Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Who says he lost anything? LOL
"Dimension can still bring back its abuse of process claim, which it withdrew without prejudice". I would think its highly likely they will do that dont you agree? With a different judge its a solid winner against the convicted software thief TMM.
Do you deny TMM stiffed its lawyers almost $500k? Its right in the TMM financials plus their lawyers quit in disgust right before the trial and TMM had to hire new ones that I assume they had to pay in small unmarked bills. TMM is nothing but a deadbeat!
TMM spent as much or more on the lawsuit then stiffed their lawyers almost $500k. Its a safe bet those lawyers will not allow their fees to stay as "accrued expenses" as TMM now has them in their filings. Trouble on all sides ahead for TMM with the appeal and new abuse of process lawsuit coming their way.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT HEREBY DECLARES that Counterclaimants are the sole and exclusive owners of the License to the PVS/SGI Source Code, also known as the VDK 2.0 Code.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22nd day of November, 2016
LOL the ONLY trial and TMM LOST!!!
TMM DOWN OVER 75% from that bogus PR that pumped it up to a quarter! Like every other TMM PR it was worthless talk with no follow through. Welcome to TMM!
Smitty nails TMM 10k results!!! Wow!!!
Who would have thunk it, Smitty correctly (as always) predicts TMM completing another completely NOTHING year! Well, other than spending $1.9 million dollars of borrowed investor money.
No revenues, no customers, no products, no contracts, NOTHING!
Biggest surprise of the TMM financials? Maybe the $2,600 in bank charges. Being broke, TMM should really find a better checking fees plan. Outrageous! Or maybe it was bank fees for A LOT OF BOUNCED CHECKS. LOL
TMM LOSES LAWSUIT!!!
DIMENSION, INC., a Nevada Corporation;
DIGITAL FOCUS MEDIA, INC., a dissolved California Corporation,
Counterclaimants,
v.
TMM, INC., a Nevada Corporation, and DIGITAL FOCUS, INC., a California Corporation;
Counterdefendants.
Case No.: A-13-678054-B
Dept. No.: XI
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT
This matter having come on for non-jury trial (footnote 1) before the Court on November 16 -18, 2016, F. Christopher Austin, Esq. and Ryan Gile, Esq. of the law firm of WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. appeared on behalf of Counterclaimants DIMENSION, INC. and DIGITAL FOCUS MEDIA, INC., and Joe Laxague, Esq. of the law firm of LAXAGUE LAW, INC. and Arash Shirdel, Esq. of the law firm of PACIFIC PREMIER LAW GROUP appeared on behalf of Counterdefendants TMM, INC. and DIGITAL FOCUS, INC., and the Court having read and considered the pleadings filed by the parties; having reviewed the evidence admitted during the trial; and having heard and carefully considered the testimony of the witnesses called to testify; the Court having considered the stipulations of counsel; the oral and written arguments of counsel; and with the intent of deciding all remaining claims before the Court pursuant to NRCP 52(a) and 58; the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
The Counterdefendants moved to voluntarily dismiss its Complaint. The Court granted that motion by order entered on February 22, 2016. Following certain motions related to the counterclaim, the remaining issue for trial related to the claim for declaratory relief in the counterclaim. (footnote 2)
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. The PVS/SGI Code also known as the VDK 2.0 Code (the "Code") was created by Iterated Systems, Inc. ("ISI") who is the predecessor in interest of MediaBin.
2. TMM, Inc. ("TMMI") is a Nevada corporation, and the purported holder of the license to the Code.
3. Digital Focus, Inc. ("DFI") is a California Corporation, who entered into an agreement with ISI, for a license to the Code.
4. Digital Focus Media, Inc. ("DFMI") is a California Corporation, who alleges it obtained the license to the Code from DFI.
5. Dimension is a Nevada corporation, and the purported holder of a license to the Code who is the successor in interest of DFMI.
6. Larry Panik ("Panik") was a shareholder in TMMI, DFI, and DFMI.
7. Panik is currently the president and sole director of Dimension.
8. Panik also at certain times served as an officer of DFI and as a director of DFMI.
9. In early 2000, a group of twenty-nine investors transferred their TMMI stock to Thomas Simpson ("Simpson") to use as collateral for a loan for TMMI. Simpson sold the shares without the prior authorization of those shareholders. A portion of the proceeds from the sale of the shares, $500,000, was needed to pay ISI for the License to the Code.
