TIMELINE INC (fka TMLN)

[wildestbee]

I have been looking for a good Facebook timeline cover and did not find a good site facebook time line cover except a site suggested by my friend latest timeline cover so I am writing here to help me find a good site. Hope you people will try to help me.
Regards
Wildestbee

[prado]

Any new news on TMLN RM?

[The Rainmaker]

Everyone owes it to themselves to look at a similar stock to TMLN. That stock is AMPX. They had patents for thumbnails used in all digital cameras. They settled with Canon and a few other biggies and AMPX ran from .70 to over $70.

Ultimately AMPX lost a key case against Kodak, several of their patents expired and AMPX is back to $6 now. However it was a 10,000% life chnager for many who played that one correctly.

[The Rainmaker]

This piece of their SEC filings prior to ProClarity/MSFT settlement said it all.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=23841068

[tcr7309]

rainmaker, i called the company and if i understand correctly their are many more infringers, most were waiting for the microsoft decision prior to seriously negotiating settlement, the time is now, a sleeping giant with less than 4 mil o.s and lesser float, what do you think, all in my opinion and mine alone

[The Rainmaker]

Float is 3.3 million per TMLN SEC filings

[tcr7309]

microsoft settles for 5mil, 4mil o.s., i called the company and if i understood correctly, timeline is in settlement discussions with 28 other infringers and they have all been waiting for microsoft to either go to court or settle, now that microsoft has settled the others may fall like flies. all in my opinion and mine alone, 4 mil o.s., you talk about low float, wow

[The Rainmaker]

Press Releases

August 21, 2006:

Timeline terminates limited patent license agreement with Microsoft
http://www.tmln.com/docs/PR_8-21-06_Microsoft_contract_termination.pdf


March 30, 2006:

Timeline board votes to conserve cash for patent enforcement
http://www.tmln.com/docs/PR_3-30-06_No_Div.pdf

February 22, 2006:

Timeline, Inc. receives data mart technology patent in South Korea; Second patent issued in Israel
http://www.tmln.com/docs/PR_2-22-06_Korea_Patent.pdf

September 1, 2005:

Timeline Completes Asset Sale To Global Software Following Shareholders' Approval
http://www.tmln.com/docs/PR_9-1-05_TMLN_Sale_to_Global.pdf


September 22, 2004:

Timeline receives data mart technology patent in China; Second patent issued in Australia
http://www.tmln.com/docs/PR_9-22-04_Chinese_Australian_Patents.pdf


June 28, 2004:

Timeline receives Canadian patent on data mart technology
http://www.tmln.com/docs/PR_6-28-04_Canada_Patent.pdf


February 13, 2004:

Timeline and Cognos settle patent dispute
http://www.tmln.com/docs/PR_2-13-04_Cognos_Settle.pdf


February 19, 2003:

Microsoft vs. Timeline final judgment affirms Timeline patent rights
http://www.tmln.com/docs/PR_2-19-03_MSFT_Final_Judgment.pdf


January 15, 2003:

Timeline receives Singapore patent on data mart technology
http://www.tmln.com/docs/PR_1-15-03_Singapore_Patent.pdf


January 9, 2003:

Timeline receives Mexico patent on data mart generation technology
http://www.tmln.com/docs/PR_1-9-03_Mexico_Patent.pdf

March 5, 2002:

Court of appeals rules in favor of Timeline in Microsoft appeal
http://www.tmln.com/docs/PR_3-5-02_TMLN_Wins_MSFT_Appeal.pdf


December 10, 2001:

Timeline signs patent license agreement with Lawson Software
http://www.tmln.com/docs/PR_12-10-01_Lawson.pdf

June 13, 2001:

Oracle and Timeline settle patent infringement suit
http://www.tmln.com/docs/PR_6-13-01_ORCL_Settle.pdf

[The Rainmaker]

Timeline, Inc., owns the patents listed below. To find out more about these patents and to discuss licensing opportunities, please contact us at [e-mail]

Issuing Country


Patent Number

U.S.


