Patent validity is not in question. The patents are valid. They were valid when they became patents. There have been numerous challenges to that validity and all those challenges were lost, therefore the patents always have been and still are valid. Patent validity is not the issue. Patents can be legally valid, yet not have any value, nor be useful in the real world, nor be necessary to the operation of voip. Also, in the past, many valid patents have later found to be invalid by virtue of information not previously found or brought up.
Additionally, the cases are not about patent validity, they are about infringement. Whether or not the companies are using the same technology that the patents contain in their voip products. To your point, it's possible the patents may, at some point still be found to be invalid in some way, but I don't know if legally, that would automatically cause a loss of the case for Vplm because there still might be infringement happening. In other words, just because part of a patent is found to be invalid at some point, currently oes that mean it can't be infringed on regardless? I don't know. It's complex. My point is the patents are all currently valid but that does not give them any value nor does it mean any are being infringed upon. So if the alleged infringers know this and the market know it, then of course there's not a high pps. More importantly, if the alleged infringers knew the patents were not only valid but also were ALL THAT in terms of what vplm has claimed for them in terms of being foundational and necessary to the very operation of voip.......THEN........THERE IS NO WAY IN THIS WORLD THAT THEY WOULD RISK ALL THEY ARE RISKING BY NOT LICENSING, SETTLING OR BUYING THE PATENTS AND/OR WAITING AND WAITING, AS THE LONGER THEY WAIT, THE MORE THE DAMAGES WILL BE PLUS THEY WILL LOSE THEIR PRODUCT AND LOSE THEIR ABILITY TO COLLECT THEIR OWN DAMAGES. So it's actually more than merely risky, it's very close to an inevitable certainty that the above mentioned things will befall them. Therefore, it is my contention, via inference, that they must know that the patents are not ALL THAT and that they are not infringing. If that was the case, then ppl ask the valid question of the why do they delay and fight in court. I believe that's because when you're charged you must put up a defense so as not to be found guilty by default. Also because even tho they feel they are innocent, it's not unusual for judges or juries to find for or against litigants IN ERROR or another factor is concerns about appeals. So there do seem to me to be reasons to fight even if you know your innocent.
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.
