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.
Vplm purposely chose the most impossible to beat companies to sue because they don't want the patents to get to discovery. Years ago, I said over & over they should sue a little, easy to beat company & if they won, then snowball effect! Lots of little, easy companies to sue but they didnt want easy, they don't want trial. They want to be able to keep running the fiat share printing/selling machine!
The patents are worthless & emu knows it
Even the lowest one you listed (.04), haven't seen in a year... In fact, barely 3 cents maybe once or twice.. Pitiful..
Far as I can tell, Kipping was out as CEO in 2009. I think he was replaced by Chang. I think Chang is as shady as Emu in the vplm history. He was the author or at least put his name to all the PRs from those days. All those blatantly lying, false promising PRs, up to 2013. I think Chang & Emu conspired to create this scheme. I figure Emu had been accumulating shares for a long time & that would explain how he was able to take over as ceo when he did, but before that, all the digi-phony-ca BOD became the BOD of vplm. How did that happen? How does one company buy out another company & then the BOD of the bought company becomes the BOD? I mean this was supposed to be vplm taking over digi-phony-ca, right? But instead it was digi-phony-ca taking over vplm. I just don't understand that. Is that normal procedure? Maybe someone can explain it. If the whole digi board came over to vplm, then who was it or what was it that benefitted vplm? As far as I could tell, vplm had only one guy at the time & that was Chang & Chang came over from vplm. There was also some guy named Carl Mattera who was a director w/zero shares & tiny compensation & he was gone after the acquisition as far as I know (not sure) mweirdly, there was also some company listed as a board member & it had the most shares. I found that real strange & would like to hear from someone who knows about that company & how they fit in, listed under board members. So apparently, it basically was Chang who was the only board member of vplm, of any significance at the time of acquisition. And he came from digi-phony-ca. So who was vplm when the whole acquisition thing came up? I know for a fact, acquisition was talked about at least as early as 2011,but probably even earlier than that. Kippin was supposed to have been out by 2009, so who was running vplm after Chang in 2009/10/11. Was it Chang? Appreciate any help on these questions if you know. Nomo? Rumble? Keepem?
That compelling story...
is going to magically begin changing...
into a completely different story...
soon as it get into court to prove itself,
in my opinion.
I think it will start changing from "compelling" to repelling when they start breaking down that unique patent language.
A Compelling story....the birthplace of illogical patience, blind faith & total loss of objectivity.
That is what the purveyors of 'we got what it takes to take what you got', thrive on.
That right... In the early days of scheme forming, the fly on the wall overheard the emu saying:
"all we need now is a COMPELLING STORY... "
I've posted this PR lots of times for different reasons... In this case, it shows that even tho many consider end of 2013 as the date of acquisition, it was really a done deal much earlier, ie 5/11/2012 and that's what they reported in the fins. Point being that all the shares went to the control of the Emu, at that time & I believe he was already accumulating shares of vplm long before that as well. So I believe I was correct in saying he was running the show as far back as 2011, regardless of who was CEO at the time.
I found part II. Great reading esp for those into pennystocks & those from Canada, esp Vancouver.
https://www.vancouverpolicemuseum.ca/post/the-vancouver-stock-exchange-a-legacy-of-fraud-and-money-laundering-part-ii
Here's another article about the atmosphere of pennystock fraud schemes in Vancouver. Just interesting reading in light of everything. No accusations made about anyone. But also a FINE choice for a place to go to start some pennystocks, EH?
https://www.vancouverpolicemuseum.ca/post/the-vancouver-stock-exchange-a-legacy-of-fraud-and-money-laundering-part-i
I forgot to add that I'm pretty sure failed digi-phony-ca also was borne or developed in that same vancouver environment/atmosphere. I'm not real sure but I think it was at 1st a private company & then went public & was on the TSX (which was borne out of the VSE) and had the same bad rep. Funny how digi-phony-ca (Emu) was allegedly able to raise $20-$25 million to create the patents but then filed a report (I can't find it now but I had it & I read it) stating they no longer wanted to be in the VoIP business and just wanted to sell the patent apps for cost & put that cost at approx 1/2 million (it was in the range of either $400k or $800k but I can't remember anymore. It was most definitely one or the other. It was in a digi-phony-ca govt filing. Goes far to propagate the idea that the patents were worthless to them in their intended purpose. Finding out they were worthless & could not be used as intended, along with the longtime working friendship with the vplm boys, gave birth to the scheme, imho.
