That extract is so funny. It is almost an exact replica of this PR they released in 2000 about a deal between SunnComm (their previous name) and Will-Shown Technology.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-68013319.html

It turned out that Will-Shown didn't even exist. What a scam. And look at one of the names on the PR. Mario Ike. This is Mario "IKE" Iacoviello.

He has been sanctioned by the SEC for securities fraud.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-41940.htm

He has also posted on this board under various aliases. Probably not too difficult to guess who.

Are you nuts? Pan Pacific is just a scam too. Have you even bothered to check them out?

They haven't ever earned a penny and the CEO is also CEO of a dozen other scams, even Canadian mining companies. Check their address. It is just a business address, no office. LOL.

Dan, I am not sure whether you are referring to my post when you say the judgement was satisfied. But the one you listed is a different case. It has case number CV2003-023195.

My one is case CV2007-005224

The very end shows a judgement in favor of the defendant Cofco, who was the landlord and owner of the building, and against SunnComm and its subsidiary MediaMax. The amount awarded was $157,524.95. Since Amergence is just a new name for the same company, Amergence must pay the awarded amount.

This is the blurb, but it will not format correctly.


Case Information
Case Number: CV2007-005224 Judge: Barth, Michael
File Date: 3/23/2007 Location: Downtown
Case Type: Civil
Party Information
Party Name Relationship Sex Attorney
Cofco Investment Company L L C Plaintiff Brinton Wilkins
Sunncomm International Inc Defendant Pro Per
Mediamax Technology Corporation Defendant Pro Per
Wells Fargo Bank N A Garnishee Defendant Pro Per
One Hour Messenger Inc Garnishee Defendant Merrick Firestone
J P Morgan Chase Bank N A Garnishee Defendant Pro Per
Asian Bank Of Arizona Garnishee Defendant Pro Per
Case Documents
Filing Date Description Docket Date Filing Party
1/16/2008 JAG - Judgment Against Garnishee 1/24/2008
12/24/2007 APL - Application 12/27/2007
NOTE: FOR JUDGMENT AGAINST GARNISHEE
12/4/2007 ANG - Answer Of Garnishee 12/7/2007
NOTE: AMENDED
11/26/2007 ANG - Answer Of Garnishee 11/29/2007
11/21/2007 WGS - Writ Of Garnishment and Summons 11/28/2007
11/21/2007 AFS - Affidavit Of Service 11/26/2007
NOTE: ONE HOUR MESSENGER INC SERVED ON 11/16/2007
11/15/2007 AWG - Application For Writ Of Garnishment 11/23/2007
11/14/2007 049 - ME: Judgment Signed 11/14/2007
11/13/2007 JAG - Judgment Against Garnishee 11/20/2007
11/13/2007 JAG - Judgment Against Garnishee 11/20/2007
11/1/2007 ANG - Answer Of Garnishee 11/7/2007 Garnishee Defendant(7)
10/24/2007 APL - Application 10/26/2007
NOTE: FOR JUDGMENT AGAINST GARNISHEE
10/24/2007 APL - Application 10/26/2007
NOTE: FOR JUDGMENT AGAINST GARNISHEE
10/19/2007 ANG - Answer Of Garnishee 10/30/2007 Garnishee Defendant(7)
NOTE: AMENDED
10/19/2007 REQ - Request 10/23/2007
NOTE: FOR EXTENSION OF TIME UNDER ARS 12-1587 TO SUBMIT JUDGMENT
9/21/2007 023 - ME: Order Entered By Court 9/21/2007