10. On or about March 2000, DFI entered into a license agreement with ISI for the license to the Code ("License Agreement").
11. The License Agreement was executed by Simpson on behalf of DFI and by Alan Sloan on behalf of ISI.
12. The License was purchased for $500,000, and Simpson put the License in a pre-existing inactive company that Simpson owned called "DFI."
13. Under the terms of the License, ISI was to receive 5% of DFI 's stock in exchange for the License. After execution of the License Agreement it was determined that as a subchapter-S corporation, DFI could only issue stock to individuals and not to a company such as ISI.
14. Simpson formed DFMI as the "vehicle for the License Agreement."
15. On or about September 2000, DFMI and ISI signed the Second Addendum to the License Agreement. The Second Addendum indicated that a merger between DFI and DFMI had occurred. (footnote 3)
16. The investors were issued DFMI stock in exchange for the TMMI stock they had previously transferred to Simpson.
17. Simpson conducted business between DFI, DFMI and TMMI without conducting any shareholder or board meetings.
18. The shareholders, who had transferred shares from DFI to DFMI, were repeatedly assured by Simpson in writing that the License-the only asset held by DFI-had been transferred to DFMI:
• In June 2000, Simpson wrote to shareholders "since DFMI is the owner of this technology, it can pursue the licensing of this capability to various providers around the world." (Exh. E1) (footnote 4)
• On September 11, 2000, Simpson wrote a letter to shareholders "We have spoken to Iterated Systems about the transfer of the source code and they support the move in amendment and state that the original contract allows for this. All the source code is at DFMI." (Exh. E2)(footnote 5)
• On October 26. 2000, Simpson wrote to DFMI shareholders "There is a great deal of work ahead of us to complete the task of making your CODEC the only choice for producers." (Exh. E3) (footnote 6)
• On October 27. 2000, Simpson wrote a letter to shareholders "The code that DFMI has reengineered from the fractal source code is DFMl's and DFMl's only. .. . TMM has no rights implied or otherwise to use or view DFMI's source code." (Exh. E4) (footnote 7)
• On April 18. 2001 , Simpson wrote a letter to Hoyt that an interim board of directors of DFMI would have authority to "nsure the safety of all DFMI assets including but not limited to the Fractal Codec." (Exh. E5) (footnote 8)
19. Simpson also assured the shareholders that the documents needed to transfer the License from DFI to DFMI had been executed:
• In a November 2000 communication with shareholder Hoyt, Simpson said: "Paper work transferring the Codec's contract from DFI to DFMI is available for review in the DFMI and DFI due diligence books. (Exh. E6) (footnote 9)
• On April 25, 2001, Simpson wrote a letter to shareholders, "I contacted Robin Haskins [CEO and Chairman of DFI] . . . and asked him to please send me a letter explaining that the Codec that was purchased in the name of DFI was in fact the property of DFMI. He was happy to do that and I received his letter shortly after that. (footnote 10) I also informed ISI, who had no problems also, and made note of this with an addendum to the contract. (Exh. E6). (footnote 11)
• Haskins confirmed DFMI's ownership of the PVS/SGI Source Code in a letter to Simpson, "I have also informed the DFI shareholders that all Iterated source code will be delivered to DFMI and DFI warrants that it has no claims on said code. This code was paid for and belongs to DFMI and will be held by DFMI." (Exh. E8). (footnote 12)
20. In December 2000, Panik filed a derivative lawsuit against, among others, DFMI.
21. As part of the settlement agreement to the 2000 lawsuit, on June 1 , 2001 , Simpson resigned as officer and director of DFMI.
22. Also as part of the settlement agreement to the 2000 lawsuit, on June 1, 2001, Simpson, Joe Stratter on behalf of DFI and Panik executed a "Letter Agreement" in which they all acknowledge that DFMI may have some rights to the License Agreement, through a merger or assignment.
23. This settlement agreement to the 2000 lawsuit was approximately 10 months after the alleged merger between DFI and DFMI.
24. Simpson, (footnote 13) as the primary corporate representative of the company, (footnote 14) cannot now claim that those activities were unauthorized by his failure to follow proper corporate governance procedures which would detrimentally impact the other shareholders who relied upon his representations and actions.
25. In 2002, DFMI filed suit against, among others, TMMI regarding the ownership of the License Agreement. That agreement ended in a settlement agreement, in which Simpson agreed to turn over to DFMI an executable version of the source code, which could not be modified, in exchange for approximately $150,000 subject to an audit called for under that agreement.