Hudnell's awards are very nice.. Sounds like the process is done by other lawyers rather than polling clients. As far as I'm concerned, those who you serve ought to be the #1 source of any evaluation. Just a thought..
Yeah, it's like walking into a casino, only worse.
Absolutely not. No point in that. There was supposed to be another post to follow that explained but ran out of posts. The point was simply to show how the home of the emu is long well known to be the hotbed & the mentality of pennystock scams. It's well known as scam central. I thought it was interesting to read about. It was not meant as a guilt by association, rather another one of those things that make you go "hmmmmm". There are so many different and questionable things about the emu & about the environment he comes from, to me they all serve to add up. For example, Emu hired his bro, a known pimp, to run his night club in the hotel he ran into the ground, bankrupt. That was a very poor business decision, in my opinion, but it has nothing to do with pennystock scamming. Yet I still thought it was fair & meaningful to post that story (the one about hiring his bro) because it just helps to establish the way the emu thinks & works. Same thing with the avatar story. He publicly promised to see that trial thru to the end & then walked out, quit, 1st day, twice! I thought that also was deserving of posting as it helped to establish & show his general acumen. So no, it was not intended to show guilt by association. It just helps to connect dots. I mean after all, he has numerous questionable things about him & then he is found to create a pennystock that hasn't worked out for near 10 years in a place that's very well known as scam central. Therefore, not unfair to show the article.
Home News From the Regulators Massive microcap fraud scheme run from Canada, SEC says
Massive microcap fraud scheme run from Canada, SEC says
The alleged schemes generated over US$1 billion in penny stock sales
By: James Langton
August 9, 2021
15:53
U.S. securities regulators are alleging that a Vancouver, B.C. resident orchestrated a series of stock fraud schemes that took hundreds of millions of dollars from investors.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed an emergency action in a federal district court in Boston charging nine people, including several residents of Canada, over their alleged participation in long-running stock fraud schemes that “caused significant harm” to retail investors in the U.S. and around the world.
In a complaint that was unsealed Monday, the SEC alleged that Vancouver resident Frederick Sharp “masterminded a complex scheme from 2011 to 2019” that allowed the controlling shareholders of microcap companies to conceal their holdings and then secretly dump their stock into U.S. markets.
“The services Sharp and his associates allegedly provided included furnishing networks of offshore shell companies to conceal stock ownership, arranging stock transfers and money transmittals, and providing encrypted accounting and communications systems,” the SEC alleged.
The SEC’s complaint also alleged that several other Canadian residents “frequently collaborated with Sharp to dump huge stock positions while hiding their control positions and stock promotional activities from the investing public.”
In total, “Sharp and his associates facilitated over a billion dollars in gross sales in hundreds of penny stock companies,” the SEC alleged in its complaint.
The regulator has obtained emergency relief in court, including an order to freeze the defendants’ assets, it said.
Sharp and three others were also charged with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and one count of securities fraud by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts.
None of the allegations have been proven.
In addition to the asset freeze and other temporary relief obtained, the SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, conduct-based injunctions, disgorgement of allegedly ill-gotten gains plus interest, civil penalties and penny stock bans.
In the red again, yawwwwn
As you can see, not only were my words changed to say something different (as usual...) but as you can see from this definitive excerpt, the info given is wrong (as usual) and more boring & misleading fake news. Beware.
"A DSPP allows individual investors to establish an account in which to make deposits for the purpose of purchasing shares directly from a given company."
"allows individual investors to..."
Does that sound like "large companies"? Lolol
Yes, that would be a direct share purchase plan. Here you buy either direct from the company or thru the transfer agent. You can sell via the TA. This gives you reduced or even free trades. Was it a one time deal or do you have to make monthly pymts?
