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.
I disagree. Unless you are inside and sitting on the board, you have no way of knowing why shares are being authorized. If a plan is in place that will require certain payments, legal fees and compensation for those whose services will provide for a buyer to successfully complete a transaction, and/or to create the package that will get that deal done, then it is logical and necessary to provide the share structure that will leave room for that compensation to occur. Those shares haven't disappeared because they are authorized.
As a shareholder would I prefer that a deal gets done at a lower sharecount? Absolutely. But if the question is can a deal get done, and can we wait out and compensate the lawyers and parties it takes to get this deal done possible WITHOUT increasing the OS - then, I, as a shareholder, am in favor of what is necessary to get the deal done.
Each investor must be comfortable with his or her own level of risk, and go from there. Where I stand, I remain comfortable. GLTA
Who's got billions? I'd love to know.
I don't understand your posts...you keep saying "insider greed" - hmm...yet offer no proof. Yesterday you were claiming your position over and over regarding the ERROR on OTC Markets regarding the float. It was corrected, just as others said it would be. So now it's back to "insider greed" when that particular point was, in fact, debunked. Please enlighten me as to what "insider greed" you keep referring to? Hint: Just saying it over and over again doesn't make it accurate.
OTC has been wrong - and corrected, many, many times over this road. Not so hard to believe.
Garbage Data in - Garbage Data out - happens all the time.
All signs point to a normal day of trading, with normal amounts of MM doing their thing... Business as usual. Court date today - nothing much will happen it's just housekeeping. And more importantly, Voip-Pal's reply to Apple due 1/22.
If you think, for one moment, that an entire year of waiting for a delayed PTAB answer did not cause the bottom to completely collapse, what then is your reasoning to believing, that suddenly, with good news in hand, the end is near? Makes no sense to any logical thinking person.
Go VPLM
I hope so - the damages will be well deserved, that is for certain!
Meanwhile...2:00
And also, Voip-Pal's response to Apple's silliness is due 1/22. It would be unprecedented for a legal case to do anything of significance a few days before an ongoing event of such significance is pending. My guess will be a continuance and some housekeeping. The defendents will move to dismiss. It will get continued, pending outcome, not dismissed. Or dismissed without prejudice if this judge would rather punt. Either way, this suit is happening, and VPLM does, in fact, have the goodies.
I agree. And the tides are turning for Apple, and the tech companies who have been taking unfair advantage of their heft and weight at PTAB. It's clear that the tables are turning, and more attention is being given to the abuses of the past.
I remain NOT A FAN of the whole exparte communication fiasco - and wish that the board had done a better job of consulting with and following advice of counsel in doing that. That being said - I do believe that their intention was to shine a light, politically on some very questionable systemic issues at the PTAB. That was, in fact, accomplished. And the timing of the shift of tides and shake up at the PTAB cannot be coincidental in my view. Sometimes you gotta break a few eggs...
Here's the other factor: This is a big bite of the "apple"...so to speak. Foundational patents that are far more reaching than the average utility patent - And being represented by a company who has limited financial resources - or at least one would have believed - to withstand all of the gamesmanship and stalling that Apple, et al, could dish out. 5 years ago, if I were in Apple's shoes, my money would have been solidly on betting that Apple could outlast and outmaneuver this "tiny little company that could". So they waited. They're still waiting - and right now, with 8 IPR wins behind VPLM, and a very limited scope ray of hope for Apple to redeem themselves. (read: Longshot)... My money is on the bet that Apple, and/or other tech companies are, in fact, having serious acquisition discussions with parties representing this technology.
Because something "hasn't" happened in the past, under an entirely different set of circumstances, simply isn't a predictor - at least in my book - that it won't. Just my 2 cents
Yes, actually it does. And to my point...far earlier than the date of grant. Thank you for that clarification!
Your opinion noted. However, those of us who were involved in early days know better. There was no low hanging fruit. And the patent development continues, even to this day.
