".
Also, w/regard to VP & the example case of another company, that I said I had good reason to not identify, but still gave info about it & then gave much more which was solid VP related but got deleted & I promised I would use happy hour to explain the reasons for not identifying the company. I had even gone so far to explain it was due to how ppl tend to twist (truly) & ridicule... Well now, in light of these comments above, for the same exact reasons, I will not use happy and do that. It is clear to me based on the observed m.o., it would only bring me more grief. So instead, feel welcome to not get the value of the example posted w/o being ID'd as to company name. Doesn't bother me a bit. But was good info in spite. Instead, maybe I'll use the happy hour thing to send this since the sensors will delete.
Lol.. that was easy! So much for that theory. I have virgin mobile which also is sprint & I have seen uninterrupted switchoffs as well, but to be fair, I have not yet used voip, so that might be different. And maybe the uninterrupted transmissions undoubtedly out there & in use are infringing?? Who knows? Maybe they're all "playing chicken"? But no, you say...surely they wouldn't risk it..er.. ah..would they?? Well, why not?.... Vp isn't doing anything to stop them, not even so much as to NOTIFY THEM or NOTIFY ANY OF THEM THAR INFERNAL INFRINGER... so that AT LEAST any future suits could be retroactive. And before someone steps up to say "well how do you know?", I think we would have heard about that. There aren't too many secrets anymore.. You see, Vp is being so nice cuz they don't wanna ruffled the feathers of the big dogs (or the medium or little, for that matter), cuz they don't want to jeopardize negotiations, cuz maybe they forget the OMNIPOTENT POSITION OF POWER they now sit at....yay, the throne of the most important set of 5 patents in the history of anything!.... but they won't even issue warnings.
Reminds me of a line from an old tune from 66: "fly Jefferson airplane.. gets you there on time"... haha
Au Contraire'.... Isn't that exactly what we have been told all along, w/respect to the universal, foundational, end all..be all, patents. Haven't we been told that no one will be able to "voip their butt" w/o the vp patent rights? Isn't it the "666" of Internet telephony?
I think this cc will be very interesting to hear, esp the aftermath.
GO VP!!! catch those dumb dogs w/their pants down....um, pretty please...but be nice & don't upset them. They are our friends...
All things considered, can anyone explain to me why some "in the know" patent attorneys haven't (or have they?) stepped up to the plate, contingency wise, and offered to begin proceedings to start forcing infringers, especially smaller, lesser known ones, to begin paying the piper??.....after all, if they (the patents) are so foundational, then what an endless fountain of revenue.....or are we to believe that vp won't go after anyone cuz they don't want to "upset" the potential buyers... Oh wow...THAT'S a nice thing to let the bid dog infringers know, hahahahahaha
Deep within the descriptions of these patents, they seem to speak several times about the ability to support uninterrupted transmission handoffs??
http://www.google.com/patents/US7986714
http://www.google.nl/patents/US5910946
I saw something similar to that recently here & it was confusing to me too (mainly cuz I don't understand too much of the significance of that aspect of things). I accept that for "seemingly" all intents & purposes, pretty much all the aspects of this company is new & fresh, since the acquisition moving fwd. They've got enuff, lol, to worry about presently, than to worry about the past, so I don't concern myself too much w/that angle. Thst said, I don't see, from your link, where the "dynamic oil & gas" name was taken on in Dec, '13, like you said. I only see that name at the very top header of article & don't see what it is or where it fits, BUT....very ironic connection it is....to what I have been trying to use as an example & cautionary tale. I have good reasons to not yet have identified the company, but strangely enough, very strange in fact, is that your pointing out that name, might wind up helping me ID the example I was speaking of. If & when I do, you'll then understand what I mean. But as far as the info you posted, it looks like it changed to dominion energy. I could've sworn that whatever I saw here, fairly recently, showed 1 or 2 other or additional name changes. Maybe that was pre digifonica?
Would you mind telling me why you are concerned w/those aspects?
More likely than not, considering they have not consequently bought, licenced or made any acceptable bid to get 'what they wanted SO BADLY'. That not an opinion, it's logic. To bolster the logic even more, they are one of the richest entities on the planet, so not that big a deal for then to have made a deal by now. They've had plenty of time to evaluate, estimate, emulate (testing) & negotiate it all to death. Obviously, they no longer care that much or at all, FOR SOME REASON, cuz IF (here we go again) the patent(s) were what cracked up to be (FOUNDATIONAL to the future of communications worldwide of mankind, <hard not to chuckle>, then they wouldn't be pussyfooting around...) nor would Google, Skype, Cisco, etc etc etc. Could I be wrong? Of course, but these points of contention are logical & certainly rise at least to the same level, if not higher, than that which says "worthy of consideration, but not likely"... , which to me, translates to "no way Jose, not worthy of my consideration..."
I've been witness to 18 yrs of a stock with waaay more substance & "proof" of value, backed up & supported & funded on a much larger scale than vplm, with many products in many places & many experts in full support of it, and went from an otcbb, to nynex, and still went rogue & turned out to be a scam & ruined many. And the discussion boards (about a half dozen of them) was filled 99.9 : .01, with the same, nay, much more support, as is found here. What IS my opinion, is that to blow off facts, stories, or even fiction, if that's how you find it more reasonable to view, based on the amt of info about it noted so far...as tho they mean nothing, compared to all the "self-served hype" vplm has to offer, while no 3rd parties seem to want to join in the gala, then that's the kind of disparity that makes the world go round...
Make believe you were one of the big dogs, then notate: 1) how long ago was our patent technology drawn up? 2) at what point did any or all of the details of them get published or otherwise made available for the big dogs, with their big sniffers & spies & info gatherers & scientists & scholars, etc, get wind of said technology? 3) how long have these big bucks entities in the voip involved industry, have to then evaluate the technology? 4) if the now secured patents were indeed truly foundational to the future of worldwide communication ostensibly, then (remember, you are a big dog & you realize all to well all above facts) then what have you done about it, to this point in time?
It's almost like, on a more pedestrian level, it is saying: there is NO USE for any of those patents listed....but it's intention, using the word "application" as maybe a different part of speech, is (please correct me if I'm wrong) to say there is none other that have used this technology, thus no prior art, thus wide open to be applied in it's fully intended purpose. Lemme guess, I'm off by a mile?
I know exactly what u mean. When I 1st read same, I think in white papers (or wherever..) I thought the same, couldn't make sense out it. Logic dictated to me thst it must be the way the terms were being used in the white papers format/style perhaps? I've noticed a couple other ppl were confused by this as well. I remember coming to a certain conclusion that it meant something less obvious, but still on the positive side of things, but I was distracted & it never gelled for me. Subsequently, I'm almost positive that I saw someone here, about about 2-4 was ago maybe..?.. provide an explanation, but now I can't remember what it was, lol. I think it is a case where it means almost the opposite of how it sounds.. wait.. ummm.. isn't it saying that there's no prior art?
Prolly I didn't use the best word choice. The theory being that the patent are "foundational", hence "they RULE! Apparently you don't think so, if if you think Apple don't care. Does it make sense now?
Jimr....I thanked you for the good job on that article about the patent. Perhaps a "thankyou" or a "your welcome" might've prefaced before touting how good at it you are...
Also, since I read it & understood a portion of the technical workings, I asked a question about it, since you chose to point it out, in posting it.
Lastly, I don't know how you could know the professions of all those that post DD, ie, "none are doctors or writers"....
...and it was a joke about patience. You know.. "doctors/patients" (patience)...