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.
Check back in Aug 2029 or 2030....
No promises but maybe by then...
Everything I said below is the reason why no one will answer the all important big question of would you buy vplm if you had the money. Not many if any, would be willing to commit to an honest answer to that question, because if they say yes, then the question becomes, why hasn't it happened in all this time? Which implies something is wrong. And if they say no, same deal, ie, something is wrong. What's wrong...........is in all likelihood, the patents...and/or.... infringement.
Above and beyond all.....
Would you allow one of your competitors to mosey along and take the prize..... allegedly the biggest ever seen...right out from under you and let them make you their slave to the technology???????
It was not necessary for you to repeat to me what I said, as I already know what I said. 2ndly, you have it all wrong by making incorrect assumptions. You say I'm not an authority on which patents are bogus and which aren't. That's your 2nd mistake because I didn't separate them, I basically said their all bogus. 3rd mistake is I never claimed in any way shape or form to be "a final authority" on any patents. What I DID say, was that over the years I have spelled out just why I think the patents are bogus. Those reasons were never presented as some empirical evidence. They were indirect, direct and abstract ways of looking at facts and then connecting the dots to reach conclusions that were very logical and solid afaic.
Then you bring up the USPTO and ptab as reasons NOT for bogus or not bogus but to show validity. If you had read many of my posts you would know that I speak about validity OFTEN! You would know that I have repeated over and over just what validity means because it's been so obvious to me that you and many others simply don't understand what patent validity is, for a long time. It's very simple to define patent validity but still ppl reject it and that's a big mistake and reason why they are continuously wrong about the patents being "all that" or not "all that". No one has ever been able effectively dispute my definition of patent validity. There are certain prerequisites becoming a patent, as defined by the USPTO. They are basic and not too detailed and have zero to do with value, efficacy and need as well as current compatibility. It's not that hard to become a patent and most patents, at the end of the day, price to be worthless.
So when a patent application meets those prerequisites, USPTO awards the patent. Being a patent means it's VALID from that moment on. The words patent and valid go hand in hand. It does not mean that the USPTO has tested the patent. It does not mean the USPTO has assigned any kind of value or need or effectiveness. It just means the application met their basic standards. Yes, that takes them a long drawn out time to do, but that still doesn't mean the patents can and will do what they claim to be capable of. That is what I gather and my opinion. I could be wrong. And I'm more than willing to be shown I'm wrong about above but so far, no one has been able to.
The next thing is IPRs and ptab. The 1st thing to touch on there is if you have been following this circus for a long time like me, especially during the time of all the IPRs, especially the the 1st 8 or so, you would know that the ptab was totally corrupt from top to bottom. This is well know fact. It began with the corruption of the head of ptab who was run off and continued thru a bunch of judges who should've recused themselves but didn't and ironically and oh so conveniently, there was nothing in the rules to require them to. Around this time they were invalidating many patents and if I remember correctly, there were some indications that they might have problems with vplm patents as well, but I can't remember the details of that. What I do remember is that the way the ptab was doing things raised the ire of our then CEO, tom Sawyer, who began writing letters to the ptab judges and to Congress and the President and in no uncertain terms, he threatened to bring charges of federal RICO violations against the ptab. Then....and ONLY THEN....after a year of avoiding making any decisions, they finally ruled against all those who had brought their challenges to vplm patents to try to get them invalidated for various claims in the patent language. So all the challenges were denied. And since then, another 8 to 10 challenges have also been denied. That 100% denial had never before occured and to my knowledge, never since occurred. Mr Sawyer was a very powerful force and his threat to bring down the ptab with federal RICO charges DID THE TRICK!
However, those rulings in vplm favor must be seen in that light only because that's the way it was. Now, I'm not saying I had any evidence to dispute the individual and particular challenges which were made. I'm just saying that to me, it was and is obvious as to what brought about those dismissals to the challenges.
Further, it must be understood that it was a combination of those dismissals as well as a very robust outside pumping campaign, that led to the spike up to 45c a month later.
