Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[nyt]

Let me take this 1 step at a time, as Im having a hard time w/this...
......................................
"Unified's loss was a warning to the rest by
the judges that nothing is guaranteed."
.................................
Are you saying that the PTAB judges... the same ones who were later found to have conflicts of interest & who were removed or recused (or whatever happened to them) & who, by my understanding of the conflicts, worked on behalf of Apple before (not sure I see the the inherent, default conflict - as tho they were still on the payroll or something?) or, who have positions in Apple (that's the only scenarios I can think of), thus would be expected to rule in apples favor.....are you saying that they instead decided to let it be known right off the bat (by not instituting the 1st IPR) that they are NOT gonna manifest that bias, not even if they own shares? Is that the msg you speak of them sending? And if so, is it then a real one or fake disingenuous designed to hide the bias? I need to understand this 1st. It doesn't seem so simple to me.