9/21/2007 ANG - Answer Of Garnishee 9/25/2007 Garnishee Defendant(5)
9/11/2007 APL - Application 9/13/2007
NOTE: AMENDED/ FOR JUDGMENT
9/11/2007 APL - Application 9/13/2007
NOTE: AMENDED/ FOR JUDGMENT
9/11/2007 APL - Application 9/13/2007
NOTE: AMENDED/ FOR JUDGMENT
9/5/2007 APL - Application 9/6/2007
NOTE: FOR JUDGMENT
9/5/2007 APL - Application 9/6/2007
NOTE: FOR JUDGMENT
9/5/2007 ANG - Answer Of Garnishee 9/10/2007 Garnishee Defendant(6)
9/5/2007 APL - Application 9/6/2007
NOTE: FOR JUDGMENT
9/5/2007 APL - Application 9/6/2007
NOTE: FOR JUDGMENT
8/23/2007 RES - Response 8/27/2007
NOTE: TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
8/17/2007 ANG - Answer Of Garnishee 8/21/2007
8/14/2007 WGS - Writ Of Garnishment and Summons 8/15/2007
8/14/2007 AFS - Affidavit Of Service 8/16/2007
8/14/2007 ANG - Answer Of Garnishee 8/17/2007 Garnishee Defendant(4)
8/14/2007 ANG - Answer Of Garnishee 8/17/2007 Garnishee Defendant(4)
8/6/2007 WGS - Writ Of Garnishment and Summons 8/8/2007
8/6/2007 WGS - Writ Of Garnishment and Summons 8/8/2007
8/6/2007 WGS - Writ Of Garnishment and Summons 8/8/2007
8/6/2007 WGS - Writ Of Garnishment and Summons 8/8/2007
8/6/2007 AFS - Affidavit Of Service 8/10/2007
8/6/2007 AFS - Affidavit Of Service 8/10/2007
8/6/2007 AFS - Affidavit Of Service 8/10/2007
8/6/2007 AFS - Affidavit Of Service 8/10/2007
7/30/2007 AWG - Application For Writ Of Garnishment 8/2/2007
NOTE: VERIFIED
7/27/2007 AWG - Application For Writ Of Garnishment 7/31/2007
NOTE: VERIFIED
7/27/2007 AWG - Application For Writ Of Garnishment 7/31/2007
NOTE: VERIFIED
7/27/2007 MOT - Motion 7/31/2007
NOTE: FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
7/27/2007 AWG - Application For Writ Of Garnishment 8/2/2007
NOTE: VERIFIED
7/27/2007 AWG - Application For Writ Of Garnishment 8/2/2007
NOTE: VERIFIED
6/25/2007 023 - ME: Order Entered By Court 6/25/2007
5/17/2007 NOT - Notice 5/22/2007
NOTE: OF POST-JUDGMENT FORBEARANCE AGREEMENT AND AGREEMENT REGARDING OPEN EXTENSION CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND STATEMENT OF COSTS REFERENCED IN JUDGMENT
5/7/2007 005 - ME: Hearing 5/7/2007
5/3/2007 DFJ - Default Judgment 5/7/2007
NOTE: Copy mailed/provided to non-defl. parties on date of filing
5/3/2007 ACS - Acceptance Of Service 5/8/2007
NOTE: SUNNCOMM INTERNATINAL INC SERVED 3-30-07
4/23/2007 003 - ME: Hearing Reset 4/23/2007
4/6/2007 AFS - Affidavit Of Service 4/10/2007
NOTE: MEDIAMAX TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION SERVED 4-1-07
4/6/2007 SUM - Summons 4/11/2007
3/30/2007 AMC - Amended Complaint 4/3/2007
NOTE: FIRST
3/23/2007 COM - Complaint 3/27/2007
Case Calendar
Date Time Event
4/12/2007 9:00 Forcible Detainer Hearing
4/19/2007 9:00 Forcible Detainer Hearing
5/3/2007 9:00 Forcible Detainer Hearing
5/18/2007 17:15 Hearing
Judgments
Date (F)or / (A)gainst Amount Frequency Type Status
5/3/2007 F:Cofco Investment Company L L C $157,524.95 One Time Rent
A: Sunncomm International Inc
A: Mediamax Technology Corporation

There is also this judgement of $157K against SunnComm (previous name, but same legal entity, so Amergence must pay) for non payment of rent.