Most importantly, is the fact that the IPR decisions created or added to or took away from......the validity aspect. There was nothing lost and nothing gained by vplm with those IPR decisions. They have the same exact level of validity from the day they became patents until and including now. And again, validity does not include anything about need, efficacy or value.
Therefore you simply cannot rely on validity to support that the patents are capable of all their claims made by vplm.
And beyond all that, vplm claimed early on to have tested the patents efficacy using 3 worldwide nodal test sites, but to my knowledge, have never released those test results. I have asked for that many times. If those alleged results were released to the USPTO, I'm not aware of it and would welcome the knowledge of same. That would go far to change my conclusions.
So once again, confirming the simple validity of the patents does not lend "ALL THATness" to them. And it's not a matter of you "choosing to believe USPTO/ptab" over me......PATENT VALIDITY IS A FACT, period, whether you or anyone else chooses to believe it not. The patents are valid or they wouldn't be patents!
And so there is no offense taken because you haven't changed or debunked anything I've said. We are in agreement. The patents are valid.
You go on to state that "Your hypothesis seems to be that the joint dismissal was due to a lack of validity of VOIP-Pal's patents. I think that that is patently absurd."
Seems to be??? That sounds like some delusion to me because I never said or implied that in any way shape or form. Where in the world did you form that idea that it was my hypothesis that all these recent dismissals was due to a lack of validity?? You're correct to say that's ABSURD! I said nothing if the kind ever. For years I have said that the patents are valid. If they weren't valid they wouldn't be patents.
You then ask the same thing I asked you...
"what puzzled me was why would they concede everything right at the precipice of victory?" And then you go on to explain it's your hypothesis that there is indeed a settlement. But what about the fact there's been no 8k filed to disclose such a material occurrence? The only possible reason I know of to answer that would be if a loophole in the 2004 sec revisions was emoloyed . I just posted those revisions and it is indeed possible they have found some safe harbor rule or some other rule, to keep them from having to file such an 8k within the required 4 business days.
I hope your final conclusion turns out to be correct. It could be. I could really use my 50 cents
Please state what is so hard to understand... I've been telling you for years that the patents are bogus and giving excellent reason to back up that claim. So what is so hard to understand ? Put another way, does it not make sense that if the patents were not all that, this is the kind of developments you would expect. Yes/no? If you fail to embrace this possibility, then of course nothing makes sense. So maybe you have a better explanation?
New rules as of 2004
E. Safe Harbor and Eligibility to Use Forms S-2 and S-3 and to Rely on Rule 144
Several commenters recommended that we adopt a safe harbor to protect a company against potential liability under Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 stemming from the company's failure to timely file a required Form 8-K.130 While we are not convinced that we should extend a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 safe harbor to all of the Form 8-K items, we recognize that several of the new Form 8-K disclosure items may require management to quickly assess the materiality of an event or to determine whether a disclosure obligation has been triggered. In this respect, these items raise issues analogous to those we considered in our adoption of the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 safe harbor under Regulation FD.131
As a result, we have decided to adopt a new limited safe harbor from public and private claims under Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 for a failure to timely file a Form 8-K regarding the following items:
Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement
Item 1.02 Termination of a Material Definitive Agreement
Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant
Item 2.04 Triggering Events that Accelerate or Increase a Direct Financial Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet Arrangement
Item 2.05 Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities
Item 2.06 Material Impairments
Item 4.02(a) Non-Reliance on Previously Issued Financial Statements or a Related Audit Report or Completed Interim Review (in the case where a company makes the determination and does not receive a notice described in Item 4.02(b) from its accountant)
In light of this new limited safe harbor under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, we have eliminated the proposed safe harbor from liability under Section 13(a) or 15(d). As a result, the new safe harbor will not affect our ability to enforce any of the Form 8-K filing requirements under these sections.