You also should be able to get any questions answered thru the TA. I think it's President transfer agent. So you couldn't get any straight answers from ol' Rick INya pockets Inza, eh?
Sounds like you got into a DSPP
I have never seen better timing that the "hello nasa", launch thing! Unbelievable!
Totally "launch pad ready".....
....for one of those elon musk return rockets, lol
And there goes the dump, just like clockwork
Borne of an "eminence front", it's a put on..
I've said numerous times here that the only possible gain was estoppel but was unsure of its applicability. Now I know it's not applicable because koh invalidated some of the patent elements or claims. Fug estoppel. The fact of the matter is that to this day vplm hanever gained a single solitary thing from the IPRs other than the delusions about it. And that includes estoppel, which has never even so much a been brought up in any of the plethora litigation. So much for "super lawyer", lolol
I don't understand. Who is your broker. Can't you just ask the broker?
Why restricted?
An astute reader can see that it is not too difficult to get around the restrictions. All sorts of loopholes handed on a silver platter & there's no doubt in my mind they are worked regularly. What a country!
Make SURE you read ALL of the rule 144 conditions & stipulations. There are many & they are extremely important. BE SURE to read the last couple paragraphs where it says: "OTHER CONSIDERATIONS"
Do you want partial, cherry picked info, that doesn't carry with it all the important info necessary to an intelligent determination of a particular situation................? OR............ Do you want THE WHOLE STORY, THE REST OF THE STORY, ALL THE PERTINENT & IMPORTANT DETAILS???
INVESTING LAWS & REGULATIONS
Rule 144
By ADAM HAYES Updated August 11, 2021
Reviewed by SOMER ANDERSON
Fact checked by KATRINA MUNICHIELLO
What Is Rule 144?
Rule 144 is a regulation enforced by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that sets the conditions under which restricted, unregistered, and control securities can be sold or resold. Rule 144 provides an exemption from registration requirements to sell the securities through public markets if a number of specific conditions are met. The regulation applies to all types of sellers, in addition to issuers of securities, underwriters, and dealers.1
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Rule 144 is a set of SEC guidelines outlining the sale of restricted or unregistered securities.
Rule 144 also regulates transactions in securities held by controlling or majority shareholders
In order to be freely transacted, Rule 144 mandates that five conditions must be satisfied, including a minimum holding period, quantity restrictions, and disclosure of the transaction.1
Understanding Rule 144
Rule 144 regulates transactions dealing with restricted, unregistered, and control securities. These type of securities are typically acquired over-the-counter (OTC), through private sales, or constitute a controlling stake in an issuing company. Investors may acquire restricted securities through private placements or other stock benefit plans offered to a company's employees. The SEC prohibits the resale of restricted, unregistered and control securities, unless they are registered with the SEC prior to their sale, or they are exempt from the registration requirements when five specific conditions are met.1
Five Conditions for Resale of Rule 144 Securities
Five conditions must be met for restricted, unregistered and control securities to be sold or resold.1
First, the prescribed holding period must be met. For a public company, the holding period is six months, and it begins from the date a holder purchased and fully paid for securities. For a company that does not have to make filings with the SEC, the holding period is one year. The holding period requirements apply primarily to restricted securities, while resale of control securities is subject to the other requirements under Rule 144.
Second, there must be adequate current public information available to investors about a company, including historical financial statements, information about officers and directors, and a business description.
Third, if a selling party is an affiliate of a company, he cannot resell more than 1% of the total outstanding shares during any three-month period. If a company's stock is listed on a stock exchange, only the greater of 1% of total outstanding shares, or the average of the previous four-week trading volume can be sold. For over-the-counter stocks, only the 1% rule applies.
Fourth, all of the normal trading conditions that apply to any trade must be met. In particular, brokers cannot solicit buy orders, and they are not allowed to receive commissions in excess of their normal rates.
Finally, the SEC requires an affiliated seller to file a proposed sale notice, if the sale value exceeds $50,000 during any three-month period, or if there are more than 5,000 shares proposed for sale.
Other Considerations
If the seller is not associated with the company that issued the shares and has owned the securities for more than one year, the seller does not have to meet any of the five conditions and can sell the securities without restrictions. Also, non-affiliated parties may sell their securities, if they held them for less than a year, but greater than six months, provided the current public information requirement is met.
