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.
TMMs Vancouver director Stan Ford getting desperate rolling out all his local minions to try and salvage some of those multi millions that get thrown his way by the slow but rich payday lenders. But has that well run dry for poor Stan?
Mega millions sent his way for "development" LOLOLOL yet NOTHING has ever come out of that moneypit to benefit us regular TMMI shareholders. Shocker.
Not to worry I'm doing quite fine it is you who seems to be scrambling in your duty to try and make Cavanaugh. Ford and their cohorts look at least a little bit less crooked and creepy than they really are. It's a tough sell and it's not working well for you I hope it hasn't impacted your allowance too severely.
Yes thats great that most of you would just like to "move on" now that the trial is over but life does not work that way. The trial cleanup now starts and TMM will have to pay the piper for their crimes. I know our resident lawyer urban doesnt like the word crimes but thats what they were, crimes.
TMM has had the option to settle everything quickly and easily ever since before they even filed the ridiculous lawsuit yet they still refuse to do so. Your quarrel is with them.
Its been 2 weeks since the end of the trial so I would think they would be filing this pretty soon, certainly within the next two weeks at the most. Then of course the other side will protest the amounts as a standard response, and finally the judge will decide or more likely her assistant which costs stay in the bill. Then TMM pays up or the judge puts on her unhappy face, which we have all seen on the internet. Not a good thing to be on the bad side of that.
4retire, when I say small I am comparing it to the million bucks or so spent by each side. I presume 80-90% of that money spent was for attorney fees so costs will be the rest of it. Still a significant sum but not a huge amount. That will come later when the full hammer comes down on TMM. Now that the judge has finally read the case and grasped what she should have grasped on day 1 I dont see many barriers to winning these requests.
Yes lets see how the rest of this court case turns out. But that could take some time so get a comfortable chair from what I hear it could be needed since TMM is not taking any steps to wrap up the details so it can go forward in peace.
LOL they have no need to hide anything they are a private company what they do is none of anyone's business unless they are a shareholder. Feel free to contact Panik although I think he does have some minimum standard so dont get too excited about the possibility of getting in.
And no the Dimension beef is exactly with the crooks at TMM. They sued Dimension and its principals DFI is and was an empty dead shell nothing more. And as said many times TMM pays or files BK not any other choices. I would guess the first costs filing would be small but the followup abuse claim heading back to court would not be small or even medium. It will be HUGE!
Yes Dimension won TMM LOST did you miss the news? As for Dimensions customers I hear they are very pleased this is over no ties being cut just more being forged.
TMM has never been dependent on any technology holding. All they need or want is the story of having one and their PR machine kicks in to the benefit of the insiders.
As for price going up since TMM GOT CRUSHED IN THE LAWSUIT AND LOST its been volatile and at last count was down 25% from just a few days ago and down 80% from other recent highs based once again on totally bogus PRs. Yet month in and month out the "management team" and collection of useless "advisors" get a paycheck. Insane.
Yes the judge let all the crooks go months ago before actually taking some time to read any of the evidence. She is well aware now she screwed up and at least proclaimed the key facts in her decision write-up. Result - TMM GUILTY AS CHARGED!
Keep trying to spin this to make TMM and for whatever reason Simpson look better but its just not possible even the other insiders are smirking at these latest lame attempts to make Stan proud.
Actually at the time of the trial Simpson was not a party the judge dropped all the individuals on both sides. TMM could have chose to march Cavanaugh, Ford, Kazole, Sloan and even Neff if the feds allowed him a temporary pass out of the state.
But they didn't. They knew the only way to win was perjury so they sent Simpson, Fernandez and Haskins to perjure themselves while keeping the "new guys" safe. And also as a result Simpson, Fernandez and Haskins spoke legally and conclusively for TMM and DFI.
They did oblige TMM by lying but unfortunately for them they lied so badly the judge saw through it and essentially threw out all their testimony and instead used their massive amount of confirmed documents. Result, end of TMMs attempt to steal the code.