Patent infringement begins during the Patent Pending state, not when it is issued.
"Growing like a cancer"...an expression, referring to the size and number of filings. Not characterizing the plaintiff, personally.
I would be happy to send you some recipes - I hear there's a lovely rotten apple with brie tarte in last month's Southern Living...
Thank you Jag - Question, in your opinion, if Apple - or virtually any litigant in a case like this, simply were NOT infringing, and the whole issue was, therefore frivolous litigation - would it not just be simpler, and far more cost efficient to just say so, and make that case clear to the court? Do you feel that a well-armed, heavily lawyered non-infringer would spend, virtually millions of dollars in pursuit of such presumed nonsense? In fact - wouldn't that be a preferred route to filing and pursuing multiple IPR's for something that they aren't even using???
Says a Judge, in Virtually EVERY CASE before her in a pre-trial conference. Do you know why perhaps? Allow me to enlighten you. In my many, many years in courtrooms, cases like this take a certain dance. And the dance begins with a motion to dismiss. That, my friend, is how the music starts. There is never, ever a pre-trial conference where the parties sit down and say, "Well, Gee, Judge - it seems this guy here is right. I think we ought to just save the court a lot of time and hand over our wallets now". So...your point?
So one, then? As I said, almost unheard of. Not entirely unheard of - but most certainly, not the norm for the industry. It's really just not industry standard to do so - and kind of frowned upon as tacky in these circles...
If the judge believes that Voip-Pal has not defined the infringement, then perhaps the new judge has not yet read the volumes of filings. All are there to see, you can even read them yourself. They are on the Voip-pal website. It's easy. This argument you keep making might be some comment taken out of context, without a full understanding of what you are reading. Prove me wrong.
And it'll be denied shortly. Motion to dismiss is Standard Operating Procedure for a first volley of virtually every lawsuit. Bring it.
Agreed! Look, it's tough not to get discouraged and fall into suspicion. But I have been here since EARLY days, and this is not my first rodeo. I have HAPPILY been "scammed" if you will, into progress along the way which has provided me significant profits, and all of my shares, due to trading opportunities on the way up have not only replaced my original investment, but have increased 10 fold. One needs to be strategic and smart, rather than reactive and whiny. MHO.
Now we stand ...the "horrible scam"... on the precipice of doing something virtually unprecedented in IP litigation. Winning - in a clean sweep - with the IP reaffirmed, once again. Against the most powerful company in the world. Hmm. One Hell of a Scam if you ask me.
A top firm does not take cases, regardless of potential fees, if they feel that they will not win, because the value of all of their other cases and position in the marketplace is at stake. It is almost unheard of for IP Litigation to take place on contingency. That's for PI attorneys...not Patent Litigation - as I understand it.
Thank you. Throughout this arduous process we've had many such associations that make the "it's a scam" claims so implausible as to be laughable. Imho
The Executives are immaterial to me, except to the extent that they had the wherewithal and ability to convince Knobbe Marten to take this case. For those in the upper eschelons of the IP Litigation circles, it is common knowledge that this particular firm is one that makes the opposition shudder. They have a TOP reputation, built upon being wildly successful and strategic in this specialty area. I'm more impressed by the willingness of Knobbe Marten to stake their reputation on this case.
Nothing to review yet - Voip-Pal will be responding to it, Apple has the right to a reply to Voip-Pal's response, all of which will take place during January. And there is very little to consider here - unlike the petition for ex-parte communication sanctions. Both parties behaved badly and there were significant policy, precedent and political implications for the institution of the PTAB itself at stake. This decision shouldn't take long. Further, depending on the quality of the response from Knobbe Martens, which, undoubtedly will be compelling... there lies significant potential for settlement overtures while waiting for the ruling. IMHO
Yes. In my career, I negotiate every single day. I often say, "please, underestimate me." What a favor one does the opponent to underestimate them. From day one, Apple has treated this matter as a throw away - failing to grasp the implications of the foundational nature of these patents. It seems to me that it is almost too big a thought to even consider for them, so they have been dismissive, to their detriment. And arrogant. I love that in an opponent. It's the kiss of death.
