RMCI back on the ask to cram down the price further, at .004.

You are referring to Doctrine of Equivalents, not Literal Infringement.

http://www.intellectual.com/infringement.htm

This provides a basic summary of the constituent elements of determining infringement.

But did we have 30 million shares trade, which would be the equivalent at .012-.015 of 100 million at .004-.005.

I have read them, but you clearly do not understand the legal aspects of patent law and the significance of relevant terminology, and you apparently think that people can bandy about various terms to suggest a legal significance just because they support the company or are the CEO of the company. When you read enough about patent law, come back and maybe we can talk when you sufficiently demonstrate your grasp of the law.

What caused the volume increase was the PPS, which allows a buyer to get 5 times as much today as s/he could have gotten just a few months ago.

Who cares what the CEO says about that. Just because the CEO calls it a sub-set does NOT make it so. I am done debating with you about this point.

The bottom apparently keeps getting lowered, unfortunately.

Make no mistake, though, that writer most likely is NOT aware of ONEV's patent(s) and most likely does NOT know that the initial applications by Google were rejected until they narrowed their patent. Further, your claim and suggestion that Google has its own patented "technology" is not proven. At THIS point, all we know is that Google has its own PATENT, which contains claims for intellectual property. Google's eventual technology is not yet available, so we do not know at this time whether, in fact, Google DOES have its very own patented "technology." Again, time will tell. Having a patent is not necessarily the same as having the actual technology.

The fact remains that Google's patent is NOT a "sub-set" of ONEV's patent.

I know what his words were, but those words were a clumsy choice, because it simply is not true.

They do NOT own a sub-set of ONEV's patents. That is an INCORRECT claim. If it WERE a sub-set, then a resulting product AUTOMATICALLY would infringe (that's what a "sub-set" is). In reality, however, what Google holds is a NARROWER SET OF CLAIMS. Whether the resulting Google VR will infringe on ONEV's patent(s) is not a foregone conclusion, and time will tell. If Google's claims simple WERE a "sub-set" of ONEV's claims, then the patent application would have been rejected. The patent office, however, determined that Google had INVENTED something DIFFERENT from the claims contained in ONEV's patent(s). Whether Google will be able to develop a product that implements the Google patent claims without infringing on ONEV's broader claims will be an interesting bit of intellectual property analysis.

Whether Google comes out with Google voice does NOT mean that there won't be potential patent issues. Regardless of whether Google has its own patent for a NARROWER set of claims, the ultimate question will be whether the resulting Google VR infringes on ONEV's patent(s), the claims of which are BROADER than the Google patent's claims and, thus, cover a greater scope than Google's. The fact is that Google had to narrow and hone its claims in order to avoid a finding of non-patentability; that fact, however, has little bearing on whether a Google VR will infringe on ONEV's patent(s). For that, we simply have to wait and see.

I meant 400 million, not thousand. My bad.

That wasn't my point; someone said there are almost 500 million shares available, and that isn't the case.

Someone said there are 976 million outstanding as of Friday; that leaves fewer than 400 thousand remaining in the current A/S.

would have been nice, but instead we have another gap...Ugghhhh

as I look at the chart, actually, it looks like that .0042 trade at the end of the day filled yesterday's gap. So, from a technical standpoint, it could make sense to manipulate it that way if the direction desired is up.

What a BS trade at 3:51!

The iPhone is about having an application available at the Apple iPhone app store.

No, they are not over thirty years; that simply is an absurd reading of the provision. They are issued one million at a time, and when each million is reported sold, in accordance with the volume restrictions, then the next one million is released. If you don't believe me, inquire of Dean directly, and I am sure he will back my view, not yours.

