Voip Pal Com Inc (QB) (VPLM) Quote

😂😂😂
Tell the Feds.

“ Spoke with DB and he said he has bought more, four times in the past week.”

That’s insider code for

“I’ve been selling my free shares as fast as I can persuade the rubes to buy them”.

Just so you know.

I ADDED MORE SHARES TODAY AT .0103.LOOKING FORWARD TO ADD UP TO 20 MILLION IF WE FALL BELOW .01. PREFFERABLY IN THE .006 TO .009S:)))SO KEEP THEM COMING LIONS.
09/18/2024 Buy
Trade Details VPLM
VOIP-PAL COM INC
324,104
$0.0103 $3.00 -$3,341.27

Spoke with DB and he said he has bought more, four times in the past week. He was very excited about the chatter he's hearing... Woohoo for us and boohoo to the antis...

Lol ! Now Verizon facing class action in Illinois for voice print and voice ID violations.
You have got to be kidding me !!!
And Voip-pal can't prove infringement ???
Parker et vs verizon

So if I'm following along correctly, DB didn't have enough sense to create another profile 9rs ago but Rich did? He somehow knew that VPLM would be in this exact situation and thought here's my chance to really get things going by asking about an appeal?

I have yet to be proven wrong. The FACTS don't lie. Get back to me when they get financial judgements that are in-line with the "billions and billions of ongoing" infringements that the CEO has spoken about. If not then it's a complete failure and confirmation that the patents aren't worth near as claimed.

Just a lot of cheap talk with no results. VPLM hasn't received a dime in financial judgements and a share price approaching less then a penny which indicates how much he patents are really worth.

Yes, DesktopDr, in fact, this is often a learning process for all parties. It's like taking an exam. The examinee sometimes learns by missing a question, however, they don't typically get to take the exam over. In a court case such as this, when one party errs, there is a chance to sort of "retake" the exam, either through a motion for reconsideration or through the appeals process. But this time you go in knowing all the right answers.

I agree 100%. I do realize that that it's not it's not all that cut and dry or simple, but Judge Albright pointed out the issues and dismissed without prejudice so this could be corrected and eventually go to the court. But Judge Albright also should have done the research and found that he misunderstood and didn't clearly understand what he was reading.

Yes, InvestorinAZ, if the plaintiff's attorneys don't quite make their filing airtight, it is the judge's responsibility to point that out, often by dismissing the case, albeit without prejudice. But in so doing, he is also pointing out exactly what they need to fix. The courtroom is a very formal stage, where every legal "t" has to be crossed, and every legal "i" has to be dotted. The judge can't just call the plaintiff's attorneys aside and say, look, if you fix this, this and this, you will win the case. No, this is a very formal process which can be lengthy and arduous. If Judge Albright is the one who missed something, he now has a chance to correct it via the motion for reconsideration. If he missed something, but lets it stand uncorrected, that is precisely why we have the US Court of Appeals.

Damn, I miss DB! But I'm so grateful for all of you posters that are stepping in and defending against the bashers on this Board. It's fun to watch you work! Doing a FABULOUS job!
Hang in there, Longs! I think our train will be coming into the station soon! Might need a detour or two along the way, but IMO it's heading down the tracks our way.

LET;S HOPE WE MAKE A TON OF CHICKEN TRIOS:))I WAS BIDDING FOR 2 MILLION TODAY A HAIR BELOW .01.I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE 5 TO 10 MILLION SHARES AGAIN.VPLM IS A MONEY MAKING ENGINE,IT WILL RUN AGAIN.AND MONEY WILL BE MADE:))SOME WILL MAKE CHCKEN TRIOS,SOME WILL MAKE BIG.THERE IS FOOD FOR ALL PARTIES.
ESPECIALLY ANYTHING BELOW .015s AND .014S.REMEMBER NOT LONG AGO .015 TO .017 WAS A GOOD BUY AREA.
AND IT RUN IN TO .02S.I AM NOT WORRIED BECAUSE I WILL BE TRADING PART OF MY HOLDINGS,AND KEEP PART FOR BIGGER $$.GOOD LUCK.

I suspect Judge Albright made it clear to Hudnell exactly where the misunderstandings and weak spots were in the case and now we can close those exit ramps. I don't think he made an "error" in judgement at all, and I think he has been honorable and doing the right thing all along. IMO, he is showing no deference toward VP so that the other side cannot come back and accuse him of it. VP had to do the hard work of addressing those weak spots, but the point is that Albright was giving them the awareness and opportunity to fix it.
A friend of mine had to go thru a nasty divorce in court. It looked like the judge was going to find in favor of her ex, but it turned out in her favor. He was making sure that her ex did not have a leg to stand on in any kind of appeal.
My opinion is that Judge Albright is honorable and that he will do the right thing.