It's troubling - that Apple, yet again, even after having been "spanked" for it's tone and insinuations of impropriety against the board, can't seem to help itself from again, raising those same spectres. It sounds to me, and most SURELY will sound to the board as improperly making wild insinuations of collusion. One does not get far in any court by impuning the character of the judges. Nor the intelligence. This reads like a desperate attempt, and if I were a judge, I might feel rather insulted to be accused of such ignorance in overlooking key factors in a matter like this. Clearly these points were not "hidden" to the replacement board, but rather, very well weighed, measured, and ruled upon. Knobbe Martens will rip this apart. Mark my words.
"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth" - Joseph Goebbels, 1933. Claims, Claims, we got Claims. All one has to do to find the claims - and YES my friend, they are there, very clearly enumerated and spelled out in the many, many filings, right there on Voip-Pal's website under "Legal Filings", is look. There for all the world to see.
Precisely. This is exactly as a chart should appear during the long process, with slow but steady progress being made in a patent infringement pursuit. Layers of the onion, etc. No lower lows, only higher highs, and resettling, as great hopes are met with the realities of the ongoing struggle... We wait.
Thanks! I do believe that I am correct. Over the holidays, I met with a former SVP and AGC of one of the world's largest tech companies who regularly defended and advised in such matters. My friend read all of the documents and the ruling. I asked, "If you were of counsel to Apple right now, based on what you have read, what would your advice be?" My friend said, "Settle."
With all due respect - I believe that you may have it backwards - it's much more narrow than that:
Specifically, on rehearing, there will be an
assessment of whether Petitioner sufficiently identifies “matters the party
believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37
C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
ORDER
In other words, Apple may ONLY address points that were already addressed, and that they feel that the former board got wrong. They have to say why they feel the PTAB decision was incorrect, and they must very specifically address where the argument was made, in its entirety, previously, and ...most importantly BRING UP NO NEW POINTS or ISSUES. They have 20 pages to demonstrate that the former court heard the precise argument, with no new issues or evidence whatsoever brought forward, and were simply wrong.
It's a very narrow scope, and it basically would require the new panel to materially disagree and insinuate that the former Judges (their colleagues with whom they will continue to work) were either fools, or were, in fact, swayed by the ex parte communication. I don't think that's going to happen.. There were 17 months of hearing and significant efforts put into the ruling to begin with. These were decisions based upon merit, not sway.
I would have to agree here. There are lots of reasons to make announcements. One of them is to pump a stock. Clearly that's not what is happening here, or else they are really bad at it. I don't believe that to be the case. Another reason is to "put on notice" other parties who are making decisions right now, such as opposing counsel, to encourage them to stop and think a bit before storming the castle. It's a warning shot. Nothing more.
We do "have the goodies" - but we also need to be strategic in how those goodies are protected.
All the fear mongering is cute. watching this board, I find myself amused and calculating out a new investment ratio prediction tool. You see, I have found that when "the sky is falling" and "POS" claims increase by a factor of .74 over a 2 day period, it equates roughly to significant gains for investors in PPS over the coming week. JMHO.
January 8th. Apple, should they decide to make a request for rehearing of any of the already addressed and decided issues, using points already of record, (nothing new can be added), and limited to 20 pages total....is due.
The beginning of the end of this nonsense.
At last.
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/768c4e_a03b22e20a7d416181118846ff0b0d2c.pdf
The ruling in it's entirety is on Voip-Pal's site. In spite of the crowing of victory, a few key facts were left out of Malak's PR.... Both Apple and Voip-Pal were reprimanded, and the tone was less than pleased coming from the board, noting unacceptable shennangins on both sides - Shennanagins, which I might add, very well could constitute triggering professional and personal liability for our BOD.
To sum it up, Apple did not get the sanctions they sought of either a finding against Voip-pal for it's improper ex-parte communication - or to set aside the decisions and start again from scratch.
