Oh yeah, now I remember..... I was telling ppl here that the 10Q was due out approx the 15th and it came out on the 14th.
Also though the Amazon settlement announcement was on 5/1. You say 5/3. It was actually on 5/2.
Seems like that would be early enough to be incl in the 2nd quarter 10Q but I couldn't find any mention in fact I think it specifically said there were NO MATERIAL EVENTS. Hmmmmm... Maybe I need to brush up on what exactly constitutes a material event. The PR sure looked like a material event announcement. But then again it's well known to some of us the level of wordcraft and hyperbole vplm has always always used......why??.......lol, to sell more shares of course! Duh.
Oh and interesting but certainly no surprise that vplm, staying tight with their usual MO, has removed that PR, lololol. Not the 1st time that's for sure. 2 of the more infamous times, was when VPLM BLATANTLY LIED about not having anything to do with the sawyer letters. Somehow they got busted for that and that PR disappeared, replaced by a very LAME replacement PR where the fact was almost totally avoided. Typical vplm fare. Weasel your way thru or out. The 2nd onenI recall is when they published on their website the names of roughly 60 alleged infringers and then almost immediately that was taken down forever after. Gee, wonder why? Reminds me of the LONG AWAITED AND CALLED FOR infringement letters which vplm punked out on for a long time and shareholders were complaining quite a bit. Finally they announced it was done and some of the letters were published. I don't know why cuz they were embarrassing. They did not accuse anyone of infringement. They were what I like to call love letters. They said something to the effect that "we want to let you know of the possibility you may have infringed" or something close to that verbiage. They asked them to please take a look at it. To me, after all that had been said and done or not don't to that point, they sounded pathetic. Every company denied infringement and said they had no interest in vplms claims and basically told vplm to go pound salt, same as they've effectively been telling them ever since. The defendants have to defend themselves and fight back at vplm in order to not lose cases by default.
I want to know if they ditched filing a material event OR it was just ANOTHER of the many vplm HEADFAKES. EITHER WAY NOTICE HOW THEY ARE allowed to get away with it just like all the other filings, it seems.
All my commentary is to be considered as my personal opinions, to which I am entitled. And there is no proof of said opinions unless I offer it in the comments.