Glad to hear you're BUYING. Me too!
I PLACED AN ORDER TO BUY 500K AT .0105.

I’m thinking that reconsideration is another kick at the can as opposed to the appeals process.

Good info rapz. While this is not a foregone conclusion by any stretch, my opinion is that VP's attorneys have presented a respectful, yet compelling argument which seeks to edify the judge's (somewhat flawed) opinion. The ball is now in Judge Albright's court. We shall soon know how he responds.

Excellent post Rapz. I recall seeing a statistic on reconsideration hearings listing the success rate of getting the original motion reversed is something like 4-6% successful. Don’t hold me to an exact number as I’m recalling this from memory.

Reconsideration of an Order may not guarantee a change or reversal or the original order!
Legal standards for Amending or Altering of the original order are strict. It is not as easy as some would like to think. The company is perhaps getting ready to go to the Appeals court. jmo

https://www.detommasolawgroup.com/blog/2016/may/what-to-do-when-the-judge-gets-it-wrong-motions-/
May 03, 2016 By DeTommaso Law Group
If judges were perfect, we wouldn’t need a Court of Appeals. Unfortunately judges can and often do get issues wrong. Fortunately, however, there is a sliver of hope: the motion for reconsideration.

While it can be difficult to get a judge to think again on a decision he or she made just a short while beforehand, it is often possible with the right combination of factual and legal knowledge.

What Is a "Motion to Reconsider?"
A Motion for Reconsideration is a motion that you file when you want the judge to take a second look at a decision that you feel was incorrect.
A Motion for Reconsideration will not, however, be granted simply because you disagree with the outcome. There are legal standards governing reconsideration of pendente lite (a Latin term meaning “during the proceeding”) orders and final orders.

When Can You File a Motion for Reconsideration?
Court Rules govern Motions to Alter or Amend (a Judgment or an Order) and requires that the motion must be filed within 20 days after it has been received and must “state with specificity the basis on which it is made, including a statement of the matters or controlling decision which counsel believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has erred.”
Be warned, these standards are incredibly strict. Judges are frequently very busy, and motions for reconsideration are often used improperly by attorneys and unrepresented individual alike. Generally, motions for reconsideration are discretionary and should be granted in the interests of justice. However, judges are human beings like the rest of us, and therefore, they don’t like being told they were wrong. Expect the Court to take a good hard look at your motion for reconsideration to find ways it can be thrown out on a procedural technicality.
An attorney working on a motion for reconsideration or another procedural issue on a motion for reconsideration, at least with final orders, is that they cannot be used to “expand the record” and re-argue a motion.
A motion for reconsideration is designed to seek review of an order based on the evidence before the court on the initial motion. The Court is within its rights to bar you from introducing new evidence on a motion for reconsideration. You are stuck with what you gave the Court the first time around.

....and won't you be lucky to keep getting that, one sided, biased, myopic info! Prime example of how bs perpetuates itself.

It will go on and on, as nauseum, for more years and without any sale, licensing, settlement or infringement win. It's not supposed to do any of those things. It's just a front and a mirage for a very well constructed share selling scheme. 27 years of nada.

And yet again, you absolutely lie and deny about what you said, after the fact. You said that it was old news. Also said it was "merely an augmentation to the 2022 order". Bullshit! The article was current to June 2024 and referred to new action being taken as of May 2024, because the original order wasn't working and left Allbright with a 43% "capture rate", many x more than a random spread. So new rules were added. That is clearly new news and not old news that you said it was. The article explained several times throughout that this was new ways of dealing with the old problem. I guess you ignored all that, or have blinders on or lack the necessary comprehension.
Then, you attempt to take a left turn away from your erroneous statements by stating that the new rules taken up against Allbright had no bearing on patent strength and validity. That was pure diversion on your part because the discussion never had anything to do with strength and validity in the 1st place. You need to search for hi Junose dumber than yourself to run your diversions, games and red herrings. You're very consistent in your fallaciousness, I'll give you that.

"I just hope we keep getting the updates from the fellow longs"

I hate to be the one to break it to ya, but those "fellow longs" are in fact company insiders, urging you to buy with their lies and distortions while quietly dumping their own shares as fast as they can.

How else do you think these "updates" are manufactured, while the real news about losses in court, costs being awarded to defendants, cases being dropped etc. etc. somehow never get mentioned by these "fellow longs"?

Well, I've lasted for the past 12+ years not being on the mailing list, LOL! I just hope we keep getting the updates from the fellow longs.

We have a good shot

“ That is the way our legal system works”

Chazzy1, Esq.

LOL!