The safe harbor for these items states that no failure to file a report on Form 8-K that is required solely pursuant to the provisions of Form 8-K shall be deemed to be a violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act. The safe harbor only applies to a failure to file a report on Form 8-K. Thus, material misstatements or omissions in a Form 8-K will continue to be subject to Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 liability.
In addition, if the company has a duty to disclose information that is the subject of any of the Form 8-K items covered by the safe harbor for any reason apart from the Form 8-K requirement, the safe harbor will not provide protection from Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 that may arise from the company's failure to satisfy such separate disclosure obligation. For example, if a company publicly sells or repurchases its own securities while in possession of material non-public information that is required to be disclosed in a Form 8-K report pursuant to an item that is covered by the safe harbor, the safe harbor will not protect the company from Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 liability regarding its separate disclosure obligation pursuant to the offering of securities.
Furthermore, we are amending Forms 10-Q, 10-QSB, 10-K and 10-KSB to provide that the new safe harbor extends only until the due date of the periodic report of the company for the relevant period in which the Form 8-K was not timely filed. Thus, for example, if an event occurs that required the filing of a Form 8-K during a particular quarter, but the company fails to make the required timely disclosure on Form 8-K, the company must provide the disclosure prescribed by the relevant Form 8-K item in its Form 10-Q or 10-QSB filed for the quarter during which that event occurred. Failure to make such disclosure in the periodic report will subject a company to potential liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, in addition to the potential liability under Section 13(a) or15(d).
Similarly, several commenters stated that failure to file all required Form 8-K reports in a timely manner should not disqualify companies from being eligible to use Securities Act Form S-2 and S-3 registration statements.132 Under our current rules, to be eligible to use Form S-2 or S-3, among other things, a company must have timely filed all reports required to be filed under Exchange Act Section 13(a) or 15(d) during the 12 months prior to filing of the registration statement.133
In response to these comments, we are revising the Form S-2 and S-3 eligibility requirements. Under the revised instructions to these forms,134 companies that fail to file timely reports required by Items 1.01, 1.02, 2.03, 2.04, 2.05, 2.06 and 4.02(a) will not lose their eligibility to use Form S-2 and S-3 registration statements. These are the same items that are covered by the new limited safe harbor from Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 liability.
As stated above, we believe that these items may require management to make rapid materiality and similar judgments within the compressed Form 8-K filing timeframe. The potential significant burden that could result from a company's sudden loss of eligibility to use Form S-2 or S-3 under these circumstances could be a disproportionately large negative consequence of an untimely Form 8-K filing. We also believe that a carve-out of the same list of items as covered by the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 safe harbor provides a beneficial measure of regulatory consistency.
We have clarified in the revised instructions, however, that a company must be current in its Form 8-K filings with respect to the items listed above at the actual time of a Form S-2 or S-3 filing. Thus, a company must have filed the disclosure required by any of these Form 8-K items on or before the date that it files a Form S-2 or Form S-3 registration statement to satisfy the eligibility requirements of these forms.135 With respect to the other Form 8-K items not listed above, a company's failure to timely file Form 8-K pursuant to any of these items will result in a loss of Form S-2 or S-3 eligibility for the 12 months following the Form 8-K due date.136 Many of these items are currently required Form 8-K disclosure items and are thus familiar to companies, while the other new Form 8-K items not included above generally do not require the same degree of analysis.
Commenters also recommended that we clarify that a company's failure to timely file a Form 8-K report would not affect a security holder's ability to rely on Securities Act Rule 144 to resell securities. Rule 144 eligibility is conditioned on, among other things, the availability of current public information about the company.137 Because of the significant burden that would be placed on selling security holders if eligibility to rely on Rule 144 were conditioned on a company's satisfaction of the new Form 8-K requirements, we have amended Securities Act Rule 144 to clarify that a company need not have filed all required Form 8-K reports during the 12 months preceding a sale of securities pursuant to Rule 144 to satisfy the rule's "current public information" condition. As required by Rule 144(h),138 however, a security holder will continue to be required to represent that he or she does not have inside information.139
https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8400.htm#seciie
At least vplm's arrogance is subdued and veiled.