Well, based on your scenario, they would have to be part of the deal because of the following: 1) starting on 8/23/08, they get 1 million shares to start liquidating toward their remaining amount due, with the continuing onslaught of 1 million shares continually becoming available to LJC to sell into the market, 2) Alpha gets the right to buy any remaining amounts after LJC sales have netted them their remaining $208K and 3) Alpha has the right to PAY LJC the $208K and then buy the 30 million escrow shares at a discount to the market. Do you think that the investors will allow that if they are buying everything else held by Alpha???? Wouldn't make sense on your theory.

Yeah, I think that the warrants are the wildcard as to whether they would be part of the discussions or not.

BTW, I also would like to know whether the LJC escrow shares (and, thus, the amount owed to LJC) will be part of the new investors' deal? From the SEC filings, for refresher:

"On August 23, 2007, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with La Jolla Cove Investors, Inc. ("LJCI") pursuant to which we agreed with LJCI to forever settle, resolve and dispose of all claims, demands and causes of action asserted, existing or claimed to exist between the parties because of or in any way related to a legal proceeding in the San Diego County Superior Court (the "Court") entitled La Jolla Cove Investors, Inc. vs. One Voice Technologies, Inc., Case No. GIC850038 (the "Action") for a total amount owed of $408,594.48 (the "Owed Amount"). Under the Settlement Agreement dated August 23, 2007, the parties reached a final resolution with respect to such Owed Amount whereby (i) LJCI shall receive $200,000 within 15 days of the date of the Agreement and (ii) the difference between the Owed Amount and $200,000 shall be payable at a later date (the "Remaining Owed Amount"). The payment of the Remaining Owed Amount shall be made to LJCI in the following manner:

o Concurrently with the execution of the Agreement, the Company shall transfer to an independent escrow agent, on behalf of LJCI, all right, title and interest to 30,000,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company (the "Escrow Shares"), issued in 30 increments of 1,000,000 shares. On the one year anniversary of the Agreement, 1,000,000 Escrow Shares shall be released to LJCI whereby LJCI shall be able to sell such shares in open market transactions provided such sales do not exceed more than 14% of the corresponding daily volume of such shares on the trading market on which the Company's securities are sold. LJCI shall continue to receive the Escrow Shares, provided they satisfy the volume limitation set forth above and LJCI's ownership of the Company's common stock does not exceed 4.99% of the Company's then issued and outstanding shares of common stock, until the Remaining Owed Amount is satisfied;

o Upon notice from LJCI that the Remaining Owed Amount has been satisfied by the sale of the Escrow Shares either (i) Alpha Capital Ansalt ("Alpha") shall have the ability within 15 business days to purchase any remaining Escrow Shares at a 20% discount to the current market price of the shares or (ii) if Alpha does not exercise its right to purchase the shares, the Company shall have the ability to redeem the remaining Escrow Shares within 5 business days.

o At anytime while the Remaining Owed Amount is outstanding, the Company or Alpha may pay in cash to LJCI an amount equal to the Remaining Owed Amount and either (i) Alpha shall have the ability within 15 business days to purchase any remaining Escrow Shares at a 20% discount to the current market price of the shares or (ii) if Alpha does not exercise its right to purchase the shares, the Company shall have the ability to redeem the remaining Escrow Shares within 5 business days."

In

Buying the convertible debt is tantamount to buying the shares that I think are being referenced. I don't think that anyone has indicated directly, other than speculation of the new investors buying on the open market, that the new investors are buying the stock held by the old investors.

There is no reason to buy shares on the open market. The investment they are making is in buying the debt, and to get a buttload of restricted shares in exchange. If they have ADDITIONAL money they want to invest, I suppose they could buy on the open market, but if the investment is going to be large enough to buy up the outstanding debt AND to fund major developments going forward until operational breakeven, then we are talking about, IMHO, an investment closer to $5-7 million, and I doubt they would be pouring more money into the open market. They will get their restricted shares plus warrants low enough to be enough.

Why would the new investors buy now on the open market? They're getting restricted stock; there is no REASON for them to buy. I don't think they are buying at all.

