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.
That is not correct, as I stated earlier, if a company was using the technology that was deemed an inside or trade secret function to that company but did not have a patent on said technology, that does not constitute prior art, thus it would not invalidate a future patent as you claim. There is only one way a company could invalidate a patent in that case and it would involve litigation against a former insider or employee who then took the technology and patented it. That's it, that's all... If someone else independently patented a technology, it is not automatically invalidated.
So you read a general synopsis and came to the conclusion that these are broad spectrum patents, OK
But we are not talking about physical products with this company, we are talking about a process and even if a company was using the technology previously without a patent, it might have been a trade secret but it still does not make a claim for prior art.
Unfortunately, you are trying to compare apples to oranges, it doesn't work.
In addition, the term that is used in the event of a product being sold to the public would be "patent pending" if one chose to release it prior to any approval by a patent office, but again, that does not apply per se here. Even if Skype or Vonage was using this technology, broad scope or not relative to VOIP, if they held it close to their chest as a trade secret, that does not constitute prior art, and that is the ball game we are in here, period...AIMOFOYSFM!
I can't say I have come to any one single reason, a few thoughts come to mind.
1) Simply put, this is the culmination of months of tireless research and work from the engineers and programmers that have worked on the applications.
2) There just might have been some input brought forward by a potential partner or buyer.
3) This is just a bunch of S*** thrown at a wall because everyone knows this is just a scam right!!! ;)
Anything else that comes to mind I will let you know, do you have any thoughts?
I can not provide a direct link unfortunately because of the CAPTCHA security process, I will provide as follows how and what you can do.
Click this link
USPTO Public Pair
Enter the CAPTCHA image.
Once in, I select Publication number. You will have to do this with all 5 Parent patents seperately. The numbers are as follows.
20100150138 LI
20100150328 RBR
20100172345 E911
20110122827 Mobile Gateway
20120170574 UI
Once you are looking at a parent patent data screen, click on "Continuity Data" along the top row of tabs, it is the 6th tab from the left. Then you will see two titles below, one will say "Parent Continuity Data", the second will say "Child Continuity Data", below "Child Continuity" you will find a number in blue, for RBR you will see 4 of them as there are four child patents or applications for RBR, the second one is patented.
Once you have selected an application to look at, click on "Image File Wrapper". This will bring up a list of all the documents filed recently. Click the check box next to the document and then hit the PDF box in blue at the top right of the page, if you just click the document, it will only open the first page.
As a side note, it appears they have filed a number of documents for the recently approved LI child for further examination.
Hope this helps you.
Not always as I said...
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.
Prior Art
Pre-existing items not patented do not constitute prior art on their own.
Additionally, that is why patents go through prosecution to determine patentability against possible prior art, it's also why VPLM in the last 8 days has filed close to 11,000 pages of reference and disclosure on the 6 remaining child patents and also to expand the scope of the LI child patent previously given notice of allowance as a patent...But it's all a scam and they do nothing but issue stock right!!! YFGASBSALITSTR!
I am sure that will be the next PR right, "we filed a whole bunch of paperwork with the USPTO", because every company in the world should be absolutely transparent with every move they make right and tell everything to everyone on this green earth right...BFM's>>>
;) ;) ;)
Not quite silent, check out the literally thousands of documents that have been filed over the last week in support of the remaining child patents. But then again if this was just a scam it would all be a waste of money to make all the filings and pay all the fees to the USPTO right, AIMOOYDFI's...
It was already listed last, always was considering the list is alphabetical...
Gobble gobble, and now we are onto X-mas, or should I say Christmas...
Chang was always listed as President, he was also listed as secretary and treasurer and a director. No news there.
As for the grammatical errors, check out the re-issue of the E911 patent certificate for spelling and punctuation errors, even the USPTO couldn't get it right. They put "presended" instead of "presented" and "staring" in place of "starting".
Lol, you are quite obviously confused. Malak was never with Hutchison...
I am not looking for your apology, it's all good, I was mearly correcting you for your personal benefit. Here is the patent grant cert for UI right from the VPLM site.