5,359,729

U.S.


5,802,511

U.S.


6,023,694

U.S.


6,026,392

U.S.


6,625,617

U.S.


6,631,382

U.S.


6,738,757 *

Australia


729,275

Australia


772,658

Canada


2,240,663

China


CN 1163821C

China


CN 198853

Hong Kong


HK1018328

Israel


125,129

Israel


139,665

Korea


0538,547

Mexico


212,383

Mexico


218,620

Singapore


80171

Singapore


53983

* Patent held by WorkWise, a wholly owned subsidiary of Timeline, Inc.

[The Rainmaker]

Timeline, Inc.
Symbol: TMLN

Click here for a printable version

Capitalization as of 03/31/2005:

Authorized Shares Outstanding Shares
Common $0.01 par 20,000,000 4,190,998

LONG TERM DEBT: None.

Common $0.01 par

UNITS OFFERED: January 18, 1995, the company, through Thomas James Associates, Inc. and Kirkpatrick, Pettis, Smith, Pollan Inc., offered 1,000,000 Common shares and warrants to buy 1,000,000 Common shares in units (each consisting of one Common share and one warrant to buy one Common share) at $5 per unit; comm., $0.50 per unit. An additional 150,000 units were available to cover over-allotments-- none taken. The company also issued to the underwriter 5-year warrants to buy 71,125 units at $6 per unit; and a warrant to buy 28,875 Common shares at $6 per share. Commission excluded a payment of 3% of the gross proceeds for nonaccountable expenses.


Transfer Agent: American Stock Transfer & Trust Co. New York

OTC Bulletin Board( Primary): TMLN

  
 Exchange	Year	High	Low 
 OTC Bulletin Board	2005	0.6500	0.1700 
 OTC Bulletin Board	2004	1.4000	0.3100 
 OTC Bulletin Board	2003	2.0000	0.5300 
 OTC Bulletin Board	2002	1.1500	0.1700 
 OTC Bulletin Board	2001	1.9300	0.1500 
 OTC Bulletin Board	2000	6.2500	1.0630 
 OTC Bulletin Board	1999	2.7500	0.3750 
 OTC Bulletin Board	1998	2.5000	0.4060 
 OTC Bulletin Board	1997	4.1200	0.4000 
 NASDAQ Small Cap	1996	7.6250	1.3120

[The Rainmaker]

1996-1999 TMLN press releases on their patents

http://www.prnewswire.com/gh/cnoc/comp/108216.html

[The Rainmaker]

Sage Software and Timeline Inc. Announce Strategic BI Patent Agreement

Irvine, Calif. - February 23, 2006 - Sage Software and Timeline Inc. today announced an agreement whereby Sage has acquired non-exclusive worldwide rights to Timeline’s data mart patents. Under the terms of the agreement, Sage will be able to provide integrated data mart capabilities within any of Sage’s ERP, Accounting, CRM or Business Intelligence products.

“Business Intelligence and advanced reporting are among the top of our customer and partner priorities and Sage has plans to develop offerings in this area across our entire product range,” said Sage Software CEO Ron Verni. “This agreement gives us the ability to create highly automated Sage Business Intelligence products for our accounting, ERP and CRM solutions that can be delivered to both our small business and mid-market customers worldwide.

“Sage Business Intelligence and advanced reporting products will offer our customers more timely, accurate and business focused information and can help improve ROI by monitoring all financial and non financial aspects of our customers’ businesses,” continued Verni.

Charles Osenbaugh, CEO of Timeline Inc., commented: “We are delighted to have signed this agreement with Sage Software as we continue to expand the excellent working relationship we have developed with Sage over the years. We are pleased that Sage, as the leader in business management software for small and mid-sized businesses, recognizes the value that the Timeline patents offer their customers and business partners in the area of data mart production.”

