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.
> Again, no doubt in my mind, give the sheer import of this, that all that stuff was DD'd to death long ago.
I do not share this belief.
1. Patents are complicated. The idea doesn't have to be complicated, but to obtain a patent on it is. 2. Software is complicated. 3. Computer Telephony is complicated, and slow to adoption. 4. This field has always been a red-headed step-child of software/computing - since the telco's dominated and resisted all open-ness and change. 5. VOIP is the telco killer - and the "patant" space of this (software/data) is different than traditional telephony patents (switches, signaling, etc)
It would not surprise me if this "was missed." and I feel that is an objective viewpoint. We'll see!
It means in the future, I plan to re-review my opinions about this when more truths are known so that I can quantify the accuracy of my prior opinions, historically at least. I call it round-tripping, and it does wonders for one's accuracy in guessing.
I find value in the stock that others don't. This leads me to "invest" - so far I think we mostly agree about what value "in the market" is - willingness of a buyer and seller.
My value comments aren't really about who's not buying today, they are about why they should be, for tomorrow.
You seem to ignore my prior points about those buyers needing confirmation of that value, prior to purcahse - which is why the IPR wins are "caught up" (related) to the real value.
I don't even want to debate what "value" means - as I could care less. I find it to be a red herring.
When I said "there is no hardware" - like most of what I wrote, I am generalizing - there is no hardware-specific aspects to the patents, that I know of - although the details of each claim may involve hardware specific to the typical operationo of htat claim function (i.e. a claim may involve a teklephone, but I didn't feel that was a germain aspect for our discussion of general patent aspects).
Computers run software, yes; but here again, your drillinbg into the details and missing the point, imo.
a) I didn't say that I was describing it with any specificity, much less what is already documented in the original patents. b) What I say doesn't matter - it's whats in the patents, which is clearly highly specific, documented and vetted. c) Assuming I am incorrect based on this reasoning (not enough detail in my internet post) is faulty reasoning. :)
I'm saying that the original patent owner has a unique and distinct piece of software (code) from the infringers, as we've already discussed - the infringers didn't get their hands on VPLM source code - they are alleged to be infringing without copying the original source code.
> Bottom line: why, if the patents are "all that" has not one company ever, for years now, been smart enough to grab this monster mountain of gold for themselves and to stave off all the fines and and to keep their competition from becoming the king if the hill? Why?
I think this is an interesting question; one of those that I would like to revisit later when we know to check response. Below all my disclaimers, is my total guess...
I started very skeptical. but the technical bits ended up winning me over. SInce I have some experience with software and telephony, I'm inclined to feel like i understand aspects of this more than most; like the scope of this technology. If the patents are held as valid, they seem far-reaching and general - it will have broad applicability.
I don't have any particular confidence that VPLM will win, but i think they have some chance. I think it more depends on the PTAB/IPR, and probably Apple. One reason I'm willing to speculate (notice I did not say invest) is because of that upside being so high in relative terms, and in a way that I feel I can personally validate.
I am thoroughly disappointed in our patent system and it seems like 20 years ago this wouldn't even be a question. Perhaps the IPR process is needed, having handed out too many patents some of them need to be invalidated - but it still seems fundamentally flawed and I'm sure the big boys navigate the hell out of these scenarios while the little guys fight for their lives. PTAB/IPR process is a critical element of this case, I believe, which I have almost zero visibility on and which is obviously high stakes poker that I qualified to measure in any real way. I hope we get a fair shake @ the PTAB.
I'm prepared to lose all of my "bet", instantly.
My best current guess as to why the value of VPLM is disfavored in the market. - people don't understand - people assume its of of the pump n dumps we all know of - people who do understand, also understand that the patent threat isn't real until the IPRs are over - generally, I think the VOIP/patent world just missed it - whomever all the smart people were in that patent space - the big boys just flat missed it and assumed it was generalized tech. It's not. It's been patented. - VPLM has been expensive, thinking they have the "goodies" and thus the potential buy-in would be too excessive without IPR validation.
There ya go. Flame away at my ridiculous stupidity. :)
> gain, not saying the other companies had to have the code..... I said "the code, process & hardware" & what I mean by that is not necessarily all of it, but some part & parcel of it.
1. There is no hardware in this case. 2. There is no shared software in this case. 3. There is likely multiple implementations of VOIP-related software (Apple, ATT, etc), which infringes with VPLM software/patents in different ways depending on the patent and claims. None of this software is the same code as VPLM software, but likely attempts to implement sufficiently similar processes. 4. There is no requirement that a process itself be difficult to be patented. Obviously, simplicity is a reason someone else might patent it before you and obviousness might be a reason it's not patentable at all. 5. The description of the process needs to be well documented, etc - as that documentation is partly what the patent is based on. But the process being described has no such difficulty requirements.
> Can you provide any direct evidence of the "clear infringement" you stated is happening. If the infringement is clear to you, then you ought to be able to show it. How do you know for certain exactly what individual processes the accused companies are using?
We'll stick with my one example so far, routing cross-network communications.
1. Pick up your Apple phone. 2. Send a iMessage text to someone who is has iMessage turned on. See the blue? 3. Send a iMessage text to someone who is not an iMessage consumer. See the green?
