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.
Well then you have focused on, rather than simplified... That means you only speak to MS based reasoning & not all the myriad others. The ms based reason you offer, does not cover the other biggies. And I fail to understand how you give Microsoft's failure to get approval of their own LI patent application, as a reason since then (how long has it been actually?), to explain their failure to get froggy now.
1) who or what says they are not free to respond? And 2) if true, that they are not free to respond, then they certainly are free to take or not take actions, on behalf of the the shareholders portion of ownership, therefore to say it's "unkind" to offer shareholder personal opinions of what it seems to them, that the bod has done, is unfair in itself, because it is not any doing of the shareholders that keeps the bod from responding to their comments. Not to mention it is the express purpose of this board, to do so.
"I've already given you a logical explanation for why these patents haven't been purchased already. Microsoft has fought this until the very end and they have lost. So now lets see if they are willing to pay for them."
Sorry, I did not see "logical" explanation. And I have been talking about all the patents in general, not just LI. but if your whole logic platform is based on what ms did, I see many holes in that, in terms of a reason for why there is no buy or major offer. In fact, to the contrary, a long time has passed & ms obviously has not made a serious offer, so that alone kinda weakens your proof of concept, in my view. (note: a serious offer considering the value, if one crunches the numbers, for something that is sooo in demand all over the world for yrs to come).
"Let's just be real here. The TRUE rewards will be realized by ALL of us when the monetizations deals are finally complete! End of story :)"
.....................................
Be real? Ok I'll be REAL...
The TRUE rewards will be realized by ALL of us IF, (not when)
the monetizations deals are finally complete! End of story :)
.....which also shows to beware of statements that make a point followed by "end of story", as it took only one 2 letter, honest word change, to show not end of story. And further...purely speculative promises of what is to come, in time, are indicative of an agenda more than a fact.
"NYT said it had never been tested or proven."
Excuse me but where did I say that?
Let me save you the trouble of trying to find such a quote. I did not say that... however I admit that if you read between the lines, I guess you could think I implied it, because I said things to the effect of..... if the patents were proven tech, then how could it have gone this long w/o some big dogs making a big play for it?
So I did not flatly say anything was or was not true or proven. What I did do.... is put out there for consideration & scrutiny, the simple & apparent fact, that SOMETHING doesn't make sense, doesn't add up...because the potential value is likely 10's - 100's of billions of dollars, or more, and IF there TRULY was proof of it, this sucker would be gone by now, one way or the other, plan A or B or otherwise, PERIOD!
I issued challenges to show any history of such a similar scenario to have occurred before. No acknowledgement. No takers...
Also I challenge to show any independent proof or any outside experts to have stepped up & said that they have independent, irrefutable & indisputable proof, that vp patents rule the very existence & usage of voip. I'm not so sure that USPTO is proof of anything. They issue patents if certain criteria is met. Do they state that they have tested & proven it as genuine & guaranteed to be the foundation of voip, in that voip cannot survive w/o it? That's what I'm talkin bout...
And if anyone believes this stuff kicked around, that it was tested/proven some 8 yrs ago & that that facts in turn, equates to it having not garnered any respect whatsoever, beyond ppl on this board & "maybe" BOD members, anywhere else.....then that to me, defines naivete'. Just saying..
Thankyou. While I agree that it LOOKS like the LI patent has value, for that reason, and for more important reasons (governments need a way to have unimpeded access), that alone does not make the patent valuable. It must be proven & if it WAS proven, the known value would be so great that there is no way, imho, that the info & data that describes & validates the patent, which has I assume been publicly available information for many years now, could been so for this long WITHOUT the intelligence of the BIG PLAYERS making multiple major serious attempts to buy or licence the rights to use. This point is sooo basic & valid, yet no one seems to want to face that fact, because doing so bursts too many bubbles, but it seems to me, to be obvious & undeniable. I'm not sure when the details of a patent application are made public, but I assume that info has been available at least to some if not all, for a very long time. It's not new info. And if it was absolutely proven to be capable of doing what all these governments are demanding they must have, then simple logic dictates that what vp has, would have been gobbled up by now, or even before patent approval a deal couldve been struck contingent on approval. It (the value) would obviously represent many billions of dollars for now & the immediate future, plus going to 20 yrs out. And that's only one of the patents. I challenge anyone to show me a definitive example of another patent or portfolio, that was intrinsically foundational (truly) and the proof of that was public info, and it sat for years without share price continually shooting up & big $ tripping over ea other to get at it before the other guy, so as not to lose this HUGE controlling factor of the future of digital communication (at least the now and near future).
All talk about how it takes time to hash it all our, is horse hockey, imho, as such time has long past, all things considered. It certainly would seem that way at least, when looked at in above light. I believe than if you don't seriously consider this points, the remaining faith in the value is common folly.
I disagree. The way lbird's structured his sentences seems pretty clearly to say it the way I read it & it prolly would be better for him to speak for himself if his points were meant differently...
..................................................................
