LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
Tucker:
Unfortunately, we cannot name the multiple S&P 500 companies with whom we are in discussions with at the chairmen and ceo levels. While we do not have a self-imposed timeline for our monetization of the IP we are making every effort to bring the most meaningful offer to the shareholders for approval this calendar year. The board has established a target price based upon an internal valuation of using accepted industry standards. However, the negotiation process - obviously - will result in the final price. The board has a fiduciary obligation to deliver the best possible offer to shareholders for approval. We remain in active discussions with several groups that have expressed interest and have requested additional data as part of their ongoing due diligence. Thank you.
..............................
"Q: Dr Tucker can you please give a dollar value of what you believe Voip-Pal is worth?"
"DR. TUCKER: (3:44)
Unfortunately, because this is a listed company, I cannot under the regulatory regime give a specific number."
* however, despite the above citing of rules preventing company from giving an amount of value to the company, subsequently, Malak did just that and put the number at $2 billion, minimum.
....................................
Tucker:
"So if you multiply $1-$3 by multi-milllion, multi-hundreds of billions of subscribers you begin to get a view as to where maybe you would put a valuation on a potential sale of what is software remembering that not only do we have patents IPR (does he mean RBR?) but we also have a working system that uses the IPR (does he mean RBR?). So that's one way we looked at it. That gave us one answer. "
* wow, THE "IPR" references sound like a Freudian slip, as IPRs had not yet been filed in 2014 (but the IPR process, which at this point, no one had a clue about) was already in place and being used (AIA).
* above is Tucker speaking. So the value they arrived at, for vplm patents, is based on "hundreds of billions of subscribers".
DR. SAWYER:
Well, the current board has been in place for about 13 months. During the first several months of our tenure we had been informed that an offer to acquire the company was imminent and that all we had to do was to clean up some items such as outstanding debt and lawsuits and as those were accomplished new requirements were added before the offer would allegedly be made by the buyer. *****ULTIMATELY THE BOARD DETERMINED THERE WAS NO PENDING OFFER.*****
* So the shareholders were lied to about a pending offer to buy the company. This resulted, undoubtedly, in the sales of many many shares and brought on board untold numbers of new investors.........only to be later told, in this "passing remark".....thst there really was no offer, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol, lol. N-E-V-E-R-M-I-N-D......hahaha.
.................................
Dr Sawyer:
"During the extended blackout, [a] written offer was obtained by the company but it was through build a network with funds to be provided but it was not the anticipated buyout that we had expected."
* "it was through build a network".
So it was NOT really a written offer to buy the company. But vplm said there was a written offer...Again, more BS. Company tells shareholders there has been a written offer and its on the table........which brings in, once again, many new shareholders and sells many more shares (anticipatory), but then, in another one of these passing remarks, in their "infomercial" (conference call), we are subsequently told it wasn't really an "offer" to buy. Unreal. And the SEC does nothing against these tactics. Lol, lol.
...........................
Chang:
"However, we will continue to accept licensing and joint venture proposals if they represent acceptable monetization outcomes for shareholders.
[there are no known licensing or jv proposals to ever have occurred]
I should also note that we have been approached by an investment group to build out a network using our technologies which would enable the comp[any to still license to others.
[but wait, that DOES sound like a jv offer. Can't they make up their minds & get it straight?]
...........................
Tucker:
" So, I guess, the first group are the ones whom we believe infringe, they have a real need to take on our patents and in the case of the manufacturers I would include Apple, Cisco, HP, Ericcson ...in that category, they have all in our opinion infringed upon our patents and since they will have to hold and indemnify their users which are largely the other telcos they are first group that would be preferred buyers and would certainly have a need to buy VP. "
* and yet, except for Apple, those other companies have not been sued, even tho they are here names as the top infringers. Strange.
................................
Tucker:
"Can you get around it with new technology? Many people have tried but the answer is no. We know from the way..we believe that there are significant infringers and they clearly are using the techiniques that are well defined in our IP."
* so here it is categorically stated that there is no way around the RBR patent, based on how broad the patent attributes were written. That may become an issue of "obviousness" later on.
..................................
MALAK:
Well as a special advisor I also have another very important side which I would rather to talk on its behalf. I am the shareholder of almost 40% of the company. I have 370 million shares roughly which I volunteered a lockup about two months ago when they became free trading. I want the shareholders to know that I didn't volunteer it just because i'm a nice guy. "
* that's funny to read, when NOW we find out he has been getting rid of shares to friends & family or whoever, but the boatloads, ever since.
LIES LIES LIES LIES LIDS
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
