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.
Are you saying that is what he categorically told you? Thats pretty good info. Wonder why he didn't tell us that? Also, I don't really know but what does he own.. 20%?... So how does that make him a controlling s/h? Let's say there was an offer & a vote. So he votes 1 way w/his 20 percent & the remaining s/h votes wind up overriding.. so how is that "controlling". I'm just asking. I don't know. But don't you have to have 51% to be in control?
Haha! I HEAR ya! Actually, that can mean alot (in case you need some $$)
...why?... what difference does a couple cents make to an upcoming buyout, based on patents. I think STILL, investors are mixing buyout value, with daily rise & falls of stock pps. It was TAUGHT HERE that those are 2 different animals & have little to do w/ea other.
What specifically, is naive (I assume you don't mean the "yes, I have" part) and/or what specifically is not a factual element of the post, in your opinion?
Where did he say it was "his company"? I thought that quote was attributed to a suitor. It is not "his company"..
Also, you are attributing to him directly or speaking for him... to say that he WILL sell for 500 mil. That would be stupid, all things considered & I call BS on that..
Yes I have.. and no, they do not have to do that, because the patents, if they are all cracked up to be, will do that work for them (and for all the others I mentioned, as well). So all that work, in essence, has already been done, but in a less conventional way. Further, this is not a simple matter of going for the few extra bucks now (quicker), but is looking like a once in a millennium business chance. They don't have to do any 'build a future' work.. the lawyers & the younger associates can work it for the next 20 yrs..
... for their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and their associated families, which the same thought process extends to shareholders... and, these guys, like you said, being in their 60's to 80's, will have the maturity & wisdom to start thinking that way, regardless of some past & passing statement at the moment, that they want to sell. That might pan out out to be the case, but above scenario makes not only more sense, but many fortunes more dollars.
And again, if the patents TRULY will provide something in the realm of COMPLETE CONTROL of the voip world, going fwd, and w/voip being the undisputed future of communications, then what stops vp from becoming the big dog, by default? (I know, I know...$ for legal...contingency, contingency, contingency..)
Hey, you lawyers out there... Would you not take on the support of such "control & the fortunes to follow", on contingency???
...and I predict that... is what they will announce (to some degree & on some level) they will have decided to do, with help from some investment partner(s), and as that work progresses, so will the pps. The math you suggested, spending tens of millions, to garner many billions, in a couple of yrs, is the biz sense that dictates that pathway, vs a quick 1-3 billion, no?
The funding source could be a possible suitor who is at the table? Whatever/whoever it is, I don't think matters all that much, in terms of the buyout/big picture.. because the ratio of that 1Q debt to buyout prices assumed, kinda make that debt amt look to be an irrelevant, moot point.. I think this is now near halfway into 1Q anyway (?) and rather than implying a 2Q, I read it as offering to investors, the knowledge that they don't have to be concerned about any further dilution (or I could just as easily be light yrs off on this, as I barely understand any of it anyway). As to how much source committed, the Co says it's only what is needed to cover working capital for next few weeks (a small bone I guess). As to the suing for all infringements, I agree it would take much time & massive bucks, but who says it has to be only 1 law firm? I have been saying the concept of contingency is a plausible sounding answer, yet so far, I have seen no counter-argument to it (only a couple posters who agree), so if it is indeed a way, then I'm sure if there is 1 firm willing, then there are others available to join the force. But I still don't see how any of your orig post or this one, relates to voip, vp, or vp voip patents? Most of all (regardless of my not seeing the relation of the suit you posted, to vp & it's pafents), as I keep saying but not a word yet of acknowledgement.... if ANYBODY, albeit Google, MS (as if they need to be bigger & more powerful... why don't we just start cloning dictators?) or whoever, can be in control of all communications, by getting all of vp patents, THEN WHY DOESNT AND WHAT WOULD STOP VP FROM BECOMING THE BIGGEST VOIP COMPANY IN THE WOULD, BY DEFAULT, AND IN SHORT ORDER, BECAUSE IN A FEW DAYS, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, VP WILL HAVE ALL 5 PATENTS ISSUED TO THEM, for the next 20 yrs (as long as they pay the maintenance fees), so all voip use, worldwide (?) would have to pay the piper (vp) unless THE PIPER (vp) sellsout. NOW... if some brainiac could even begin to crunch the numbers, as to what such licencing and infringement fees really equate to, in rightful $$, then I'm just guessing here, but that number has simply got to be be astronomical!! thus how can anybody tell me that such a fully legal potential (actually, not a potential, but a surety, no?) amount of world-changing money, could or would be "waved-off" / blown off, as money vp don't have for legal (which is what has been suggested here). And... I wonder if "available working capital" includes some deposit $ to get some lawyers started, on collecting some of these licence fees & infringement fees? After all, 3 of the patents have been in hand for awhile...
