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 Patent Status. Just a few minor corrections needed but thanks.
1) Pub #20100150138
Lawful Intercept - Patented case
1) LI Child - Notice of allowance (5th NOA) assigned patent number with TD
2) Pub #20100150328
Rating, Billing & Routing - Patented Case
1) RBR 1st - Non-final rejection, examiner concedes prior art is deficient, examination ongoing.
2) RBR 2nd - Patented Case
3) RBR 3rd - Notice of Allowance (2nd NOA)
4) RBR 4th - Assigned to examiner in GAU, awaiting prosecution.
3) Pub #20100172345
Emergency 911 - Patented Case
1) E911 child - Non-final rejection, examination ongoing.
4) Pub #20110122827
Mobile Gateway - Patented Case
1) MG Child - Assigned to examiner in GAU, awaiting prosecution.
5) Pub #20100170574
Uninterrupted Transmission of Internet Protocol - Patented Case
1) UI Child - Notice of Allowance (4th NOA) assigned patent number with TD
Correct me if I'm wrong but with the shares in question and anti dilution, would the final number being returned to the treasury not be just shy of 175 million?
But in all honesty, does anyone think that they are going to discuss a case that is presently before the courts as we speak.
It would appear that given recent activity and actions, they are not complicit. As far as interest in the patents, opinions vary...
Actually, DTC can remove any chill at anytime based solely upon their own discretion. The window for VPLM to file an objection via regular means has closed however. They can still make a case to do so and given the current legal events, they have one.
I will agree with you however, get your popcorn, this is getting good.
And in addition, I love the fact that Kippings and Locksmiths representitive stated in court that there was no proof of an investigation into their alledged fraud. I guess they don't read or post here like Kipping and his wife do. Perhpaps someone should send them the links...
Hmm, where to start. For one, there is not a reputable brokerage that would have allowed this to happen, this particular broker established a trading platform in Belize and the Caymans quite obviuosly for the illegal type of transactions being investigated here. Nowhere in this filing is VPLM or any of the current officers being investigated. I will never deny the fact that Kipping was or is a fraud and was a stock selling machine. Just for a point of interest, I never bought one share in Kippings VPLM, but i certainly do not believe this incarnation of VPLM operates in the way he did. I am not sure if you have ever seen a stock cert issued with the restricted legend on it, it also includes the date of issue and I can assure you that the broker I deal with will not even deposit a share cert for VPLM given the chill on the stock which BTW was placed on VPLM because of questionalbe financing completed by Kipping. That document is public record to.
Getting the chill removed is something that has been attempted but until there is a resolution to the current situation involving the cancellation of shares that Kipping and Locksmith and the rest of them created, there will be no removal. Once this is resolved, they can proceed with that situation.
Sawyer said they have tried and are trying to do so,this is part of the process. Additionally, VPLM reported they found questionable transactions and reported them, well obviously this is proof of that process.
As far as I am concerned, I can't wait for this to all come out in the wash...
Finra action against RK, LSF
Now someone tell me again that Locksmith has a case!!! How come Richard and Corrine don't update their website to show this action?
I am not sure what info you are referring to, the shares in question, the lawsuit by Locksmith against VPLM or the lawsuit by VPLM against Locksmith? As for lunch, I generally don't eat it!
My understanding is they in total equal the sum of approximately 100 million shares. Remember that a cancellation of 100 million shares also means the cancellation of an additional 40 million from Malak so in total about 14% of all outstanding currently.
Lol, no. Richard Kipping, former CEO of VPLM, VoIP MDU etc has a private company called Locksmith Financial. He issued stock to Locksmith Financial claiming that the company had financed items for VPLM that the current BOD found unverifiable. In fact he issued stock to the following that was found to be unverifiable.
Cactus Ventures, Inc., Richard G Kipping, Terry Kwan, Locksmith Financial Corporation, Inc., TK Investment, Talisman Financial, Inc. and VHB International Ltd.
Hence, this current suit that VPLM filed.