26. DFMI never provided Simpson with $150,000, as a result of the audit which found additional monies were owing from Simpson.
27. Simpson signed both the DFMI and DFI federal tax returns for 2000 and that he used the same tax accountant to prepare both returns.
28. DFI did not list the License as an asset in its 2000 return.
29. DFMI did list the License as an asset in its 2000 return.
30. The schedule for the form 1120 filed by DFMI for the tax year ending 12/31/2000 identified in the section "other current assets" the property "Fractal Codes" a beginning value of $0 and an ending value of $846,500. This is consistent with the acquisition of the license as a result of the execution of the assignment and second addendum executed effective March 28, 2000.
31. From 2002 to 2011, DFI never listed the License as an asset on its tax retums. (footnote 15)
32. Panik entered into a secured promissory note with DFMI in March 2007, to provide a cash infusion for continued operations. As a result of DFMI 's inability to repay the loan, Panik foreclosed on all of DFMI's assets, including the rights to the License Agreement.
33. Panik then transferred the rights to Dimension.
34. Simpson on behalf of DFI assigned the License to DFMI. (footnote 16)
35. Simpson on behalf of DFI represented to various individuals and entities, including the IRS, that it had made such and assignment.
36. DFMI and its shareholders detrimentally relied upon the representation made to them.
37. TMMI had notice of DFMI's and its successor-in-interest Dimension's claims to the License at the time it acquired DFI.
38. Simpson was not a credible witness. The Court relies to the extent possible on the documentary evidence.
39. Any finding of fact set forth herein more appropriately designated as a conclusion of law shall be so designated.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. DFI assigned the License to DFMI.
2. Dimension is the successor to DFMI 's rights in the License.
3. Dimension is the sole holder of the License to the Code.
4. Simpson listed the right to the "fractal codes" on DFMI's federal tax returns and not on DFI's. This representation is one which is given great weight by the Court especially given the representation made in communications Simpson made to the shareholders.
5. The representations made by Simpson were relied upon by Counterclaimants to their detriment.
6. As a matter of public policy, DFI is prohibited from asserting a position contrary to that which it took on its federal tax returns.
7. TMMI is not a bona fide purchaser because TMMI had actual notice that DFMI, Panik and Dimension claimed rights to the License at the time TMMI acquired DFI in 2012.
8. Counterdefendant DFI is estopped from denying the assignment of the License to DFMI.
9. Because DFI also represented, contemporaneous to the execution of the Assignment and thereafter, that DFI had assigned the License to DFMI and because the Court has found that DFMI relied to its detriment on that representation, DFI is also estopped from now denying it made such an assignment.
10. Any conclusion of law set forth herein more appropriately designated as a finding of fact shall be so designated.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT HEREBY DECLARES that Counterclaimants are the sole and exclusive owners of the License to the PVS/SGI Source Code, also known as the VDK 2.0 Code.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22nd day of November, 2016
With TMM locked in the outhouse and its main funder and lawyer potentially headed for the jailhouse things are looking bleak. How far away can BK be? Again that is.
Nothing magical about MaxD gaining partial ownership of the patent. The SEC filings detail exactly what they paid in cash and stock to get those rights. Nobody cares what the courts think about MaxD, its irrelevant to what MaxD might gain from a settlement. Vendati wins a major settlement, the lawyers get paid and then MaxD gets half of the rest. Or it goes to trial and we check back in a few years but I think the contingency lawyers can taste it.
I think your legal background is blinding you to the obvious situation that whether MaxD has "standing" is irrelevant to what they could receive from a Google settlement. That split is already spelled out over and over again. If Vendanti is the only name on the patent right now and they win a billion dollars in a settlement MaxD will contractually get half of it after the lawyers get paid. That is not in dispute.
This latest news release, along with the last one and the new SEC filings all confirm MaxD's co-ownership interest in the patents and their value, whether through licensing deals or lawsuit recovery, name on the title or not.
I assume the purpose of the denials here are for the purpose of driving the price down. Traders love roller coaster stocks and this is sure one.
Maybe you guys need to get Stan in the room to calm things down. TMM is beyond saving but after a few Molsons who will care. LOL
Hard to believe TMM has not been shut down yet.
