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.
Are you saying he never got fully paid back for his loans?....to this day.....or did he? That is the question.
These guys loosely say this, meanwhile rk is the one responsible for what they now have, which they are so sure will bring them their fortune. Ironic, isn't it? Can't wait to hear the professionally explained excuses...
That is basically all correct, imo. Now, let me add the "piece de resistance" that seals the deal...
Yes, obviously there would've been at least SOME companies w/ceo or other manager who was smart enough to see the vast wealth & power that could be had by simply buying the patents, point being that not ALL companies would've THOUGHT THE SAME, with the same mindset, like the borg. Some would see the value & the fiduciary responsible actions & some wouldn't see it, but not ALL the same decisions, as the pro side would have you believe, by default.
And more importantly, and this is the REAL GIST AND THE TRUE CRUX of the matter....
Why would a voip service provider, no wait....MAKE THAT 2 Voip service providers, ie, digi-phony-ca & vplm, BOTH fail to reap the benefits of this Oak Island like TREASURE!!! Digi-phony-ca supposedly ran out of money but was$ allegedly able to raise $17mm to pay the "developers" with... Hmmmmmmm....?? But even better yet, vplm had been allegedly now operating as a Voip service provider for approx 10 yrs or more. WHAT, I ASK YOU, WHAT.....could be more wanted, more sought after, more desirable, more in lockstep........THAN A FREAKING SOFTWARE SUITE OF VOIP BASED EXTENTIONS THAT PURPORTED TO BE THE VERY BASELINE AND KEY TO BEING ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY RUN A VOIP SERVICE PROVIDER AND TO DO SO FULLY PROTECTED FROM ALL OTHER VOIP SERVICE PROVIDERS, BEING PATENT PROTECTED AND WITH "NO WAY AROUND IT"??? SUCH IS GOLD! SUCH IS THE HOLY GRAIL OF VOIP! ON A SILVER PLATTER.... WAITING ONLY FOR VPLM TO KEEP ITS SACRED PROMISE TO THE SHAREHOLDERS to immediately begin folding the technology into their existing Voip service platform. At that point, they would be almost guaranteed to quickly rise to the top of the mountain of voice service providers & be the king of the hill, to the point where I would've projected they would wind up like MA Bell & have to get broken up.
But nooooooooooo.........instead they CHOSE to be a freaking poster child level of a patent troll, has taken them NOWHERE for the past 10 yrs. The question is: WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY??? .
Now you can connect the dots & see why...
In my opinion, tests showed the whole thing to be a waste of time & they decide to turn that waste of time into a long term, fiat, share printing & selling MACHINE..
Well, maybe a small one... Notice how it ALWAYS comes right back down where it started or pretty close & quickly. Totally predictable. And ea time was the chance to make some bucks, like 10-15%
Uh-oh, are we going for P&D #2 of the day? Stay tuned & see....could be...??
Good excuse....except shouldn't more be expected from a "SUPER LAWYER? I mean superman had special powers, no excuses, why not a lawyer labeled allegedly by his peers, as a "super lawyer". I guess WORDS don't have the same meanings as they used to. The density of their meanings seems to erode with time & or the needs of agendas...
I have to agree he sounded kinda deer in headlights at that time. I had forgotten about that but now I recall how pisspoor it sounded. Of course, you won't find THAT on his website, will ya?
I agree wholeheartedly. Downright ridiculous to judge someone on their looks. Not an intelligent thing to do at all. Sophomoric. At the same time, while I don't dispute any of the huds accomplishments in any way, I am always skeptical of websites that praise the hell out of the very person that owns the website. Sawyer comes to mind. But in fairness, I'll say the same thing about hud as I said about Sawyer, that being, that if only 10% of what their websites claim as accomplishments is true, they are still very accomplished & deserve respect at least on that level.
As to the whole superlawyer thing, not seeing super results after huds been their lawyer for how long now?
Yes, anything is possible in the future but I've given my take & my reasons why I do t believe this ship will ever come in.
Yes, BAM! That's the sound it makes when it inevitably hits the floor it jumped up from... Doink...
The ONLY reason the pps ever goes up.........with vplm........is for it to quickly dump back down. That's without fail. Check the chart & this can be seen invariably for years. It's all mm manipulation and/or P&D 2.0. It's never belief in the company. Its never belief in the patemts. It's never belief in the Emu. It's never Mr Market seeing sound principles being developed. It's just, and nothing but, pump & dump 2.0 of a stock that's otherwise worthless. That's it. That's all it is.