This capability of transparently, passively routing between to two distinct networks is an example of infringing technology, as I understand it.
Generally, if a VOIP provider integrates their system with the PSTN, such that a user of their system can transparently connect and communicate with other parties through the PSTN, despite already being part of a private network (say Apple Messaging), then this system exhibits similar technology to that (which I interpret to be) in at least one of the patent claims.
I believe existing technology infringes, because I have (for my own purposes) read the patent(s) in detail and applied my best interpretation of it's technical characteristics to the reality that I know (using my Apple phone). It's that simple; and yes, to me it's that obvious (assuming I got the difficult patent parts right)
(To be crystal clear, this is my generalized example based on what I've read - but what I write doesn't matter . it's what is described in the patent, and how the language of that patent is legally interpreted, that matters - so I provide this only as an example to my thinking).
My statement about "simultaneously being true" is about the underlying technology. If the technology is useful enough such that it somehow arrives in 50 different infringers, then how can you argue it has no value?
I have no intention of "jacking" or "bending" your words. I am very literal, though, so perhaps that explains any misinterpretations.
> no one in the VoIP industry is interested in the vplm patent suite.
I see this differently too. :)
It can't be simultaneously true that "no one has expressed interest" if they are in fact infringing.
Further, from what I can read and understand (admittedly not all, for instance - the patent documentation is a tough read) - from a technology and functional perspective - it's clear infringement is happening.
This, in my opinion, is why many here think that the value of this stock hangs in the balance with the PTAB IPRs - and perhaps are willing to treat current market valuations as secondary.
> But if true, it seems to me that in order to be guilty of infringement, all of the companies would have had access to some or all portion of the above noted "code, processes & hardware", enough to be able to employ in their own services & then to constitute infringement. It's my belief that (infringement) would not mean the use of mere "ideas"
This is just not true, no matter how many different ways we type it. Infringers do NOT need access to the original patented software in order to be infringing. One can infringe without having access to the original code.
> how on earth could all these companies, high in number & all over the world, have what it takes to be infringers, especially when some or even many if them were in operation (voip services) before vplm patents.
Being in operation does not mean you really capable. The patented technology could be simple, and it's simplicitiy is irrelevant to its protection. In summary, just because a bunch of companies arrived at the same place, technology wise, doesn't mean that technology wasn't invented and protected by a patent held by someone else.
> I would guess that "sufficiently similar" is a key phrase & needs to be defined. It sounds as tho you dont think "sufficient" is too deep whereas I do.
I disagree. My definition of "sufficiently similar" would be based on the patent details, which has much "depth" in the definition - moreso than I can 100% understand. This definition (and having been implemented by the patent holder) is critical and represents some steps beyond "just an idea" required to obtain a patent.
nyt, I appreciate your detailed posts - but I think most of your words and arguing prowess are lost on the internet. :)
From what I can tell, our main fundamental disagreement is that you think infringers (everyone) had access to VPLM source code at some point in the past. I do not think this is true nor is it a requirement to be infringing on some of these patents.
I said "steal" because (presumably) there was no other way to obtain the original software implementation external to the patent holder (they would keep it secret if they could). Perhaps I should have used the word "use" instead of "steal" as the method of obtaining the patented software was unrelated to my point.
Using any software which implement sufficiently similar technology to existing patents would result in infringement, regardless of what software was used (the original, infringers, or something else). This depends on what is patented of course, but it is certainly possible.
For instance, for cases of combining and augmenting call data to include multiple network addresses and sufficient information to route between those networks (grossly generalized description on my part), then the original software which implemented the process is somewhat of a detail - it proves that it happened (which is important for the patentability and defense of said patent - as we've already seen in this case), but that code is not the only thing patented. If was to re-create that software, without seeing it originally, implementing the processes identically, then it could still infringe - even though what I wrote is a distinct new piece of software.
This is why there are so many infringers. They have all implemented a process that is sufficiently similar to VPLMs patented process, perhaps without ever seeing the original code. There is no escaping this, given the functional operations of those infringers, if the patent is deemed valid (in my opinion).
> That said though, such a complex thing as these codes and processes would, I would think, have to be held in a digital and/or written form, no?
In public? for public consumption? Hell no!
> That data set would have to be obtained somehow from the original source > That would've had to have happened a long time ago, when it was available such as in the testing phases.
Not legitimately.
No offense, but I think your just wrong that somehow many other parties had an opportunity to obtain this source code; generally, I would bet VPLM source code has been private, forever.
> I could swear that "ideas" per se, were not patentable
People who say "ideas aren't patentable" mean that it takes effort to quantify and DO the patented thing. One can't just say "I have an idea. Your all screwed from doing it" without a lot of effort. In my opinion, that's what the phrase means.
The infringing companies don't have to steal the implementation of the technology to infringe on the patent.
If I own a patent involving widgets, then the patent could be as much about the process of making or implementing the widget. It doesn't have to be a physical thing.
In VPLM case, for instance, the function to consider, decipher and operate upon additional caller context data to decide routing of a call to external network, for a given call, seems like a patentable idea that would not require the infringers to steal actual code which implemented said patent.
I am not an attorney. I am not a patent expert. I do have much software expertise.