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.
The only person who's made money illegally on VP is Kipping!
I didn't think those grumpy old men from Smith Barney were around anymore!
"we make money the old fashioned way, we earn it!" (said in a grumpy old man voice)
Thanks Never Short!
Hoping for a merry Christmas, again! :)
So, if an offer is still being debated, who was the VP BOD meeting with during the blackout period?
I think VP did have a written offer resulting from the negotiations from the blackout period, just one that didn't meet the BOD's approval. IMO, I think it was in the $.5 range, which we all know from the conference call that Emil will not sell for anything less than $1.
I think we all know this will eventually sell. It would just be nice to know what the board thinks that timeline is and what is required of the patents (do they all need to be approved.) I know some herein state that not all patents are needed, I would just like to hear that from the BOD. Is this going to take another 6 months, a year, 2 years? not sure!
Thanks Positive NRG!!!!
That's funny!!
hotstocked.com!? LOL!
No Kidding! What happened to this being a "stock selling machine scam" for our corrupt BOD?
I know there is much more to come for this, but I don't think the BOD will release any PRs until RBR/MG are completely done.
I most certainly for the most part am not reading and most definitely do not want to comprehend anymore of that.
Also, how much did you buy recently when it sat at .07 forever? I mean since it's so predictable and you knew this recent up swing was going to occur.
No way I sell at $.30!
I haven't been holding all this time to only make 3000%! :) IMO, VERY confident this will hit a buck at least within the next year. I'm either making millions or nothing at all!
The gravy train WILL leave, the question is when and whether or not you'll be on it?
Yes, I think you're correct:
Document Verification seems to always be preceded by "Notice of Allowance Data Verification Completed" and then closely followed by "Mail Notice of Allowance." An example from another preciously approved below:
09-04-2013 Mail Notice of Allowance
08-30-2013 Email Notification
08-30-2013 Filing Receipt - Corrected
08-27-2013 Document Verification
08-27-2013 Notice of Allowance Data Verification Completed
08-24-2013 Examiner's Amendment Communication
05-31-2013 Information Disclosure Statement considered
So, RBR...096 is complete, now we just need RBR #...181 and RBR will be completed. Do you think that the VP BOD will need to wait for all other patents to be complete in order to monetize?
Woo Hoo,thanks CSJ! I'll check that out.
Here's something interesting:
Financials as of June 30 2015
And, of course us stock holders are the last to know!
I understand why they're busy and all, but why wouldn't the BOD PR this?
Patent approval timeline:
Hi Everyone!
I'm looking at the timeline of other patents and how long it took for those to be approved after the point in which the patents reached the "Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU" stage (not sure if that is a good timeline way point) and it appears that it can take roughly around 2 years for completion from that point. If that is the case, we could be looking at another 2 years out before these child patents (at least the RBR child patent, maybe longer for the others) are complete. Is that accurate? really? 2 years?
Can anyone please talk me down from the ledge?
Yes, my mistake, Guys!
Got 3 and 4 mixed up.
Yes, my mistake, Guys!
Got 3 and 4 mixed up.
I could understand that to be the case if it were just a company driving internal business developments and continually updating shareholders (with PRs etc..) to keep a float whatever share value existed, but that is clearly not the case here with VP.
But, we have a very quite BOD, working with a very expensive legal team trying to pass extremely technical patents. That is not cheap and is definitely not easy. And, there has been clear cut contention against this effort from the likes of MS/Google/Cisco/Apple. That type of activity doesn't happen when Execs are just trying to string people along and prolong existence. We must also remember that the legal team we have wouldn't be involved if there were no light at the end of the tunnel, because IMO that's how their big money comes in.
There is definitely more to this than what we have been seeing/hearing on this board. I know it, it's just hard to feel it and sometimes difficult to continually see it with the VP BOD's PR blackout and the depleted PPS.
I think that's it for me 3/3!
Thanks GTC and NYT for the response
Another LI Child Patent?:
Looks like another LI child patent has been filed on 07/17/2015, but when I try and look up the application or pub# nothing comes back.
These are the LI children patents:
13/863,306 filed on 04-15-2013
14/802,929 filed on 07-17-2015
Does anyone know what this patent is about?
The BOD isn't going to wait for this one to be approved to sell are they? I don't know if I have another 2 years in the tank to wait on this.
RBR Child Patent #1 Update:
From within the Image Wrapper File tab/Trasnmittal Letter dated 08/03 states the following:
The Information Disclosure Statement is being filed after receipt of First Office Action, but before the mailing date of a Final Action and before the mailing date of a Notice of Allowance.
So does this mean a Notice of Allowance is coming shortly on this one too?