The 100 million shares that VPLM is currently trying to have returned to the treasury that Kipping and his entourage illegally issued to themselves some years ago...
Wish and you shall receive
Minutes
"Ms. Dowling advised the first amended complaint was attached in error and should have been the second amended complaint. Statements by the Court. Ms. Dowling advised they are prepared to file the second amended complaint if the Court is inclined to grant defendant's motion with leave. Mr. Knecht argued as to stock plaintiffs are asserting were frozen in the first complaint. Ms. Dowling argued the defendants are relying on the fact there is an investigation and plaintiffs do not know this as a fact. COURT ORDERED, Defendants Motion to Dismiss CONTINUED. Plaintiff has until the end of the business day on 7/8/15 to file second amended complaint, supplement to motion must be filed by 7/17/15, and any reply must be filed three days prior to the hearing. CONTINUED TO: 7/29/15 9:00 AM "
Parties Present
07/07/2015 9:00 AM
Plaintiff
Dowling, Elaine A. - Attorney
Defendant
Knecht, Adam R. - Attorney
Defendant
Knecht, Adam R. - Attorney
Defendant
Knecht, Adam R. - Attorney
Defendant
Knecht, Adam R. - Attorney
Defendant
Knecht, Adam R. - Attorney
Defendant
Knecht, Adam R. - Attorney
Result: Continued
You remain skeptical of Knobbes involvement? You can't find a connection "any where"?
Perhaps you should go directly to the horses mouth, John Carson's name and signature are all over every filing and response to and from the USPTO.
Perhaps you should contact the Palo Alto office instead of the Seattle office...
DB, just to clarify, 100 million market cap, still nothing to see here.
Good info indeed, I get the same result when trying to post a direct link to the filing, just the home search page for the court records. Not sure why you couldn't see it then, glad you found it.
Clark County Court records, I can't post a direct link, you have to go to the site and search through civil filings.
I will second that, GBC is definitely not Kipping but I would put money that this is, IMO
My opinion
That's exactly what i was feeling, in all honesty, that would be the kind of comment made by someone with the name "Kipping". IMO
If I may, I would like to pluralize that to "Updates"...
Lots going on! Activity is starting to reflect it.
07/07/2015 Motion to Dismiss (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth) Defendants Motion to Dismiss
Kurt R Bonds retained to represent VPLM and all named parties...
Keep in mind the lawsuit was filed 25 days after the end of the period for which the quarterly report was filed for!!! 2 + 2 tells me it was not included because there was no suit before the end of March...
Positive NRG did not "get the email", it was posted by Brent Russel.
previously posted
Google is an MVNO, very interesting...
Google MVNO
Actually, the man pictured in both those photo's is one in the same, that was his fathers funeral.
Just to help you get some clarity, Southbank is suburb of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Therefore a number of companies utilize the name {"Southbank" including this unrelated company...
Interesting, here is the transaction history for this application, I guess it was deficient and Google just could not make it work even though Google patents still show this as an active application!!!
09-07-2007 Mail Abandonment for Failure to Respond to Office Action
09-04-2007 Aband. for Failure to Respond to O. A.
02-08-2007 Mail Non-Final Rejection
02-05-2007 Non-Final Rejection
01-18-2007 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
10-10-2006 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
10-05-2006 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
03-21-2006 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
01-27-2006 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
01-26-2005 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
09-22-2004 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
08-02-2004 IFW TSS Processing by Tech Center Complete
08-02-2004 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
You are absolutely correct on his identity, I am going to respectfully disagree with you regarding the fact that he is not completely separate or unbiased as he does not work for VPLM/DIGI in any capacity, he works for the USPTO, additionally he is expected to be unbiased as an employee of the USPTO.
His pay check is not contingent on passing a certain percentage of patents through prosecution for the sake of numbers, his job is to ensure that the invention is patentable and does not infringe upon prior art.
Granted there is obvious history between the examiner and the company but there have been a few examiners, each with their own expertise, they are still third parties independent from VPLM.
