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.
All this has the appearance of vplm guys trying hard to find buyers (which is a good thing) while there is little to no interest. Little to no interest, at this mature stage of the game, is very worrisome & confusing, for a suite of patents, portrayed to us as being the very control mechanism, for the future of the biggest form of communication to ever hit the street. I ask, does this make sense?
Then why are offers being made, negotiated & brokered, supposedly? Is it all a ploy... or why do the supposed suitors see value in the tech? There is obviously alot more, existing & going on, than meets the eye. Questions is whether positive or negative? It all hinges on how important, foundational & exclusive vplm patents are, which is why I keep calling for some semblance of outside, qualified, unbiased proof or at least very good indication, to validate them. And why no indication at all, after such a long time since the vplm tech was 1st introduced & since patent approvals granted, that any of the big dogs have any interest (outside of the whole MS LI thing, which may have had less obvious motivations)? Nobody seems to give much of a hoot about the vplm patents. At this stage of the game (and vplm patents are no secret by a longshot), WHY???
I also saw nothing to suggest SBC had a buyer. I posted that I thought they were basically signed up as a middleman & that maybe they had skills, etc, to be able to go forth and find/bring a potential buyer to the table, on contingency basis. I think you would have to arbitrarily fill in some blanks to conclude they already had a buyer(s) & asked to be signed to insure a fee.
I think it's a great opportunity for SBC to advance themselves if they have the ways & means to pull something off, but it does make one wonder what they have in that regard, that the BOD & the 5 or more legal firms, do not have?
One might also wonder if it is some sort of legally motivated maneuvering reasons, to sign such an agreement? I might add that the "non-exclusivity" clause, suggests they approached vplm & vplm says, "go ahead, give it your best shot".
If MS has advanced their own technology (LI), then how do we not know about it? Also, it's been bandied about here alot, that the vplm voip technology is so "foundational", that there is no way around it. At least that's what it seems we have been led to believe, no? Do you have any evidence of 'a way around vplm LI technology that MS has?
That's a very good take on this issue. What do you think Southbank can do, that such an accomplished BOD, and the 5 or more legal firms on board, cannot do?
Dunno... Current score: S&P - 250 // Fortune - 250 // vplm - fiteen cent..
"....and what has that to do with yesterday's PR about
VPLM appointing a small Aussie boutique called Southbank to..."
I don't think vplm "appointed" them to anything, but simply made an agreement w/them... which supports the notion that Southbank maybe approached vplm, with an "offer" to try their hand at making a deal happen, which vplm found acceptable. I think that makes more sense overall, than vplm reaching out to & appointing Southbank.
jmo
Could've meant that Southbank, in an enterprising bid to up their game, became aware of the whole situation & approached vplm w/the "offer" to try and promote a sale, subsequently accepted & agreed upon by vplm, no?
That sounds very possible. Thx
I have to agree that innocent misspeak, such as the billions for millions slip, are a thing, which can & does happen all the time, but non sequitur's such as this (not the only one I've seen from BOD by a longshot) are difficult to not take as either the age card (?), or, more likely, diversionary tactics. That is how it comes off to me, quite diversionary. Does this "stellar" group proofread what they print beforehand?...and then say: yup, that's exactly what I wish to say & convey. Hmmm
You keep saying your so sure about it all & don't want to beat a dead horse & can't comprehend my writing, hence won't read them.............but you keep throwing it out there to me anyway.....so i reply..
I'm sure MS could provide answers but if you consider what I've been saying overall about the highly cutthroat nature of the big dogs in this game of high finance, then I wouldn't be apt to believe a word they say.
I want the answers from neutral sources. If I think MS maybe had ulterior motives, then why would I ask THEM to answer why they did this, that or the other? Doesn't make sense to ask them.
I simply question the reasons they did or didn't do certain things, in the context of your whole platform of: 'if MS tried to get similar patent for 5 yrs, then that is empirical proof of the veracity of the vplm technology. I say no, no it isn't, not because I'm some conspiracy theorist, but because many facts don't appear to add up. I'm not contending that vplm was "smarter" than MS. Not saying that at all. I was simply being logical about your point-by-point contentions that MS was so smart.
