Thankyou. As to the lawyers thing, I must admit that is a very good question when pitted against the idea of the possibility that in the final analysis, it could turn out that the patents are not all theyve been cracked up to be. I have deeply considered that seeming dilemma. Its the one thing I must say that I cannot reakon with so far. I have mentioned it here by way of throwing the same question out to other non supportive folks & as far as I know, none have ventured an answer. I guess I have to wonder just how deeply they have vetted the patents, not simply to be valid, of which there is no question, but to be the truly foundational, controlling, no getting around technology that vplm (and no one else) has claimed them to be. I find that the language of the patents & complexity therein, is such that came to believe that only true, well seasoned, highly educated & experienced developers in voip technology would be able to decode it all, like down to the nano level (so to speak) and make the necessary tests or be able to work it out in their heads and to also make the necessary comparisons against the whatever technology is used by all the other voip service provider, of which vplm states that they all are infringing, all using the vplm patented technology. I find this very difficult to believe that anyone has really been able to cover all those bases. And I have never seen anyone claim to have covered all those bases and report that yes, the patents are indeed all that & yes the other companies are using the same technology. I think that is a very valid & thorough thought process that it calls for. I would like to know if the lawyers have covered it to that level. Do you have reason (other than their reputation & standing) to believe they have it covered to that level? If it weren't for all the other "issues" I have found w/vplm, I wouldn't even think to question that about the lawyers. So it is a dilemma for me. I can accept the possibility that the lawyers could believe its a winable case even if the patents are later found to not be absolutely not necessary to the operation of voip. Or maybe they believe in the patents but are wrong? After all, if you imagine the court case between Apple or any of the other biggies & vplm, well we have these lawyers that are considered top ip lawyers, but I'm sure that the other side will have lawyers who are also considered very high in the ip field. Right? And yet we know ahead if time that one side will be right & the other wrong, as per whatever is the final outcome spoken by the court. Does being at or near the top of the list of ip law firms automatically mean that they will prevail or that they are 100 percent right about then veracity of the patents while the other sides lawyers, being also of a high caliper, must then be wrong and will not, cannot prevail? I hope you followed that. I had a hard time expressing it. Does it make sense? If not, then I guess my overarching belief is in deep trouble of being wrong. Also, as good as these lawyers are, and I really am not trying to impune their integrity here, but let's face it, lawyers in general are not held in the highest of esteem in our society. Accordingly, they are the butt of every imaginable joke about their intrinsic integrity. I would think that is because of the reputation of some but not all. But they are paid (contingency or not) to form their opinions. Built in conflict of interest. Can't get around that. So what I'm thinking (but not accusing) is that power & wealth, being what it is, works it ways into the vast majority of those who have so much power over other people's lives. I know for a fact that collusion, amongst the top people in the entire arena (judges, lawyers, big investors, etc) exists. I'm not saying it exists in this case because I have no proof, but it is another possibility. Also, if you know, is it Knobbe, Martin who are the lawyer supposedly working for vplm on contingency or is it a different law firm doing that? I can't remember anymore as vplm has listed so many different lawyers over time. The reason I ask, is if they are getting paid one way or the other (cash, stocks, options...) maybe they think they can win regardless if the patents are totally foundational to the future of voip? That's the best I've got, on this question. Do you see any merit at all?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