"Many people also didn't believe that VPLM could get a patent that Microsoft tried to get for over 5 years."
................................................
The above sentence clearly is what one would say if the 1st party (many people) didn't believe the 2nd party (vplm) could do an action (get a patent) that the 3rd party (ms) tried (past tense) to do (previously). The sequence of action describes vplm following ms, when it was the other way around.
................................
"Pretty hard to believe that a company with limitless resources and money couldn't make it happen, but VPLM could."
...........................................
The 2nd sentence follows the same sequence...putting MS 1st & vplm following, when it was vplm 1st & ms followed, hence it really does sound to say that a big dog tried to accomplish something but couldn't, and then the little pup came along and kicked big dogs butt. That is the way it reads.
..............................................
"Even though it was hard to believe, guess what, they did."
........................................
I don't see it as hard to believe...what makes it hard to believe? (unless one mistakenly reads the post in context of David slays Goliath). Vplm filed a patent (LI) & the patent ppl were not able to ultimately find it to not meet the criteria needed for approval, and then, if I understand the denial correctly, MS was denied because they were too late with about the same thing. What is so hard to believe about that?? The patent ofc is not supposed to care or be influenced by msoft's supposed "limitless resources"...and apparently, was not. So no big deal here...
If lbird meant something different, I hope he clarifies...
In any event, neither side of the coin goes any length to explain why, looooooong after this & all the other patents were created & described as to how they work & what they supposedly do......has ANYONE from any position or school of thought, explained, proved or shown the value. And a FOUNDATION is not hard to decipher. It's at the bottom, built 1st to support what's above it, not come later & be impossible for anyone to understand how it works.
It's quite simple. If you take a brand new caddilac & place it in the town square for $5,000 dollars, it will be gone before the next chime of the clock. No if's, and's or but's... Oh sure the many buyers that will quickly materialize will do some preliminary checks, that's it's not bogus or a hologram, but will swiftly determine it must not "get away" and will trip over ea other to be 1st to snatch. And in the meantime, the seller may very well decide, as he witnesses the realities of supply & demand unfolding before him, up the price on the window, as the buyers are tripping (pps). Sorry in advance for the inevitable comment that this is my naivete'.
The way your post reads, to me, sounds like you saying that MS tried to get a patent....couldn't....and then vplm comes along and gets it done what ms couldn't. Thst is how your post reads but that is not what occurred. What occurred is that vplm filed for purportedly the same basic technology 2 yrs before ms did. Hence ms did not get it because vp was 1st to file. Then ms didn't give up trying for 5 yrs, to no avail. What you stated sounds different to me.
This has come to be more like a religion of faith & folly..
Many "facts" have been fabricated or stretched or shown to be not quite as 1st thought..
No one competent enough and outside of bod, has or can step up & truly connect the dots to demonstrate & prove that the patents are really foundational. The titles & the basic bylines of what they portend to be, is what has convinced so many, but no can even read & understand, from top to bottom, inside & out what all that text that makes up what was presented to the patent office. I've come to doubt very highly thst even they at the patent office really truly understand it from end to end & conversely, that could explain also, how they cannot, in the end, fail the patents... not if they can't fully connect all the dots. Where does it say, that a granted patent is proof positive, by virtue of the granted patent, that the patent will do any or all of what the patent application seems to say it can do? The truth of that, lies hidden deep in the folds & labyrinth of the zillions of lines of text that purport to demonstrate & prove such abilities. Who here can read those patents, from end to end & say: oh yeah, no question about how this works & is proven technologically so?
I'm not saying that it's not possible it's all true & valid & forthright. But I'm saying either it's not & is proving to recognized as not all too valid OR that if it IS all valid, that no one yet is a big enough genius, (an outsider) to SEE IT... because maybe it's too complicated to grasp it. If it were grasped as true & real & indisputable, then this languishing would never have been the state of affairs it's been & the excuses are all worn out by now. Go back a year & start reading the beliefs & flavor of this board & you will say: WHAT HAPPENED!?
This upcoming cc should be pretty interesting. I hope the questions don't let answers slide into the mud.
To me, financially unsavvy as I am, common sense tells me that by virtue of the rules of rules of the universe, no freaking way is something that monstrously big, gonna sit and languish & go nowhere, for so long. Lack of enforcement funds is no reason whatsoever. If it was real, the genius's who know it would've long ago approached the big bucks & said: look here, big bucks, here's what the real deal is w/this, so you best jump & jump now, or, they'd have gone to some big lawyers & said hey lookit...here's the undeniable truth of it so you'd better get your CONTINGENCY machine all geared up & go make a deal with voip-pal, to start filling the wheelbarrows....cuz if you don't, someone else will, cuz it's real.
Explain to me how that would not be the way events unfolded, if it was known set of truths, re: the good ol' patents.
