Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[rapz]

DB,

Your observations are valid. Some attorneys only write but do not participate in trial. Ravel sounds like a trial attorney who wrote in haste.

An interesting point to note. You have seen motions so far in N CA. The only subjects AAPL (including clueless Koh) talked about were: Alice this Alice that, subject matter ineligible for patent, Venue, First to File, etc. This is the first time, AAPL talks about iMessage, video call, Facetime, etc. use a different process. Hudnell calls "access code", "access code servers", etc. to complete a caller and a callee. AAPL calls "Apple system server" or different names and use a pair of codes to complete the call. So far we have never seen AAPL's black box until now. Hence the excitement!

The point for VPLM is:
even if AAPL argues that AAPL's process is slightly different from VPLM's Gateway patent, Albright will figure out the differences or similarity. But most of all, he will confirm when VPLM patent was issued. The issued date will be important is important in deciding who precedes whom. The earlier date will be an important point to argue against all seven defendants, including AAPL.

Note there is a case management conference in N CA. Is AAPL is trying to distract Hudnell?