As for the validity of the origins of the excerpt, I assure you they are his, they were actually published Jan 6, 2015 on page 7 of the document I reference.
I will do you one better, this is the phone number of the author who I cited, he would be the absolute best contact to ask as honestly, I don't feel you would believe me and I don't expect you to either.
(571)270-1953 Otis L Thompson Jr...
Thanks, that is an interesting report. The references I was citing were in regards to another patent however, 13/863,306.
IPFrontline had this to say about it.
http://ipfrontline.com/2014/10/voip-pal-coms-patent-continuation-becomes-seventh-patent/
They also had this to say regarding LI.
"Lawful Intercept technology will provide the U.S. and other world governments a much more effective and totally stealth method of legally intercepting all forms of VoIP communications including SKYPE, Vonage, Magic Jack, as well as VoIP to landline calls. Until the USPTO’s approval of Voip-Pal’s Lawful Intercept patent earlier this year, there was not an effective means of stealthily intercepting communications from specific pinpointed suspects, resulting instead in the current blanket approach of gathering information from the population at large. Lawful Intercept will allow for government agencies to pinpoint their surveillance to specific criminal and terrorist suspects only, without the need for the widespread collection of data. Lawful Intercept is a real time means of intercepting communications that is designed to be an invaluable tool in providing for national security and assisting law enforcement agencies to prevent terrible tragedies like the Boston Marathon bombing and Mumbai Massacre."
Of course it relates to the patents, that's what this company is but one would have to do a whole lot of reading to fully understand the magnitude of what I am about to post but please feel free to do so. I took the time to transcribe this excerpt from a document published last week with respect to LI, It should be considered with respect to the entire industry as you will see. It was written by someone completely separated from the company, let's call that a third party.
"8,422,507, and it’s prior art, and after thorough research of the prior art, Examiner has found that the claims are allowable. References cited with respect to U.S. Patent No. 8,422,507(e.g. Thesayi et al. (U.S. 8,116,307) and Fiatal et al. (US 2006/0093135), both IDS references for the instant application) represent the closest prior art to the claimed invention. Thesayi et al. teaches the lawful intercept of IP traffic between devices. The relayed traffic is mirrored (copied) and sent to an analyzer based on dialing profile, comprising intercept determination information, contained within a database and associated with a subscriber. Fiatal et al. teaches similar features. Both references, however, are deficient with respect to a routing message being separate from any message sent between a subscriber and another party, the routing message including at least some of the determination information and destination information associated with the subscriber dialing profile. Additional references cited with this office action disclose teachings similar to those of Thesayi et al. and Fiatal et al. but are deficient in the same manner as Thesayi et al. and Fiatal et al."
Otis L Thompson Jr
"So in other words, you are also claiming that it is unrealistic that there would be a person with two left shoes also as you claimed?"
Not at all, I was merely pointing out that to a person with the two right shoes, the two left ones are invaluable, you claimed they were worthless. And additionally, you are the one now claiming that it be unlikely that a person would wind up with two left shoes, in fact neither of us made that claim initially, you just brought that item into the fray but IMO, it is feasible...
Now to put this whole conversation in context, for a company that provides VoIP services, these patents may be invaluable, just like someone looking for two right shoes when they only had two left shoes, that doesn't mean they are worth a quadrillion dollars but they could be worth a whole lot more than people think, perhaps less than others believe but still invaluable to someone or some company.
That is all I have been stating
As far as the frustration level in shareholders, I indeed have a shared feeling but as far as I am concerned, there are a ton of items in plain sight that have recently reduced this frustration, some of them as recent as today, all people have to do is open their eyes and they would find them. They offer a great deal of insight as to why this may be taking a lot longer than first expected.
As far as Sawyer stepping down, he did not leave the company so IMO, he did not run from shareholders, things change, circumstances arise, perhaps he realized this was going to take more energy than he had, maybe he or a close family member fell ill, who knows but he did not run away.
