That just means you don't understand what I mean by junk. As I've repeated enough times that you should know if you paid att, I've said all along that the patents are valid. I've also made it clear, even today, that it's not my fault that some don't have the discernment skills to be able to seperate patent validity (legally) from patent viability in terms of need, efficacy, value, etc. There IS a major difference whether you realize or not. But aside from that and more importantly, and as I've said over and over, the patents are valid and so that's not really the issue to be resolved in the infringement trials. In fact, due to estoppel, no old claims that have been shot down, will be able to be brought up again anyway, which is really the only tangible positive of any positive IPR outcomes for vplm. I owe that knowledge to the only person on this board who was ever able to show any real or legal benefit for vplm in getting the positive IPR decisions they got. It's estoppel and now I can't remember for certain who gets that credit but I'm thinking it was maybe gbc. Sorry if I got that wrong. But back to the the infringement trial consideration, it won't be validity, it will be simply proving infringement.
While I haven't said so before, being the fair balanced reasonable and objective person I am, I can see it's possible that 1 or more voip companies may indeed have stolen or copied and used some part of some patent that's up for trial soon or later and if that happens it's also possible for some new challenge to the validities could be brought forth to the court or maybe it could even result in a monetary award.........but I doubt it.
What I think will happen is that there simply is little to no infringement going on. Or, I'm thinking it's also possible to show that while the patents are fully valid, that they functionally cannot deliver the job they promised. That could be due to a number of reasons, such as now outdated or incompatible with today's state of legacy. Or for any number ofn other possible technical reasons, which would render a different type of invalidity. Something new and not brought up before.
All I know for sure is that if I was an infringer and knew it, I would not be sitting on my thumbs waiting to hauled into court to get hit with triple damages. Plus lose the ability to sell my product. Or be forced into a huge settlement amount. So I'm not buying that vplm will fare well.
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.
AI