These pump & dump 2.0's are getting popular cause they work so well from this otherwise useless, worthless "company". Looks like another one today & will dump before eod or Monday. Watch for it.
Salami, salami, baloney
As to the patents & trials, this baby is toast. That's how it will play out anyway, imo. Trials & appeals will go on for another decade, during which time, this will likely be subpenny. Then, unfortunately, the only redeeming value, imo, will be to try to day trade the little pumps & bumps. I think that's all it'll be good for & very risky. Melba toast dipped in milk. This I bad for me & y'all. That's the way the pennies roll. It costs more to make a penny than a penny is worth. Much the same w/vplm. Boo-hoo
Apple, T & Twitter all couldn't care less about vplm & never have. Not then not now. Most get that. Lol. Mr Market does also, lol. Duh
Lol, that post is 9 yrs old! What's your point? How dumb is that? Hahahaha
Wednesday, February 23, 2022 1:13:52 PM
Re: None
Post#
108416
of 108433
Looks to me like the next regularly scheduled pump & dump 2.0 is in progress. So predictable
YEPPER!
Like I said!
And once again, just as I predicted yest, the dump is complete. Duh
Looks to me like the next regularly scheduled pump & dump 2.0 is in progress. So predictable...
From the timing, my guess would see it back down to about 1.1 by days end or tomorrow. Watch & see
There will never be a settlement. There will never be a buyout. Very slim possibility of some scaredy cat vsp purchasing a license, but pretty unlikely. It is decreed! No settlements, no buyouts, no how, no way, no time. I've been saying same for years & yrs & been right in the face of many many predictions to the contrary. And I will continue to say it & it will continue to be true for days, weeks, months & years to come. Minimum 9 more yrs. More possible.
youbeenhad
Looks like I missed posting on 2:22:22, 2-22-22, by 22 seconds
The irony is that vplm cannot even hit the 2's on twoper twosday. Pitiful. Nothing but two's twoday, all around the world, regardless of date format but crummy vplm can't hit 2 cents after 25 yrs.
Nope, sorry... I decided it, that's the way it is & that's all there is "two" it... The proof of that will come along. As sure as February has 8 palindromes, incl 7 in a row as of twosday, plus 1 on groundhogs day, is as sure as there's no infringement. You're welcome, my gift!
Infringement has never been shown and will never be proven. Seen enough...
You're right & you're welcome. Remember, infringement can never be proven, imho.
There are no infringers. They do not exist.
Infringement has never been shown & can never be proven.
Being valid does not equate to infringement. Smarter ppl still have trouble w/that concept. The smartest ppl not only get that, but also know that all patents are valid or they wouldn't be a patent and that has zero to do with need, efficacy, value or infringement. Doink.
And the smartest ones know what the process really is, ie, not the pipedream, mirage, illusion...but a cleverly contrived fiat share printing & selling machine, which derives most of its income from the terribly dilutive fire sales they have regularly (private placements @ 1/2 cent or less. Shame on the less than smartest.
The smarter ones know that the smart ones need to get smarter...
The smartest money sure ain't being put here. 4 year downtrend, 97%
Mr Market is the smartest of all & he gives vplm a thumbs down
The smartest ppl know it's all a long, drawn out pipe dream based on unproven patents, unpublished tests & over a decade of no sales, no licenses, no true interest, no partnerships, no deals, no real offers, many lies, false promises, no proof of infringement, no monetary gains from many lawsuits, $600k loss in court, armies of lawyers most quit, thriving Voip service industry long before vplm patents, etc, etc, etc.
And how BRAVE of us eh? I mean look at how much we are sacrificing by not selling at a penny (a tad over)... Gee, we could be instant "hundredairres" or "thousandairres" or whatever..
I held my orig shares tight for a long time until I went from 2¢ to 7 or 8 ¢ avg & then I sold enough to recoup all my losses & a decent profit then I've held onto the rest ever since (approx 5 yrs or so). I'm not sellin a single share until I see at least 50¢, otherwise they can rot for all I care after what the digi-phony-ca/vplm/Emu organization has put me thru. The purpose of vplm patents, it turns out, is to suck canal water!
There ARE peeps who would sell for a nickel, maybe a few.....but not me. Fiddy cent or bust!
I want my 50¢ and I want my Maypo!
No. I want my .50 & I want my Maypo too
Where's my damn 50¢? I ain't askin for much...
Vplm doesn't have to worry about anything as they are already at the bottom of the barrel looking up and it's so far they can't see the the top just like we can't see the edge of the universe. Help ain't on the way, it's too far away.