TMM 30 years of running a scam on the public. No revenues, no customers, no contracts, no products, NOTHING but fluffy PRs!!!
Pitifully bad 10k once again from TMM. In case anyone has not read it yet you really should. Like a Seinfeld episode, its all about NOTHING!
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/TMMI/filings
TMM LOSES LAWSUIT!!!
DIMENSION, INC., a Nevada Corporation;
DIGITAL FOCUS MEDIA, INC., a dissolved California Corporation,
Counterclaimants,
v.
TMM, INC., a Nevada Corporation, and DIGITAL FOCUS, INC., a California Corporation;
Counterdefendants.
Case No.: A-13-678054-B
Dept. No.: XI
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT
This matter having come on for non-jury trial (footnote 1) before the Court on November 16 -18, 2016, F. Christopher Austin, Esq. and Ryan Gile, Esq. of the law firm of WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. appeared on behalf of Counterclaimants DIMENSION, INC. and DIGITAL FOCUS MEDIA, INC., and Joe Laxague, Esq. of the law firm of LAXAGUE LAW, INC. and Arash Shirdel, Esq. of the law firm of PACIFIC PREMIER LAW GROUP appeared on behalf of Counterdefendants TMM, INC. and DIGITAL FOCUS, INC., and the Court having read and considered the pleadings filed by the parties; having reviewed the evidence admitted during the trial; and having heard and carefully considered the testimony of the witnesses called to testify; the Court having considered the stipulations of counsel; the oral and written arguments of counsel; and with the intent of deciding all remaining claims before the Court pursuant to NRCP 52(a) and 58; the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
The Counterdefendants moved to voluntarily dismiss its Complaint. The Court granted that motion by order entered on February 22, 2016. Following certain motions related to the counterclaim, the remaining issue for trial related to the claim for declaratory relief in the counterclaim. (footnote 2)
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. The PVS/SGI Code also known as the VDK 2.0 Code (the "Code") was created by Iterated Systems, Inc. ("ISI") who is the predecessor in interest of MediaBin.
2. TMM, Inc. ("TMMI") is a Nevada corporation, and the purported holder of the license to the Code.
3. Digital Focus, Inc. ("DFI") is a California Corporation, who entered into an agreement with ISI, for a license to the Code.
4. Digital Focus Media, Inc. ("DFMI") is a California Corporation, who alleges it obtained the license to the Code from DFI.
5. Dimension is a Nevada corporation, and the purported holder of a license to the Code who is the successor in interest of DFMI.
6. Larry Panik ("Panik") was a shareholder in TMMI, DFI, and DFMI.
7. Panik is currently the president and sole director of Dimension.
8. Panik also at certain times served as an officer of DFI and as a director of DFMI.
9. In early 2000, a group of twenty-nine investors transferred their TMMI stock to Thomas Simpson ("Simpson") to use as collateral for a loan for TMMI. Simpson sold the shares without the prior authorization of those shareholders. A portion of the proceeds from the sale of the shares, $500,000, was needed to pay ISI for the License to the Code.
10. On or about March 2000, DFI entered into a license agreement with ISI for the license to the Code ("License Agreement").
11. The License Agreement was executed by Simpson on behalf of DFI and by Alan Sloan on behalf of ISI.
12. The License was purchased for $500,000, and Simpson put the License in a pre-existing inactive company that Simpson owned called "DFI."
13. Under the terms of the License, ISI was to receive 5% of DFI 's stock in exchange for the License. After execution of the License Agreement it was determined that as a subchapter-S corporation, DFI could only issue stock to individuals and not to a company such as ISI.
14. Simpson formed DFMI as the "vehicle for the License Agreement."
15. On or about September 2000, DFMI and ISI signed the Second Addendum to the License Agreement. The Second Addendum indicated that a merger between DFI and DFMI had occurred. (footnote 3)