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2007-005224

The above is the link, but clicking on it doesn't get to it. Best thing to do is when you get to the page it brings you to, select Case History and then type SunnComm in in the Business Name field.

They announce, but don't pay dividends.

I followed this company in the past when it was SunnComm - same people behind it as there is today. Several times they announced dividends, usually consisting of shares in some worthless subsidiary they owned, but apart from 1 instance they never actually paid the dividend. The 1 instance was when they announced they would disburse ownership in a subsidiary of SunnComm to shareholders via 4 (or maybe it was 8) dividend distributions of the subsidiary's shares, but only made the first distribution. They never made the remaining and kept control for themselves where they were able to dilute the part ownership that had been distributed to nothing by issuing further shares in the subsidiary to the market.

Their dividend announcements have always been part of a pump and dump strategy and are usually accompanied by paid publicity by those so call penny stock analysts.

Just ask yourself, why would a company that has no assets of any value and has no cash, be paying dividends? Legitimate startups never pay dividends as they are always strapped for cash and it always makes more sense to put their money back into the business.

This company has scam written all over it.

I didn't notice until I posted that the President of Panpacific is Jack. T. Martin. I wonder is he one and the same as Victoria And Grey Asset Company Limited's CEO "John T. Martin". That is the company that shares the same address, fax and phone number. Big coincidence or what.

Panpacific Business Limited

I really thought that there may be something to this deal, but I am not too sure after doing 60 minutes of research.

The address, phone and fax number that Panpacific Business Limited give are the same as that of a company called Victoria And Grey Asset Company Limited which claims to be a private fund that specializes in the purchase of bad debts. When I searched on that company, I just got 1 match (just 1) on the web and that was their company website.

http://vicandgrey.com/

They list "John T. Martin" as their CEO, although I do not think he is related to the following company, D.P. Martin & Associates.

Panpacific lists D.P. Martin & Associates as its Chief Financial Advisor (International). When you go to that company's website you get "This site under construction".

When I search Google using (in quotes) "panpacific business limited" there are 425 matches, which all boil down to just 2 deals.

The first is a proposed merger with Clean Energy Combustion Systems. It turns out that D.P. Martin & Associates is the Investor Relations for Clean Energy.

Furthermore, searching on "D.P. Martin & Associates" finds that they have been cited by the FCC for sending unsolicited advertising via faxes. Not a big deal, but nonetheless not positive.

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1273A1.html

The other deal that the 425 matches for Panpacific relate to are for Wolfman Jack Entertainment (Hong Kong) LTD.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS160931+12-Feb-2008+MW20080212

However, a search of that company, apart from matches that are about the company itself, all relate to that deal with Panpacific.

Going back to the Panpacific website. In addition to listing D.P. Martin as its financial advisor, it lists as partners: INspire Media GroupLimited and True Colour Advertising Co. Ltd. It lists the clients of both of these companies and they include major worlwide names, such as McDonalds and Coca Cola.

But when you do a web search on "INspire Media GroupLimited", you get just one match, and that is the one in the Panpacific partner page. When you search on "True Colour Advertising Co. Ltd.", you get just one match also. The same Panpacific partner page.

So my initial enthusiasm has been very much dampened by just 1 hour of research. I would urge investors to show enormous caution. It is odd that when searching a little deeper into Panpacific, there seems to be nothing of substance behind it.

Big scale dilution

Haven't been actively posting for a while, but I do look in to see what is happening or not happening. Hope everyone is keeping well.

I've noticed that the authorized shares have gone from 870,000 to 125,000,000 as of 5/22. There are still the 30M preference shares on top of that.

I got that from:

https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/corpActions.aspx?lx8nvq=3wR%252bT%252fJG0qZn4MUuP6wNKw%253d%253d&CorpName=THE+AMERGENCE+GROUP%2c+INC.

