Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[nyt]

MS "throwing in towel" does not prove the validity. That's why I provided a logical alternative set of possible set of reasons for ms actions. The dots were more connected in that theory, than the vast chasm that needs to be jumped to conclude that MS failing to meet deadline to continue its quest, directly equates to proof of validity of vp LI being a hugely valuable & foundational voip patent.

That's a big shark jump. If you choose to see that fact as proof of this, it is only your opinion, not proof of anything. Why don't you attempt to answer the question of why MS initiated this quest in the 1st place, 2 yrs later, and after their world class patent attorney team ignored their fruitless prior art search? Isn't that a good question?