You said that, not me. I only countered; ok, if they were so smart then why they do or don't do this or that, to support your contentions? But now you concede they WEREN'T so smart (after you just said they WERE...).
But that's not what I'm trying to say. I don't have any final conclusion cuz I don't have enough answers to support final conclusions. Obviously digifonica had some genius minds that saw the need & the future & developed a patent foundation to support voip. It would seem they were true visionaries. I think that they partnered up with vplm, because they needed help to keep the quest going.
That's my general belief. But I also know that when human beings know they have something huge, that is potentially major powerful, they often get wacky in their judgement & plans going fwd, depending on who is steering things.
To me, it was more of digifonica merging w/vplm than vplm grabbing digifonica & it seems a great thing THAT occurred. At that point in time, my DD tells me that the need for LI was already well-known & established. At least I think it was. If so, where the hell was MS? (don't they have a cutting edge crack team?).
Is it the case then, that MS never made any move to develop their own LI until 2 yrs after some pipsqueak pink w/no $ & no income & no brick & mortar, has applied for the patents? And since their legal team (MS) would have done exhaustive prior art searches before making their own application, then they wouldn't apply for essentially the same technology. That wouldn't make any sense as they would've known their application would be denied for that reason (prior art). Thus they would've had to change it alot to think it had a fighting chance to come from so far behind & win at the wire.
But all I keep hearing is that their application was essentially the same the technology. (except I think it was gt car who recently posted the figure of 75% the same as vplm. Don't know if that's true or not). If ms DID make serious changes in their own application, then why do I keep hearing that they were denied for prior art from vplm? (that implies they simply tried to copy/steal).
You can force the dots to connect, but that doesn't win the game in the end. So you're guessing "arrogance" or simply believed they (MS) had a "work around. Ok, that's plausible but it does not "strengthen the case for vplm", as you said, because it's only your guessing at MS reasons. If you connect dots via guessing you can easily wind up with a very distorted picture.
But remember, you are guessing, taking stabs at MS thought process & that is not exactly critical thinking...to reach conclusions that you say are "fact, not your opinion" & that you "have all the proof you need". Is that itself not arrogant?
I didn't say MS actions "discredited" anything. I'm only looking down various avenues to try to understand why MS messed up so badly, IF indeed they did. If you think they (MS) were not fully capable & even apt, to create a diabolical plan to usurp vplm, or, to just try to steal some credibility & gain share sales, by creating or allowing to stand, that bs story about how they had been granted the patent, then I think you sell them short.
But I must admit, at that juncture, that to try to do so, strongly implies that they (MS) MAY have believed in the value of the vplm LI technology. So maybe you are right, but I can't see it as proof tho.
As to me implying vplm hasn't talked to MS about infringement, no I'm not implying that, I'm saying simply how could MS let it go this far? Ok maybe they've "been in talks", fine & good, not saying they haven't. What I'm saying is that if MS has known the huge & unprecedented value & implications of their infringement & the value of owning the technology, how could they pussyfoot around for so long?
If what you say is the very proof of the value, then how does one of the richest entities in the world let it potentially slip thru their fingers, esp w/their reputation of going after & getting what they want, ALWAYS! ..unless maybe they have more on less assured vplm that they are gonna make a deal w/them. But, if that was the case, do you honestly think the PR's & vplm actions of last few month's sound like they contain such an unannounced possibility? Maybe so, but it sure don't sound that way to me.
Bottom line: If MS thought the vplm technology was so great, why would they copy it 2 yrs later after it was already applied for, knowing if it was the same, it would be an exercise in futility?
Your "dots" move around like a shell game.
I didn't perceive or take anything as disrespectful or aimed at me. Not in the least, nor did I think I had said anything to intimate that. I remember only saying something to the effect of how you might be having a little fun (since your chosen lawful/legal names wound up confusing me), that's all. I even added an "lol".
Incidentally, from looking at the patent action timelines you provided, it's hard to see what were the reasons for the denials (and subsequent reversal to approval) for both ms & vp, so that I could use the reasons along with the dates, to see if it supports any if my ideas or not. If that info is listed in what you posted or if you already posted something about it before, apologies, as it's hard for me to read all that's here. I really think that info might be significant or even crucial. (the reasons for the denials for both companies (as well as the reversal reason for vp).