Also interesting is that the company now has the status "default". Mediamax has had that status for quite some time, but recently it has been changed to "revoked".

I don't know the significance of either status value.

You missed one .... SUNX

It should be:

DESW>SUNX>STEH>SCMI>AMGG>AMNG

"Plenty is going on"

Amergence is now like an old toy.

The boys have a new toy (EnVisionte) that does everything that the old one does, but has the big problems fixed (no pesky shareholders to worry about, no current lawsuits, no outstanding debts, no history of missed promises).

Why would they want to continue to play with the old toy?

The old toy will be left in the box under the stairs and will eventually be forgotton about. Some of the other kids that lent them money to buy the old toy might occasionally ask about it. They will be told some soothing words about it being under repair.

But if the other kids ask to play with the new toy, they can forget it. That's not for them. Why, they didn't even tell the other kids thay had a new toy! They just discovered it by accident.

Kenco, Peter Jacobs is also connected as can be seen from this forum entry.

pj1000

I don't personally use AOL but some of our customers do. When they send mail to our domain - envisionte.com - it never arrives. Not even a "fail to deliver"...

All other mail arrives at the domain just fine. Does anyone have any ideas?

Thanks.

peter

http://groups.google.com/group/hosted-setup/browse_thread/thread/e9609734bca5822f/be461267a71c5af8?lnk=gst&q=&fwc=1

Being a different company, any deal that EnVisionte might get will be of no value to Amergence shareholders.

EnVisionte is just Amergence under a new name and as a new company. The same people are involved and they even have the same picture on the web sites. The only difference is that the Amergence shareholders have been jettisoned. What do they need them for at this stage? Any one who invested in SunnComm/Amergence in the past are unlikely to invest in any new issue that might be made, because of what they have learned. So they are of no further use.

Not a different name, but a different company. Look at the news and you will see that they did a deal with Amergence and MediaMax. But you are right, its just the same model as Amergence and as far as I can tell Bill Whitmore is the CEO. Peter Jacobs is also involved, so the deals with Amergence and MediaMax mean nothing.

That's not the same Peter Jacobs. SunnComm is Peter H. Jacobs. That post related to Peter M. Jacobs.

Michal Avniel, the plaintiff, was an employee. I remember the name.

That the company would issue a PR with a headline that is untrue doesn't matter???

Bleuduece, I can't see where you came to that conclusion. Kenco was clearly referring to the PR headline, which I also indicated was misleading.

This is what I said at the end:

That being said, if there was any doubt that the transaction would go ahead, Amergence should not have headed the PR:

Amergence Group Acquires SonicMountain -- Owners of Odeo.Com
SonicMountain Becomes Amergence Group Subsidiary

They are statements of fact, not of potential outcomes.

This is what Kenco said:

neilbolton, youre absolutely right, the headline to the PR is blatantly false...

Yet you retorted:

kenny,
neilbolton graciously admitted he was wrong in that statement, try to keep up!

Actually, you are right. That article gave a link to the PR. These are the words used:

The Amergence Group Inc. (PINKSHEETS: AMGG) announced today that it has signed a binding Engagement Agreement to acquire New York-based SonicMountain, the parent company of Odeo.com. Odeo is the most popular podcast environment on the Internet today. Under the terms of the agreement, SonicMountain will become a wholly owned subsidiary of The Amergence Group.

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/rel.jsp?id=740831&sourceType=1

Although a "binding agreement" would require both parties to go ahead with the transaction, we cannot tell from the information available whether it was Amergence or Sonicmountain that reneged.

If Sonicmountain, one would assume that Amergence could enforce the transaction to be completed by undertaking legal action.

That being said, if there was any doubt that the transaction would go ahead, Amergence should not have headed the PR:

Amergence Group Acquires SonicMountain -- Owners of Odeo.Com
SonicMountain Becomes Amergence Group Subsidiary


They are statements of fact, not of potential outcomes.