Sage is developing a range of Business Intelligence products to integrate with its market leading business management applications across North America, the UK and Europe. Product development has begun that will provide advanced analytics within Sage CRM SalesLogix later this year as a new component of the mid-market Sage Business Intelligence application. In addition, Sage’s IntelligentApps BI product is sold to divisions of large businesses including Morgan Stanley, Shell and Reuters, enabling them to conduct highly complex analysis of their financial and commercial data. Sage Intelligent Reporting, which delivers true BI capability out-of-the-box for small businesses, will be launched on March 1st initially to Sage’s Line 50 UK customers.

[The Rainmaker]

SQL Server developers face huge royalty bills. How many, how much?
MS loses Timeline case
By Drew Cullen → More by this author
Published Thursday 20th February 2003 23:00 GMT
Download free whitepaper - Building a Virtual Infrastructure from Servers to Storage

A Washington court ruling could see SQL Server developers liable for millions of dollars in licensing fees.

The judgment concerns a contract dispute between Timeline Inc. and Microsoft, over three patents relating to datamarts. In Microsoft's interpretration of its licence with Timeline, published in a press release in July 1999, "all users of Microsoft SQL Server 7, Office 2000 and other Microsoft products that utilize this type of technology are unencumbered by Timeline's patents."

Timeline disagreed. The Washington Court of Appeal judgement plumped for the company. The company reckons that some SQL Server developers could face bills in the millions of dollars. The "damages they face may be material to Timeline's future financial results," Charles Osenbaugh, Timeline's president and CEO.

In a curious press release announcing the judgment, Osenbaugh appears to be threatening legal action against some SQL Server developers, "particularly those Microsoft customers who relied on Microsoft's assurances, failed to investigate them thoroughly, and knowingly continued to provide material steps in an Infringing Combination. These infringers, if any, may face treble damages for the entire three and one-half years the case was tied up in the courts. Microsoft is not a law firm. Relying on its advice should not constitute acting in good faith; which is the required defense to treble damages for failure to investigate and honor patents once on notice of their existence."

Blimey.

Timeline also raises the spectre that SQL Server developers affected by the ruling could seek to sue Microsoft for damages.

So Microsoft signed a crap contract. Surely it can find some prior art to challenge Timeline's patents? But what is Microsoft to do? It's not saying yet, but it appears to be a little confused according to the very different comments made by spokesman Jim Desler to IDG News Service and CNET.

Here is what he told IDG. "It's important to note that Timeline has a history throughout this case of presenting issues to create uncertainty among our customers."

For Version 1.01 let's hop over to CNET News.com.

Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said companies that use SQL Server without adding customized code would already be covered by the licensing agreement and therefore would not be affected by last week's order. Desler said even companies that add their own customized code would not see an impact if their code is not related to Timeline's patents.

"Under the terms of the order, which were agreed upon by Timeline and Microsoft, even customers that add code could fall within the protection of the license between Timeline and Microsoft," Desler said.

Really? Check out what Timeline has to say: as the company has not yet published its press release on the web site, we reproduce it below in full, exhausting detail. ®
Microsoft Vs. Timeline Final Judgment Affirms Timeline Patent Rights; SQL Server Users Could Face `Staggering' Damages

Business Editors

BELLEVUE, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 19, 2003--Timeline, Inc. (OTCBB:TMLN) announced that the Superior Court of King County has entered its Final Judgment in Microsoft Corporation vs. Timeline, Inc. which confirms that the agreement between Microsoft (MSFT) and Timeline contains substantial limitations on Microsoft's ability to sublicense Timeline's patents.

The judgment implements the previously announced ruling by the Washington Court of Appeals. It confirms Microsoft's ability to sublicense its patent license to its customers is limited. SQL Server developers who create a new product by adding code in an "Infringing Combination" (as defined below) must obtain their own patent license. The exact language of the judgment and a definition of Infringing Combination are included at the end of this release. A description of the patented technology is available at www.tmln.com/press.htm.

The Findings in this case have far-reaching consequences, due to the potential damages Microsoft customers face, in spite of the assurances Microsoft previously provided.