16. The investors were issued DFMI stock in exchange for the TMMI stock they had previously transferred to Simpson.
17. Simpson conducted business between DFI, DFMI and TMMI without conducting any shareholder or board meetings.
18. The shareholders, who had transferred shares from DFI to DFMI, were repeatedly assured by Simpson in writing that the License-the only asset held by DFI-had been transferred to DFMI:
• In June 2000, Simpson wrote to shareholders "since DFMI is the owner of this technology, it can pursue the licensing of this capability to various providers around the world." (Exh. E1) (footnote 4)
• On September 11, 2000, Simpson wrote a letter to shareholders "We have spoken to Iterated Systems about the transfer of the source code and they support the move in amendment and state that the original contract allows for this. All the source code is at DFMI." (Exh. E2)(footnote 5)
• On October 26. 2000, Simpson wrote to DFMI shareholders "There is a great deal of work ahead of us to complete the task of making your CODEC the only choice for producers." (Exh. E3) (footnote 6)
• On October 27. 2000, Simpson wrote a letter to shareholders "The code that DFMI has reengineered from the fractal source code is DFMl's and DFMl's only. .. . TMM has no rights implied or otherwise to use or view DFMI's source code." (Exh. E4) (footnote 7)
• On April 18. 2001 , Simpson wrote a letter to Hoyt that an interim board of directors of DFMI would have authority to "nsure the safety of all DFMI assets including but not limited to the Fractal Codec." (Exh. E5) (footnote 8)
19. Simpson also assured the shareholders that the documents needed to transfer the License from DFI to DFMI had been executed:
• In a November 2000 communication with shareholder Hoyt, Simpson said: "Paper work transferring the Codec's contract from DFI to DFMI is available for review in the DFMI and DFI due diligence books. (Exh. E6) (footnote 9)
• On April 25, 2001, Simpson wrote a letter to shareholders, "I contacted Robin Haskins [CEO and Chairman of DFI] . . . and asked him to please send me a letter explaining that the Codec that was purchased in the name of DFI was in fact the property of DFMI. He was happy to do that and I received his letter shortly after that. (footnote 10) I also informed ISI, who had no problems also, and made note of this with an addendum to the contract. (Exh. E6). (footnote 11)
• Haskins confirmed DFMI's ownership of the PVS/SGI Source Code in a letter to Simpson, "I have also informed the DFI shareholders that all Iterated source code will be delivered to DFMI and DFI warrants that it has no claims on said code. This code was paid for and belongs to DFMI and will be held by DFMI." (Exh. E8). (footnote 12)
20. In December 2000, Panik filed a derivative lawsuit against, among others, DFMI.
21. As part of the settlement agreement to the 2000 lawsuit, on June 1 , 2001 , Simpson resigned as officer and director of DFMI.
22. Also as part of the settlement agreement to the 2000 lawsuit, on June 1, 2001, Simpson, Joe Stratter on behalf of DFI and Panik executed a "Letter Agreement" in which they all acknowledge that DFMI may have some rights to the License Agreement, through a merger or assignment.
23. This settlement agreement to the 2000 lawsuit was approximately 10 months after the alleged merger between DFI and DFMI.
24. Simpson, (footnote 13) as the primary corporate representative of the company, (footnote 14) cannot now claim that those activities were unauthorized by his failure to follow proper corporate governance procedures which would detrimentally impact the other shareholders who relied upon his representations and actions.
25. In 2002, DFMI filed suit against, among others, TMMI regarding the ownership of the License Agreement. That agreement ended in a settlement agreement, in which Simpson agreed to turn over to DFMI an executable version of the source code, which could not be modified, in exchange for approximately $150,000 subject to an audit called for under that agreement.
26. DFMI never provided Simpson with $150,000, as a result of the audit which found additional monies were owing from Simpson.
27. Simpson signed both the DFMI and DFI federal tax returns for 2000 and that he used the same tax accountant to prepare both returns.
28. DFI did not list the License as an asset in its 2000 return.
29. DFMI did list the License as an asset in its 2000 return.
30. The schedule for the form 1120 filed by DFMI for the tax year ending 12/31/2000 identified in the section "other current assets" the property "Fractal Codes" a beginning value of $0 and an ending value of $846,500. This is consistent with the acquisition of the license as a result of the execution of the assignment and second addendum executed effective March 28, 2000.
31. From 2002 to 2011, DFI never listed the License as an asset on its tax retums. (footnote 15)
32. Panik entered into a secured promissory note with DFMI in March 2007, to provide a cash infusion for continued operations. As a result of DFMI 's inability to repay the loan, Panik foreclosed on all of DFMI's assets, including the rights to the License Agreement.
33. Panik then transferred the rights to Dimension.
34. Simpson on behalf of DFI assigned the License to DFMI. (footnote 16)
35. Simpson on behalf of DFI represented to various individuals and entities, including the IRS, that it had made such and assignment.
