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.
No. Nothing. Nada.
Research.
I have a feeling we might see low 10’s on Friday. I hope they keep us informed right away on Friday
No worries. You should be ok. I still hold VPLM on another brokerage account that I don’t touch( my first one ever 12 yrs ago)It was with knight trade I believe and then it got bought by Ally invest. I still hold the same amount of shares after the transfer.
Ameritrade is way better. Specially their apps. They have the best apps for trading. Google it you’ll see. I used to be with scottrade about 6 years ago and made the switch to TD. I have no regrets
I finally pulled the trigger on this one. I also hold vplm. Let’s see which one cooks first! I’m hungry!
Quick tip. For you guys; if you have a smart phone. The iHub app is much better than the online site.
I never do this but; Friday we get drunk! Will celebrate if the stay is lifted... or drink the pain away if it is not lifted. Let’s hope for the first one!
Yup. True; I’m not buying more at these prices. I’m happy with the amount of shares I currently hold. I have been accumulating all these years.
We are on the same boat. Sold my etf’s and bought more at .13 back in November. I now have more cash in my account waiting to buy if it hits the .13 mark again.
Oouuucchh that hurts! Boom!
Re: Stockteacher80 Post# 47532
Would you be upset if this hits over a dollar next Friday? And didn’t buy in?
Would you be upset/in debt; if this goes down to .04 next Friday if you bought some?
There’s a little help.
Resistance around .15 another possible decline before it shoots up!? Hmmmm...
Agreed. PATENTPLAYS were are you you seem to have a negative opinion about almost everything on vplm. I want to hear your side.... Oh I forgot; you clocked out already; we will see you until Tuesday before the market opens...
So we now are seeking 9.7 bill x.85 = $8.24 a share? Can we fast forward to Jan 26th. !!!!!!!
So much progress has taken place since this interview conducted by: Bud Wayne, Editorial Executive @CEOCFO Magazine
“Since our products are typically integrated into hardware and software, our focus has been on recovering licensing fees from those in the industry who may be currently using our inventions. Our goal now is to license our patents or to have them acquired. In order to protect our IP, we have initiated legal actions for infringement against Apple, Verizon, AT&T and Twitter totaling approximately $9.7 billion, excluding punitive damages. Presently, there is stay of the proceedings in the litigation in the federal district court in Nevada pending the outcome of two Inter Partes Reviews filed by Apple that are being considered by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”- Emil Malak
Read up on the full interview here:
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/768c4e_a18c2e9b2ef24670bf5821ca619dafbf.pdf
#CEOCFO #VoipPal #VPLM #Technology #Invest
Good. Hopefully the sells happen. Hopefully it goes way down to .10 or even .062 ;)
Been waking up at 5am to check the past two days and NADA! Maybe this afternoon or Monday we get some news, I’m assuming it will be the response to apple ?
Sorry. Apparently you have to sign up. So I copy pasted it here.
Apple Says Secret Lobbying Campaign Swayed PTO Trial
By Scott Graham | January 11, 2018 at 07:06 PM
Apple Inc. is lobbing explosive charges of bias and ex parte contact in an administrative trial recently conducted before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
The iPhone maker accuses its opponent of secretly lobbying the administrative judges presiding over their case, the chief judge who supervises them and the cabinet secretary who oversees the USPTO—without any of it being formally disclosed to Apple.
What’s more, Apple said, the strategy worked: At opponent Voip-Pal.com’s suggestion, the PTO substituted three new judges into their case, after the previous three had issued a preliminary ruling in Apple’s favor. Following trial, the three new judges ruled the other way, upholding the validity of a patent that Voip-Pal is asserting against Apple in Nevada federal court.
“The record is irrefutable that the board took actions adverse to Apple after receiving Voip-Pal’s unauthorized ex parte communications asking for that precise result,” writes Apple’s lawyer, Erise IP partner Adam Seitz. “The inference of prejudice is inescapable.”
Apple’s gambit to reverse the panel’s judgment faces an uphill battle. For one thing, the company acknowledges it got wind of one of the communications last May, but held its tongue until after losing the case six months later.
Still, the serious charges come at an awkward time for the PTO and its Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a relatively new entity that hears administrative challenges to patent validity in a process known as inter partes review (IPR). The U.S. Supreme Court is currently weighing a constitutional challenge to the IPR process, which was established as part of the 2011 America Invents Act as a quicker and less expensive alternative to district court trials .