RMCI again trouncing the stock. The fours are holding with three MMs, and we don't know the extent of the buys for them. In any event, barring news today or tomorrow, the threes will settle in here as the price, IMHO. Sad, sad state of affairs for us ONEV holders, and the conversion amounts for the outstanding and due debt increases!!!

"Again I would ask what the pps should be at..with a company that is debt free..capitalized with cash in hand with these contracts?? "

That all depends on the structure of the deal, and we don't know that yet, so there is still A LOT of uncertainty there, and the market will react accordingly, IMO, until the structure of the deal is clearer.

It's not working currently. All that it is, though, is the MV sign-in page. The point that Dean was making, though, is that it's on MTNL's system, and not just limited to ONEV's system. It is operational, in other words, from MTNL's side of things.

Unfortunately, nothing on that call will help the price one bit right now...uugggghhhh....to the threes we go...

On the pipeline, I omitted that because it really doesn't say anything, given the specific way he phrased it. As for the Google "subset" remark, that has been discussed here ad nauseum recently.

No, he said he doesn't know the deal structure yet, and couldn't talk about specifics of it. I agree there was a BIT of uncertainty in the way it was answered, and I think that the follow-up question to Dean is how will the new investors dilute current shareholders.

The other unanswered (and unasked) question about the investors is how can they buy out the current investors on the loan, when the loan is convertible AT THE OPTION OF THE CURRENT INVESTORS??? The incentive to the current investors will have to be pretty high.

Also, no question, unfortunately, about the causes of the current decline, and whether Dean has had discussions with the toxics about their dumping of shares.

Conference Highlights:

1. Telnor/Telmex:

- Launched to Telnor in Oct of 2007; Telnor is typically used as an initial launching pad before to all of Telmex.

- Proposals to Telmex in June for launch to certain areas.

- Met last week with Telmex - met with residential, small/medium business, public telephony, and yellow pages

- Business models completed by Telmex based on Telnor experience

- Residential gave go-ahead for launch, and waiting now for counterproposal. Said they will launch NATIONALLY, including with new features that can't yet be discussed.

- S/M biz said launch by end of third quarter this year, and waiting for counterproposal.

- Additional equipment installed in Telnor

- Yellow pages signed a letter of intent, and milestones and goals set for ONEV to progress through

- Proposed two different revenue deals to Telmex and waiting for Telmex response, which is anticipated within "next two weeks"

2. India

- Equipment installed and set up and running

- Expects MTNL testing period to be vigorous

http://mobilevoice.mtnldelhi.in

- Rollout and launch will be up to MTNL

- Revenue expectation will be operationally breakeven

3. Other Telecom Carriers

- Talking to a US-based carrier, 10 million, prepaid (i.e., Tracfone)

- Launching e-mail by phone

- Launching other services

- 1-2 days from letter of intent with carrier

- Launch time expected to be much faster, as a US carrier

- Revenue generation will be very good for company

4. MCC-related products

- Voice Tunes is a spin-off from MCC, at a good price point (killer application, says Dean)

- S2P is in beta

- Streetdeck beta

5. Embedded/MIDs

- MOU with Intel led to MID opportunities

- Invited to present with Intel, no payment by ONEV for that exposure

- One of their largest OEMs launching MIDs has been working with ONEV to embed its VR, with 4th quarter launch expected

- Expect that the success of the big OEM will lead to other MID opportunities


6. Investors

- "Strategic" investors in areas of interest to ONEV

- Initially was $1.5, and now they are looking to buy out current investors to enable ONEV to reach its success

- Daily contact with investors, and working on the changing deal structure

7. 2008 Expectations

- Launch of S/M biz to Telmex; hopefully residential, too

- Launch of yellow pages to Telmex hoped for

- Launch of MTNL

- Launch to Tracfone

- Launch for MID

- Wrap up funding to enable company to shoot to new levels

8. Shareholder questions

Cassius: Will Telmex acknowledge ONEV publicly? Not typically their nature to do that. Would be nice for ONEV, but not sure it will happen. IRIS as a brand may not exist, either. Telnor hasn't been advertising IRIS because of the reorganization and eventual national launch.