I was referring to the revelation about the boutique company & saying it sounded to equate to the contingency aspect that I have called for, so you read that wrong. The only caveat I noted as a possibility only, was it sounds like it could result in a smaller than hoped for deal, bcuz this company doesn't sound too big time.
That is a far cry from the choice of words you use to characterize what I said. Way off... I was more on the positive side of this aspect than anything. The validation for that, is posted on this board by me, numerous times, and going way back, where I have called for some kind of contingency thing. While this is not exactly what I had in mind, it still seems to equate to that, just the same, but in a smaller way most likely.
Your assessment of "caving" shows you are not reading things right. That thought never crossed my mind as I wrote my post.
This is all great stuff. The most informative & specific to date. One thing of note, re: the part that sounded like vp 911 (but he said R&R..) is the technology he referenced is only good if the caller is home or near home, which many emergencies happen away from home & can include circumstances preventing caller from verbally giving locale. I still don't know of any element of vp911 (or rbr) that goes above & beyond conventional cellular, in terms of locating the caller, with the possible exception of automatic redialing.
Also remember that they are only going to give us the rosiest side of the picture, the grass being greener.
I said: an 'independent, unencumbered, objective, no potential conflict of interest' (paraphrasing myself, I said something to that effect..) 3rd party. I've explained possible reasons that leave MS out of that group. if you choose to believe that MS actions are pure, balanced, obvious & perfectly transparent, that's your right to think. Of course one of the biggest corps in the world would never make moves that look to be one way while actually are another thing altogether. I guess that's why they "proved" & "qualified" the patent(s) by buying the company..... oh wait, I forgot...they didn't did they?? (I know, I know, it takes time...
And no, I don't believe it's a much stronger case than what I say. I may very well be wrong about anything, but I make very good cases for what I posit. I make it a point to try to qualify every point to contend, w/o making undue leaps.
You must have missed me noting that they have at least 5 major law firms (more?) already working for them. I guess none of them are capable or qualified enough to handle the task. (what was I thinking?... of course they need some foreign boutique firm to get er done)
That's true & a good observation, as anyone who has spent a significant amt of time playing (or watching or studying) these pinky micro penny's would know. Lol, your point reminds me of those "grabber" games so often seen as soon as you walk into many restaurants & debt stores...you know...with all the bright & shiny "goodies" all piled up there on front of you, behind the big clean glass enclosure & a great big claw (that you operate so you are in control..) and it looks so easy, but just robs 99 out of a hundred of their $.
But to be fair, there must be rules against saying there were offers, if there wasn't or can't be substantiated, or is that another benefit of being pink? And at what point can they just give some sort of proof of any of these claims. Everything can't be subject to NDA's forever. am I correct, not a single specific or corroborated or documented validation of any such offers or other touts. How much & for how long is a reasonable shareholder (or prospective one) supposed to not think these things are not being hidden or fabricated?
Yes, a good idea "to sit back & think about what your saying"...
You seem to habitually try to pigeon hole all those who question or don't fully believe all the hype, or all the promise, as though they all think it's a scam. That is, after all, how you keep characterizing the differences of opinion. I, and numerous others with reasonable, intelligent doubts, and/or questions, have never called this a scam. I have also made many positive comments about various vplm elements. When I connect my dots, I try to connect them next to ea other, and not connect them by skipping over several at a time to make connects, such as stating categorically, that MS LI actions are direct & infallible proof of VP LI patent validity & value.
If you were a lawyer offering that "proof" in a court of law to a judge/jury, the opposition lawyers would tear such an assertion to shreds, imho.
If "the smart guys at MS" were so smart, why didn't they put together their own LI patent application earlier on before VP? If they were so smart, as you say (and I have no doubt how smart they are...), and as you also say, did such a top to bottom research & prior art, then how & why would they think they could do better than what eventually won a patent award? If they were so smart, why did they lose, and lose for being too late, not for better technology??
If they are so smart, and recognize(d) the vast almost unimaginable value to our LI patent (and the rest of the foundation) then why have they left themselves wide open to losing it, when they couldve EASILY bought it or the whole portfolio, ever since the USPTO told VP the patent(s) have been approved. Why?
