"You seem to keep implying (or saying outright) that " big dogs " have NOT made a play for these patents. How do you KNOW this? Just because they aren't sold yet? Not sure that's a valid conclusion after the patents have only become a complete portfolio within the last 5-6 months."
......................................
I think you continually misinterpret my thoughts & conclusions. 1) yes, 6 mos, in my considered opinion, is nowadays, a plenty long time to have struck a deal. That for 2 main reasons: one, things now move way faster than ever before due to the exponential decreases in the time it takes to exchange information, ironically, including via voip itself to a degree, but really to the internet & it's latest abilities & devices & applications. Everything happens much much faster now, afforded these tools. That's fact! Conference calls alone, have prolly put a major dent in airplane travel. There are numerous examples of current technology far outdoing old school machinations that take so much time. 2) The other big reason is the sheer value, not potential mind you, but easily discernable real dollars value. We are not talking merely of a game changer but of a world changer, for if voip is indeed the future of worldwide communications, such as has certainly been said & touted on this board from the git, and if it truly follows that vp patent portfolio is the complete & foundational crux of the matter, such as in no uncertain terms been said here on this board as well as vp board......then even a dropout like myself can see easily, that while I can't give an actual value figure, I can still see it is, over the next 20 yrs, booocoooo bucks & not just a mere couple bil... I'm trying to call a spade a spade. Under that set of parameters, such as has been touted here from the beginning, the value is astoundingly astronomical, not potentially, but actually. That said, this would describe a near once in a lifetime type event. And if the goods are genuine, then the powers that be would've been ON IT.... like Sherlock holmes on a murder case, from day one, not just the 6 mos since patent approval. Let's get real here.. The desire for & the scrutiny of, along with plans to aquire or at least somehow not be left in the cold, not so much as an infringer, who winds up eventually owing something for said infringement, because that is small potatoes, compared to being a company who owns this vast communications control & the resources to enforce it quickly & easily. That scenario, is not an everyday kind of thing, but is about as big as it gets. Therefore, when all this is considered, along with the above noted current day speed of how things can happen, ESPECIALLY when it wants & needs for it to happen, well, I'm not attending the school of "it takes time, it takes time, it takes time", anymore. That's passe'. Of course I don't mean overnight, but well, I covered it above.
.................
"I am sure there had to be a significant amount of negotiating
to prove to the big dogs that the patent's are definitely worth their
asking price."
...................
Of course big deals take major negotiations. Goes w/o saying. Nothing I've said is contrary to or negates that notion. As to "proving the pudding" part of it, that's a different story, because I don't necessarily believe that proof exists & if it did & was offered satisfactorily, to the big buck guys, then I guarantee you, you would have seen your 1st demonstration of "time travel", into the future (of voip contfol), thusly, I have serious doubts as to such proof. This is all simple psychology of money to me. Sorry if I'm just wrong in my simple beliefs about how this should work.
.............................
"It's not as easy as "Oh gee, we really need these. We'd better
offer them whatever they are asking so that we can get them first, asap!" They don't get to Big Dog status by making poor, rash, decisions. I'm sure it took time to prove to people the earth was round."
...................................
I'm sorry, but here I cannot help but say you have crossed the line into full blown condescending. It is insulting that you feel the need to put things this way, as tho the conclusions it supposedly addresses, were downright stupid, ie, "it's not as easy as" oh gee, we better jump so we can be 1st". Of course not, least not w/o the full DD they would've had the opportunity to do, over the course of the last 10 yrs, give or take, that the DEFINITIONS & DESCRIPTIONS & the DEMONSTRATIONS of the technology that those inventors created, has been available. So on one hand, not as fast as you characterized me as trying to say it was (silly me..), but in the other hand, once the real deal of it was discerned, then YEAH, you act fast. But not in the sophmoric manner of how you made me sound w/your analogies. I think I've made a reasonably realistic case for my postulations. I'm sorry that I don't sense this as "positivity shining thru your words"....but then again, wthdik?