It doesn't sound nice, but finalized means finalized and if the deal fell apart for whatever reason, it wasn't finalized.

SonicMountain Buys FireAnt

This mentions the Amergence deal and confirms that it never was consummated:

http://newteevee.com/2007/09/13/sonicmountain-buys-fireant/

Yes, I am pretty certain the deal is dead as I have heard it from sources that I trust that know these things. I have also seen a few references on the web making similar claims.

Nature

Right, we see 0.51 AFTER the split or better A HALF PENNY BEFORE the Split.

You are out by a factor of 10 in your pre-split valuation. When you divide $0.51 by 1000, you get $0.00051. That is one twentieth of a penny, not half a penny. It will need to go up by nearly 900% from here just to get to a half penny in pre-split terms, which is $5 post split.

Confirmation lawsuit dropped

From the Raging Bull AMNG board, courtesy MRIGGSJR

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/CCMinutes.jsp?IndexNo=602201-2007

Under County Clerk Minutes

DATE DOCUMENT TYPE
07-03-2007 SUMMONS/NOTICE
08-07-2007 PROOF OF SERVICE
09-04-2007 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE
09-07-2007 NOTICE OF VOLUNTTARY

Affidavit Of Attempted Service

It does look like Peter or SunnComm's legal representative (if any) is now non-contactable or very difficult to contact. This is a recent entry in the BTEK case:

8/29/2007 AAS - Affidavit Of Attempted Service

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/civil/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2002-011816

One definition of "Affidavit Of Attempted Service" I have found is:

An affidavit of attempted service is a sworn statement (signed in front of a notary public) that describes all the times and places where the person tried but could not deliver the papers to the respondent.

Notice that this is an Affidavit Of Attempted Service. There have been several Affidavit Of Service filed under this case in the past. By contrast, the defintion for Affidavit Of Service is:

An affidavit of service is a sworn statement (signed in front of a notary public) by the person who served it that says when, where and how this person delivered the papers to the respondent.

The recent "Affidavit Of Attempted Service" seems to suggest that they could not make acceptable contact with the only remaining officer of SunnComm or its legal representative.

So rather than answer Kenco's question, you chose to obfuscate. Surely if you knew the answer to her question you could have just given it. If you didn't know, just leave it to someone who does.

Since the company has gone into lock down mode and made no public comment on the status of Sonic Mountain since the BMG lawsuit was announced, Kenco's question was a valid question that I am sure many others would like to know the answer to as well. I was able to find the answer through my own research.

"is it safe to assume" is a common expression, I'm surprised you don't understand it.

Kenco, the information I have is that the Sonic Mountain deal is dead.

How can a 1 person operation downsize?

Why 50%. Management is fully responsible for what happened.

Peter Jacobs deserves 100% blame.

He is perhaps the most incompetent CEO of any company I have followed. Over the years he has set many many goals, some major, some minor. I can't recall any goal, major or minor he has met. He could not even meet goals he set that were only weeks or a month out in the future.

As for all your visits and talks with management. I can't recall one piece of information you offered as a result of those meetings that has come to fruition. Zilch. Nothing.

Not only is Peter Jacobs incompetent, he is dishonest. He has lied to everyone. Although it was before I took an interest in MediaMax, from my subsequent research I agree with others who say the Will-Shown PR was an out and out lie and disclaimers do not make a lie OK. That PR was pure fabrication. He has also written many things on AskThePrez that were out and out lies and they were not covered by a disclaimer of any sort.

From the information I have obtained researching the music industry, I also came to realize that statements he was making regarding what the industry was doing or planning or committing to (with SunnComm) were also untrue. This has been borne out by where we are today.

I agree that everyone here has to take responsibility for their own investment decisions. Even if lied to, they have to blame their own naivety. It wasn't as if there weren't people exposing what was going on. Obviously it it not easy to know who to believe, but with management over and over failing to meet every committment, and much of what the naysayers like Kenco or those on the other board proving to be true, there comes a time when continuing to accept the statements of management can only be put down to naivety at best.