As far as the issuing of the shares, it takes a bigger man to admit a mistake, I don't feel like he did anything wrong, in fact I feel more confident in his character because he was willing to confront the situation and not bury it out of sight of shareholders. Here's how I see that scenario playing out, He took the reins of this company and was presented with a number of items that had to be cleaned up, one of them included some debts to multiple entities. He issued them along with the entire board, things appeared legitimate on the surface and then they commenced with some internal auditing that found some discrepancies. they then reported them to the appropriate authorities and have continued to deal with the situation in the appropriate way. For anyone that believes that the company can just revoke the shares, they would be wrong, there is a legal process believe it or not...
ATIAIHTSOTFS
So in other words, you are also claiming that it is unrealistic that there would be a person with two left shoes also as you claimed? I feel differently,
I don't believe that when someone invents or creates an item or a process that they cover all the items & functions that could enhance or expand said items.
For example, the first shoe was apparently a sandal of sorts, who knew they would enclose it and make running shoes and dress shoes, then add slip-ons and lace ups and then OMG, Velcro, lets not forget boots and high heels etc. etc. etc.
You use the argument that two left shoes are real but not useful, I respectfully disagree, they can be invaluable to a person with two right shoes. IMO
But to someone with two right shoes, they are invaluable...
"the most valuable 2,000 of them had already been distributed to consortium members"
Of course that is the valuation, there is about 4-5 years left on the life of the Nortel patents and Rockstar kept the best and is now flushing the $h!t down the RPX toilet for 900 million. That's some expensive sewage even at $225,000 per pile.
The comparison couldn't be more accurate...
From denied to notice of allowance in 5 months flat!
An early Christmas gift I suppose.
And that makes 8...App #14/092,831
12-23-2014 Mail Notice of Allowance
12-18-2014 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
02-26-2014 Reference capture on IDS
02-26-2014 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
12-15-2014 Document Verification
12-15-2014 Notice of Allowance Data Verification Completed
12-12-2014 Information Disclosure Statement considered
12-11-2014 PARALEGAL OR ELECTRONIC TERMINAL DISCLAIMER APPROVED
11-26-2014 Terminal Disclaimer Filed
12-01-2014 Date Forwarded to Examiner
11-26-2014 Response after Non-Final Action
11-26-2014 Request for Extension of Time - Granted
11-26-2014 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
11-26-2014 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
09-04-2014 Email Notification
09-03-2014 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
09-04-2014 Change in Power of Attorney (May Include Associate POA)
08-18-2014 Electronic Review
08-18-2014 Email Notification
08-18-2014 Mail Non-Final Rejection
08-09-2014 Non-Final Rejection
08-06-2014 Information Disclosure Statement considered
08-06-2014 Information Disclosure Statement considered
08-06-2014 Information Disclosure Statement considered
07-02-2014 Case Docketed to Examiner in GA
This is all I will say further to this discussion today, and I quote.
"Information kept secret, for instance, as a trade secret, is not usually prior art, provided that employees and others with access to the information are under a non-disclosure obligation. With such an obligation, the information is typically not regarded as prior art. Therefore, a patent may be granted on an invention, although someone else already knew of the invention. A person who used an invention in secret may in some jurisdictions be able to claim "prior user rights" and thereby gain the right to continue using the invention. As a special exception, earlier-filed and unpublished patent applications do qualify as prior art as of their filing date in certain circumstances."
Putting it in more simple terms, if APPLE sells an IPhone (you a sucker if you buy one, IMO) I am sure that all the physical components have some form of patent protection because a reasonable mind knowsto protect their A$$, but it's not a given in the way the software operates and communicates that there is protection unless the process is patented also, that is what we are dealing with @ VPLM.
I'm OUT
FMS
Congratulations, that is exactly what I just said. They can have a trade secret but if someone else files for a patent you are SOL, I am now done with this conversation as my head hurts from beating it against this keyboard but I always admire ones attempt to twist a point into their favor, not...
So just to summarize, if Vonage for example was to be using a technology as an internal process to route VoIP calls but then VPLM filed a patent on the process, Vonage is sucking wind, too bad so sad but VPLM was the first to file....And I'm out.