Yes, touch 123. That is the way our legal system works. Checks and balances. If Judge Albright overlooked applicable legal precedent and/or failed to take into account certain relevant, critical facts in making his ruling which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgement of noninfringement, then this would constitute grounds for an appeal. So yes, VP would have another recourse in the event that Judge Albright did not reverse his original opinion.

Hi Chazzy1, are you saying that If Judge Albright stays with his original decision on no infringement against T-Mobile and Verizon, then VPLM can go to the US Court of Appeals to get Albright's decision overturned?
If so, then VPLM gets two shots at this ruling.
Many thanks for your reply, and to anyone else who would like to respond.

Desktop we are very excited about this news! Feels like things have progressed nicely this summer. Trying to stay up on the different boards. Thanks for any updates you may have for us.

I'm not sure if anyone monitors the website. I've signed up for communication and have sent 3-5 emails to IR. No response at all. As lame as it is, it has nothing to do with the patents. I believe we are closer than ever to getting a settlement from Verizon & T-Mob.

My personal favorite..

Life's too short .... LOL!!!

Patience is a virtue, remember?

Hi Rapz -I have signed up for communincations on the VP website (both old and new) with no success at receiving communications. I appreciate those of you who help keep us up to date.

If I had a nickel for every time you said this was over...

Lets see what happens.

If I claimed this was a SCAM and touted having fed contacts, but showed absolutely ZERO after 12 years. I think I would hide and never show my face again...

Of course it was followed up with some real brilliance.. Like having the website be down and posters removed as signs of the company going under.

Sunspotter, I read it. This is merely an augmentation to the 2022 order to curtail judge shopping in the Western District of Texas, and has absolutely no bearing on the strength and/or the validity of VP's claims. I happen to think that VP would prevail in any fair courtroom throughout the Western District, or any in other district.

“ I just got a tear in my eye.”

If I had spent over a decade defending an obvious scam that never produced a single good or service, and pretending that their IP was rock solid, only for the actual poster boy for patent trolls to comprehensively trash their pathetic lawsuits in his summaries of their cases, I’d be pretty lachrymose too.

I’m beginning to think bacon wrapped shrimp may not be on the menu after all.

I'm getting a real chuckle out of someone telling others, erroneously, mind you...about how out of date their info is. Lololol...

CDMA networks were phased out of service and replaced by LTE and 5G.May 13, 2024

https://www.androidpolice.com › ...
What the heck happened to CDMA networks? - Android Police
T-Mobile's 3G CDMA network (Sprint) ended in March 2022, and its entire 3G network by July 2022. And Verizon's 3G CDMA network will end by December 2022.

I just got a tear in my eye.

So sweet one is defending the big tech companies that have stolen patents for years and continue to do so.

Maybe use your fed contacts for good and bring down those SCUM bags!!!!

It is amazing how you keep talking as tho you knew what you were talking about, even though you keep being shown to be unequivicably incorrect on the very points you seem to "show off" with. Here's yet another instance of same, which I meant to post days ago but got sidetrkd... I'm thinking you do your DD in a dollar general store....
____________________________
Quote:
"Code Division Multiplex Access - CDMA. Before CDMA, we sent a signal from the cell phone, wait for the signal to reach the callee and wait for the callee to respond with another signal.“

My response:

When speaking of CDMA, the M is multiple, not multiplex. Similar words and they may share some similarities in meanings as standalone words, but in electronics and telephony, they are different. Regardless, it's multiple access, not multiplex.

I remember many moons ago when I 1st started driving, learning the term multiplex. I had an fm radio in my car but it was strictly mono. Stereo was still a fairly new thing. There was a couple ways of getting stereo if you didn't already have it. One was to add a discrete multiplex unit to your radio, which was already jacked for it and might or might not need a seperate amplifier, and an additional speaker, depending on the model radio you had. Then, if you were tuned to an actual stereo broadcast, you would get that 2nd discrete channel. But a cheaper, sort of poor man's way of doing it, was to add a matrix multiplex channel. It was a fake 2nd channel, created by a shift in frequency response, I believe it was, which changed the sound and there might have also been a time delay component and that altered matrix sound was sent thru the multiplex unit to an added speaker and gave 2 channel fake stereo. It worked, sorta.

Anyway, I also wanted to comment on this line from you...

"How is it possible? Let us remember how QCOM's CDMA patented technology works - a technology widely used all over the globe"
______
My problem with that is I'm 99% sure that CDMA technology is no longer in use. Not for the last couple yrs. I know this because I had a certain involvement which led me to do lots of research on the subject. So I KNOW what I'm talking about. You used CDMA to help show how it's working in a positive way in the patent context, when if you were up on the state of affairs, you'd know it's no longer a part of cellular.

The reason I said I was only 99% sure is because it's possible that there is still some backwater, petticoat junction phone company, using it to some small degree. Doubtful tho, as modern GSM and 4g/5g pretty rendered CDMA moot.