Bob: Justify commission? "Standard" compensation with some dancing about explanation.

Thomas: 50 million share payment from April? With the current investors. It was granted to them in consideration of their activity with ONEV and the expenses involved.

Orv: Revenues through 2008 sufficient to avoid higher A/S? ONEV continuing to go to investors for money, and why new investors being brought in, with better deal structure for company. With the launches, ONEV should be at a point to sustain itself "shortly", and strategic investors intended to grow company. NOT looking to increase number of authorized shares.

Tim: Longtime shareholders wiped out practically with price at .004, so what will Company do to help those longtime existing shareholders? Dean feels our pain, and sees it everyday. The new investors, including some from telecom industry, can't be a bad thing. Talked about Tellme and Google, too, in this answer. Thinks market cap is out of whack, and ALL shareholders will benefit. Thanks all the longtime shareholders, but best path is to get new investors to get rid of convertibles.

Leillanie(sp?): New investor role? They will come in to take out the current INVESTORS, not the shareholders. These new investors are what is needed to instill confidence in potential customers.

Troyan: R/S? No reverse split.

John: Retail products effect on revs? Business model is positive but smaller than on the telco side.

Rodney: New investors going to cause new share structure that hurts current shareholders? Can't comment on the deal, but it will be better than current situation with short-term investors putting shares back into market. Couldn't comment anymore specifically, but will be much more beneficial.

Don: Again, on effect of investors on current shareholders. Dean reiterates that they investors are coming in to be REAL investors. Replace debt with structure beneficial to company, get rid of going concern, etc.

9. Closing remarks

Dean thanks all shareholders for their continued support. Wishes they could be in the meetings with the customers. Deals are materializing for company. Products are being launched.

replay of call till august 30: 1-800-642-1687

That is not true. There is nothing that prohibits them from announcing a contract in a publicly-available and accessible CC.

Then you're as much, nay, more, of a loser than those here whom you castigate, as you have believed all along that the price would get here, but still you kept your shares. Talk about foolhardy!! If anyone deserves to lose his/her money, it's you!!!!

And you claim that you have held your shares throughout this descent, too??? As such, how can you call anyone else here a loser??? I told you to sell at prices 4x higher than current prices, yet you held???? HA!!

We have no idea what the largest shareholders are thinking, because they have failed to filed their Form 13s for more than 2 years!!!

EVerything with you and ONEV is soon; unfortunately, the reality over the last two years quite often has been that soon is more than a year down the road or doesn't even happen. You have been saying "soon" for the licensing with Telmex for more than six months. News flash, to me, six months for negotiation of a contract is not "soon"; especially when one considers that they have been negotiating with Telmex for several months before the last six, such that all the metrics necessary for coming up with a final contract already should be understood and in place. AJIMHO.

PS You DO realize that we now are down, with the .0042 closing bid yesterday, more than 90% from last Spring??? Oh, and that .0042 now is 1/3 of the amount used to calculate conversion prices for the next 30 days, on which basis, if another two happen at that price, or even slightly higher, toxics funders will be converting their debt at .0034 or so. Soon simply can't be soon enough for investors like me and so many others here who have averages substantially higher than the current prices!

ONEV might not be as bad off as some think; but that doesn't equate directly with whether SHAREHOLDERS are getting shafted, or will be shafted, given the continued delays in any substantial revenue improvements.

ONEV's response to the USPTO's non-final rejection was forwarded to the examiner on Friday, July 11, 2008, according to the transaction history for the patent application, FYI.

I think that you make a good point, and perhaps you should send Adam a suggestion to update the presentation so that it is devoid of those unprofessional aspects. You are a shareholder, so you have a direct interest in making suggestions to those who can effectuate a positive change for the Company's outward presence to its prospective customers/investors.

afitch@onev.com is his e-mail, I believe.