I guess I better go back & read it over. I read it & saw so many companies & lawsuits noted, but never caught where any of it had to do with our particular suite of patents. Somehow I'm missing that..
Edit: Ok, I reread it & all I can see is its a suit to gain access to redacted data in an HTC-APPLE agreement about some patents that relate to design & interaction. I don't see any mention of voip or or any of vp voip IP. AM I missing the forest thru the trees?
An interesting glimpse into some of the behind the scenes of sue me sue you world... but how does it affect or relate to vplm, I'm wondering as I read?
When I said I thought it was a stretch, I was not thinking in terms of some shallow circumstance analogous to a cosmetic change... I was thinking that w/so much at stake & due to the highly complicated structure of what makes up the IP, or maybe some mistake or missed fact, that some big lawyer could successfully jump on. I don't have any specific reasons for that to happen, but I would be surprised if sometimes a way around infringement isn't found, when at 1st it looks like there is infringement. Just guessing. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but it seemed like a stretch for him to say there is no possibility of a getaround. If it turns out to be 100% true, then I don't see how anyone can begin to fathom the full value.
Depending on if & when vp paid the fee, about 4 to 6 wks from then. Could be next week
I believe what I said was "all but in the bag". That is based on the fact that it has been allowed for issuance by the patent ofc. I gave you the paste from the website that said exactly that, at least I thought I did? And I think someone else also told you that the CC occurred before the MG patent was allowed for issuance w/prosecution closed. So if I have any of that wrong I'm happy to be shown where but it looks that way to me..that all 5 patents are basically had... in that, 3 have been issued and the last 2, MG & I forget the name but "user interface... ...or interchange " or whatever it's called.... have both been approved for issuance. If that view is disputed by you or anyone, I can listen to why. If no dispute, in my mind, approved for issuance & prosecution is over, is plenty enough for me to consider them in the bag. I would also like to know (and I will search for...) if there are any significant number of utility patents that have been approved for issuance, at the same level as MG & the 5th one, and then been reminded by the gov.
I don't know why you would assume that I haven't read up. I read everything I can find. I may not always comprehend as good as you. In an earlier post I pasted:
________________________________
"Allowance means that prosecution is closed for the Mobile Gateway patent application and it is allowed for issuance as a patent."
__________________________________
Those were not my words.. they were taken from the company website. Are you saying then, that "closed" is not the same as "ended"? If you agree that closed & ended are the same thing, then how can you say prosecution is not ended, when they (patent ofc) say it is?
Incidentally, it (patent ofc & company) states: " issuance is allowed". Man... apparently I have been led astray by them or, my comprehension of those words is not well grounded. It won't be the 1st time I am wrong.
So what does approval is granted & prosecution is ended mean? And are there any cases where they have posted that approval & then taken it away?
"prosecution is ended" sounds pretty clear to me. And if that verbage of finality somehow can be equated with "some examiner pulling for any reason", historically, then I'm not gonna put much stock into their words going fwd. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what prosecution ended means or assuming something I shouldn't.