Timeline management has consistently testified that, while this issue may eventually involve millions of dollars, it will only impact a segment of software developers using SQL Server. The trial court, ironically, found Microsoft's witnesses more credible than Timeline's on this issue; specifically the potential impact of the patents on users of SQL Server. Consequently, the Superior Court found that if the proposal, which the License Agreement was intended to memorialize, was as Timeline contended, then

"...every Microsoft customer, including ISVs, VARs, and corporate end users, who wished to customize SQL Server by adding code or product to meet the specific needs of users would have been required to purchase a license from Timeline to do so. Given the basic design and intended purpose and use of SQL Server ... the potential economic benefit to Timeline would have been staggering. ...(That economic benefit would be) from the future sale of licenses to essentially all of Microsoft's SQL Server customers."

In confirming Timeline's contract interpretation, the Court of Appeals did not change the Superior Court's finding that the "potential economic benefit to Timeline would have been staggering." The Court of Appeals did note that, for whatever reason, Microsoft now finds the "...agreement is not commercially reasonable...". But the court rightly pointed out "...it is not the duty of the courts to correct what may be bad bargains, but to enforce an agreement as written."
Microsoft's Tactics

Microsoft itself proposed the limited license rights ultimately agreed upon in exchange for a substantial reduction in proposed license fees. Testimony during litigation disclosed that when Timeline first approached Microsoft about its patent infringement exposure, Timeline made alternative licensing proposals. Each alternative provided a different level of license protection.

Microsoft further testified that shortly after signing the contract, it started to receive critical feedback from its customers for having negotiated patent license coverage for its own trademarked products while providing lesser rights for users of Microsoft platforms. Microsoft produced a statement from one such customer that "...Microsoft clearly negotiated a settlement that leaves all developers out in the cold." At some point, Microsoft decided the need for its customers to procure separate patent licenses for their part of an Infringing Combination was extremely detrimental to Microsoft's business.

Rather than returning to the negotiating table, however, Microsoft chose to attack Timeline. Microsoft filed suit asking the court to allow it to ignore the language in its patent license with Timeline; specifically the limitation the parties had negotiated on sublicensing. Three and one-half years later, the resulting Final Judgment affirms the validity of the original agreement.

During this three and one-half year period, Microsoft bought Timeline's largest competitor and aggressively developed many applications based upon data mart technologies. It also acquired Timeline's then largest international distributor. These activities give Microsoft a family of products and an enhanced distribution channel to directly compete with Timeline products and those of many of its other SQL Server development partners, a capacity it did not have when it started this long, drawn-out legal battle.

Most troubling was a false press release issued in July 1999. Microsoft's press release, distributed to the international financial and trade press, stated in part:

"The (Timeline patent) license ensures that all users of Microsoft SQL Server 7, Office 2000 and other Microsoft products that utilize this type of technology are unencumbered by Timeline's patents."

It would be hard for Microsoft to claim it did not know or should have known its statement was false. The Court of Appeals held:

"Try as we might, it is 'impossible' to reconcile the wording of ...(the agreement) with Microsoft's proposed construction." (emphasis added)

"We know there were no less than 14 'privileged' communications involving legal counsel in conjunction with the issuance of the press release. Consequently, we seriously doubt anything about the wording or its intended effect was accidental," said Charles Osenbaugh, Timeline's President and CEO.

"Why Microsoft would mislead its own customers, arguably inducing them to act in a manner potentially to their great detriment, was initially very difficult for us to understand," Osenbaugh continued. "We assumed Microsoft simply felt that someone would successfully challenge the Timeline patents or that Timeline would capitulate before Microsoft's statement came back to haunt it. And Microsoft openly supported a number of third parties who unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the Timeline patents.

