NYT, for all of the grandstanding, you haven't presented an alternative case for how these infringers might not be infringing, as you generally and sarcastically claim.
Why/how do all these companies seem to have operational capabilities which infringe on the VPLM patents, if they are not infringing?
For instance, in the iMessaging case, taking into account telephony physics in the market(s), how could such a system be implemented (allowing calls to be routed across VOIP networks) without consideration for the caller profile without infringing on VPLM patents?
If one simply does not know, for instance, know how the capability of Apple iMessaging could infringe on the VPLM patents; then that itself makes one unqualified to opine opinions on this highly technical topic.
I find the flagrant disregard for the technical rigor underlying VPLM patents to be incompatible with continued (hollow) commentary as to their (in)effectiveness.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
