Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[pickered]

What does "one of those that I would like to revisit later when we know to check response.

It means in the future, I plan to re-review my opinions about this when more truths are known so that I can quantify the accuracy of my prior opinions, historically at least. I call it round-tripping, and it does wonders for one's accuracy in guessing.

I'm my view, your question contains an assumption that leaves it with 2 separate ideas, which seems to allow your definition of the value to be broader in scope than what I mean by value. The assumption is in the fact that other vsp's, having whatever tech they use to operate their voip, directly equates to vplm patents having value (because the other companies are presumably making money operating their services). The 2 seperate ideas are:

I find value in the stock that others don't. This leads me to "invest" - so far I think we mostly agree about what value "in the market" is - willingness of a buyer and seller.

My value comments aren't really about who's not buying today, they are about why they should be, for tomorrow.

You seem to ignore my prior points about those buyers needing confirmation of that value, prior to purcahse - which is why the IPR wins are "caught up" (related) to the real value.

I don't even want to debate what "value" means - as I could care less. I find it to be a red herring.

When I read the patents, seems like there was necessary hardware in the form of special switches. If not, then such a system would at minimum require various computers which is hardware. Hardware, software, programs & processes. Is that not true?

I don't know what hardware VPLM or infringers employ, although I would expect numerous hardware, computing and telephony, is involved in the operations in all cases.

When I said "there is no hardware" - like most of what I wrote, I am generalizing - there is no hardware-specific aspects to the patents, that I know of - although the details of each claim may involve hardware specific to the typical operationo of htat claim function (i.e. a claim may involve a teklephone, but I didn't feel that was a germain aspect for our discussion of general patent aspects).

Computers run software, yes; but here again, your drillinbg into the details and missing the point, imo.

do think know man, but above sounds awfully ambiguous to me. I can't see USPTO or the courts describing it in such terms.

a) I didn't say that I was describing it with any specificity, much less what is already documented in the original patents.
b) What I say doesn't matter - it's whats in the patents, which is clearly highly specific, documented and vetted.
c) Assuming I am incorrect based on this reasoning (not enough detail in my internet post) is faulty reasoning. :)

What do you mean there is no shared software. I don't follow. Do you mean to say that the alleged infringers have not used the same or similar enough software. Other wise can you restate this a different way?

I'm saying that the original patent owner has a unique and distinct piece of software (code) from the infringers, as we've already discussed - the infringers didn't get their hands on VPLM source code - they are alleged to be infringing without copying the original source code.