You can "see it differently too" but can you show any evidence to the contrary? Evidence to the contrary would mean to show any company to have ever publicly (or privately - if you have evidence) spoken of or shown or made an offer. For years vplm has stated there has been all sorts of interest & offers, but none have ever panned out or been identified, even years later. I say there is not a shred of evidence of any company ever having expressed interest in obtaining vplm, period.
...........
"It can't be simultaneously true that "no one has expressed interest" if they are in fact infringing."
* I find that a ridiculous statement it is way too far reaching & it wrongly assumes that one thing is dependent upon the other, ie, "expressing interest" & "infrnging". How cavalier to try to say those two things cannot be mutually exclusive of each other. To say this, is to "go where the weather suits your clothes". To "express an interest" in obtaining vplm patents, is not somehow inherently "attached" to the vplm claims of infringement. That notion goes waaay too far. It is self evident that any company (much less all of them) could now be in the position of being accused of infringement by vplm, regardless if they are guilty or not, and not have ever expressed any interest in obtaining vplm. Also, you are again loosely bending the meaning & intentions of my words. For example, I say "interest in obtaining vplm" & then you jack that into "expressed interest in" (the tech but not in buying it). There's a difference. One is an offer to buy. The other is a vsp who somehow or other at some point, came up with a process that vplm alledges is infringing.
Consequently, it IS simultaneously true that all these companies have never shown any known interest in buying vplm, and, at the same time, are charged with infringement. Granted none have yet been found quilt of infringement but even if that happens, it doesn't automatically mean they have any desire to buy vplm.
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? Has vplm legal positively identifies those processes in use by the companies in question? Maybe they have. I'm not saying they haven't. Maybe there IS infringement. I'm not saying there isn't. I'm saying there may not be.
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?