You should try rereading that judges decision again SHE is the one saying TMM had full knowledge that Dimension claimed ownership of the VDK 2 codec license and that DFI had NO ownership of it. Your quarrel is with her.
And also note that DFI was a dead empty shell from 2000 to 2012 when the TMM accountants decided to pay the 12 years of suspended corp fees and file the 2001-12 taxes. Except the idiots forgot to put the codec license as an asset on any of them or else refuses because it was outright fraud. Pick your choice but ONCE AGAIN here is what the judge said:
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.
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)
Yet TMM put Simpson and Fernandez on the stand to represent TMM and DFI instead of Cavanaugh taking the stand. In Nevada that is TMM saying these guys speak for us, testify for us, swear for us. Not to mention your buddy Stan Ford TMM director also being fully aware of the facts yet they also kept him off the stand.
But you know all this already and all you can do now is try and twist the judges words, a foolhardy exercise but Stan would expect no less than for you to try wouldnt he?
Usually the market makers for these volatile penny pull way back at the end of the day leaving unrealisticaly low and high bid/asks to view in the evening. Means nothing, they will adjust it in the hour before opening tomorrow.
Go MaxD!
Once again lets use the judges exact quote rather than your attempt to tweak the truth again for TMM.
"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."
As you say its here for all to see.
"38. Simpson was not a credible witness. The Court relies to the extent possible on the documentary evidence." Gee ya think so?
Please note that Simpson was the star witness TMM rolled out for the trial. And that is what the judge thought of him AND TMM.
The judge says TMM knew full well that the codec license belonged to Dimension and TMM paid Simpson and Haskins and a handful of their insider friends the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a stolen copy anyway.
That is the company and managers we are talking about that is what their character is without even getting into the federal indictments against their key players.
Yes TMM pump and dump hits .069 then immediatly drops 25% leaving buyers totally hosed. Nothing new there its in the standard TMM playbook.
You are quoting the as always totally bogus TMM PR when you say "certain version" of the VDK 2 code. Here is once again what the judge said:
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.
Nothing about a "certain version" in there is there? Nothing but complete BS from TMM as usual.
Dim move on? Yes I think they are moving on to making sure the result of this lawsuit has consequences for the biggest loser TMM.
The VDK 1.x and VDK 2.x had nothing to do with each other Iterated and Dimensions Dr Hurd wrote VDK 2 independantly again nothing to do with each other NOT a derivative of any kind.
And in addition TMM was/is a total deadbeat and NEVER finished paying for VDK 1.x or anything else just read the Iterated lawyer letter I keep posting that is accepted by both TMM and HP as a legit document.
urban you should really try to get any of your "facts" correct occasionally. Yes of course an "exclusive license" does mean that only Dimension can have physical possession of the code thats what exclusive means absurd means something entirely different try googling it. And Tom Simpson originally got in possession of the code when it was licensed in 2000 to DFMI it was NEVER licensed to Tom Simpson. He kept and gave illegal copies of it to Fernandez and TMM. Again, try reading some or any of the judge's words she seems to have a far different understanding than you do as the new TMM chief apologist.
TMM never did give up its claims it owned VDK 2 maybe you should read their SEC filings and take a look at their website and that recent "we lost but not really" PR they dumped on the public then had to revise after reading MY post here. And as far as I know they continue to retain illegal possession of copies of the VDK 2 right? Seems like the local sheriff or FBI should be more on top of getting that back.
Read the judge's notes again TMM ALWAYS knew DFMI and Dimension owned the codec license. And sure Dimension was free to approach anyone but they also had to tell them some empty shell pink stock patent trolling software thief was still saying THEY owned the VDK 2.
Yes the SGI station jokes are hilarious but the VDK 2 has been running just fine on ANY Windows PC since 2000. A new running gag is needed. LOL
"Dim was making claims about owning everything and saying Tmmi owned nothing". I think I and everyone else in the world missed that statement by Dimension. Maybe you could link us to that statement from them.