Part of what makes their "story" be as provocative as it has been
Yeah, sure you do.....
It's a limited liability safe harbor......which, by the way, also comes with additional events that can or need to be filed .....and it's also what caused the filing deadlines to be cut, in most cases, to 4 business days
boom
I don't know what the loophole might be or the loophole in the loophole, but it seems like the fact the deadline has passed for an 8k on recent events, that nothing has occurred, but how could that be......???.......I mean "45 days"...."settlement in principle", "dismissals".
Man, like I said years ago, the Emu should sell the story to Cameron as a script for a movie.
Oooooffff.....right in the nuts
All you have to do is go to sec Edgar vplm to find the filings I think.
update: mistake yest. I said there was an 8k in April and another in May. They are 1and the same. 1 date is for the period and the other date is when filed. So over 2 mos since last one.
Pollyanna is great. We used to celebrate it in kindergarten. It's ALL GOOD and a BED OF ROSES........NO MATTER WHAT ISN'T, lolol. Yip, all them dismissals are
F A N T A S T I C !
Now, we're in even a BETTER POSITION than the best position ever! (yes, that's possible..it's something like the double slit experiment..and shrodengers cat, just don't look)
And thank you so much for showing me how great I could feel by just abandoning my 13yrs worth of dd, deducing, and dot connections, followed by seeing how my conclusions panned out over the test of time, otherwise known as watching the checks and balances to glean truth. Sooo much easier to just toss all under the bus...oh what a relief!!!
Long live vplm!.......oh wait, it already is long lived........ok, here's to another 10 yrs!
Cheers! (prolly only about 7 and a half, dice I predicted another 10 about 2 and a half yrs ago)m
The cabal has begun numerous meetings (they use voip lol) so look for the return of the mega whopper! Used to be a regular whopper would do, to pump things up as needed, but with the economy and all…<cough, cough> not to mention the highly matured "boy who cried wolf syndrome", it now will take full tilt boogie mega whoppers to get this bitch to bail levels. So be on the lookout for some crazy bs to come down the pike. It'll be more on the ridiculous than sublime side. But it's coming. I wouldn't lie to you. Remember, I've been right about all calls for past 10 yrs whether you like it or not. Don't be too greedy or you might get left in the dust...
That's what I thought response would be...
Crickets
What specific "rumours" about malak and family are you referring to?
When something positive appeared to surface about the Emu (or anything vplm related for that matter) you'll see lots of accolades, lots of props..... but.....when something more on the negative side comes up and gets posted, and asked about......now it's crickets, clamup time. This occurs time and time again and I think, proves the bias that lies within. The same sort of bias that creates the notion that a true long is somehow a superior thing. Recent examples:
I posted recently that the Emu has singlehandedly caused the entire internet to identify him as the "FOUNDER" of vplm which of course he is not. I not only reported it but I posted a bunch of example from major finance news sources. It's not just a big mistake but it's a big lie that I discovered was perpetuated by the Emu himself on his own website.
As far as I'm concerned that a bid deal and s big lie. And it gives newbies or anyone who just doesn't know any better, the wrong information.
No one cared at all ......but they should care.
A 2nd recent example is actually from earlier today when I discovered on the website a major omission, again by the Emu himself, where he has the nerve to post there, amongst vplm attributes, the fact that he once sued John Cameron for infringement.......and then blatantly and brazenly fails to add that he lost the case because he gave up. If that's not arrogantly brazen I don't know what is.
I realize that these 2 particular items, themselves, are not earth shattering, nevertheless they show a slice of the pattern of bs that has pervaded this circus from the git. And again, no one cares. But if it was some tiny little good thing he did apparently in the interest of fiduciary duty, and someone reported it, there would be the equivalent of a standing ovation.
mic drop
Also a recent filing stated that she is a member of the immediate family. That sounds like wife not ex
As of when? There are references on the company site that mention they are married and other references with dates from 1 to 3 yrs old.
