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.
Hold everything! I think I see it. The following analysis is my best guess at what is happening. Notice, the judge did NOT say "case dismissed". He said "jury trial cancelled". This likely means that a trial by jury is no longer necessary to determine whether or not the defendants are guilty of infringement. The judge must be convinced of the guilt (or innocence) of the defendants, and thus sees no point in continuing with a jury trial. All we know for sure is that a jury trial is off the table. The judge could render a verdict in the absence of a jury. Also, I do not believe that a jury is necessary in order for the judge to impose treble damages. I think that the selling today was a kneejerk reaction by people who were reading a certain interpretation into today's information. It would be helpful if VP would put out an official explanation to clear the air. GLTA.
Thanks, GBC. I believe that whenever a judge dismisses a case, it is either done with or without prejudice. The language used here is different, and must mean something. We need an explanation from VP's management, or from VP's investor relations ASAP to clarify the many questions that remain unanswered.
Applying logic, since we do not yet know the facts, if Judge Albright wrote or said, in effect, that the trials “have been cancelled until further order of the court,” by inference, would this not suggest that upon further notice of the court these trials CAN be resumed? This does NOT seem, in my opinion, like a blanket dismissal with prejudice (which would have meant that these cases could not be brought back to trial). I could be wrong, however, the language chosen by the judge would suggest that these cases have been placed on hold, pending possible out of court settlement talks. It would also depend on who is requesting that the cases be cancelled. One observation I would make is this: If Judge Albright discovered during the pre-trial pleadings that, VP had no valid claims of infringement, would he have said "cases cancelled until further notice", or would he not have said, "cases dismissed with prejudice." We also know that there were no "Alice" issues in these cases, so wouldn't it have been up to the jury to decide if the defendants were guilty of infringement? Would a judge preempt the trial at this point, playing the role of the jury? One final thought is that if Judge Albright cancelled these cases on July 9, the selling reaction would have occurred before today.
I see. Mankind, you do seem to have an expertise in this area. I do note that in my brokerage account, there is a footnote next to the price of HDVY stock which says in effect, that the price listed is not necessarily the actual price. So even though the price we see is near zero, that doesn't mean that the price paid by broker-dealers is so cheap. If I were to place a buy order, not knowing the real price, it may never get filled, as the public cannot view the actual price. I agree that this is not just disgusting, but anti-competitive under the guise of protecting investors. Look, a simple disclaimer like "buy at your own risk", or "buyer beware" would have been sufficient to protect investors, if that's really all that they were trying to do.
You bring a very interesting point of view to the table, mankind. Once we learn that HDC has a viable business plan with a growing roster of licensees, it would not be surprising to see institutional investors and HNW individuals take an interest. At near zero, someone of modest means could easily afford to buy all of the available outstanding shares. Then, if HDC were to ever introduce a new diagnostic test using SVM-RFE, that would be a game changer. Welome aboard!
Ou71764, my hunch is that Dr. Hauser is working as we speak to complete the necessary steps to get HDVY relisted on the OTC market. When that day arrives, there should be ample opportunity for investors to add more. A lot will depend on Dr. Hauser's vision for the company, so I am eager to hear what he has to say. Good luck to you, and to all patient longs!
I concur with all of your observations and conclusions, ou71764. A formal communication to shareholders from Dr. Hauser will probably answer a lot of our questions. But already, our despair has turned into hope.
Correction: I mistakenly attributed a quote to Zenos in post 18362. That quote was actually from YankeesFanInOhio from the yahoo board. My apologies.
Yes, I believe that we are entitled to know the facts surrounding HDC's sudden, inexplicable withdrawal of its presumably winnable case against Intel, and settling out of court for such a paltry sum. Were the alleged damages not provable? Were the provable damages not great enough to justify a continuation of the case? What is the answer?
Yes, Dr. Hauser must be looking at a clear pathway to make HDC profitable. Otherwise, why accept a performance based position from a company whose stock is virtually worthless?
I think that my point could be made clearer if I rephrased it. First, the idea that HDC lawyers could have claimed lost licensing revenue as part of the damages they were seeking from Intel is now a pointless argument to make, as HDC withdrew and the case was dismissed with prejudice. However, a compelling argument could be made with the USPTO that, even though HDC ostensibly owned the patents to SVM-RFE the whole time, they were not free to monetize it through licensing, because this ownership was tied up in dispute with Intel. Afterall, what company would have forked out money to HDC for a license, when it was not clear who the real owner was? Also, and I think that Zenos made this point, even if the patent is set to expire next year, infringing companies (and there are many) could be compelled to pay licensing fees to HDC for all of the prior years of infringement and up to the date of patent expiration in 2025. The fact that Intel settled is a testament to the validity of HDC's claim of exclusive rights, which could be used as leverage in compelling other infringers to pay up or be sued. We do not know at this point what Dr. Hauser's gameplan is for HDC, which could include not only signing licensing deals (creating a revenue stream), getting HDC compliant with the IRS and SEC (which is a pathway to being relisted on the OTC), but potentially developing new diagnostic tests using SVM-RFE (after all, this is within his area of expertise). I remain very hopeful and now see and agree with Mr. Fromholzer's parting words that HDC has a bright future in the field of AI and medical diagnostics. Not since Dr. Barnhill, has HDC had a CEO who was also an expert in this field.