That is very interesting to hear. Now that you mention that, I think I vaguely remember at least some of that exchange. I know I had alot of trouble w/the sound & i'm sure I did not get to absorb what you just ran down. I think that is a huge point that he would've said that, because obviously any such ability to "tweak" a get around would be as pivotal as it gets. In fact, as I'm writing this, now I DO remember him saying it now & I also now remember thinking that this guy might be stretching things too far to make that claim. If that is a legit claim, then yikes!
I don't recall anything about "tweaking the technology" in the CC. I believe that phrase is someone's reference to infringers finding legal loopholes to get around infringement. Maybe i misunderstand that? I told you that MG has already been allowed (approx 2 mos ago it was allowed as a patent). I had originally replied that all the patents were either issued or allowed, but I edited it to only speak to mobile gateway. I believe 3 have been issued and the last 2 have been allowed, which is as good as issued. All this info is on website.
EDIT: I'm sorry, it was nightrider2 whom questioned MG approval who I replied to that it had already been allowed.
MG, as far as I know, was allowed back in Aug. All that remains is just administrative going thru the motions. Why would that make such a big difference?
_______________________________________
"Allowance means that prosecution is closed for the Mobile Gateway patent
application and it is allowed for issuance as a patent."
In the context of "big companies gonna wanna have control of the IP"..... I wish to repeat... again.... something that no one recognized, acknowledged, or responded to before.........
... That if vp is holding all the cards, with the now, all but" in the bag" patents, and considering that voip is not only the future of telephony, but also has a pretty big foot-in-the-door already (for yrs) and further, that all the existing voip player, both big & small, are now, supposedly, going to have to pay the ONE AND ONLY PIPER, VP!........then wouldn't that almost automatically promote them (voip-pal) to be the top dog, king o hill, nay, THE ONLY real dog, because they don't have to pay or answer to anybody... so now they would be the biggest voip company in the world! And why would they wanna give that up?..... unless for upwards of many billion of dollars.
RBG, I have said exactly the very same thing & tried to make that a point to be responded to, but in each case it was ignored here. I have tried to point to out that regardless of any huge costs of legal handling, that in the case of this scenario that vp has, with humongous amts of $$ at stake (and oh, ever so promised that such monies WILL be realized, one way or the other..) that it's (like you said) a "no-brainer" for contingency. I still contend that THAT FACT is a very important consideration, as to the validity of everything been presented.
It was an "instablog" which is basically just a community opinion space, afforded to seeking alpha goers, as opposed to a "contributor article". As far as I can see its no different than someone posting their opinion here. There was a number only, to id the author. An instablog is:
"Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the
Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or
screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles."
In addition, the otc site says that 75k short figure (end of Sept report) is .01 % of outstanding, so I just don't get it. I'm sure either you or someone else can sort it out.
Short Interest
Short % of Out
Insider B/S
Inst % Owned
Exchange
74,775
0.01 %
N/A
N/A
USOTC
You could check this out but wherever I look the numbers are different. If I look at otc, it says short is nominal.. If I go to this link, it shows a daily avg approx 50 per cent short and labels it as naked short. I thought there was a big diff between regular short & naked & I thought naked was illegal. I guess I just don't have the whole picture. It appears that all shorting is above 50% for at least last month. Wow I wonder if that's actually true?
http://otcshortreport.com/index.php?index=vplm&action= http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/VPLM/short-sales
Read the link & I think I was under some mistaken impression that your orig post about them, was somehow regarding or in reply to my posted ideas that I thought they had things all under control & had things "covered" w/respect to their shorting activities.. But this incident (by the way, I think I remember this. I think it was all over the news when it happened, but of course the significance was lost on me) was some kind of electronic mistake, rather than a short squeaze (prolly just my naivete').. Also noticed figures up to $460 mil town around.