However, if you prefer I would be happy to inform you that according to Iterated TMM owns ZERO rights to any present or past Iterated created technology including any VDKs of any type or vintage. Once again, here is the link to that Iterated lawyer's statements regarding the total deadbeat TMM:
http://dimensioninc.tv/Documents/Exhibits_for_answer_and_counterclaims.pdf
Which version? TMM filed the claim, revised it three times, then dropped it after both sides spent about a million dollars each even though they knew before they did it that all their allegations were nothing but total BS. Read the judge's notes all the evidence was known and out there for everyone to see.
Making excuses for TMM filing the lawsuit even though they lied about talking to Dimension first? Here's what the judge had to say about that after reading and hearing the evidence in court:
37. TMMI had notice of DFMI's and its successor-in-interest Dimension's claims to the License at the time it acquired DFI.
TMM knew DFI had no real claim to the codec license but they paid Simpson and Haskins for a stolen copy of it anyway. That is what kind of scumbags we are talking about here.
TMM LOSES COURT CASE EXTENDS 30 YEARS OF FAILURE AND SHAREHOLDER SUFFERING!!!
Electronically Filed 11/22/2016 02:45:41 PM
DISTRICT COURT
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
CLERK OF THE COURT
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
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify, that on the date filed, this Order was served on the parties identified on Wiznet's e-service list.
Joe Laxague, Esq.
LAXAGUE LAW, INC.
1 East Liberty, Suite 600
Reno, Nevada 89501
F. Christopher Austin, Esq. (WEIDE & MILLER, LTD.
Footnotes:
(1) At the pretrial conference on October 21, 2016, all parties waived the jury.
(2) This claim is whether Counterclaimants are the holders of an exclusive license to use a certain computer code identified as the PVS/SGI Code also known as the VDK 2.0 Code.
(3) "DFI has assigned the Agreement to DFMI as part of a merger in which DFMI acquired all the assets of DFI." Exh. B2.
(4) DFI admits Simpson wrote this letter and that DFI was aware of it. DFI RFA Resp. Nos. 8-10, Exh. A2.
(5) DFI admits Simpson wrote this letter and that DFI was aware of it. DFI RFA Resp. Nos. 11-13 Exh. A2.
(6) DFI admits Simpson wrote this letter and that DFI was aware of it. DFI RFA Resp. Nos. 14-16 Exh. A2.
(7) DFI admits Simpson wrote this letter and that DFI was aware of it. DFI RFA Resp. Nos. 17-19 Exh. A2.
(8) DFI admits Simpson wrote this letter and that DFI was aware of it. DFI RFA Resp. Nos. 26-28 Exh. A2.
(9) DFI admits Simpson wrote this letter and that DFI was aware of it.. DFI RFA Resp. Nos. 23-25 Exh. A2.
(10) Haskin denied authoring the letter identified by Simpson. Ex. E8.
(11) DFI admits Simpson wrote this letter and that DFI was aware of it. DFI RFA Resp. Nos. 29-31, Exh. A2.
(12) DFI admits Haskins wrote this letter. DFI RFA Resp. No. 4, Exh. A2.
(13) Simpson testified during trial that it did not matter which entity held the code because “we" had control of all the entities.
(14) For most of the history of this litigation, Simpson acted as the corporate representative including verifying the responses to requests for admission on October 25, 2013. See Ex. A l.
(15) Haskins, the CEO of DFI during this period, stated that all the tax returns were coordinated by Simpson.
(16) While a merger was apparently contemplated by the parties at the time of the execution of the assignment and second addendum the corporate formalities for a merger never occurred. Therefore, the Court declines to find that a merger occurred.
TMM lost the lawsuit and I think some are forgetting there are consequences to losing a lawsuit. Those consequences are probably coming soon. But in the meantime enjoy the pump and dump roller coaster.
