Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[nyt]

Yeah, everybody in the world is using vplm technology. If you breath, you're using vplm technology and you will owe. That's right, now all the banks owe vplm for their activities. Vplm is by default, big brother now and no one can buy or sell or move money or even communicate over the internet w/o owing vplm. There will not be enough money existing to pay all that is owed to vplm. All monies from all peoples should be addressed to and handed over to vplm and it should be done promptly so as not to incur more damages for making vplm wait. You will be required to have vplm or vplm logo to be tattooed or chip installed in your hand or head. Not even BofA can escape payment. Do not use the internet or you will be sued & your wages garnered by vplm. They are not just "the leader" of all that's voip, but you will be surprised to find out that almost all activities involving the net are to be defined as voip and therefore under the auspices of vplm. Resistance is futile. Vplm has "assumed" control... Vplm has "assumed" control..
................................
In other news.....
@Longterm,
I have been actively seeking more info on the SEP/RAND/FRAND/SSO/SSD front. Reeling from all the info & trying to make sense of it all. Numerous implications both positive/negative. Trying to ascertain if the orig 4 voip patents (the orig inventer, even tho voip in earlier iterations, goes way back to the 70s & aarpanet) had sep designations. So far can't find that info. In any event, here's some links (and text), if they work, in case theres anything you haven't seen already (even tho it's old info).
..............................
 Understanding patents, competition & standardization - ITU

PDFhttps://wwww.itu.int › ITU-T › Documents

https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/ipr/Pages/Understanding-patents,-competition-and-standardization-in-an-interconnected-world.aspx
......
https://books.google.com/books?id=AXkvDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=Understanding+patents,+competition+%26+standardization+-+ITU+PDF+https://www.itu.int+%E2%80%BA+ITU-T+%E2%80%BA+Documents&source=bl&ots=GZwB-ZdNUZ&sig=Hr_VDXxQ5YdW7qVd7VzRP1DAWts&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwsfie0r3ZAhXPmOAKHcnyDgEQ6AEwA3oECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=Understanding%20patents%2C%20competition%20%26%20standardization%20-%20ITU%20PDF%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.itu.int%20%E2%80%BA%20ITU-T%20%E2%80%BA%20Documents&f=false
..................
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/tutorials/Documents/201611/Session%20on%20IPRs-volanis.ppt
.................
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040165570
.................
PatentsEdit

In 2002 and 2003 the controversy about using reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) licensing for the use of patented technology in web standards increased. Bruce Perens, important associations as FSF or FFII and others have argued that the use of patentsrestricts who can implement a standard to those able or willing to pay for the use of the patented technology. The requirement to pay some small amount per user, is often an insurmountable problem for free/open source software implementations which can be redistributed by anyone. Royalty free (RF) licensing is generally the only possible license for free/open source software implementations. Version 3 of the GNU General Public License includes a section that enjoins anyone who distributes a program released under the GPL from enforcing patents on subsequent users of the software or derivative works.

One result of this controversy was that many governments (including the Danish, French and Spanish governments singly and the EU collectively) specifically affirmed that "open standards" required royalty-free licenses. Some standards organizations, such as the W3C, modified their processes to essentially only permit royalty-free licensing.

Patents for software, formulas and algorithmsare currently enforceable in the US but not in the EU. The European Patent Convention Article 52 paragraph (2)(c) expressly prohibits algorithms, business methods and software from being covered by patents. The US has only allowed them since 1989 and there has been growing controversy in recent years as to either the benefit or feasibility.

A standards body and its associated processes cannot force a patent holder to give up its right to charge license fees, especially if the company concerned is not a member of the standards body and unconstrained by any rules that were set during the standards development process. In fact, this element discourages some standards bodies from adopting an "open" approach, fearing that they will lose out if their members are more constrained than non-members. Few bodies will carry out (or require their members to carry out) a full patent search. Ultimately, the only sanctions a standards body can apply on a non-member when patent licensing is demanded is to cancel the standard, try to rework around it, or work to invalidate the patent. Standards bodies such as W3C and OASIS require[citation needed] that the use of required patents be granted under a royalty-free license as a condition for joining the body or a particular working group, and this is generally considered enforceable.[citation needed]

Examples of patent claims brought against standards previously thought to be open include JPEG and the Rambus case over DDR SDRAM. The H.264 video codec is an example of a standards organization producing a standard that has known, non-royalty-free required patents.

Often the scope of the standard itself determines how likely it is that a firm will be able to use a standard as patent-like protection. Richard Langlois argues that standards with a wide scope may offer a firm some level of protection from competitors but it is likely that Schumpeterian creative destruction will ultimately leave the firm open to being "invented around" regardless of the standard a firm may benefit from.
................
http://www.techpolicy.com/Blog/February-2013/FRAND,-RAND,-and-SEP-Why-These-Acronyms-Are-Import.aspx
..............
http://www.techpolicy.com/Blog/November-2012/New-Developments-in-RAND-and-Standard-Essential-Pa.aspx