36. DFMI and its shareholders detrimentally relied upon the representation made to them.
37. TMMI had notice of DFMI's and its successor-in-interest Dimension's claims to the License at the time it acquired DFI.
38. Simpson was not a credible witness. The Court relies to the extent possible on the documentary evidence.
39. Any finding of fact set forth herein more appropriately designated as a conclusion of law shall be so designated.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. DFI assigned the License to DFMI.
2. Dimension is the successor to DFMI 's rights in the License.
3. Dimension is the sole holder of the License to the Code.
4. Simpson listed the right to the "fractal codes" on DFMI's federal tax returns and not on DFI's. This representation is one which is given great weight by the Court especially given the representation made in communications Simpson made to the shareholders.
5. The representations made by Simpson were relied upon by Counterclaimants to their detriment.
6. As a matter of public policy, DFI is prohibited from asserting a position contrary to that which it took on its federal tax returns.
7. TMMI is not a bona fide purchaser because TMMI had actual notice that DFMI, Panik and Dimension claimed rights to the License at the time TMMI acquired DFI in 2012.
8. Counterdefendant DFI is estopped from denying the assignment of the License to DFMI.
9. Because DFI also represented, contemporaneous to the execution of the Assignment and thereafter, that DFI had assigned the License to DFMI and because the Court has found that DFMI relied to its detriment on that representation, DFI is also estopped from now denying it made such an assignment.
10. Any conclusion of law set forth herein more appropriately designated as a finding of fact shall be so designated.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT HEREBY DECLARES that Counterclaimants are the sole and exclusive owners of the License to the PVS/SGI Source Code, also known as the VDK 2.0 Code.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22nd day of November, 2016
TMM 10k shows NOTHING to be bullish about unless one is excited about a tax loss deduction. LOL
The only demented company I know about is the convicted software thief TMM. A worthless company based on its just filed 10k looks grim hard to see how anyone else throws their investment money away on these guys. Time to shut this scam down!
Looks like a good time to dive in maybe I'll scoop up some at this price.
Big volume today already 7.4 million shares trading hands. Wonder what is going on behind the scenes?
Getting way ahead of yourself. Its the patent challenges that will tell the tale and they don't look good for Google.
Well no they were common shares not TMM preferred shares. Unless they were incorrectly reported in the 10k. It did seem a little odd that the group that bought pp shares two months before him had to pay 5 cents a share and he got them for 2 cents a share. As I said, he got a good deal although depending on when he sold them he could have still lost money.
As I already said it doesn't matter they will get 50% of potentially billions after the lawyers collect their likely 30%. Yes its a risk but usually these penny stock risks have limited and vapory upsides but this one has a pretty solid chance to nail it. Don't put me in that group predicting 5-10 dollars but put me in the $.25 to $1.00 group I think they have a great shot to get there eventually, keeping in mind this could still take a long time to settle.
As for a lawyer leaving keep in mind this is all on contingency and when the lawyer isn't able to keep shouldering his share of the legal bills he may have to bail out that's not unusual.
Another interesting tidbit from TMMs 10k!
Look who plunked down $120,000 last year to buy 6M pp shares at 2 cents each - Concezio Montagliani! Must have taken a lot of guts to buy then but hey look he's in the black now! At least for the moment. LOL
Again your point is useless. It doesnt matter whether or when MaxD officially gets its name on the patent. They have a contractual agreement with VSL to share in ANY proceeds or recovery.
"the Company shall receive the other 50% at the time of a completion of any transaction opportunity, including legal settlements after subtracting applicable contingent legal fees."
MaxD certainly did pay consideration to VSL, apparently about $1.6M of it.
"On May 19, 2014, the Company entered into an agreement with VSL Communications to acquire the rights to intellectual property titled “Optimized Data Transmission System and Method” (“ODT”) through a cash payment of $500,000 in addition to a share issuance, whereby the Company issued 10,000,000 shares of common stock, valued at
$1,000,000 ($0.10/share). In exchange, the Company received a perpetual, exclusive, worldwide license to the ODT technology for all fields of use. In addition, the Company issued 1,000,000 shares of common stock, valued at $120,000 ($0.12/share), as compensation for the introduction and identification of a seller based on the agreement dated April 10, 2014."
Lets also not forget about the millions of dollars the attorneys are spending on chasing these patent violations on contingency. If they werent confident of a big win they wouldnt be taking the chance, especially on two continents.