LOL I doubt anyone really cares that TMM is doing its normal cycle of vaporware pump and dumps that always end with lower prices after the dust settles.
What is more important is that TMM has been judged in court to be a software thief and the entire industry knows about it. Why would anyone take a chance dealing with these convicted crooks?
Yesterday TMM almost hit 7 cents but now at 5 with bid at 4 who was our mystery buyer and what did he/she know the rest of us didnt? We will probably know soon enough.
You have to admire the TMM boosters who celebrate every time the accountants at TMM learn a new word. The word of the week is apparently "Digital". Their theory is that you can recycle 1990's PRs by just putting Digital in front of whatever you used to say. No actual products, customers, revenues or anything else but then again TMM has always made its money on selling words.
Prediction of next weeks word: "Advanced"!
Can you imagine if TMM used "Advanced Digital"? Wow! A trademark opportunity for sure.
Out of posts but That sounds like TMMs 20 year old ads. Image management solutions? Is that a hard back binder for your polaroids? LOL
Actually I'm spot on and right as always. And you should not confuse something Dimension said with something I say I am not Dimension and dont speak for them I speak for the evidence and history which tells the tale quite well.
As for the dispute over who owns VDK 1 (its HP), does it really matter that old code has no use these days anyway. VDK 2 is also old but was ahead of its time and the updates done by DFMI and Dimension created quite the next generation compression tool. And you have no idea what they have done with it.
The letter was quite damming regarding TMMs history of not paying for things they took and I heard that the attorney read it word for word to the judge in court with no objection from TMM or HP, both of which had copies of it in earlier filings and for the past 20 years for that matter. It added up with virtually every other bit of evidence and witness testimony from both sides to tell the judge this should have been over on day 1 with TMM being GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY.
The Iterated lawyer letter is and was valid and presented in court as such with no dispute from TMM or HP. Yes it verifies TMM is a deadbeat but that is what is TMM worked hard at it the past 30 years.
urban quite the contrary the Iterated lawyers said TMM has no rights to any Iterated product and that declaration passes downward to HP even if they preferred to try and stay out of this recent lawsuit.
As for the ownership of the underlying patents for the VDK 1 and VDK 2 codecs nobody disputes those belong to HP. Dimension owns the new patents for the VDK 2 derivatives however and of course all their patents for the unrelated scaling software they created.
And in case you forgot Barnsley and Hurd the original Iterated geniuses all work for Dimension along with a host of other PhDs in the field. TMM has.... well nobody.
I guess you can wish thats the case but unfortunately its not. TMM has no rights to ANY Iterated technology and its very very clear in the lawyers letter. No VDK 1, no VDK 2, nothing. Just a lot of unpaid bills.
I did more than address the question I provided undisputed proof TMM is a lifetime deadbeat and posted the link to the Iterated lawyer letter. Sorry I cant just cut and paste a pdf here you will actually have to go read it or get someone to help you guys read it. If thats too much trouble than take my word for it TMM is a total deadbeat.
Or maybe smitty has been busy and not around the computer for a few hours. Not all of us are glued to the tube.
I heard this document was a key part of the trial docs as it should have been. Read it and weep. A great summary of TMMs continued failure to follow through on anything. Twenty years later nothing has changed. Its the first exhibit in this collection of filings.
http://dimensioninc.tv/Documents/Exhibits_for_answer_and_counterclaims.pdf
urban if you had read any of the public filings many of which are still posted on the Dimension web site you would know the Iterated lawyers said in no uncertain or confusing terms that TMM has failed to pay for ANYTHING in their entire relationship. Yes TMM kept talking Iterated into giving the more and more chances but its documented TMM failed every single time. Thats from Iterated, not me.
And yes TMM is found guilty of software theft how hard is that to understand? They were caught having possession of Dimensions property and trying to steal their legit license. They are also guilty of all the claims the judge dismissed and is probably kicking herself about now but who knows maybe those claims return somehow.