Also noted coupla hefty fines they had to pay due to fudging the prices & numbers around (which also answered another unanswered recent post I asked about that)
Thx
Thx rbg... I will read & try to understand.
No I don't know. I'm trying to learn from those of you who do. Could you expand on the Kellogg bailout (I looked, couldn't find). Tia
I'm sure that's true. But look at it this way. The way things are now (or at least the way it's been explained..) re: the patents, every user of voip on the planet will be owing to vp. VP is already a voip provider, w/everything in place. So if they (vp) develop the service, what would stop them from quickly becoming the big dog voip provider in the world? And, they still would have tons of licencing fees & infringements to collect on, to boot. Seems like something they might be considering, no?
That quote seems to imply that loose leafs get shaken out when tired and lose their courage. Seems just as accurate that some lose their inhibition or resistance to worry, when fatigued, thus as apt or more, to hang in or buy. Classic six of one, half dozen of the other case, works both ways.
How come no one else had a single comment about the 2nd white paper?
I think your description of the actions of the MM's (MoneyMakers) is the most accurate I have seen to date (and there are many different explanations around). I would love to see someone try to dispute. (altho I'm not as sure that "In too deep" is entirely accurate as the reason they don't go away, at least for the bigger & more successful MM's. I think maybe they have things more under control than that would suggest, more hedged. And is the free level 2 enough?
A read of the new white paper (and between the lines) seems to agree w/what I said a few days ago, which is that vp may indeed be considering the value, that rather than selling out the patents, they could with them, turn into the new big dog voip company, and do worldwide licencing & collect on infringements. Not a bad way to go... unless some deep pocket comes up w/$25 bil +
Thx. It sounds like you confirm my general take on it. But what about the inaccurate bids/asks... So they are just allowed to get away with it, kind of in appreciation of them keeping order & fluidity?
Oh, and I wouldn't accept the award.. sounds like facts, not predictions
The new white paper is now posted
Surferdude, 1) is that legal & 2) why would anyone short a stock that by all accounts, is ready to explode in price? Are you saying that this sort of manipulation is more or less a very short term walking up & down of prices, w/little to no risk, while affording the mm easy money? And is it also the oft seen last minute recovery, the rebuying up for profit, so as not to "get caught" in some next day big news or break?
So would you agree then, that otb1 (or whatever his/her name was) was correct about the chill & the problem trading he reported having, at least enough to leave the possibility that he was not clearly lying or trying to drive down price?
Some other interesting angles to the patent infringement game..
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121107/02432220958/apple-google-loses-big-patent-cases-to-trolls.shtml
Are you talking about this one from a year ago where apple has to pay 368 million? The same Co won a similar judgement from MS earlier for 200 million & had about 5 other similar patent infringement claims going against majors as well. This patent infringement thing is getting exciting to look into, in terms of investing. Wow. I hope someone can shed light on the possible connections between VPN & MG
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/11/06/apple-loses-virnetx-patent-trial-ordered-to-pay-368m
On a humorus note, the judge had to order the litigants to to tell their investors to stop calling the court asking about their investments, the court getting about 10 calls per day from nervous investors... lol
I don't think it would be too smart to be significant shorting at this point, but I wouldn't doubt that the longer these prices are maintained at such a high level after the yrs of being way lower, I think there's bound to be a significant level of profit taking. It all looks pretty stable & healthy & strong!
I would add that when it comes to these little scare tactics (if that's the nature of it) posted earlier, that knowledgeable boardgoers not resort to silly name calling or calling out those possibly just mistaken or ignorant (or definitive liars for that matter) and instead, defeat any fears generated, by objective correcting of specific claims w/specific facts that unequivocally refute the false claims. That, imho, would better serve any newcomers or less gnostic potential investors, or those who are on the fence. Sidestepping, name calling, personal attacks, ignoring & other similar tacks taken, to deal w/false or mistaken claims don't garner alot of respect, for those answers or opinions, in the eyes of those who want answers w/a measure of authority.