chazzy1
1 hour ago
With all due respect to the many diverse viewpoints circulating, I would like to offer my perspective on our current situation. First, we all know that VPLM is not a blue chip stock and, as such, did not buy this stock because of its share price, but because of its intrinsic value. I believe that the intrinsic value of VPLM today is still much higher than the current share price. Nothing has really changed. We wait for that day when the share price catches up to the intrinsic value. The legal team representing VP believes that the market value of our portfolio is in the billions of dollars. If we believe these experts, then we hold, not sell. In the words of Emil Malak, patience is a virtue. In my opinion, these words are not some empty platitude. They are truth. In the immortal words of Nietzsche, patience is bitter, but it's fruit is sweet.
Spyke37
1 hour ago
The fact is, for all of us, we really don't know what is going on. I look at this (as I have said several times before) as a pretty binary situation. The patents either have value or they don't. This is either a grift, or it isn't. The VPLM team is either working to maximize value for VPLM or they aren't. We are being told to have patience because a long term positive plan is being worked, or we are being completely lied to. etc.
In my formal education (a long time ago) the whole concept of market signals was gaining favor and that informed a lot of how I look at business to this day. To me, there are very strong signals that make me feel comfortable owning and holding this stock at around a $.01 average per share basis. Here are some of the signals that give me comfort:
36-0 win/loss record in IPRs and pre-trial motions.
The quality and reputation of our legal representation. Attorneys with impeccable reputations do not risk their reputations on a scam or grift.
The measures that the defendants seem to willing to exert in keeping this out of court.
The discipline and long term buy in of the management team in pushing this along.
The message from management has always been (at least since 2017 for me) and continues to be to "keep the faith and have patience". The team doesn't move the goal posts, although a lot of conjecture on iHub accuses them of such.
Having been involved in complex negotiations in my career; while I hate that fact that we find ourselves as shareholders "out in the cold" from an information standpoint, I understand that maintaining discipline regarding the dissemination of information (especially if negotiations are ongoing and net settled) is often essential in assuring that the desired outcome is achieved. One sure way to kill a deal is to leak sensitive information at the wrong time. Things seem to be getting very interesting and I remain hopeful and optimistic that the signals we have all been privy to will yield positive results in the relatively short term. This is simply my opinion while admitting that neither I nor anyone else who is not in management or on the legal team really understands all that is going on. I have a sense that a multi-dimensional game of chess is going on, while we are still reading the back of the box on how to play checkers. When this is all done, I believe we will all be surprised, to some degree, about how far off our theories actually were. Just keep it strongly in mind NO ONE ON THIS BOARD TRULY KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES. IT IS HARD ENOUGH TO GET ACTIONABLE INTEL ON SOMETHING FORMALLY PROVIDED BY THE COURT, LET ALONE UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. PEOPLE WHO SPEAK WITH BRAGGADOCIOS CERTAINTY ARE THE LAST PEOPLE ANYONE HERE SHOULD BE LISTENING TO in my opinion. GLTA
chazzy1
5 hours ago
Thanks Butters. Sometimes, in the absence of a PR, we simply have to do what every good detective does, and that is to read between the lines. The facts are that VP received a favorable ruling from the judge in April, asserting that Huawei failed to invalidate VP's patents on Alice 101 grounds (a side note here is that whenever a company is guilty of infringement, they invariably seek to invalidate the patent instead of denying infringement of the patent). One month later, this case was dismissed with prejudice. Let's think logically now. Would VP agree to a dismissal with prejudice, thereby relinquishing any recourse to retry this case, without first securing a favorable settlement offer? I don't think so. Huawei had just struck out in April and was now facing an immanent jury award with possible treble damages. I assert that Huawei saw the handwriting on the wall, and did the logical thing, which would have been to settle with VP out of court. Where is the proof? The lack of any tangible evidence at this time does not, in and of itself, constitute proof that a settlement did not occur.
ButtersOnARoll
5 hours ago
Hi Dr,
The original case (6:21-cv-01247) was transferred from TXWD to the TXND, which from the filings states:
"On Monday May 13th:
ORDER granting122 Motion to Dismiss. VoIP-Pal's infringement claims for the Asserted Patents relating to any other products or services are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs. The clerk will prepare the final Report to the Patent/Trademark or Copyright Office."
I too remember it was WITH Prejudice, but the filings show "Without".
Unfortunately, and many think unbelievably, there was no PR from the company on this settlement and/or any other settlement. Hudnell's policy I guess.
chazzy1
6 hours ago
An obnoxious and persistent ad was blocking full access to the edit page of my last post until my time expired, causing that post to look like gibberish, so I will restate it here in its entirety for the most clarity:
I beg to differ, straightword. What information the company is allowed to put out publicly is a matter that is best determined by the legal team representing VP. It would be irresponsible and reckless for the IR department to divulge details that are being negotiated in private, merely to placate some nervous investor. That kind of manipulation would be more in line with what scam companies do. Therefore, I fail to see how this is somehow a red flag, but a scam? No way. Investing involves risk, and not everyone has the stomach for it. If the reasons that you invested in VP still exist, then ignore all of the noise and remain focused.
chazzy1
7 hours ago
I beg to differ, straightword. What information the company is allowed to put out publicly is a matter that is best determined by the legal team representing VP. It would be irresponsible and reckless for the IR department to divulge details that are being negotiated in private, merely to placate some nervous investor. That kind of mamipulation would be more in line with what scam companies do. Therefore, I fail to see how this is somehow a red flag, but a scam? No. Investing involves risk, and not everyone has the stomach for it. If the reasons you invested in VP still exist, t704 292 9736hen ignore all of the noise and remain focused.
sunspotter
12 hours ago
Apparently denial is not a river in Egypt, but a way of life for VPLM longs, and those insiders posting on this board pretending to be longs.