If they are so smart, they must have therfore calculated how much their infringement is gonna cost them, especially retroactively, yet haven't put a stop to it by buying it up.
But when I taken the time to think these things thru, you shoot back: "can't comprehend anything you say (paraphrased), so I don't even read your posts, or, you need to sit back & think about what you say, etc etc, lol...
"It’s not my opinion, it’s just fact".
Sorry, but it's STILL just your opinion & always will be, until of course, future events & published facts, make it so.
Depends on "how" similar.. If very very similar, then why almost copy it 2 yrs later, knowing your likely to lose to vp prior art? If your answer is their timing attempted to take advantage of some initial vp denial by USPTO, then I'd be interested to see what the denial was for & how MS thought they could best that fault, because I thought it was a simple clerical thing that was taken care of in fairly short order. If so, how would MS figure they could win the grant in spite of VP? Unless they had some other ideas maybe...such as seeing to it (at least not squashing it) that it looked like VP was being shot down with all those articles (or based on one article?) ubiquitously spread all over the net, stating (lying) that the patent was theirs (MS) & they had won it. I repeat, to my knowledge, MS did nothing to refute this blatant lie. Think about it...
If, on the other hand, MS LI application was much much different, and not a rip-off attempt of VP technology, then why were they denied for reasons of prior art? It just doesn't add up for me. To me, most likely they knew they had been beaten to it all along & simply tried to take advantage of VP & steal some of their thunder, and gain some stock sales with that big widely circulated false story about them being awarded the coveted patent for LI.
I think it's plausible, unless MS tried to steal the patent at the exact time & based only upon seeing the VP temporary denial by USPTO. Outside of that, where was MS in 2007 or earlier, with regard to LI?
This ties together by the apparent fact that MS, after finding out that patent was going to be awarded to VP, has not made the move to buy it before losing it to someone else. Maybe they have, but there's no indication that is the case and how long has it been now? For this reason alone, my theory is not too much if a stretch.
And a small last supporting fact... Why did MS just give up what is SUPPOSED TO BE such a great 5 yr long fight, before their denial was finalized? If they were trying to snatch some possible fumble from the arms of VP all along, they why not simply play it out to the final end, in case of such a unexpected fumble? And why didn't they, at that point then, just make VP an offer they'd be hard pressed to refuse & just end it?
So I think this makes a case for the possibility that they never really put much faith in the VP LI technology in the 1st place. Hence not proof of VP LI patent value vicariously thru MS.
Why do they need them? Don't the patents "speak for themselves" (for years now...) and for and thru the 5 (more?) major legal firms we gotz? Does there not seem to be some wacky & questionable, somewhat unorthodox twists & turns to this story? (or am I just "over thinking" again...?
Sounds to me very much like the contingency plan I thought should happen........EXCEPT.......this "sounds like" on a much smaller level.....compared to what we are hoping for & expect.... thus worrisome. I hope it pans to be better than nothing..
Something tells me that won't be found...
Hard to argue w/that logic (but I hope they try)
Company Byline: "What's in YOUR pouch, mate? (lol)
Probably as typical as it's horrible to investors, and I don't put anything past anyone when it comes to money, but in fairness & balance, it seems ludicrous that BOD with such high & prestigious profile (despite some of the "ground clutter") would be so stupid as to basically walk right up to the man, and say here i am, lock me up & toss key.
On the other hand, my example of a 50 yr company that turned scammy, went under and nailed the well respected ceo (for decades), showed (and enables scammers) that "not to worry" too much, as he was only given a "token gesture" fine of about $75k, a virtual drop in the bucket, compared to the losses of roughly $200 mil or possibly much more.
Bottom line, sec appears as a paper tiger, yes/no?
...maybe they only go where "the weather suits their clothes"...