In the challenge, Oil States Energy Services, backed by an army of mostly small patent owners, argue that without life tenure and other trappings of the federal judiciary, the PTAB is too vulnerable to political pressure from the executive branch. At the November oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch asked repeatedly if PTAB leadership was improperly using panel composition to influence trial outcomes. Now Apple, the No. 1 most frequent filer of IPR petitions, is alleging that’s exactly what happened in its Voip-Pal case.
Voip-Pal, the owner of several patents related to voice-over internet technology, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Its outside counsel at Knobbe Martens and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office declined to comment through spokesmen.
One thing is certain: Voip-Pal and its former CEO, Thomas E. Sawyer, have left Apple a spectacular paper trail. Sawyer wrote a series of six letters to PTAB Chief Judge David Ruschke and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross between May and October, complaining about how the PTAB was handling the Apple-Voip-Pal IPR. Voip-Pal posted all six of the letters on its website last fall, even publicizing them with a press release.
Voip-Pal said in its press release that Sawyer was acting independently of the company. But his most recent letter stated that he still acts as an adviser to Voip-Pal, and has been in regular contact with Voip-Pal’s attorneys about the IPR process.
Sawyer sent his first letter May 1 to Ruschke. He introduces himself as a former adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and the first President George Bush. He explained that he’s a past CEO and chairman of Voip-Pal, but said he no longer has a formal role with the company.
He makes what seems to be a reasonable point. Because there is no database of financial information for PTAB judges as there is with the federal judiciary, it’s more difficult to determine conflicts of interest, Sawyer wrote. But through public sources he identified alleged conflicts with all three administrative judges presiding over Apple v. Voip-Pal. Judge Stacy Margolies had represented Apple in 2011 while working at Fish & Richardson; Judge Barbara Benoit also had worked at Fish; and Judge Lynne Pettigrew once worked at AT&T, which is also involved in the ’815 litigation. Margolies, Benoit and Pettigrew had made a preliminary finding that Voip-Pal’s patent was likely invalid as obvious and had set the case for trial.
At a June conference call with the board, Apple discovered that three new PTAB judges—Josiah Cocks, Jennifer Meyer Chagnon and John Hudalla—had taken the place of the previous panel. Apple said there was no discussion or explanation as to why.
Sawyer, meanwhile, was far from satisfied. He wrote to Ruschke on June 21 and July 11 to ask why the change had been made, and more important, why the new panel hadn’t dissolved the previous judges’ decision to institute proceedings. “It seems clear that the only way to make the patent owner even partially ‘whole’ is to allow the new panel to reconsider the institution decision,” he complained. The June 21 letter is copied to President Donald Trump; Commerce Secretary Ross; the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court; members of the Senate Judiciary Committee; and to the PTAB panel, Cocks, Chagnon and Hudalla, among others.
When Ruschke didn’t respond, Sawyer followed up directly with Ross, the cabinet secretary who oversees the PTO, on Aug. 31. Sawyer again observed that he had worked in four previous presidential administrations, and complained that the PTAB’s conduct, if it occurred in the private sector, “might have constituted organized crime.”
Apple is seizing in particular on the most recent letter, dated Oct. 23, which states that he continues to work for Voip-Pal as an adviser and has been consulting with the company’s attorneys for several months about the IPR. “The Oct. 23 letter thus makes clear that Dr. Sawyer is no rogue actor,” Seitz wrote in Apple’s motion. “Rather, Voip-Pal knew about—and assisted in—Dr. Sawyer’s ex parte communications with the board designed to influence this proceeding.”
As soon as Voip-Pal or its attorneys became aware of the ex parte communications, they had a duty to formally notify Apple and the board, Seitz writes.
Instead, the newly constituted panel held a trial and issued its final written decision in Voip-Pal’s favor on Nov. 20.
At the time Voip-Pal CEO Emil Malak hailed the decision as a new era at the PTAB. “I’m hoping that we at Voip-Pal have started a trend that will show judgments based on merits rather than a bias towards infringers,” he told IPWatchdog.
In its press release about Sawyer’s letters, the company said they were written “independent of Voip-Pal management” and that many of the addressees are “personal friends and or acquaintances of Dr. Sawyer, who has spent a significant portion of his distinguished career working in government.”