Cryin won't help them, prayin won't do them no good. Cryin won't help them, prayin won't do them no good, cause when the sub penny takes, mama there's no place to go.....
More monkey wrenches are coming soon to a vplm theater near you. Maybe even a few left handed ones.... They will bring more tears & ship jumpers. Even the rats will jump...
The below 2 articles show that if somehow, vplm should ever receive any favorable infringement rulings, that would be followed by yet years more of appeals based on the judges forum selling. & judge shopping, esp for NPE's (patent trolls)...
.............................................
"Patent Progress
Forum Selling and Judge Shopping—How Two Texas Districts Compete For NPE Cases
by Josh Landau • September 24, 2020
Judge Gilstrap of the infamously NPE-friendly Eastern District of Texas used to handle one out of every four patent cases in the entire United States. The Eastern District as a whole handled more than 40% of all patent cases nationally, despite only having about 1% of the nation’s population.
After the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in TC Heartland, which reined in rampant forum-shopping, that number dropped significantly. Judges in the Eastern District have certainly done their best to hold onto cases, however. Even after TC Heartland, the Eastern District continues to see approximately 10% of all patent litigation.
But patent plaintiffs, especially NPEs, didn’t have to go very far to find their next home. Enter the Western District of Texas. After Judge Albright took the bench in 2018, he immediately set out to attract patent cases to his court, with tremendous success. In fact, one in five patent filings this year is estimated to wind up in the Western District of Texas, and according to a new paper, more than 85% of those cases were filed by NPEs.
Almost all of these cases will be heard by Judge Albright.
“[T]o compete for litigants, courts must adopt rules or procedures or make rulings that blatantly benefit plaintiffs, who choose the forum.”
In a new paper entitled Federal Judge Seeks Patent Cases, Profs. Jonas Anderson and Paul Gugliuzza argue that this is an example of “forum selling” or “court competition.” Judges Albright and Gilstrap “are in the midst of a vigorous competition to attract patent cases to their courtrooms.” And in order to “compete for litigants, courts must adopt rules or procedures or make rulings that blatantly benefit plaintiffs, who choose the forum.”
Anderson and Gugliuzza set out four facets of Judge Albright’s courtroom that form the core of his approach to attracting plaintiffs—”fast track” trial scheduling that “essentially eliminates the prospect of PTAB review”, “staunch refusal” to transfer cases out of the district, unwillingness to stay cases, and “questionable interpretations and applications of binding appellate case law on the issues of venue and patent eligible subject matter.” This approach, which Anderson and Gugliuzza characterize as “tilting the field in favor of patentees”, is backstopped by the Western District’s case-assignment process, ensuring that any case filed in the Waco Division will be assigned to Judge Albright.
“Judge Albright’s procedural practices are designed mainly to process cases as quickly as possible—except when it is defendants who want a quick dismissal on eligibility grounds.”
Anderson and Gugliuzza also detail Judge Albright’s problematic approach to patentable subject matter. In particular, they describe his refusal to address eligibility before claim construction and his lack of substantive analysis of eligibility in his eligibility decisions. In one example, Slyce Acquisition, the order addressing defendant’s motion to dismiss on eligibility grounds “contain[ed] no actual analysis of whether the patent in suit satisfied the eligibility requirement”—even though it “devot[ed] nearly ten pages to the topic of eligibility.” This is just one example of his unwillingness to apply Supreme Court eligibility precedent. Anderson and Gugliuzza also describe a series of orders that Judge Albright used “to send additional signals to patentees that their patents are safe from quick eligibility invalidations in his court.”
“Judge Albright’s overwhelming and instantaneous success at attracting patent cases to Waco should concern observers of the federal courts— including Congress.”
The net result of all this, per the paper, is the Western District “winning the competition for patent cases”—and that success is “largely the result of Judge Albright’s appeal to patent plaintiffs—especially non-practicing entities.” And, while the paper does not address this directly, such a success is likely to breed imitation. Similar procedural approaches may arise in other district courts where judges wish to attract patent litigants. The Eastern District of Texas continues to try to limit transfers of cases and to minimize the number of stays issued, perhaps as an attempt to win back litigants who have moved to the Western District of Texas. Combined, more than 30% of all U.S. patent cases filed in 2020 were filed in the Eastern and Western Districts—more than were filed in the states of California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York combined.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Anderson and Gugliuzza suggest two reforms that would mitigate the court competition concern—random assignment of cases to the judges within a district, rather than within a division, and basing venue on the division in which a case is brought, rather than the district. The first reform would prevent plaintiffs from selecting a specific judge by distributing cases out across all of the judges in a district, while the second reform would prevent plaintiffs from filing in locations with no real nexus to the defendant simply because the defendant might have operations in a different portion of the district, potentially half a state away.