The board ONLY denied those actions because Apple, also behaved improperly, not to mention, insultingly, and the board was not amused. The point is - the board was WITHIN ITS RIGHTS to basically cancel the patents in question because our BOD saw fit to sit down and choose to engage in illegal Ex-Parte communication in these matters - and then, at first, lied to the court about it. We, as shareholders should be outraged.
Putting that matter aside - and moving forward - what just happened is that Apple CAN raise specific issues for rehearing, however cannot raise any new issues, and must limit their request for rehearing to 20 pages due by January 8th. That's not going to give them much to work with. The ruling made it very clear that they were not going to simply reconsider 17 months worth of work. If Apple has a specific issue with the merits, using the informtion as already presented, and wants the board to reconsider how it looked at the previously provided arguments - that's what they get to do in this very small window. Otherwise the final written decisions stand.
It's a win for VPLM - Absolutely. But it has been an incredibly and unnecessarily costly one for us shareholders due to improper and illegal actions taken by a board of directors who have the experience and education to have known better.
Nonetheless - Now is your chance to load up on shares. Mark my words, we will, absolutely, see a sharp rise in the very near future. Apple brought their "A" game to the original IPRs - with this limited scope of request for rehearing, this amounts, basically to an opportunity to settle.
I don't recall using the word bullshit. In fact, I rarely would be so crass. The fact of the matter is, the legal team we have is top-notch, and while a "one size fits most" approach might work with infringers, it would be lunacy to expect that each individual potentially infringing company has infringed in precisely the same manner. I wouldn't say..."bullshit", rather - perhaps...irrelevant, or inconsequential.
Good day to you -
This business about the transcripts is nonsense. Virtually every case on earth that has just been consolidated and transferred to a new court, in a different state with a different Judge would hint at issues and protocols specific to that particular court's rules. And it doesn't mean someone's "ducks aren't in a row" - Every court does this. Of course there will be motions to dismiss. That doesn't mean they'll be ordered. Reading some of the outlandish statements being made about this issue, one would have to think that those making those statements might just expect a litigant to say, "Oh, gee, since we're here before the court, and all - Let me just lie down and open my pocketbook for you without a second thought."
We're in court. That's what litigants do. They argue. We'll see in January. Till then - THANK YOU for the cheap shares. I averaged down considerably. Merry Christmas!
Where is the money? You must be joking. Do you honestly believe that Malak's personal finances on an unrelated issue would show up on Voip-Pal's spreadsheets? Where is the money? Hmm - I don't know. Where is your money? Where is mine? Nonsense.
There were astounding similarities - and substantial proof offered. There was also a matter of reputation for Cameron. Suit dismissed and good press for Cameron on the front end does not mean private settlement and NDA on the back end didn't happen. Malak's personality traits does not make sense with the sudden dismissal. It's simply something he would not do. Think about that for a moment while you think about new and interesting ways to stay off the point here, perhaps.
Tanking so badly? Hardly. With fewer than 80,000 shares traded? That's like ... one decent trade volume.
Meanwhile - a highly experienced IP Attorney, who has successfully fought off Silicon Valley giants as counsel for the little guys has just been appointed Deputy Director. All said. This is a VERY good day.
There's one word left out: YET
Patience is a virtue.
Development stage companies don't have sales. This isn't a manufacturing company. It's a holder of patented technology.
Do you really believe that giants such as Twitter, At&t, Apple, Verizon, etc. have all spent enormous sums of money in litigation and patent challenges because everything is just worthless, made up...a scam?
Oh, that I were so powerful to be able to fool all the world, the entire USPTO system so completely - in such a way that not even the BIG players regularly, with such consistent results, obtain patents. Again, and again. Oh what fun it would be to have so much power over the Universe to be capable of such things when all I had in reality was wishes, dreams and nonsense.
No, my friend. That's the version of the story that seems a little unrealistic to me.