"But, in hindsight and even though Timeline won the litigation, we must admit Microsoft's approach apparently worked for it. The monies spent on legal fees were inconsequential to them. Between the litigation and the false press release, Microsoft effectively froze Timeline out of leveraging its patent-protected niche in the SQL Server market for over 3 1/2 years. This time period was long enough for Microsoft to launch its now openly stated strategy to become dominant in the ERP and Analytics software market historically serviced by its own customers."
Final Judgment Consequences

For any SQL Server users that provide material steps of an Infringing Combination, the consequences of the Final Judgment are important. Particularly those Microsoft customers who relied on Microsoft's assurances, failed to investigate them thoroughly, and knowingly continued to provide material steps in an Infringing Combination. These infringers, if any, may face treble damages for the entire three and one-half years the case was tied up in the courts. Microsoft is not a law firm. Relying on its advice should not constitute acting in good faith; which is the required defense to treble damages for failure to investigate and honor patents once on notice of their existence.

"We believe a significant number of SQL Server developers and users will be affected and that the damages they face may be material to Timeline's future financial results," said Osenbaugh. "We cannot, however, make any realistic estimate or forecast. There is a high risk and possible high cost involved in any patent enforcement effort. Furthermore, any patent, while applied for in good faith, may be challenged."

The number of SQL Server users who ultimately need a patent license from Timeline may be none, some (as Timeline assumes), or essentially all users as Microsoft led the court to believe.

"What can be confirmed is that Microsoft always has been, and will continue to be, bound by its written agreements regarding Timeline's intellectual property rights. That, in and of itself, is a major victory!" Osenbaugh stated.

"And Microsoft does have some loose ends it needs to clean up in light of the Judgment. Under penalty of perjury, Microsoft represented in court that the patent license as signed between the two companies may cause widespread, even devastating hardship to its customers," Osenbaugh continued. "Yet, no specific mention of the case, to our knowledge, has been made in Microsoft's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. This omission is particularly troublesome since the decision of the Court of Appeals was in March 2002. We have great difficulty seeing how Microsoft can remain silent in its SEC filings. Silence certifies the litigation results are not material to Microsoft, which is contrary to the court's finding on the same specific issue based upon evidence submitted by Microsoft itself."

Furthermore, several SQL Server developers are openly discussing their beliefs that Microsoft should be liable for any damages they face for having relied upon Microsoft's prior false statement; specifically that Microsoft would 'ensure' they were 'unencumbered' by the Timeline patents.

"If Microsoft does not want to pay for a broader license, it owes a duty to its customers and investors to clearly define the limitations on Microsoft's ability to sublicense Timeline's patents and outline its indemnification policy, if any, for those who relied upon its prior statement. Furthermore, Microsoft should honor its agreement to facilitate our efforts to properly enforce Timeline's intellectual property rights with Microsoft customers," Osenbaugh concluded.
Language of the Court Rulings

The Final Judgment reads, in part, as follows:

Under the Agreement between Microsoft and Timeline, Microsoft's right to sublicense third parties to add code to or combine software with a Microsoft Licensed Product is limited as follows: If a Microsoft Licensee adds code to or combines software with a Microsoft Licensed Product and the added code or software is a material part of one of the claims of Timeline's Licensed Patents and the resulting combination infringes that claim of the Timeline Licensed Patent, the Licensee has exceeded the scope of Microsoft's sublicensing rights under the Agreement; provided that, if a Microsoft Licensee adds code to or combines software with the Licensed Product that is not a material part of a claim of one of Timeline's Licensed Patents, the Licensee has not exceeded the scope of Microsoft's sublicensing rights under the Agreement, even if the resulting combination would otherwise infringe a claim of one of Timeline's Licensed Patents.
Details on Timeline's Patent Technology

Microsoft cannot sublicense any non-Microsoft product that provides a material step in an infringement of a Timeline patent claim for use in conjunction with Microsoft-licensed platforms that provide the remaining step(s) of such infringement (an Infringing Combination).