Yes, I believe that we have one, which is the most important one covering SVM-RFE. I think that a good case could be made with the USPTO to extend the expiration date of this patent because HDC was denied effective use to license the technology during the period of years when the ownership was in dispute with Intel. Eventually, HDC prevailed and the exclusive rights to SVM-RFE technology were awarded to HDC. Incidentally, these lost licensing revenues could have been claimed as incidental/comsequential amages in HDC's lawsuit against Intel, which, alone, could have exceeded the announced settlement amount. IMHO.
Yes, Butters, and I will go one step further and assert that UNTIL there is a court win, no formal or legal proof of any infringement would exist. There would only be allegations and assertions by the abused party, which would do little to enhance the value of VP's IP, and provide less in terms of leverage in negotiating future settlements. Nothing could enhance the market value of VP's IP like a jury verdict finding in favor of Voip-Pal. Even an award in the millions (if not billions) would say to the other infringers that VP is a force to be reckoned with. Thus, it stands to reason that I am hoping VP's leadership will see this very strong and winnable case through to a trial next month.
JMHO.
Profit, I appreciate all of the thought you put into your post. You may even be correct, as I have no hard data to rebut your opinion piece. I will admit that it is frustrating to be this close to the climax of something long hoped for, and yet see the share price languish as it has done. Still, I remain guardedly optimistic that VPLM shareholders will be rewarded for their patience. We are just one major announcement away from transforming everyones' doubts into elation. I have seen this stock skyrocket on positive news before, and it can happen again! GLTA.
If you read the 8-k filing carefully, you would see that Dr. Hauser's first priority for HDC is to become SEC compliant. Of course, this is the pathway back to the OTC and retail trading of the stock.
Also, gleaned from the filing is that Dr. Hauser's salary contains a performance based incentive in the form of HDVY shares.
We are not privy to the exact terms of the settlement as it was negotiated out of court.
Perhaps you may recall that there was a settlement with Intel?
It's alive! 😊
Thanks Zenos! This is fantastic news!
I don't think so, but we are long overdue for an update. Let's wait and see if we get a farewell message, or a lifeline.
Rapz, thank you for your astute summary of the evolution of telecommunications technology, showing the crucial role played by Voip-Pal's patented technology in today's market.
It would so appear that all of the major players are using VP's patented technology without a license, which means that they are infringing.
I don't know just how VP will play their hand in these pending court cases, but I agree with you that getting a court verdict in VP's favor would do more to establish the true market valuation of VP's IP than would any other option. It would also appear that VP's leadership knows this and is already looking ahead at a possible appeal, based on their recent addition of Mr. Leon to the team. Whether it's a buyout, settlement, or court victory, VP has never been in a more favorable position to monetize its IP than it is in right now.
Zenos, your post was a pleasure to read.
You may very well be correct, Locwolf. Who am I to say? However, as I have said before, time will tell.
I tend to agree with you that George would not have settled for such a low sum. Remember, he extracted over $6 million from Neogenomics for far less infringement (ostensibly). However, it is still not a foregone conclusion that we will never recoup any of our investment. JMHO.
You raise some good points, and I wish I had some better answers, however, we are not privy to what goes on behind closed doors in these cases. There is a reason for this delay, even if we do not know what that reason is. You are correct that a looming trial date could prove to be a huge catalyst to motivate the defendant to the negotiating table. As curious as it may seem, I still do not read any negative connotations, meanings or interpretations into this apparent delay. As I see it, VP has the goods and they have never been in a better position to monetize their IP.
Digdeeper17, I really wouldn't know beyond what I have already said. However, I do recall one item from HDC's rebuttal to certain Vennwest assertions in that court case (after it was re-started), a statement to the effect that Mr. McGovern could have claimed private ownership of the patents (meaning that he had the right), but instead loaned his money to HDC. One could assume that this was to avoid hurting the shareholders. If Colleen and Ed follow in George's footsteps, it could then be assumed that they would want to protect the shareholders (many of whom are family and friends).