Hey, only about 9 yrs & 11 months to go (at minimum). Patience is a virtue!
To backup another point I made...
Protections of confidential info in discovery:
Protective Order In addition to a case scheduling order, the court in a patent case will usually issue a “protective order” that safeguards the parties’ confidential information that must be provided to opposing counsel during discovery by limiting who may have access to that information, and by prohibiting those with access from further disclosing it. As with discovery limits, the terms of this order are usually negotiated by the parties in advance of the Case Management Conference, with the judge resolving any issues for which there is disagreement. Three issues are most often debated when negotiating a protective order:Access: Some parties may want their in-house attorneys and employees to have access to the opposing parties’ information in order to assess the merits of the case, while other litigants may want to ensure that their own confidential information does not make it into the hands of employees of the opposing party. One way to handle this issue is to create tiers of confidentiality such that the most sensitive documents can be viewed only by outside counsel, while other less sensitive documents may also be viewed by certain in-house personnel.Source Code: Because computer program source code can be particularly sensitive, certain procedures are sometimes specified for the inspection and production of source code. For example, restrictions such as the location of any inspection, what can and cannot be brought into the inspection room, and limits on printing the code can be included in a protective order.Prosecution Bars: A patent “prosecution bar” is a provision that bars individuals who have received confidential information from prosecuting patent claims at the USPTO concerning the same subject matter. Defendants often seek prosecution bars to prevent the plaintiff from using the defendant’s confidential information to obtain patent claims that specifically target the defendant’s products. The precise scope of the subject matter covered by the prosecution bar, and whether or not it should apply to post-grant proceedings, is often contested.
Where's my 50¢?
Closed red 12 out of past 16 trading days. LMFAO
I wouldn't be too positive about those "positives"...
The IPRs were not & never will be "a win". I thing was "won". Patents were challenged & the challengers lost their challenge, leaving vplm with nothing lost, nothing gained. All they did was maintain what they had from the beginning. That's a "plus" I guess, but not a win. And besides, the whole thing was a debacle put on by a known corrupt agency. No bout-a-doubt-it! It took 3 panels & a real threat of RICO charges, by Sawyer, to finally "obtain" the <cough, cough> unanimous & unprecedented ruling. The whole thing was obviously a farce of the highest kind. If you can't recognize that, I don't think that's very objective. Every single allegation against the patents was up against the fact that all claims are considered VALID from the point of patenthood. That's what the USPTO is assumed to be doing in the 1st place, is to expertly look at all the patenmt claims when the patent application is presented to them. Therefore the whole corrupt debacle turned out to be zero sum game. It took 3 freakin panels 1 whole year to finalky decide they didn't need any RICO charges leveled agin them. Those are the facts. That is the reality!
Some claims HAVE been invalidated. Reversals are conjecture therefore don't deserve to be counted as "a positive".
The artificially induced lower OS share count has been QUICKLY gapping back up. It's huge at 1.7b
With the huge legal quagmire, I don't honestly think it possible to know for a fact that all requisite filings are complete..
I submit that "defendant friendly" & "fair judge" is a misnomer & an impossibility. It's red herring. It is AT ONCE a conflict. The 2 things cannot fairly coexist!
"most cases settle before trial"
And yet there are still no overtures despite the fact that naturally, as time goes by, the price goes up. Not seeing any settlements ever!
Source codes, in a trial, are protected by law!
The allegation about Apple admitting relay use is absotively posolutely ludicrous. I researched & spoke (posted) on this when the allegation 1st surfaced, years ago. I'm in the electronics business. The use of relays is so common in any & all electronic systems is well known & that point would be laughed out of court. I asked for anybody to identify what was the admitted infringment by Apple, for the last couple yrs. No one could or would answer it. Most could not answer it because they were just regurgitating what someone else said. And the other didn't reveal it because of what an embarrassment it is to allege. The apple expert knew full well that there was no issue admitting use of relays. Ppl keep regurgitating that any many other "points" as thought they actually have diligent in depth understanding of the facts. Not seeing that at all... Below is just one of many examples of relay use in the industry in routing phone calls (or faxes as the case may be)...