UI cert
Just to clarify for you, the final patent, UI was only approved 7-8 months ago, not a year. Thats all...
03-18-2014
Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed
02-27-2014
Email Notification
02-26-2014
Issue Notification Mailed
03-18-2014
Patent Issue Date Used in PTA Calculation
02-11-2014
Dispatch to FDC
11-27-2013
Issue Fee Payment Verified
01-23-2014
Workflow - Request for RCE - Finish
02-11-2014
Email Notification
02-11-2014
Mailing Corrected Notice of Allowability
02-04-2014
Corrected Notice of Allowability
No they don't need to be infringing 100%, see below.
.0000006%
The USPTO is so good, they mailed this notice tomorrow already.
Just for point of reference, today is 10-06-2014
10-07-2014 Mail Notice of Allowance
10-02-2014 Notice of Allowance Data Verification Completed
10-02-2014 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
10-01-2014 Reasons for Allowance
10-01-2014 Information Disclosure Statement considered
10-01-2014 Information Disclosure Statement considered
10-01-2014 Information Disclosure Statement considered
You are correct, definitely in the hundreds IMO.
I think that is a great start but I think you missed a big market, considering the roots of VPLM are Digifonica, the Canadian providers who offer both internet and mobile services,
TELUS, Bell & Rogers. Hutchison, 3 and EE would definitely be on the radar before even the Chinese IMO. But honestly, I think you may have also missed the largest fish of them all, with 46% or so of all international market share for mobile devices, Samsung.
Was that January 7, 2012 or July 1, 2012?
No sorry, It is as follows
5 Parents filed...all patented cases
7 Child/continuations filed...two approved (2nd RBR out of 3 and LI), 5 pending
1 Continuation of previously approved child (RBR's 2nd child)...pending
So just to summarize, five parents approved and two children approved for 7 patented cases with 6 child patents still pending.
Hope that clarifies things.
It is however I prefer 13, and with 6 additional child patents pending.....
And then there were seven!!
LI Continuation APP #13/863,306
10-02-2014 Notice of Allowance Data Verification Completed
10-02-2014 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
10-01-2014 Reasons for Allowance
10-01-2014 Information Disclosure Statement considered
10-01-2014 Information Disclosure Statement considered
10-01-2014 Information Disclosure Statement considered
07-28-2014 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
07-28-2014 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
LI Continuation App#13/863,306
Date Transaction Description
10-01-2014 Reasons for Allowance
10-01-2014 Information Disclosure Statement considered
10-01-2014 Information Disclosure Statement considered
10-01-2014 Information Disclosure Statement considered
07-28-2014 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
07-28-2014 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
04-30-2014 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
04-30-2014 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
Hmm, I am not sure where Chang promised this, can you please provide. As for Sawyer, this is what was said
DR. SAWYER:
Well, indeed. Most shareholders of VP realize there is and has been for several years a chill on the shares. Basically this means the shares cannot be traded electronically which most shares are traded. Efforts have been made in the past to get the chill removed but proved unsuccessful, unfortunately.
We have been considering becoming a fully reporting company and achieving a listing on a higher exchange level of reporting. One of the requirements for moving up is an audit and we have identified an accounting firm that is well known and have begun discussions with them to perform this audit. They have provided an estimate of $30K to provide the full audit plus to pay for out of pocket expenses. Somewhat related to this issue we have interviewed 3 firms that provide independent fair market valuations that would be necessary for consideration of any offer that is submitted to the shareholders for approval. We also chose tentatively chosen the firm that we consider would provide the most cost effective valuation based on their prior assignments.
Personally, obtaining listing on a higher exchange would be contingent upon obtaining revenues from licensing or some other means. I don't feel it necessary until that point as it would simply be a waste of time and money, AIMO of course...
Reporting requirements for the OTCQX VPLM does not meet these standards.
Reporting requirements for OTCQB VPLM could meet these standards, It would probably take 100k to 200k, maybe more, I don't know, after that up to about 50k minimum to stay there, not much of an upgrade either but if people still think it's worth the dilution, to each their own.
Listing requirements for the Nasdaq
VPLM does not meet these standards.
