Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[rapz]

Hotspot (aka) Home internet

Hotspot
A device called Hotspot or Home Internet was introduced by TMobile with fanfare. But the device failed quickly. After a few years of redesigning and re-developing they brought it to market. Mr. Hudnell has questions about its history and perhaps will raise them in the upcoming trial. How they developed the software and hardware? Was there an infringement?

As you know the TMobile Hotspot handsets complying the UMA designation were quite expensive and not universal.

Where can you buy this device? The device goes for $40-$200 on Amazon and elsewhere.

https://products.bestreviews.com/best-wireless-hotspot-devices?yb&cid=650116252&aid=1252344392388121&eid=&tid=kwd-78271892938651:loc-190&ul=86985&mt=p&n=o&d=c&dm=&dt&sn&adid=&k=hotspot%20device&p=&pc=&ap=&chtrb=1

https://www.t-mobile.com/home-internet?cmpid=HEIS_PB_P_24HINT40PV_43700068505215571_&gclsrc=3p.ds

The Sprint Story
Don't forget Sprint!
Just before the cell phone company, Sprint, folded into T-Mobile, Sprint introduced a device called Hotspot. Old Sprint customers would have bought and tried to use it as "Home Internet". At about the time when Sprint was running into several infrastructure problems with installing Cell phone towers to cover the geographical areas they desperately want to cover, Verizon was running ads touting Verizon's vast areas of national coverage. Many would remember this ad.

Mr. Hudnell included Sprint as co-defendant in the recent RBR lawsuit filed in the WDTX court. He holds Sprint and all of its officers responsible for infringement damages with emphasis on "Willful infringement", (that is knowingly infringing a patented RBR technology after T-Mobile and Sprint were told by VPLM about their patent in a letter.

Settlement is useless without a public announcement of recovery of the actual damages and new licensing and royalty terms. If they can not pay the whole amount in one lump sum, defendants can raise cash by borrowing or selling their stock. Their Board of Directors would have a say.

If they do not agree to pay the damages and the licensing fees, Mr. Hudnell has indicated that VPLM would force "injunction" on all of their product sales in US. They will be stopped from selling in US. No sales, no revenue! Refer to US Code 35 on injunction. The injunction request is included in Mr. Hudnell's prayer.

The same situation exists for Verizon, even though they are still trying to use the "Alice" as an issue in the reexamination of MG patents. In the rebuttal on the RBR patent reexamination VPLM expert Dr. Cabrice started the rebuttal by pointing out how the Alice issue played a big role in NDCal cases and listed the specific claims that were rejected. Then it went on to discuss the deficiency of all prior arts used to justify the Alice issue: Mermel, Bedingfield, Koch, et al. Using prior art references haphazardly can backfire. VPLM won!

They can go to the Appeals court. The Appeals court did not object to Judge Albright's past rulings, as recently as the Venue issue from Amazon.

All of this is possible only if the Judge and the jury rule in VPLM's favor followed by a public announcement of the GUILTY VERDICT and the damages.

Keeping finger crossed and waiting.