Regardless, I was aware of a certain danger of HDC's IP falling into private hands in the event of a worst case scenario, but I don't think that we are there yet.
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
Yes, VVVVVV, that is an interesting question. If I had to speculate, I would say that, since Amazon has already settled with VP in an earlier (smaller) case, they may still be negotiating with VP to settle the '606 case out of court, although this would be a much larger settlement. Of course, I would have no way of confirming this but it does seem logical, and could explain why we haven't seen a trial date yet. JMHO.
Keepmecloser, you pose an interesting perspective, however, it falls on its face in view of the facts. I can assure you that I have never been paid to write what I write. In fact, I could not be hired to write anything that I do not believe. I am a retail shareholder with 1,000,000 shares presently, and I am above water with VPLM. I wish I had more shares. You make the VPLM team sound like gangsters, however, 38 out of 38 IPR wins makes this a legitimate investment. A scam company may be able to fool some of the shareholders some of the time, but there is absolutely no way that a scam company could fool the astute patent examiners and judges at the USPTO. The infringers' well paid attorneys have fought long and hard to invalidate VP's patents, and THEY HAVE FAILED 100%. Let that soak in. It says far more about the validity of VP's intellectual property than I could ever say. What does baffle me is why you don't see it. VP is now requesting treble damages for infringement occurring after 2021. VP is planning for a trial, and they WILL win in a court of law. They own game changing technology which is being illegally exploited (i.e., infringed) by virtually all of the big players in the communications industry. Think about this for a moment, a court win would make VP a household name, and they would become a force to be reckoned with. Institutional investors would likely include VPLM in their portfolios. This may well be the opportunity of a lifetime. A court win is one plausible scenario, however, there are other avenues which VP could choose to take, such as a settlement, buyout or merger. Disclaimer: As everyone knows, with stocks, there are no guarantees. When you buy shares, the presumption is that you will make money, but you also assume the risk. Investing in stocks is not for everyone, as some folks just don't have the temperament for it. Good luck to all VPLM longs who have put your money where your mouth is, and more, where your due diligence affirms that this is where some of your investment money should be.
On another note, I would like to address a recurring theme, which is that "insider selling is what is keeping the price down." Really? Insider selling has always been occurring, even when the price rose rather dramatically to $.11 in the not too distant past. Why didn't insider selling prevent that dramatic rise? The answer is obvious. Those insider sells were vastly outnumbered by record buying. It will take record buying volume to once again overcome the steady resistance of insider selling and catapult the pps to new record highs, which I believe is just around the corner. One obvious question is why would someone with a negative outlook for VPLM frequent this message board? Could it be to save VPLM investors from poor judgement, or from investing in scams? I don't think so. One plausible explanation is that they are here to do whatever can be done to keep the price down for the benefit of those seeking to accumulate cheap shares. Have you noticed that these same naysayers tend to vanish during bull runs? As Deerballs has astutely pointed out, the price of VPLM is not tanking, nor is it sinking to new lows daily. It is holding steady within a narrow trading range. My hunch is that somebody wants in bigtime, and at bargain basement prices! JMHO.
I will say it again, sunspotter, you have a hilarious sense of humor. Reading your posts puts a broad grin on my face, even though our sentiments regarding VPLM couldn't be more diametrically opposed.
Digdeeper17, with all due respect, I was aware of the loan terms from several years ago which did stipulate that, in the event of bankruptcy, Mr. McGovern would receive as compensation for his loan, HDC's IP. Your theory, unless I misunderstood, is that HDC has been dissolved and is now defunct, thus the patent portfolio goes to the heirs of George H. McGovern, namely Colleen Hutchinson. I now posit a different perspective which would dispute that theory.
First, the referenced loan to HDC by Mr. McGovern did stipulate that, if the loan could not be repaid and the company filed for bankruptcy, he would receive as just compensation the patent portfolio of HDC. However, if my memory serves me, that loan was repaid in full when NeoGenomics settled with HDC for a sum of around $6.6 million. This happened just prior to HDC suing Intel, and is in fact where the money to sue Intel came from. Now, with McGovern's loan having been repaid in full, the "bankruptcy" clause contained within that loan document which stated that HDC's IP would revert to McGovern in the event of bankruptcy, should no longer apply or be relevant today, as that loan has been satisfied. Besides, HDC has NOT declared bankruptcy as evidenced by the fact that they are still filing docs with the SEC, even though they did admit to their accounting firm that they "may not" be able to continue as "a going concern." Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but this accurately describes my understanding of these events.