RBR Child Patent #4 Update
08-05-2015 Dispatch to FDC
08-05-2015 Application Is Considered Ready for Issue
Well, the question isn't whether google can "operate" or not, but whether or not they'd be "infringing" on VP's patent. My impression is that Google (and many other companies) would be and currently are infringing. Any mobile bound VOIP device/service would be and is.
If we were to think that companies who are infringing would simply not continue to operate because they don't own the patents, then that would make us ignorant. It's like saying Oh, Microsoft wouldn't allow the government to use the LI Tech (which we all know MS has because they tried to patent the very same LI Tech that VP now owns) because they don't own the patent. that'd just simply be not true.
The great thing I see here is that the industry is continuing on in more of a direction dependent on the VP patents.
3/3
Have a great evening!
A little more info on that.
Not sure if Google will able to achieve this with/without VP patents,
Google's Project Fi Patent:
Achieving the market's lowest price isn't Google's goal; proving the efficiency of a network-of-networks is. According to Google, Android smartphones will seamlessly switch both between carrier networks and from carrier networks to Wi-Fi in search of the strongest signal on the fastest and lowest-cost network. Switching will work without interruption even for phone calls. If Google proves a network-of-networks delivers a better mobile experience at a lower cost, perhaps it can enlist more mobile carriers to join its network-of-networks, ultimately improving coverage and capacity. Link below:
Google's "Project Fi" article
It appears that Google's patent has a priority date of 03/2007, which I think preceeds VPs patent, but it may be that googles patent doesn't articulate the process the way the VP's does.
Wow, thanks for this post GBC!
According to many herein, I thought it was futile to apply for and own software patents; however, If that were the case; why would these tech goliaths (Apple/Google) be doing the same?
From google's "Project Fi" patent application, snippet below:
"devices, systems, and methods for providing telecommunication access and applications to users in a flexible manner. Devices may operate on multiple networks, and may in certain circumstances seek out bids from telecommunication service providers. For example, a device such as a mobile telephone may have the capability to operate over multiple different networks, including a home network when in the home, to transition to a metropolitan network when outside the home but in a higher-density area (urban/suburban), and transition to a more traditional cellular network when outside such a higher density area. The connections may, in appropriate circumstances, be provided by different telecommunications providers, and may involve hand-offs of a particular communication session from one provider to another."
If Google wanted to provide VOIP users the ability to switch from one network (wi-fi or not) to another without dropping calls, wouldn't Google (and apple for that matter too) need VP's "Uninterrupted Transmission of IP" patent? Looks like RBR, MG & LI aren't the only huge patents in the VP portfolio, IMO of course!!
LOL! Yours too, aye! And, I just switched to droubt tolerant landscaping, no grass. :(
No relevance there, IMO!
Anyone know what happened in court yesterday?
Tomorrow is one of Richard's days in court, no!?
Anyone planning on attending and if so can you please shoot out an update herein afterwards?
The article's argument of how software patents are worthless itself is flawed for the simple reason that in one sentence it mentions how Cisco made $600 mill from Technicolor in licensing it's patents in a very secretive deal and in the next sentence it goes on to tell how VP's patents aren't enforceable and worthless.
I for one am very happy to see VP mentioned in a un-solicited article being compared to Cisco, who happens to be a huge infringer of VP. And, if VP's patents are worthless, why would anyone be writing about them at all? Furthermore, if that we're the case, why would the top patent law firm in the country be representing VP, very aggressively at that?
The Alice101 law mentioned in the article specifically relates to certain types of software algorithms, which IMO VP's patent are not.
I'm not expecting to have any one of these questions answered. Who knows, IMO Could just be a simple case of one refusing to see what is as plain as day for others.
Have a great evening!
Thanks! I like your name!! No hidden meaning there aye!!! ;)
Also, I forgot to thank Thrill for posting that article, I didn't mean any offense in my response.
I think it's REALLY interesting that VP is starting to garner unsolicited media attention, even though on the surface it could appear to be negative.
Furthermore, organizations like Techrights base their arguments on a lawsuits such as Alice101 (mentioned in the article previously) and the focus on monopolizing software algorithms, which IMO is flawed at least.
Google uses patented software algorithms to perform ALL of it's web searches. If we follow what this article states, we would then be insinuating that Google's patents are now worthless too? That's IMO, non-sense!
Wow, an anti-patent website writing about VP's patents!? ("Techrights opposes software patents and actively discourages their use and legitimacy in law.")
I was beginning to be under the impression that VP's patents were worthless, but if that were the case then why would someone like Techrights be writing about and listing Voip-pal in the same article as a very secret $600 million Cisco patent deal (one where you can't find the details on.)
Clearly, not even close to being worthless. IMO of course!