So this equates the USPTO folks with which... the 3 stooges or the keystone Kops? In other words, your saying they couldn't recognize the different between something made for voip & something made for a line phone system? Like the difference between wiretapping & diverting an Internet voice stream? Doesn't the opening lines of the patent describe a system to record voice over the Internet? Round hole / square peg? The scary part is I think you might actually be serious. I better go back & get some real sleep... (incidentally, if you ARE serious, don't be offended by my assessment of this. If you are serious, hell, it wasn't you that did what you ascribe. Omg... I remember maybe last week, asking the question, once a patent was issued, how much does that really technically validate it? I don't remember the exact reply I got, but I do remember it spoke some degree to certain protocols which were not as much technically scrutinizing, as much as things filled out properly & no prior art found, or something like that... Now, with this revelation, if seriously true, I think back to all the posters here who said, in effect, hey...it (the patents) was awarded the patents from this esteemed & prestigious gov agency so isn't that gonna tell you something.....and now, with this news, I think I'll heretofore think of the USPTO as being on par with er, ah, the better business Bureau. Zzz_zzzzzzzzz
If you mean that seriously, I am flabbergasted at the notion and irony that such a technically moded agency as USPTO, would have or could have, denied voip patents because they simply, lol lol lol didn't notice that all that crap in the patent architecture was for (oops) voip, not legacy. Are you kidding me. You ARE funnin me right?
I must have read you wrong. No way you said that. Let me get some sleep & then look at that again...
Lemme say this about that.... (the link)
I have seen and attempted to read & wrap my head around some significant portion of that several times past. My take: no one could understand most of it or even be able to read it w/o wanting to hurt themselves... unless they were a genius/idiot sevant, w/photographic memory, on heavy dose of meth & offered large amts of money & their wife/husband left them..... OR..... a patent attorney (possible the same thing??).
I'm not sure if you seriously think I could find the answers with which to make a reasonable comparison of the 2 patents (lawful & legal). Even when I can grasp some small part of it, the sheer volume crushes any hope of putting enough of it together to make any serious sense out of it. It's worse than "legal-ease"..there ain't nothin ease about it. So I wonder if you having a little chuckle at my expense? Lol... if so, please do..!
Besides comparing the dates of applications, denials & approval, which I thought might help me see how things jived, yes, I'd love to be able to see just how similar or dissimilar the 2 LI applications are, techno wise, but heck, that's just too much to deal with. Within 5 minutes of trying to get even a small grip on finding what it would take to make any comparison, I want to close my eyes or run.
So I would like to know how anyone who has deemed the MS technology to be so similar, did so? What kind of jury could ever sit thru & sift thru such a morass of lines, abstract facts & figures, and such a proprietary set of terms & meanings..
No on 2nd thought, I don't wanna know. Not personally. I just want some 3rd party expert(s) to verify or deny the 2 LI inventions are essentially the same. That's all. Maybe it's asking too much...
Does that mean your "lowered the bar"?
Ha! I wasn't trying to, nor think I did, catch you in anything... I was convinced that you gave me the straight into & that I must've just been mistaken (re: the lawful/legal naming). But I was slightly perplexed because I have seen the names written so many times, I was pretty sure the vp label was "lawful". So your info was so promptly served up & looking all complete, lol, that you convinced me I had the names mixed up.... but (ahem) NOW I'm really messed up, to find I was right after all, lol. (I think?)
I didn't notice that you wrote "legal" for ea case & in parenthesis. So if u were having fun w/me & trying to get me all mixed up, you done good. But more likely I'm thinking you were trying to make some other point, in fact making light of "something"... just not sure "what"? Something tells me it's related to MS choice of patent name, in terms of "transparently copying" vp name & technology?? I'd like to hear your explanation of it.
The upshot is now I'll never be able to tell which one is which... but thanks for the uspto info & your added info. I have yet to be able to read it. I just thought it a reasonable idea to to investigate possible ulterior motives by MS (what a concept, nahhh). These sets of dates should help me determine if there is anything to my ideas.
Ok gt, I am just seeing this now after my posts. Thankyou for that & also posting same for ms. Hope it wasn't too much trouble.
Now I'm thinking I was wrong & that this is indeed the one for vplm, because I see the denial in June & then I see the allowance in Mar '13 so I must've been confused. Do you know what was the reason for the initial denial & what changed it to approval?