Timeline's US Patent # 5,802,511; US Patent # 6,023,694; and US Patent # 6,026,392 (herein collectively the '511 patents) have been termed pioneer patents in the design and use of data marts and data warehouses. The '511 patents can apply to stand alone software products or combinations of software products. Of particular focus at this time are products used in conjunction with Microsoft SQL Server 7.0 or after. All Microsoft products stand-alone are licensed. But developers must separately look to whether a combination of products infringes all the elements of a valid claim of a Timeline patent. If the non-Microsoft code or product provides at least one of the material steps in such infringement, it is not covered by Microsoft's license. The user, licensee, licensor, or manufacturer must secure its own license or stop any further use of that product.

Details of Timeline's patented technology are available for review on Timeline's website at www.tmln.com/press.htm.

[The Rainmaker]

Form 8-K for TIMELINE INC

19-Oct-2007

Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement


Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement

On October 15, 2007, Timeline, Inc. entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement with Microsoft Corporation and ProClarity Corporation in settlement of
(a) Timeline's patent infringement lawsuit filed against Microsoft and ProClarity in United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, at Seattle, No. CV 05-1013 JLR, and (b) Timeline's breach of contract lawsuit filed against Microsoft in King County Superior Court for the State of Washington, at Seattle, No. 07-2-18149-1-SEA (collectively, the "Actions"). Also on October 15, 2007, in connection with the Settlement Agreement, Timeline entered into a Confidential Patent License Agreement with Microsoft. The effective date for both the Settlement Agreement and the Patent License Agreement is October 16, 2007.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to dismiss, with prejudice, their respective claims and counterclaims against each other asserted in the Actions. The parties further agreed to release and discharge each other from any claims existing as of the effective date with respect to the Actions or related to the facts and circumstances asserted in the Actions. In addition, Timeline agreed to release and discharge customers of Microsoft and ProClarity for liability for patent infringement, to the extent set forth in the Patent License Agreement. The Settlement Agreement is not an admission of liability by any party with respect to the Actions.

Under the Settlement Agreement, Microsoft agreed to pay Timeline a one-time payment of $5 million within 14 days as consideration for entering into the Settlement Agreement and the Patent License Agreement. The net proceeds to Timeline from this amount will be reduced by payment of its 45% contingent attorneys' fees and other expenses of the litigation.

Pursuant to the Patent License Agreement, and subject to receipt of Microsoft's payment, Timeline granted Microsoft and its affiliates a worldwide, irrevocable, non-exclusive, perpetual, and royalty free license to Timeline's patents that were the subject of the Actions (including U.S. Patent Nos. 5,802,511, 6,023,694, 6,026,392, 6,625,617 and 6,631,382) for use in connection with Microsoft's products and services. In general terms, the license rights to Timeline's patents extend to, among other things, (a) the manufacture, use, sale, supply, and commercialization of Microsoft's products and services, both directly and as components for use in their intended manner in other products and services, and (b) the combination of Microsoft's products and services with other products and services, subject to certain limitations. In addition, Timeline granted to Microsoft's and its affiliates' distributors, dealers and customers a worldwide, irrevocable, non-exclusive, perpetual, and royalty free license under Timeline's patents in connection with products and services that are needed to communicate or interface with Microsoft's products and services. The term of the Patent License Agreement continues until the last of the licensed patents expires and is no longer enforceable.

The foregoing is a summary of some of the material terms of the Settlement Agreement and Patent License Agreement, and is qualified by reference to the complete terms and conditions of the respective agreements.

[The Rainmaker]

We do not foresee success in negotiating additional licenses until the litigation we instituted against ProClarity Corporation is resolved. We believe the outcome of this litigation is material to our future prospects.* Microsoft Corporation acquired ProClarity after the suit was filed. We believe that not only are Microsoft ISVs inclined to await the outcome of this litigation before seeking a license; but also the industry in general. Knowing Microsoft is fighting the patents on all available fronts, potential licensees would logically wait to see if our patents can withstand such scrutiny on validity and coverage.* Assuming a successful outcome in the ProClarity lawsuit, we intend to pursue patent license agreements during the remainder of fiscal 2008 and beyond,

[IH Geek [Dave]]

test