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.
Spot on in my opinion. Very well stated.
Does anyone have any thoughts on my prior post (#16432) about the potential/effects of licensing? I would like to hear your opinions. TIA
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=103384385
1.) There is nothing to indicate that another pr won't come out prior to the expiration of the blackout period.
2.) Tucker specifically stated in the cc that he had not only put forth considerable time and expertise in the prosecution of the patents while still under the control of Digifonica, but also clearly stated that he had devoted his own money to the effort as well.
3.) I do not think you would put additional money towards buying shares on the open market while you have insider knowledge of a material event. Atleast not if you had any integrity.
JMO
Both, I saw it in writing and that's my opinion. Monetization, by definition, requires money to actually change hands (a transaction). Under a buyout, this would not occur until closing. With a licensing deal, the initial money would probably change hands upon execution of the deal and then convert to a revenue stream going forward for continued use of the technolgy. In the case of VPLM, the upfront fees could be substantial based upon the level of infringement and the time since the patents were originally filed under the international patent treaty. JMO
I would add that monetization of the patents does not occur upon the announcement of buyout, but rather upon the close of said buyout. Licensing may be a different ballgame.
I would think they would release the next pr after the market on Thursday - same as the last. JMO
I would not say it is BS. I don't know who posted it, but it is a copy and paste from bloomberg businessweek executive profiles. If you google "colin tucker", it will appear as the 3rd reference.
A few thoughts on the current negotiations and the potential for licensing:
With regards to the ongoing negotiations, I hope we are taking a two pronged approach - requesting that all parties submitting a proposal for a buyout also submit a proposal for licensing. Thus, allowing us to explore both options simulataniously. Of consequence, is the fact that a party submitting an offer to purchase would have a difficult time in any court of law claiming the patents are worthless or to broad to be inforced (try claiming otherwise to a jury).
With regards to the licensing aspect, many seem to be of the opinion that this would be a long-term process that would require raising capital or further dilution. I see it differently especially if we are taking the approach above. We could possibly come out of the negotiations with seveeral licensees. Each would require an upfront payment to cover past infringements (raise capital) as well as a revenue stream on a go forward basis. I believe this would have a tremendous impact on our current share price and alleviate any shareholder concerns. Also, it would validate the technolgy to the market and induce further licensees to get on board as the price will only increase for later adoptors.
Finally, once the licensor/licensee path is underway, I would use our considerable influence to push forth an agenda of having the technolgy recognized as a standard (i.e. government mandated and paid for through fees and tariffs). Of note, Sawyer has numerous gov't contacts in the US, Candy serves as an advisor to the 3 Group in the EU, and Tucker is one of the 8 key people to know in the telecom sector as listed by The Financial Times.
Personally, I feel this could not only get the short-term value we are all looking for in the stock price, but also have the result of the enormous valuations in the future (25-32 billion).
JMO
Love it - my thoughts exactly. We have all seen stocks run on vapor PRs, one after the other after the other...Not happening here.JMO
I agree 100%. I do not know why anyone would be worried about an extension. I see it as likely. If we have several interested parties, I would use the first part of this period to eliminate all but the highest two, possibly announce a formal rejection of the others (if allowable) and set a firm deadline for the remaining two to submit their highest and best. JMO
I would tend to agree with you about 98% of the time, however this is a special case. I do not believe you have done any dd on the actual management in place here or the patents for that matter. Much of the "technolgy" covered by the patent portfolio simply does not exist anywhere in the marketplace today (i.e. LI, MG, e911 (increased funtionality) and AIS. Of course, it also takes RBR to make it all run and we can only trust the BOD as to the current level of infringement on that one.
Read up on the BOD and maybe you will start to understand. IMO
I would add that the vonage patent only allows you to receive the call after being redirected to eliminate the roaming. Our MG patent allows you to actually make calls without roaming. As for me, I like to make calls on my cell phone as well as receive them. IMO
How about a little love for Slim - he atleast deserves a mention.
Agreed my friend. I love the pps action, but i'm holding untill the deal is done and if it involves a stock swap, then i'll probably hold even longer. There is a lot of upside to this over the next 10-20 yrs.IMO
I know, but I love it so much I decided to borrow it.
Once this deal is done, the current pps will look like small change. Can't wait to see that number.
The best is yet to come. JMO
Im ready for the .40s
Sun,
Once again, you are mistaken. The value assigned on the balance sheet is the value of the VPLM shares trading in the open market on the day of the transaction X the number of shares swapped for Digifonica. How exactly would you have it valued?
I'm expecting another run at EOD = HOD. Then, we break all time high next week. Any thoughts?