Configuring VoIP Fax Relay Using CallManager
and a Voice Gateway
Document ID: 13949
Contents
Introduction
Prerequisites
Requirements
Components Used
Conventions
Configure the Cisco CallManager Server to Route the Fax Calls
Step-by-Step Instructions
Configure the Gateway
Verify
Troubleshoot
Related Information
Introduction
This document explains how to force fax calls to use Voice over IP (VoIP) Fax Relay rather than local
hairpinning. This functionality is useful in a scenario that includes a Primary Rate ISDN (PRI) port accepting
voice and fax calls. The voice calls are directed to IP phones and the fax calls are directed to Foreign
Exchange Station (FXS) ports on the same router.
Local hairpinning of analog calls on a router without a time-division multiplexing (TDM) bus makes those
calls subject to delay on the router backplane and Digital Signal Processor (DSP) buffers, and therefore
unreliable. VoIP in general, and Fax Relay specifically, overcomes this problem for fax calls by terminating
them directly on the router DSP.
This forced Fax Relay is accomplished when you route the incoming fax call setup to the Cisco CallManager
server, and then immediately redirect it to the same gateway.
In summary, the gateway now terminates the fax call using Fax Relay on one leg, establishes a VoIP Fax
Relay call between its voice cards routed through the Cisco CallManager, and then re-establishes the fax call
on the FXS call leg.
Note: Only the call setup messages pass through the Cisco CallManager. After the VoIP call is established,
data travels directly between the ingress and egress DSPs on the gateway voice cards.
Prerequisites
Requirements
There are no specific requirements for this document.
Components Used
The information in this document is based on the software and hardware versions:
• Cisco CallManager versions 3.x and 4.x
The information in this document was created from the devices in a specific lab environment. All of the
devices used in this document started with a cleared (default) configuration. If your network is live, make sure
that you understand the potential impact of any command.
Conventions
Refer to the Cisco Technical Tips Conventions for more information on document conventions.
Configure the Cisco CallManager Server to Route the Fax
Calls
Use this procedure to configure the Cisco CallManager server to route the fax calls.
Note: The setup in this document makes use of Cisco CallManager 3.0. However, the concept is relevant for
all versions of Cisco CallManager including 3.x and 4.x.
Step-by-Step Instructions
Complete these steps to configure the Cisco CallManager server to route fax calls.
Select Device > Phone > Add New Phone to create a dummy extension.
In this case, Phone Type Cisco 30 VIP is used.
1.
2. Insert a dummy MAC address in the MAC address field. For instance, 00AABBCCDDEE.
In the Button Template field, be sure to select a 30 VIP handset (it has plenty of line appearances) and
insert it into the database.
3.
Assume these for the dummy extension (use any numbers that are available on your system):
? line 1 is extension 4444, call forward always to 5555
? line 2 is extension 4445, call forward always to 5556
? line 3 is extension 4446, call forward always to 5557
? line 4 is extension 4447, call forward always to 5558
The Call Forward Always settings route patterns that point back out to the H.323 gateway,
specifically to the FXS ports. This forces the router to establish a VoIP call. Therefore, it should use
Fax Relay to terminate the fax call on one leg and bridge it to the FXS call leg.
Click on the first line appearance and enter a dummy number in the Directory Number field. In this
example 4444 is used. Then, enter a Forward All number that points back to the FXS destination
pattern. This example uses 5555.
4.
In the VoIP world, route patterns are the equivalent of static routes. The only difference is that route
patterns point to an E.164 number instead of an IP address. Create and insert a Route Pattern that
matches the forward all number from the dummy extension and direct this to the H.323 gateway with
the FXS ports (the H.323 gateway must have been added previously). In order to do this, go to the
Route Plan menu and select Route Plan > Route Pattern > Add a New Pattern.
5.
Go back to the Dummy Extension Configuration page and add a new line number, (for example,
4445) and call forward all numbers (5556). Create a new Route Pattern that matches the Call Forward
All number and points to the H.323 gateway. Repeat this for each fax line you have.