Sorry but to me that all sounds like it ignores the point & the apparent reality of what I said. There's been many articles & links more recently here on this forum, which seemed to say different about the fate of legacy, even in the immediate future & alot of the articles were from the horses mouth & said legacy on the way out plus so says the fcc as well. Regardless if it's going away or will be around for awhile, working hand in hand w/voip, doesn't really matter anyway, I don't think. It is away from the simple & basic point, that being, if the patents were TRULY as foundational & uber valuable as many believe and/or hope, then that fact would have, by now, by the very nature of $$ involved, dictated many offers) and made big news splash) of big money & an ever increasing, by leaps & bounds, share price. That, because there must be those IN THE KNOW, whom would have recognized that awesome value BY now, if not long ago. I have seen no explanation in real understandable, specific terms, that makes the case for such necessary & "foundational" aspect of the patents, except for the case of legal intercept & in that case ONLY because MS tried to get same or close to same (so it is said..) technological patent & kept trying for approx 5 yrs. That SEEMS to jump out & say something about the real viability of that one only, AND YET, none of the voip powers that be, seem to give a rats petoot anyway....
You said nothing also, about the analogy to the incoming asteroid scenario...which further exemplifies the point about how can such a MONSTER BIG DEAL set of total control of voip usage patents, as they have been showcased as, NOT BE JUMPED ON BY NOW?!?! THE SIMPLE FACT O MATTER, it seems to me, is "IF" VOIP cannot go fwd w/o vp patents, which is after all, what is the belief here, then MAJOR ACTION would've occurred by now. Certainly not a second longer than after they were all secured & in hand (which is what everyone here said would occur, for months on end). Do you actually believe that MS, Google & all the other myriad of big players in voip, just don't get it, or understand this? Anyone who believes that, also believes they have the time to sit around & basically twiddle their thumbs, taking their sweet time to come up with novel ideas, while the incoming & imminent asteroid is speeding this way, with a note on it that says: "yo, ya wanna see "foundational"???, just sit there & I'll show you foundational", lol.
Oh.. and if the government's & telecoms are "so scared", as you said, then why have they not acted...."in-kind" to give vplm it's due, esp all this time & vp's racking up, 1 after another, of these world changing patents??????
2 way voip has been around for 40 yrs, 10 + yrs mainstream, not just recently.. As to "foundational", foundations are built 1st, before the rest of the structure is built & lived in or used. Escapes me how an absolutely necessary "foundation" & all its necessary separate elements can be implemented 10 + yrs after the joint was already built & lived in, so to speak...or, if all it's elements have indeed "been there" and been used all along, albeit freely and openly, then 1) is that to say that all those highly technical elements were in place & were the exact same technology as voip-pal'? (or, if different, but still gets the job done, then no infringement) & 2) if #1 is the case, then it would mean that for voip to continue (unimaginably huge present & future..), vp's patents are sooo unbelievably valuable, that all this screwing around would not have been going on all this time, because this would've been irrevocably obvious to the big players (in voip) AND THE IS NO WAY IN HELL... that they would have let this go, let it slip from their fingers to someone else... NO WAY!! (regardless of their knowing that vp doesn't have enforcement $ because regardless of that fact, they would also realize that some way would eventually be found to implement enforcement, such as like I said going on 2 yrs ago, that if all true & on the up & up,
contingency (lawyers) would naturally be the way to play it). You just don't futz around w/something that big, important & imperative to the continuation of "the future of most all communication. Not buying that too thinly sliced baloney.
That would be akin to finding & confirming that a" life-changing" asteroid is headed for Earth within a relatively short period of time & the powers that be, those with the missiles and/or whatever known technology in place they had, instead of deflecting that sucker before the possible end of the world event, decided to have secret meetings & argued for months & yrs on end, about how they might stop the event from happening.
I don't get the legitimacy of:
==================
"Globalstar Inc Voip-Pal, Company OTC Pink: VPLM announced today..."
==================
or the grammar & sentence structure used in the story.
I meant to ask the question of you. What timeout are you referring to?
Thx. Seen alot of similar articles posted out there in many places. A good thing.
Why are you talking about?
Haha haha.... Dollars to donuts, it's higher than YOU RE definition of minimal... Hahaha! (he he prolly didn't want to give an EXACT FIGURE on the dilution, cuz uh.. maybe he was thinking: oh-oh, better watch what I say, these guys are sticklers on stuff like that... such as passing, non cut in stone, opinions, mentioned in CC, like the 25 bil thingy. Yeesus
Oh.. and while I'm at it.... I gotta AGREE w/last one.... PLEASE DON'T PLEASE DON'T PLEASE DON'T... and incidentally if anyone thinks 5 big ones is enough (what's that.. a 5 million bagger?) well how much would you calculate the patents will bring in TOTAL per annum for 20 yrs. C'mon.. you guys are big into speculation... So HOW MUCH???
I thought it was a "tax"
The company implied yes but minimal
Yeah I can read... You said you personally spoke w/him and you added, on his behalf, that HE WOULD SELL FOR 500 MIL, PERIOD (if that was hi bid). I don't believe he would say that but if so that would suck. You spoke for him. Ok cool
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."