Why don’t you actually read the copy from the link I posted? It shows that as recently as this June, Albright was involved in great controversy and still continues to be painted as the greatest ally of patent trolls in the US.

No wonder he knows he can’t be seen to advance the totally worthless and bogus claims of VPLM now that he’s under the microscope.

Judge Koh had it right - VPLM is a cancer on the world of intellectual property rights.

Yes, Drumming4life, I agree that remaining cautiously optimistic is the most prudent stance, for the reasons you cited.

I have to hand it to you, Sunspotter. You really try hard. It is old news that a ruling came out some time ago, I believe by the Federal Circuit, that plaintiffs can no longer select Judge Albright. Now the judges are randomly selected.

I agree but based on past experience with the courts, nothing is a given in at any level of the system. I’m cautiously optimistic the right decision will be made.

June 2024 is "old news"? I don't think so.

"June 27, 2024
Patent Litigation
New Case-Assignment Order Marks Next Step in Curbing Judge Shopping in Texas

Josh Landau
Late last month, Chief U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas Alia Moses announced a new order to distribute patent cases randomly across the district, while raising the bar for plaintiffs seeking to try their cases in venues where they previously filed “related cases.” Building on a prior randomization order in the Western District, this new order is consistent with the goals outlined in recent guidance from the U.S. Judicial Conference, and will hopefully deter patent infringement plaintiffs from judge shopping in one of the most filed-in district courts in the country.

As readers of Patent Progress know, plaintiffs from around the country – including frequently, patent trolls – consistently seek out Judge Alan Albright in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas. Having explicitly encouraged patent owners to file litigation in his district, Albright’s activism resulted in one-fourth of all U.S. patent cases being filed in his Waco courtroom.

In 2022, guidance from then-Chief District Judge Orlando Garcia was meant to loosen Judge Albright’s stranglehold over the patent caseload by randomizing case assignments filed in the Waco Division among twelve judges in the Western District. However, despite the order, plaintiffs were able to appeal for automatic reassignment if Judge Albright had previously presided over “related cases” of theirs. For example, if they had filed litigation in which one patent was asserted against a party, they could ask that any future cases on that patent be assigned to Judge Albright. Albright had many former plaintiffs eager to appeal for their ongoing cases to be reassigned to his courtroom. As a result, even following the randomization order in 2023, Albright received 189 patent cases, equaling 43% of the total caseload for the division – over five times more cases than a random distribution would expect across twelve judges.

This May’s order from Chief Judge Moses seeks to rectify this issue once and for all. Beyond updating the slate of twelve Western District judges among whom patent cases will be randomized, the order crucially mandates plaintiffs provide “sufficient legal and factual justification” to support their “related case” appeals for new jurisdiction. Now, if plaintiffs want to return their lawsuits to Judge Albright’s courtroom, the burden of proof lies with them to convince the presiding judge of a legitimate justification for leaving their docket.

While Chief Judge Moses’s order is a welcome step in the fight against judge shopping, it remains to be seen if plaintiffs in the Western District will again find procedural loopholes to sidestep it. Moreover, as patent trolls turn to other plaintiff-friendly venues – like the Eastern District of Texas – measures should be taken to ensure case assignment randomization is practiced in every district court nationwide—or at least in those which have single-member divisions. Until then, the ideal of a fair and impartial judiciary will remain a hopeful dream for defendants subjected to bad-faith patent infringement lawsuits.


Josh Landau"

https://www.patentprogress.org/2024/06/new-case-assignment-order-marks-next-step-in-curbing-judge-shopping-in-texas/

Sunspotter, that is old news, however, you are certainly free to express your own opinions, even if they are lacking in substance.

“ My opinion is that Judge Albright is honorable and that he will do the right thing.”

And my opinion is that Judge Albright knows the eyes of the world - and the US senate- are upon him, so that he will do the right thing and refuse to consider the latest “dog ate my homework” excuse from VPLM.

https://www.patentprogress.org/2024/06/new-case-assignment-order-marks-next-step-in-curbing-judge-shopping-in-texas/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/senators-slam-albright-over-extreme-concentration-patent-cases-2021-11-03/

Drumming4life, if Judge Albright is "too proud" to correct his mistakes, then the US Court of Appeals will correct them for him. He ruled contrary to applicable and established precedent, and against demonstrable facts. It would be much simpler to acknowledge this now and move on. Let's see what he does. My opinion is that Judge Albright is honorable and that he will do the right thing.

Yes!

I don't think Albright has a choice. He misunderstood the writing in the patent. Federal courts have already ruled on this in other patent lawsuits. Verizon and T-Mob have to know this and should realize that the more this case drags on the more they will be liable for.