Accepting reposibility for one's investment decisions doesn't mean management is only 50% or 90% responsible for their part. They are 100% responsible. Not Sony-BMG, the current scapegoat, or the many previous skapegoats - the shorts, the bashers, Macrovision, Felten, the EFF.

Peter Jacobs is 100% responsible.

I was told and it makes sense to me is that Sony/BMG was attempting to write-off this expense on their taxes and they were informed that they hadn't made any/all attempts to collect the expense.

I can't see it as an obligation imposed by the taxman. That would be very unusual, as companies constantly write off stuff they deem not worth pursuing. But if BMG were trying to claim the amount through an insurance policy, then I could see the insurance company insisting that all avenues first be explored.

The insurance company won't have to bear the cost of the litigation, so it is no skin of its back if BMG loses (they still will at most pay the original claim). But the taxman would only end up having a bigger expense being written off, as the litigation costs are also claimable as an expense.

Bleu,

I'm not interested in arguing either, but since the value of copy protection of music is relevent to the current discussion on whether BMG wants to get MediaMax on the cheap or not, here is an article for those who are interested on Macrovision dropping their copy protection. One of several I have found and also mentioned in their conference calls, but those take too long to listen to:

EMI abandons CD copy protection?
Written by roxeteer on January 8, 2007 to Music Business. Source: NVPI / Boing Boing.

According to Dutch NVPI, EMI Music stops using copy protection technology on the CDs the company releases. Copy protection, or Digital Rights Management (DRM) as these technologies are also called, have caused a lot of anger among the people who have bought their records legally but are unable to listen to them in the player of their choice. To prevent illegal copying of music, the protected CDs have limitations on the types of players they can be played in. As a side effect, many protected CDs don't work in car stereos.

Now it seems that EMI has realized that the price of adding DRM to the products is too high comparing to its benefits to the company. Recently one of the biggest developers of DRM solutions, MacroVision, stopped the sales of its TotalPlay system. TotalPlay, previously called CDS or Cactus, was used on Roxette's "Ballad Hits."

Boing Boing has an English translation of the article. DRM technologies were not included in the latest European Roxette releases "The Hits," "The RoxBox" and the "One Wish" single, as well as Marie's "Min bäste vän" album.

http://www.dailyroxette.com/node?page=4

Can you explain how they (MVSN) "flew under the radar" during all of this? Now that is an interesting discussion one would think.

I would think that quite obvious. They withdrew their product from the market as I mentioned, so they never was any CD released in the US with their music copy protection. There was nothing for Halderman or the EFF to complain about.

They did release lots of CDs in Europe and Japan with CDS prior to 2006, but Europe and Japan don't seem to get all hot and bothered like the US. There were many complaints, but they seemed to center on playability issues.

It is quite possible that the best thing that ever happened to them was EMI getting cold feet. Otherwise they might have ended up in the same boat as SunnComm.

They do get a lot of flack for their movie copy protection, but the issues tend to be about the nuisance value of their protection, rather than issues of security. Also, it is more accepted in the movie industry as copy protection has been used there from very early on, unlike the music industry.

I'm sorry if you picked it up as condescending. When I said You really ought to listen in on their conference calls, I meant it on the basis that your information on Macrovision is wrong. It is not a difference of opinion. You simply are not properly informed about the company.

And no, the motivation of "principal" doesn't wash. BMG is a corporation, not a "moral" entity. Their motivations are the financial bottom line.

I agree that their motivations are financial, but as I explained to Greg a week back, by principle I meant that they are making a statement that when you enter an agreement with Sony-BMG, you fulfil the terms, otherwise they will come after you, even if you appear to have no assets. The financial reward to them may not come from beating SunnComm in the courts, but by detering other 'partners' from not acting properly.