So what kind of CEO would currently post on his own website, the fact that he sued John Cameron for infringement AND NOT SAY A WORD ABOUT HAVING WITHDRAWN THE ACCUSATION.
__________________________________________________
The Arts
"Emil Malak has exhibited his passion for the arts as an author of a variety of works. They include a musical operetta, a World War II novel and several screenplay scripts. One of his screenplays entitled, Terra Incognita, was the subject of a lawsuit for which he sued Hollywood director James Cameron/Avatar and Twentieth Century Fox for copyright infringement."
An objective view would say that it's conspicuously absent the fact he dropped the suit.
Standby for more objectivity. No comments......are TELLING!
Wow, I didn't know it was ok to urge shareholders to sell so as to bring the price down...
In thought that was a NoNo. Maybe I was wrong ? In any event, I personally would never advise anyone to buy or sell stocks. In my book, that's something that should be decided only by the person buying or selling, themselves. To tell a group to buy or sell sounds like collusion to me, but then again, wtfdik?
Yeah, sure did get unusually quiet around here. Maybe having trouble cashing their checks? Just kidding, I'm sure it's stock compensation......just look at the 8 & 10k's. But with such poor performance, maybe pay was docked and now sulking. It's a joke, it's only a joke....like letterman used to say. Well, I can almost guarantee you that one or more of the cabal committees will get something started here soon enough. That's how vplm has always operated and no reason for the itty bitty pump committee to stop now. Sure as shootin, you can count on some of the various little blue pill techniques to get the pps up again so the chosen peeps can sell into and those who choose the sell. The smoke will rise again, up above where it began...
I guess vplm is just not part of the expanding universe. It's surrounded by an uncertainty principle. Filled with spooky action at a distance.
But at the same time, you have to admit that it's also quite the thing to lie back and luxuriate in "the best position ever" and just soak it all in...
After almost 13 yrs here, well deserved break from the.....nevermind.
So he's just doing his job, no? I had asked you if you thought any of it wasn't legal but you didn't reply to that.
If you are a doctor then patients are a virtue. Here in never never land, patience is a hurtue. Better to not crawl under a rock but to be proactive and surf/trade the waves. You don't see your trusty leaders exercising patience......no, they are very busy gifting, buying, selling their way around the rules, in a big big way. They are making plenty of moolah and so should you. I did. Recouped all the losses incurred and then some plus have lots of shares to hang onto.
Apparently, that's what it has come to.....it's enough to concentrate those gastrics. Prolly good idea to take a zantac or equivalent before opening vplm site...
Thanks for checking anyway. Might I ask when would you expect it and what do you expect it to say about this carnival ?
Where do you check.... FINRA?
Nevermind I see. Last one I see is last week April
Oops, pardon me there's another from mid May. There's so many damn form 4s I think it's glitched the listings as it's out of order
What happened to "best position ever"??
and....
Patience is a virtue??
Are these no longer the tenets to adhere to with this stock or do they still apply??
And where is all the positive sentiment? Is it on hold.....like to regroup or something?
It's really confusing, this place is...
Orca, I have clearly been saying for many years, that it's my opinion that yes, it's a share selling operation and that the patents or the company was not really on the market and all that was merely a front, an eminence front like the who say. But I have always been somewhat reluctant to call it an out and out scam because, 1) I don't know how much of it is legal or not and 2) because although I have very solid reasons for finding the whole setup as a ploy, I can't prove it. So I normally never use the term scam, however as time goes on and the more I see to this operation, I can't help but believe it's at least got it's technically illegal elements if not out and out fraud. The tol THE BIG LIES for 2 yrs after the acquisition was agreed to and never stuck to it but used the story quite effectively, so I find that to be about as scammy as it gets.
Thanks. A little hard for me to understand your sentence. Kinda run on, but I get the gist. If we are the retail and institutional are money market and/or the motley fool type houses, so then what are the blue lite special buyers, private placements, what category are they? Seems like they buy wholesale as well? Seems they are the key to what keeps vplm ticking...?