Apple said that despite Voip-Pal’s attempts at publicity, it wasn’t aware of the June, July and August letters until November, after briefing and oral argument were concluded. But Seitz does acknowledge that Sawyer sent copies of his May 1 and Oct. 23 letters to the Nevada federal judge who’s presiding over Voip-Pal’s parallel district court proceedings against Apple. Unlike the PTAB, the clerk of that court entered the letters into the court record, putting Apple on notice.
When the PTAB held a Dec. 19 conference call to air Apple’s concerns, Voip-Pal told the board that its primary outside counsel on the IPR, Knobbe partners Kerry Taylor and John Carson, would not be attending. Instead Voip-Pal substituted Kevin Malek of Malek Moss Legal Group in their place. Voip-Pal’s formal response to Apple’s motion is due Jan. 12. In the meantime, the board has now posted Sawyer’s letters to the IPR docket and stayed the deadline for a formal motion for rehearing.
Apple said it isn’t accusing the board of ill will. It believes the PTAB acted out of good intentions when apparently responding to Voip-Pal’s allegations of bias among the original panel members. “Yet the board’s actions were not vetted through open discourse and Apple had no opportunity to respond,” Seitz wrote. That was the first step in instilling the replacement panel with “a reciprocal bias against Apple.”
“The common-sense problem with removing a judge (or an entire panel of judges) in the face of bias allegations after a substantive decision has been rendered is that the newly appointed adjudicators necessarily assume the task of fixing what led to the substitution in the first place (a task that Voip-Pal’s subsequent ex parte communications demanded),” Seitz writes.
He and Apple are formally asking that the board enter judgment for Apple as a sanction against Voip-Pal. “Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures,” Seitz writes. Alternatively, he said, the board should vacate its decision and “provide a constitutionally correct process going forward after consultation with the parties to ensure fairness”
Scott Graham
Scott Graham
Scott Graham focuses on intellectual property and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
vplm’s response apparently is tomorrow. And a nice link I found with important info for all the newbies that are a bit confused. This was just uploaded.
https://www.law.com/therecorder/sites/therecorder/2018/01/11/apple-alleges-secret-lobbying-campaign-swayed-pto-trial/?slreturn=20180011222518
.50? .60? =D
So they got about 27% of what they were asking . How much were we asking ? 55billion on the last press release?
Is this another case like vp*m ...!?how advance is this in courts...
Soooo no IPR!???
When can we check or see if they filed for the ipr ? How soon?
What a Christmas!!!! Small cap!!!
Oh wow! Td Ameritrade crashed!!!! What’s on level 2? Anyone?
You are correct that’s a possibility. Apple is known to drag the process for a couple of years more.
Golden balls?
Yep. It’s been a hell of a ride! I almost gave up this year as well; to be exact in October I said to my wife: “well if next year vplm doesn’t do crap I’m selling it and claim it as capital loss” this is when vplm was .02 .018... .....I got in 9 years ago at .04 when I was a freshman in college from then on bought more at .07 at .13 and was even to get some at .035. I’m glad This was one of the first penny stocks I bought in and I’m still holding every single share haven’t sold a single one. — ..—I wonder if I am the youngest long term holder in here. I’m 29
Market manipulation or those bitcoin “investors” buying into vplm...
Ok ok. ! We decided to come back for you patentplays. Last chance to get on the train. Now or never. We can be friends! :)
Choooo chooo!!! Chuka chuka!! Chooo chooo ooohh no we left patentplays/sunspotter sorry we are not coming back!!! ADIOS! CIAO! Chooo chooooo!
If this continues we should hit $1 within the next two weeks
Could it be?? Mmmmmm...
Don’t see it on my level 2
Based on the news today. I don’t know how I feel, Emil says that he wants another company to buy us. I rather settle in court more bang for your buck in a lesser time??? Instead of the other company buying us and continue the process of lawsuits... OR.. if apple buys us for some reason what could it be? 4 bill? 5 bill?
The real excitement will be when we pass .36 (2014). I’m averaging .08 my last purchase screwed my DCA cost I bought a big chunk at .13 a few weeks ago, but whatever what counts is how many shares we can get of this baby
I came carros some extra cash last week; let them sell!!!! I want more, more more more!
Something that was posted yesterday after the market closed..
VPLM Gained 171.43% In 2 Weeks After Our Alerts!
Published on Dec 4, 2017 7:00 pm....
makes sense... explains the gains from yesterday...