IMO, when Sony-BMG entered into an agreement with SunnComm, they provided financial assistance to SunnComm, over and above license fees paid to SunnComm, to ensure they developed the product to their specs and also to enable SunnComm to put in place certain business practices, such as product indemnity, quality control procedures etc. I believe that they discovered after the fiasco, that many of the things they assumed had been done, were not done, hence the lawsuit.

but the last I looked still had customers in the music/movie DVD arena

You need to read my posts properly.

I said they dropped their physical media music copy protection product. That was CDS-300, renamed Totalplay, and was the product aimed at the same market segment as MediaMax and competed with MediaMax.

They still market a product called Hawkeye to the music industry. That is aimed at peer to peer piracy, not optical media.

They have merely set their sights on gaming

Movies are still a huge revenue source for them, in addition to gaming. Their ACP technology is embedded in most consumer products from what I can gather, including Zune and the iPod, as well as every DVD player. It is also included in Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. The sell a product called RipGuard to prevent DVD ripping.

Just where do you think they derive their multi-million dollar revenue from?

About 50% of their revenue comes from software licensing, not DRM. They own products like Installshield.

You really ought to listen in on their conference calls. I did. How else can you learn about the industry that SunnComm is (was) in? Certainly not from SunnComm CCs.

Actually Bleu, your information is quite out of date. Macrovision dropped their physical media music copy protection product CDS, renamed Totalplay I think, in early 2006. The analyst who provides updates to our group told us that EMI were planning to roll out Macrovision on their CDs in both the US and rest of the world but got cold feet when they saw the Sony-BMG fiasco unfold. They haven't revisited that idea since and the other labels have been just as reluctant to consider copy protecting CDs in light of the reaction to the Sony-BMG attempt.

One problem with your argument is that the 30M shares only came into existence on 12/29, so if BMG had really wanted to get the technology on the cheap, they could have bought the company at any time before then. They could also have licensed the technology at any time, which they didn't.

The music world has moved on from what it was 2 years ago. None of the labels have shown any desire to protect music on physical media since then and that was the all that MediaMax could do. Protection of online distribution is through Windows DRM or Fairplay and even those are being rejected in favor of DRM free distribution.

There is nothing in MediaMax copy protection that BMG couldn't put together in a few months themselves with a team of programmers.

When I said they might be taking this action on principle even though they know Amergence has no assets, it was along the line that they are sending a message to all companies that deal with Sony-BMG. The message is that if you contract with Sony-BMG, you better live up to the terms of the deal, or we will pursue you no matter what. Changing company names, asset shifting, closing shop or anything else that might make you less attractive to pursue won't work.

Also, it would be interesting to know where Clement is now. If he is back with Sony-BMG, it would certainly explain a bit of what is going on.

Greg, so what's your take on the lawsuit?

You seem to think it may relate to Clement. Could something have emerged recently during the Clement/Mediamax trial that may have prompted Sony-BMG to take this action now? Is there public information on those proceedings?

Gregg. From my recollection, Sony-BMG were aware of the rootkit issue. Was it Hesse who at the time said that consumers don't care about rootkits. IMO F4I told Sony that they would use a rootkit to disguise their copy protection code and Sony agreed, not realizing how consumers would react once the likes of Halderman and others exposed the potential consequences.

It is quite possible that F4I did meet all the requirements of Sony, so they have no grounds to sue.

Although Sony-BMG are unlikely to get anything from Amergence, they might be acting on principle.

So this is the new story Amergence is pushing. They are after the technology. Couldn't they just sign a contract if they wanted the technology. In fact they could just develop it themselves, since there are no patents protecting it and they know exactly what they want. Programmers are easy to hire.

If the technology is so valuable, then how come no one has expressed the least bit of interest in it for the last 2 years. Revenue zero.

IMO the reason Sony-BMG is suing Amergence is because in their dealings with SunnComm they believe the latter to be guilty of negligence, unfair business practices and breaching the terms of its license agreement by delivering software that "did not perform as warranted

Don't forget the obvious reason, particularly when they tell you what it is.