Wait a minute... This starts 2009 & is called legal intercept. Isn't that the ms patent bid? I thought vp was from 2007 & called lawful intercept? (I know that not all of vp patent applications began as early as 07, but isn't this for MS? Sorry for my confusion. I'll try to figure out whose application this is but I wanted to know about the vp denials that was posted about here. Both are actually good info to have. I just want to see if the dates of these events support or deny my theories on alternative explanations for MS actions. This listing you provided seems like the ms denial process. I appreciate having that as well (if I'm correct). Can you also post the listing for vp denials, as has been said here to have occurred. Or direct me on how to find it.
Thanx
Thanx GT, for your trouble. I couldn't find it. Either I used the wrong search terms or its so hard to know how to navigate USPTO. I will look this over. This is vp denials not ms, right? (maybe I can tell by looking over). Thanks again.
Agreed. I just got through making that same point in my last post & had not yet seen yours here, so thanks for msking it before me (now it looks like I stole the idea, lol). Actually, in my version, I pointed out that I would've expected a pretty hefty grab attempt by MS after their denial, and that must be more than 3 mos ago isn't it? I was thinking in terms of way back to vp initial approval, (LI) whenever that occurred & then ms keeps on trying for awhile in spite?... and then finally gives up (w/o totally exhausting the attempts..) and event that seems like more than 3 mos ago, but it was SO IMPORTANT, MUST HAVE to them (LI) so where are they now.....??.... whaa happened?......what stopped them from getting froggy with their gazillions of $ and simply making an irrefusable offer and snatching that bad boy up??? How could they AFFORD to let it slip thru their grubby (I mean grabby) fingers. How??? They own skype. How much will the infringement amt to?? How can they let it go? Surely they don't think they can get away w/the infringement for ever??
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE PEOPLE? W
"all 5 patents denied".....
So they say... maybe, maybe not. I fried to find that info before i posted my theory. I could not find such info. Maybe I didn't know where to look, but I tried until I was tired of looking for it. So kindly give link to the info for when & why the 5 patents denied. Actually tho, this has been about LI, so all I need to see in terms of that is the LI denial (but I would like to see the info for the other 4 denials also). This should be easy for you, as I can see how certain you are about the fact, therefore you must have found the bona-fide info for it. I really did try, last week.
If u can show that is what happened, then yes, it would go some distance towards providing a possible explanations for msofts action that I brought into question. But, it depends also on the dates of actions for both vp & ms. And if I'm not mistaken, it seems almost as tho ms kept trying even after vp rcvd initial approval for LI.
"Why did ms hired digif guys?"...
I don't know, did they for a fact. Proof? Links?
And if it is true then, as you say, that MS gave up shortly after vp approval, then I must ask... let's see... how long ago was that since the initial approval from USPTO? That's quite awhile ago, isn't it? If it was AS IMPERATIVE, as the picture you paint, for MS to get the patent, then explain to me why they apparently haven't "done what they had to do" since then and leaped??? What would've say a $2 bil offer been to them w/their money? And you think we would have caught some kind of wind of that by now? I don't think so, but then again, you wouldn't know bcuz my English, grammar, sentence structure, spelling & general ability to articulate, is, according to you, so poor that you don't even read what I say, because you cannot understand it. Sorry, I try hard.
It's awfully difficult to compare the 2 patent applications. But what was the reason USPTO gave to deny MS a grant? I thought it was bcuz of vp prior art? If so, doesn't that somewhat imply same technology, bcuz if different essentially, the would the USPTO denial be for different reasons?
It's awfully difficult to compare the 2 patent applications. But what was the reason USPTO gave to deny MS a grant? I thought it was bcuz of vp prior art? If so, doesn't that somewhat imply same technology, bcuz if different essentially, the would the USPTO denial be for different reasons?
MS "throwing in towel" does not prove the validity. That's why I provided a logical alternative set of possible set of reasons for ms actions. The dots were more connected in that theory, than the vast chasm that needs to be jumped to conclude that MS failing to meet deadline to continue its quest, directly equates to proof of validity of vp LI being a hugely valuable & foundational voip patent.
That's a big shark jump. If you choose to see that fact as proof of this, it is only your opinion, not proof of anything. Why don't you attempt to answer the question of why MS initiated this quest in the 1st place, 2 yrs later, and after their world class patent attorney team ignored their fruitless prior art search? Isn't that a good question?