TMM expected to visit RadioShack!!!
Rumors of TMM plans to visit RadioShack where they will get the Visible Man! Indications are that they will not pay for the brain or heart declaring that they are not necessary for optimal operations!
Unknown whether they will use their standard "accrued expenses" strategy to not pay for the goods or services. Note: TMM is believed to have filed for a patent on how to "accrue expenses" and not pay for anything, ever!
TMMs newest financials, read 'em and weep.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/TMMI/filings
I think its a great idea to send Gerry to NAB.
However, bringing him back would be a waste of money. LOL
I would argue that the name on the patent isn't as important as contractually reaping half the benefits from it. This is from the financials in the section discussing the deal with VSL.
"The Company shall act as the exclusive agent to facilitate and negotiate any opportunities on behalf of ODT to Companies, Organizations and other qualified entities. Upon any closing, ODT shall receive 50% of gross dollars and the Company shall receive the other 50% at the time of a completion of any transaction opportunity, including legal settlements after subtracting applicable contingent legal fees. The term of the agreement is for the life of the acquired intellectual property."
The same goes for the EA agreement.
"The Company shall act as the exclusive agent to facilitate and negotiate any opportunities on behalf of EA Technology to Companies, Organizations and other qualified entities.
Upon any closing, EA shall receive 50% of gross dollars and the Company shall receive the other 50% at the time of a completion of any transaction opportunity, including legal settlements after subtracting applicable contingent legal fees. In the event the Company sublicenses EA to other entities, profits shall be split evenly 50%/50%.
Smitty nails TMM 10k results!!! Wow!!!
Who would have thunk it, Smitty correctly (as always) predicts TMM completing another completely NOTHING year! Well, other than spending $1.9 million dollars of borrowed investor money.
No revenues, no customers, no products, no contracts, NOTHING!
Biggest surprise of the TMM financials? Maybe the $2,600 in bank charges. Being broke, TMM should really find a better checking fees plan. Outrageous! Or maybe it was bank fees for A LOT OF BOUNCED CHECKS. LOL
The Amazing Kreskin predicts TMMs 10k results!!! Its an exclusive! He predicts:
TMM revenues = ZERO!
TMM contracts = ZERO!
TMM customers = ZERO!
TMM owes stiffed lawyers nearly $500K!
TMM owes shareholder loans over $1M!
TMM LOST lawsuit but will spin it as a great victory! LOL
TMM continues to heavily dilute the stock!
TMM accomplishes NOTHING!!!
No idea how they pick their partners but Im guessing MaxD doesnt fall into their interest range. But feel free to call them and ask. Unlike TMM they are pretty good about answering their phone or returning your call. It looks like MaxD is also good about that, so kudos to them too.
The only thing important today is that TMM accomplished exactly what it has accomplished every other day the past 30 years, NOTHING!!!!
The other thing to remember is that MaxD paid them for the shared patent rights around 3 years ago, in cash and stock. And there is no record of Vendati changing their minds about the deal. Who knows, maybe they are all relying on a contract separate from the official patent filings. Not unheard of either but I think the December, 2016 joint PR says it all, they are partners and Nash is full of it. And if she pats herself on the back one more time she may dislocate her shoulder.
Why Nash is ruffling everyone at MaxDs feathers seems unclear. Her accusations appear to be full of it based on the available information. Here's a joint PR from Vendati Licensing and MaxD that clearly states the joint patent ownership deal. If MaxD had just made it up there would undoubtedly be a new lawsuit or counter PR by Vendati and neither exists, therefore she is full of it. We have seen other information that clarifies the sharing of lawsuit recoveries as well, with the lawyers getting paid first of course and then MaxD and Vendati Licensing splitting the rest 50/50.
http://www.einpresswire.com/article_print/355753397/vedanti-and-max-sound-corporation-enter-a-strategic-partnership-as-co-owners-of-odt-patents
As mentioned she has already boasted of receiving 100 million but maybe the talk of billion dollar settlements has her feeling sellers regret. Not sure how else to read this unless its the grey goose theory.
So wheres the holdup with our big new successful TMM? Trial is over TMM got crushed. Appeals will take years is that the new excuse for doing nothing? If so check back in another 4 years I guess.
TMM revenues??? Oh yeah NONE!!!
Yes Dimension keeps beating dead horse TMM in everything! Lawsuit, patents, customers, technology, revenues, EVERYTHING!