I don't do twitter so I don't follow Inza, as for the offices of Samsung, I am sure they have many all around the world but you never know...
I have seen that before but I can't find any patents for their technology, have you had any luck with that?
Not to disagree with your logic, I see the same scenario but what about Samsung, they also have WIFI enabled devices and more than twice the market share of cell phones in the world that Apple does.
RBR history coming at you direct from the USPTO...
09-24-2013 Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed
09-19-2013 Electronic Information Disclosure Statement
09-19-2013 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
09-05-2013 Email Notification
09-04-2013 Issue Notification Mailed
09-24-2013 Patent Issue Date Used in PTA Calculation
08-21-2013 Email Notification
08-20-2013 Dispatch to FDC
08-21-2013 Printer Rush- No mailing
08-21-2013 Mail Response to 312 Amendment (PTO-271)
08-14-2013 Application Is Considered Ready for Issue
08-14-2013 Response to Amendment under Rule 312
08-13-2013 Pubs Case Remand to TC
08-09-2013 Response to Reasons for Allowance
08-09-2013 Amendment after Notice of Allowance (Rule 312)
08-09-2013 Issue Fee Payment Verified
08-09-2013 Issue Fee Payment Received
07-16-2013 Electronic Review
07-16-2013 Email Notification
07-16-2013 Mail Notice of Allowance
That's kinda my sentiment.
Gotcha, thanks but I think it should go the other way, the article needs to be re-written.
I think I missed something, which points are you saying need changing?
May 11, 2012, just to clarify was the date of that article but who really knows the exact timeline.
Apparently it was more like 27 months ago, but you are right, 200 million per year in revenue...
Original article
Why hire a company in Australia you ask, I suppose one could speculate that Ed Candy being an Australian might have something to do with it. One could even say that north of Australia lies a whole lot of telecom wealth in countries such as, oh I don't know, perhaps Japan, China or even the likes of say South Korea. Isn't that were that funny company, what is it, Samyung, Fansung, oh ya, Samsung is located. We all know that name right, they kind of own the market for mobile devices at the moment but this is just my opinion.
Jim know's who has the answer....
It's worth noting that that despite the hyperbolic claims of Apple SVP Phil Schiller and T-Mobile CEO John Legere, Wi-Fi Calling probably won't be seamless. At least not at the start. While Apple made it sound like you can simply jump from the carrier's spectrum to Wi-Fi and back, the fine print on T-Mobile's own site disclaims confusingly both that "Most devices will not transition between Wi-Fi and the wireless network, " and that "Devices will not transition between Wi-Fi and the cellular network." We've reached out for clarification.
Sprint seems to be in the same pickle. The company's FAQ notes: "A call will disconnect if a caller moves between a Wi-Fi and cellular network."
The key to a seamless handoff may be another technology called Voice over LTE, or VoLTE for short, where your calls already start as packets of data (like Skype) instead of using legacy cellular technology. When everything is just data packets, it shouldn't matter whether they travel along Wi-Fi or cellular networks: they can theoretically take the fastest route to their destination.
insert-text-here
I only put the link in place so you could see the filing date of 2007, If you want to read the rest and try to understand it, that is your prerogative. And yes, it has been said that the MSFT Legal Intercept patent is very similar, approximately 75% the same although it can take lees than 1% to be considered an infringement.
Google's 9 lines
Google initially won this however in May 2014 Oracle won a reversal by appeal.
It was merely written that way for the benefit of others, no disrespect pointed at you.
MSFT Legal, VPLM Lawful.
The best explanation I can provide you for the original denials on the VPLM patents were simply that the USPTO looked at this technology simply as it would apply to traditional telecommunications, not VoIP, once they were shown the difference, they were much more receptive to understanding this was new, not old.
Lol, ok you caught me, I did call VPLM's patent "Legal Intercept" and not "Lawful Intercept" that was for a reason. As for the dates, understand you are dealing with a government agency, they measure time in increments of years, not a moment less. The filing date and the publication date can vary greatly. Check out this link, it will give you the answers you are seeking.
VPLM Lawful Intercept/Google Patent search