Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[nyt]

"I very much doubt that Microsoft would have made such a concerted effort, TWO YEARS LATER, to secure the same patented technology."
..................
You're not paying attention to the questions being raised, instead focusing on what doesn't make any sense. For example, why would MS, as you point out above, apply for the same thing 2 yrs after we already applied for it? What is your ans to that? And keep in mind (I've already said this stuff b4) that MS's legal teams (best & biggest in the world??) would have done MAJOR prior art searches, as is the procedure, and would have found that this vplm technology (as you deem it to be so fantastically great) was as solid as.... well, as solid as you are painting it to be, with your own info pastes). So what sense does it it therefore make, 2 yrs after the fact, to go that route???... it being only the futile exercise that was easy to predict. (I have provided more sensible possible reasons to ans that question, previously). And, while we're at it, so why did they (MS) give up their "oh so gallant" fight, before they were handed a non-appealable denial? Why not take this frivolous endeavor right thru to the end? Moreover, why....have they not, since giving up on that which is a MUST HAVE for them, made an offer that would not be refused & seal a deal.....to insure that the inevitable pay thru the nose it will cost them through infringement, will not happen. Do you find those to be silly or sophomoric questions? I think they hit hard.. I hope you provide good & focused answers. I really would like to know. None of my ideas or questions are set in stone or painted as definite facts that can't be answered.