Here’s the truth about the Huewai case:
“The last defendant to exit from the campaign was Huawei, the most recent suit against which was dismissed with prejudice on May 13, 2024. That dismissal was with prejudice from the Northern District of Texas, shortly after District Judge Brantley Starr—on April 30, 2024—denied a motion to dismiss a complaint asserting two mobile gateway patents (8,630,234; 10,880,721) because the asserted claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter. The court refused to treat claim 1 of the '234 patent as representative of the remaining asserted claims (claims 10-11, 19-22, 24-25, 28, 30-33, 35, 37-40, 43, 45-48, 51, 53-54, 61-62, 64-65, 70, 72, and 75 of the '234 patent and claims 1, 6, 15-16, 20, 25, 34, 38, 39, 43, 45-46, 49-51, 63, 67, 77, 103-104, 109-110, 124, 130, 135-136, and 138-140 of the '721 patent), some of which contain means-plus-function elements.“
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/1495130/voippalcom-sues-tmobile-and-verizon-over-previously-unasserted-claims-from-previously-asserted-patents
rapz
18 hours ago
RBR 606 patent cases against VZ and TMUS were filed quite a while ago.
U.S. District Judge David Counts
200 East Wall, Midland, TX 79701
Totally three RBR cases are pending: AMZN, VZ, TMUS.
TWO MG cases are in progress. Trial dates were canceled, not dismissed as many have already guessed.
Conflicts with damages, expert testimonies, the use of specific infringement models should have been sorted out during or before the pre-trial. A big reason a defendant would back out of a jury trial is the risk of triple damages; or they might have other reasons.
chazzy1
22 hours ago
That is music to my ears, Butters. To recap, the trial dates have been cancelled but the cases have NOT been dismissed. A huge distinction! New trial dates can always be assigned. On top of that, two brand new complaints have just been filed against T-Mobile by Hudnell Law Group P.C, and a judge has not yet been assigned for those. Because of some rule changes, there is no guarantee that these new cases will be assigned to Judge Albright. In these new claims, only the '606 patent is asserted. Through the IPR re-examination process, VP's patents have been strengthened, and are considered to be "Alice proof", plus new patent claims have been added to VP's suite of enforceable patents.
So folks, this ain't over yet, by a long shot. Stay tuned, the pps may fluctuate as investors figure this out, but I see the stock rebounding over time. JMHO.
ButtersOnARoll
22 hours ago
Regarding Huwuai, VP won the Alice 101 ruling against MG and then immediately settled. that case is closed.
The cases that are open, are the RBR against Amazon, which mysteriously hasn't budged in almost 8 months, V and Tmob, which were recently filed. Remember the RBR patent has won an exparte re-examination from the PTAB (IMO, is basically and should be the same as an Alice 101 win) and is now stronger with 8 additional claims.
Regarding the MG V and Tmob cases, to my knowledge at this point, all that has happened is that the TRIAL DATES have been cancelled, but the cases are still active. The cases have NOT been dismissed and are NOT terminated. Hoping for more clarifying information to come out soon on why the cancellation is needed, but IMO VP needs to continue that effort and in an escalated manner.
sunspotter
23 hours ago
“ I saw in May Huwuai had asked for Summary Judgment, and the Judge denied the motion. Nothing further since that PR so I'm assuming that case is proceeding.”
Your assumption is incorrect:
The last defendant to exit from the campaign was Huawei, the most recent suit against which was dismissed with prejudice on May 13, 2024. That dismissal was with prejudice from the Northern District of Texas, shortly after District Judge Brantley Starr—on April 30, 2024—denied a motion to dismiss a complaint asserting two mobile gateway patents (8,630,234; 10,880,721) because the asserted claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter. The court refused to treat claim 1 of the '234 patent as representative of the remaining asserted claims (claims 10-11, 19-22, 24-25, 28, 30-33, 35, 37-40, 43, 45-48, 51, 53-54, 61-62, 64-65, 70, 72, and 75 of the '234 patent and claims 1, 6, 15-16, 20, 25, 34, 38, 39, 43, 45-46, 49-51, 63, 67, 77, 103-104, 109-110, 124, 130, 135-136, and 138-140 of the '721 patent), some of which contain means-plus-function elements.“
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/1495130/voippalcom-sues-tmobile-and-verizon-over-previously-unasserted-claims-from-previously-asserted-patents