Rbg,
Thx for the reply. Agreed on the intention of vp to sell a hi bidder, altho (and I will have to go back & listen again..) I'm thinking that I remembered also, some mention in there, of the possibility of licensing. I'm prolly wrong & maybe that mention was saying no intention for that angle, or, maybe I'm just confusing some other discussion of that possibly, w/the conf call? The only reason I even mention that, is I didn't think I had said anything in my post, re: selling to hi bidder, so when you began your reply w/that fact, from your listens to CC, it made me wonder why... and there has been some discussion (brought up by me) here, about the possibility of holding on to company & getting into the licencing game. In those short lived discussions (no one seems to want to entertain it), the idea's been shot down as something they (vp) couldn't/wouldn't do due to lack of $ for legal rep, which I thought could easily be handled via contingency. I pointed out how the longer term value in that scenario, would likely be much more than what a sellout price winds up being & how that could benefit more ppl over a much longer time period, money-wise, similar to the lump sum vs 20 yr much larger payout situation w/lottery. (except in the case of vp, it would not be a mere doubling or tripling of monies to come, but would be exponentially huge over a long long time period, such as is the case w/song rights, where the song owner continues to receive residuals for yrs & yrs & then the same to his family over generations of time. Plus, consider that if they (vp) went that route, they could now develop their voip services & hardwares to become possibly a huge player in voip, for the near & ongoing term income for investors, like MS & YAHOO & GOOGLE & SKYPE, because THEY (vp) would not have to pay anybody for licencing or patent fees!!!... while all other voip users WOULD!!! Such would enable themselves to become the new big dog. I wonder if they have even thought about that or anyone else here? But then again, I've little doubt that someone will step up real quick & tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about (and they'll prolly be right <sighs>).
Sorry, originally I was just gonna pass by your mention of the hi-bidder thing (since everyone is already on that page) & was only gonna comment on the white paper names removal thingy, but got hung up on above idea (which really seems to me to be worthy of consideration). I had trouble w/exactly what you were saying about the name removal aspect, but I think you were going with the idea of trying not to be antagonistic about it. If so, my take on the partial list of infringers listed in white paper, was not antagonistic at all, as numerous names were listed & it's just fact of matter.