Furthermore, I would assume that, should HDC declare bankruptcy in the future, all of HDC's assets (and those patents are the company's only asset) would be distributed according to the articles of incorporation which should be on file for anyone to read. If those articles stipulate that, in the event of bankruptcy, the patent portfolio falls into private hands, then you would be correct, sir. But we are not there yet, and I believe that the company's Board is making every effort to prevent that from happrning. JMHO.
Buylow2, I was beginning to think that, given the accounting firm's resignation, HDC was at the end of their rope. However, I will give this a little more time to see what they may come up with to salvage this. After all, the family and friends of GHM represent millions upon millions of shares, which I am sure they don't want to see expire worthless. Thus, the motivation to save this company should be there for them if not for us.
Sunspotter, just because a patent owner does not produce any products (properly referred to as an NPE or non-producing entity), does NOT in and of itself make them a "patent troll," when DEFENDING their exclusive rights to ownership in a court of law, as you seem to suggest. Furthermore, the term, patent troll, carries a negative connotation, as if the patent owner is somehow the villain when defending his/her intellectual property rights against unlawful infringement. The law does not require the patent owner to produce a product as a condition of ownership.
And yes, the fact that you are here is none of my business, however, I have every right to question your motives for being here. Since, by your own admission, you are not, nor have you ever been, a VPLM shareholder, I have to wonder what purpose your presence here serves? Is your motive altruistic? That is, are you trying to save VPLM investors from themselves? If so, how is it that your due diligence and judgement are superior to all other VPLM investors? Do you have inside knowledge about the company? If so, it would be illegal for you to share it with us.
So yes, you have every right to be here, however, your motives are suspect. By the way, based upon your own statements, I think that your moniker could be improved slightly. How does "scamspotter" sound? It's just a friendly suggestion. 🙂
Sunspotter, have you ever considered becoming a standup comedian? I think that you would make a pretty good one. I have long admired your "tongue in cheek" sense of humor, especially when it comes to stocks. Keep up the good work! We could all use a good laugh from time to time. Please forgive me if your last post was meant to be serious, as I mistook it for a joke. I would also assume that, if you truly believe what you say, you have already sold all of your VPLM stock. But if that is true, why are you still here?
LocWolf, I don't think that Colleen and Venning ever "held hands" (as you put it). What I do think is that Laurie Venning (CEO of Vennwest Global Technologies) has wanted to take over and run HDC for a long time, and he has the big bucks, personnel, and legal resources to do it. If HDC is on the verge of bankruptcy, perhaps a deal with Venning, as unpleasant as that may seem to Colleen, may just be the only way for HDC to survive. Otherwise, the stock, coupled with HDC's IP, would likely become worthless. Even worse for shareholders, is that in such a scenario the stock could become worthless (due to HDC filing bankruptcy), but their most valuable asset, the IP, could fall into private hands.
On the other hand, when a company files for bankruptcy, they have to disclose all of their assets, so I am not sure how the value of their IP would factor into the equation for shareholders.
Thanks for that update, LocWolf!
Warren Buffet wantabe, what "rule" could they possibly be breaking when they were simply exercising their RIGHT to redeem their options before the expiration date? The very point of having an option is that it gives the option holder an incentive to own stock in the company at a below market price. But options have expiration dates, and if they are not exercised by those dates, they expire worthless. Also, at the time of the exercise, the current retail price, the strike price, must be ABOVE the option price, or there would be no point in exercising that right to buy. My understanding is that two VP employees held options to buy VPLM stock at $.005/share. However, those options were set to expire on 6/1/24, and if not exercised before then, they would expire worthless. So, in essence, when those employees were selling at $.015, they were actually buying back the same number of shares at $.005. It is a perfectly normal and customary business practice to give employees an incentive to own shares in the company at a reduced price, through the granting of options. For the benefit of all readers, could you please cite the specific rule violation that you are alluding to?
Warren Buffet wantabe, you made the following statement to Deerballs, "But I would appreciate a post or PM telling me why they are selling. If you want to quiet me that is the best way to do it."
With all due respect, two independent contributors to this board have offered what I consider to be plausible explanations as to the reasons for insider selling. Deerballs has suggested that certain insiders were selling to raise the necessary capital to defray the enormous expenses associated with a trial, in the unlikely event that these cases make it to trial. Also, according to Deerballs, it is a little late to start raising capital AFTER you find yourself in a trial.
Indyterp has posited another plausible explanation which is that two insiders were selling prior to a June 1st, 2024 expiration date on options to buy shares at $.005/share. Thus, those sells were followed by buying back in at a cheaper price point.
I would point out that neither of these plausible explanations amounts to a negative reason for selling.
I would also hope that this satisfactorily answers your question.
Sounds good! Thanks LocWolf!