6.
Configure the Gateway
On the gateway, create these VoIP and plain old telephone server (POTS) dial-peers:
!
Dial-peer voice 1 voip
Destination-pattern 444.
!--- Wildcard match for 444X numbers.
Session target ipv4:172.16.1.252
Codec g711ulaw
Ip precedence 5
Dtmf-relay h245-alpha
!
dial-peer voice 5555 pots
destination-pattern 5555
port 1/0/0
!
dial-peer voice 5556 pots
destination-pattern 5556
port 1/0/1
!
dial-peer voice 5557 pots
destination-pattern 5557
port 1/1/0
!
dial-peer voice 5558 pots
destination-pattern 5558
port 1/1/1
You should now be able to receive fax calls on your system.
Verify
Use the show voice call summary command to verify the change of the codec when the fax call is processed
by the DSP.
Certain show commands are supported by the Output Interpreter Tool (registered customers only) , which
allows you to view an analysis of show command output.
Troubleshoot
There is currently no specific troubleshooting information available for this configuration.
Related Information
• Configuring Cisco Fax Relay
• Fax Relay Troubleshooting Guide
• Configuration on a Cisco WS-X6624 with an H.323 Gateway
• Voice Technology Support
• Voice and IP Communications Support
• Troubleshooting Cisco IP Telephony
• Technical Support & Documentation - Cisco Systems
Contacts & Feedback | Help | Site Map
© 2014 - 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms & Conditions | Privacy Statement | Cookie Policy | Trademarks of
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Updated: Apr 28, 2006 Document ID: 13949
Treble kaboomski
I know, I know.... "next week"
I want to see it go to .0125. I have a big surprise if it does. Go ¢¢¢¢¢vplm¢¢¢¢¢!
That's right & it's still correct. It tries to fly but wings been cut... Hasn't got what it takes.
I know they've been saying the same thing for it's entire existence, but for how long they been predicting the takeoff this time around, just for shits & giggles?
Emu has "gifted" 782 million shares just since march of last year. Gifted an additional 38.3 million shares going back to Jan 2017. Roughly 820 million shares total.
This must be that big price rise predicted for weeks. Wow, impressive.... Something to write home about! Dizzying...
This is July 11, 2012, NOT 2014....and vplm is boldly claiming to preparing to license the "PATENTS" they claim to have ALREADY AQUIRED! (a year & a half before the actual finalization & before there were any approved patents. THIS KIND OF TOTALL BULLSHIT PR IS WHAT SOLD (illegally, in my opinion) ZILLIONS OF SHARES & GARNERED MANY MANY NEW SHAREHOLDERS! (I was already a shareholder before any if this went down).
I saw something up above about "10 years again!" & no patents then, etc.
Just another in the untold piles of steaming bs.
1st of all, in my post, I had made NO REFERENCE to patents. All I said is I could've warned ppl 10 yrs ago about vplm (and that's because some of the negative signs were already coming to light & my consciousness. That said, the patented technology was created around 15 yrs ago. 1st applied for in 2006/7. But the shenanigans began long before the 1st patents were approved in 2013 as digi-phony-ca & vplm were collaborating for a long time (putting this scheme together) according to Emu.. And they began 1st talking about & PRing about the "acquisition" of the patents as far back as 2011, which is 10 yrs. And on the contrary, Emu was already controlling everything by that time, even tho he was not yet named as CEO, because he held the majority of shares BY FAR! So all that crap above, is just that, crap that lacks knowledge of the finer points. Vplm started shareholders as far back as 2011 that they had acquired these patents (they often referred to them as patents instead of properly referring to them as patent applications, BUT THAT WAS DONE ABSOLUTELY ON PURPOSE (for 2 yrs) IN ORDER TO SELL SHARES & GET NEW SHAREHOLDERS (as part of the rogue plan developed by Emu & certain vplm ppl). And that's exactly what they did but they LIED TO US, PROMISING IT WAS ALL GOING TO BE INTEGRATED INTO THE VPLM VOIP SERVICE PLATFORM. THEY RENEGED BIG TIME (on the shareholders).