As the Anderson/Gugliuzza paper notes, “[t]hese solutions are common sense and simple to implement. If courts will not make them on their own, Congress or the Judicial Conference should require that they do so.”
Meet the Western District of Texas—NPEs Certainly HaveMay 27, 2020In "Blog Posts"
Trouble In Plaintiff’s Paradise?October 30, 2020In "Blog Posts"
One Case, All The Problems: VLSI v. Intel Exemplifies Current Issues In Patent LitigationMarch 15, 2021In "Blog Posts"
Tags:court competition Eastern District of Texas forum selling forum shopping jonas anderson judge albright judge gilstrap judge shopping paul gugliuzza western district of texas
Joshua Landau
Joshua Landau is the Patent Counsel at the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), where he represents and advises the association regarding patent issues. Mr. Landau joined CCIA from WilmerHale in 2017, where he represented clients in patent litigation, counseling, and prosecution, including trials in both district courts and before the PTAB.
Prior to his time at WilmerHale, Mr. Landau was a Legal Fellow on Senator Al Franken’s Judiciary staff, focusing on privacy and technology issues. Mr. Landau received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and his B.S.E.E. from the University of Michigan. Before law school, he spent several years as an automotive engineer, during which time he co-invented technology leading to U.S. Patent No. 6,934,140.
Follow @PatentJosh on Twitter.
..........................................
"Federal Judge Seeks Patent Cases
Duke Law Journal, Vol. 71, p. 419, 2021
79 PagesPosted: 15 Oct 2020Last revised: 26 Oct 2021
Jonas Anderson
American University - Washington College of Law
Paul R. Gugliuzza
Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law
Date Written: October 26, 2021
Abstract
Imagine the following advertisement popping up on Craigslist: "FEDERAL JUDGE SEEKS PATENT CASES! (Waco) — Former patent litigator, recently appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, longs for the intellectual challenge of a good patent fight. Can promise special procedural rules, efficient discovery, and speedy trials. Dismissal, stay, or transfer of case extremely unlikely. File in Waco and get the patent court you've always dreamed of!"
That probably seems bizarre. Still, and startlingly, it accurately portrays what’s happening in the Waco Division of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. One judge, appointed to the Western District only three years ago, has been advertising his courtroom through presentations to patent lawyers, comments to the media, procedural practices, and decisions in patent cases as the place to file a patent infringement lawsuit. That advertising has succeeded. In 2016 and 2017, the Waco Division received a total of five patent cases. In 2020, nearly eight hundred patent cases—more than 20 percent of all patent cases nationwide—were filed there.
The centralization of patent cases before a single judge, acting entirely on his own to seek out patent litigation, is facilitated by the Western District’s case filing system, which allows plaintiffs to choose the specific judge who will hear their case. These dynamics—a judge advertising for patent cases and plaintiffs shopping for that judge—undermine public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, make the court an uneven playing field for litigants, and facilitate the nuisance suits patent trolls favor. Two common-sense reforms would reduce the harms of judge shopping: (1) district judges should, by law, be randomly assigned to cases, and (2) venue in patent cases should be tied to divisions within a judicial district, not just the district as a whole.
Keywords: patent law
Another favorable signal Judge Albright sent to patentees was in one of his more recent opinions expounding upon eligibility law, denying the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss on eligibility grounds in Slyce Acquisition Inc. v. Syte-Visual Conception Ltd. 259 Doubling down on his earlier, blanket refusal to decide eligibility without first conducting claim construction, the opinion in Slyce Acquisition gave several reasons why deciding eligibility is, volume 260
262 In support of this assertion, Judge Albright cited commentary by noted skeptics of the Supreme Court's reinvigoration of the eligibility requirement, including Paul Michel, a former Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, 263 as well as a pair of dissenting opinions by Federal Circuit judges
Given the [Federal] Circuit's holding and guidance in MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, the Court denies Defendants' motion without prejudice and directs it to refile its motion, if it so chooses, after the issuance of the Court's claim construction order
Slyce Acquisition Inc. v. Syte-Visual Conception Ltd, p. 19 - 257
Posted: 2019-10-22
FAMOUS LAST WORDS!!!
"This is a SURE THING!"