In any event, my question was whether or not what orca was describing them as doing, was totally legal or not? I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the Emu or cfo and the private placement peeps and the MMs are all in cahoots, esp here in the wonderful world of OTC, where almost anything flies.
But it's all perfectly legal, right?
Or is something more going on?
In your opinion, do you think the MMs simply make a market..........
Or something more......?
All these alleged infringements. All these alleged infringers. They have kazillions banked. World class infringement. All the letters. All the Super lawyers. All the hearings and trials and various courts and various judges. All the promises. All these years.....
Yet nuttin in the piggy...
This should tell you something....
I've told you and correctly predicted what will be, for years. And it's all pretty obvious when truly objective......all the dots connect. The whole saga amounts to an SEC training blog about the dangers of the OTC and pennystocks in the 1 to 10 cent range who have no revenue other than the selling of a story and no proof of any of it's claims.
When asked if you would buy this company if you had the money, no one ever replies. Haaa. When asked if anything of this alleged magnitude has ever happened before, in terms of, all the claims, the alleged insane value of the product, and so many yrs goes by with no sales, no licenses, no settlements, no partnerships, no nothing except a never ending printing press, fire sales to opportunists for fractions of pos, no one ever has a reply to that either.
When shown all the blatant lies, misrepresentations, phony setup/deals, blackout periods, alleged offers on the table, etc etc etc.....all that is summarily dismissed out of hand because of the need to have the big ship come in, the need to not be wrong in the end, the desire to be filthy rich, the need to insulate themselves from the fact of maybe having been had. All above blinds to the reality.
You have to look backwards in order to see forward.
Intuition and reason alas, can be distorted beyond recognition, by self interest.
Self interest is likely to lead to strong biases.
He doesn't care about any of that .....O B V I O U S L Y
He gave us a tradeable stock, whether he meant to or not. Years and years of tradeability.......WHICH....lolol.....FLIES IN THE FACE....of all that......(drum roll please)....."TRUE LONGS" crapola !
justalittlepushbackfromnytuhhuhuhhuh
Where's my 50¢ ?
That's kinda my country boy thinking as well. Of course someone will always try to convince that it's more complex than that.
Better yet, the entire answer is that no one in the history of mankind (prolly not within the galaxy either, but I can't speak for Andromeda), has ANYONE LEFT SUCH A HUMONGOUS PILE OF GOLD SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, UNMOLESTED AND RIPE FOR ANY AND ALL OF YOUR WORST ENEMIES TO ROLL UP AND TAKE THE PRICELESS FORTUNE RIGHT FROM UNDER YOUR FEET. No one has ever commented, in kind, on this because it's so obviously true and acknowledging same would be such an affront to all these big strong "true longs". The clever use of words as well as the clever use of no words is all it has taken to create something from nothing, more or less.
Which is what I've been correctly calling for years. And not only that, there's never been any proof of the patents being "all that" either. They simply have told and hypnotized ppl into believing the unproven story, while making their MARKS and picking our pockets right under our noses.
Looks like the perfect depiction of best position ever...
I'll take that as an answer of no to the question, were/is babs sales previously setup on a whatchamacallit.....105b51(?) or not? Thanks for your cooperation in answering the simple question w/a simple answer.
she loves us...she loves us not.....she loves us.....she loves us not....
Lots of good feet on the ground info there. Words well put and taken...............but..........(always that's but...) the only kink in it all is it all assumes the patents are "all that"........and unfortunately, me thinks not. It's all a mirage .......cleverly constructed by forked tongued devils.
just sayin
Well, there ya go...that's what we want, a nice liquid market, no? I mean realistically, isn't that the goal, rather than millions of trials and billions of dollars and zillions of never ending motions, notions and oceans of lawyers, litigation and lies? As long as it keeps getting pumped up to make orca whoopee, allowing shareholders who ain't married to the damn stock, make some moolah just like the emu's and the cabal, then it's all good.