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.
re: VirtnetX vs. VPLM
some of my random thoughts for you to chew on and destroy :)
I see some differences between these situations of VPLM and VirtnetX. One difference that I find interesting is about the underlying technology. Another is about how easy it would be to "stop infringing."
1. I don't believe Apples directly infringed on VirtnetX (my opinion, and perhaps the law does not agree)
2. I don't think that the same thing could be said about Apple's infringement of VPLM patents. It is direct, and it is more difficult to avoid by a) nature of the breadth of the patent(s) and, b) also simultaneously by Apple's liberal use of of VOIP within Apple's large eco-system.
Just based on these factors alone, I think VPLM is in a better position to get some respect for VPLM patents and they may even desire to license going forward.
NYT, I interpret your wall of words as conveying your continued belief that VPLM patents are potentially SEP patents, despite my providing you the following language, from the wiki defining SEP.
"An essential patent or standard-essential patent (SEP) is a patent that claims an invention that must be used to comply with a technical standard.[1] Standards organizations, therefore, often require members disclose and grant licenses to their patents and pending patent applications that cover a standard that the organization is developing.[2] "
What inventions of VPLM patents to you feel "are required to comply" and to what "technical standard" (VOIP?). As I have said before, if you are arguing that VPLM patents are required to comply with VOIP, making them SEP, you are incorrect.
I challenge you to provide us with a technical basis for your opposition.
Standard Essential Patents
Read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_patent, which says:
NYT, for all of the grandstanding, you haven't presented an alternative case for how these infringers might not be infringing, as you generally and sarcastically claim.
Why/how do all these companies seem to have operational capabilities which infringe on the VPLM patents, if they are not infringing?
For instance, in the iMessaging case, taking into account telephony physics in the market(s), how could such a system be implemented (allowing calls to be routed across VOIP networks) without consideration for the caller profile without infringing on VPLM patents?
If one simply does not know, for instance, know how the capability of Apple iMessaging could infringe on the VPLM patents; then that itself makes one unqualified to opine opinions on this highly technical topic.
I find the flagrant disregard for the technical rigor underlying VPLM patents to be incompatible with continued (hollow) commentary as to their (in)effectiveness.
what is a "restored post" here? I hadn't seen this prior, perhaps that was why?
DeerBalls, re: your prior 5 billion comments:
Do you think 25B-50B is too high if more litigation is required?
At what point or circumstances could you agree that 25B-50B was a reasonable number for settlement or purchase with Apple (i assume purchase at those figures)?
Surely at the winning end of a trial, you think that 100B figure is viable as a verdict, and thus that sets the "reasonableness" of a post-win-court result?
I only ask to pontificate when or how our views would become the same, or shake out the difference factors.
Regards
VPLM is not claiming they own the patent on VOIP.
VPLM has a patent that extends VOIP, using caller attributes for instance, which infringers end up infringing by nature of how they identify and route calls between their VOIP networks and services in this now-VOIP-centric world.
This is the classic IT trap of using something you thought was clean (unhindered by patent obligations or conflicts), but it wasn't and now you gotta pay...
5B is a joke, as a landslide winner of IPR petitions.
Apple had a change to settle cheaper pre-IPR. They chose not to.
They would have (and still may try to) crush VOIP-PAL.
I don't know why we would come this far only to cave for 5B when it looks like a court would give 100B, from one infringer.
If it comes fast, I could see it being 25B-50B as a buyout from Apple, who could then recoup those funds from other infringers.
re: likelyhood of success
So we just won two instituted challenges, when those challenges were only instituted by nature of their being "likely to succeed" (when they clearly didn't).
This seems interesting and possibly a signal of change.
Great news, pickers.
> Reading this answers my questions about how & where the infringers have been getting the tech. It never dawned on me that they were simply going to a fully open, never ending, free source, the USPTO.
The fact that patent submissions are public is very broadly known, and seems like a dependency fact for any purposely discussion about patents.
Engaging in such a discussion, especially with aggressive tones, using "facts" (conclusions from this incomplete knowledge) is pointless.
There's plenty to learn. We should all stick to what we know or are willing to prove.