Good am to all longs. This should be a great day for all of us. Can't wait for the open.
Yep, fat on the bid and thin on the ask. Looks like we may finally be moving in the right direction.
Nice Spec., I was just getting to that in my last post. We are on the same page.
Exactly, it could be very lucrative indeed. This is just one provider. I go back to the white papers and I'm paraphrasing here, but something along the lines of "anywhere a voip call is routed or metered it is likely already benefitting from a Voip-Pal invention...
So, eventually maybe it will be $5.25, maybe $6, maybe we take a slice of the ad rev? Who knows, but it won't be free in my opinion.
I don't see where anyone is giving it away for "free". It looks to me like you either pay for a subscription or you allow advertisements - either way, the company is monetizing the service. JMO
Thanks GT, I finally found it. I knew it was a stupid question, but i just kept overlooking the Disclosure filing b/c I was using the link on the company profile tab in OTC which only shows the fins. Anyway, I appreciate the response.
Where is everyone getting the info on new acct firm and legal rep? TIA
I too would love to have a cc, however it is not going to happen unless the plan materially changes from what was already disclosed. The fact that we havn't had a cc is a good sign in my opinion - we are still on track to monetize the patents as intended.
Personal anecdote - I sold a business some years back and the aquiring entity insisted on controlling the message through strict NDAs and the actual APA (Asset Purchasing Agrmnt). We had closed the deal - money in the bank and stock in hand. Still, it was 30 days after the close before we were able to announce anything. I had contracts piling up on my desk for a company that no longer existed - I couldn't sign them nor could I explain why they were being delayed other than just stalling. I didn't like it, but that's the way it was because it was part of the terms of the deal. There were no leaks by myself, my partners, the aqcuiring entity, the lawyers, or the accounting firms. Some people actually abide by the agreements they sign and the consequences for not doing so can be severe. Nither entity was publicly traded at the time so the rules are obviously different here.
Personally, I don't think we are very far off from wrapping up a deal and making an announcement. I also consider myself to be logical. VVVVVVV and CEO may be correct, but my case makes just as much sense. A cc would be highly irresponsable if we are close to a deal or in serious talks governed by NDAs.
JMHO
Sure looks like someone loves this thing below .16. Every time it dips, they buy all they can at those levels. Helps with support, but they are probably the same ones selling at .165 and above.
Sun, I thought you reviewed the fin's. His shares are common just like the rest of us. The special class of shares you reference as a reasonable assumption is pure nonsense. I appreciate your comments, but you should really stick to the facts. jmo
Agreed, I added a little more yesterday and hoping to get some more today. This is just way to cheap right now. jmo
For what its worth, Rich told me that all of his shares are in 1 cert in his desk drawer and would stay there until a deal is completed. Of course, I suppose he could change his mind.
Mythical,
Sorry if you were offended - not my intention. My point was that the "pattern of promotion" does not extend to the new leadership. I have not seen any promotion from the new BOD whatsoever. According to the report you referenced, the May 13-14, 2013 "promotions" were actually a report on "trending" stocks and not paid for by the company. I don't count that as a company promotion. The 2012 promotions were paid for by a 3rd party not related to the company. Maybe that could have been shady, but who knows. Again, new leadership is in place either way. JMO
So your assumptions are based on guesses of what may happen in the future rather than the facts of today. When did "feelings" become good dd?
FYI - Benford's Law does not apply to small data sets . there are no where near enough transactions to legitimize that analysis. jmo
Or perhaps they do have a deal close to finalizing and the directors and/or inventors each receive a share bonus based on a sale over $x. Under that scenario, the auth would have to be increased prior to closing to complete the "contractual obligations". Maybe?
Sun thanks for the posts.
3 quick points:
1.) I believe the fins calculate the value of the IP and goodwill based upon the # shares issued to purchase X the pps on the day of issuance - hardly a "made up" number - thats what we paid for it so how else would you classify/calculate it?
2.) Where is the "pump"? We hardly get any pr's and do not employ stock "promoters". Typical pump would involve a never ending stream of pr's, possibly paid "independent" bloggers and analyst which tout you co to prop up the value. Don't see it here - none of it.
3.) Where is the "dump"? We trade an avg volume of about 1.5m shares per day, or approx 0.17% of outstanding shares. Personally, I think we woud be trading at much higher volumes if shares were being dumped into the market - say 8-20m per day.
Just my opinion.
hey CEO, put me down fo specific date of may 13, still at 4.37b
I'll go with 4.37B, announcement end of April, close at end of May.
Happy to be in this one. They just seem to execute on their plans in a timely fashion and communicate that well to the public/shareholders. A lot more room to run from here.
JMHO