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.
....waiting on the court system activity to get moving...and they expedite for no one!
Glad you got some recovery, after a long and very frustrating wait!
If you invest in MAXD in the future, I would recommend you do so on speculation-free news only. If something big like a settlement happens, after a formal announcement you should be able to get in early enough to make a profit. Just keep a close eye to see if an opportunity does come up in the future.
I have caught Ms. Nash self contradicting in many of her posts, and less then accurate in many claims as well.
I never said I think Blaisure lied in his filing....where did you get that? It's clear that the Form 4 is in error, or the market web site posts are in error, but I don't have any inside information to confirm the actual transaction as being a buy or sell. So we wait for a correction...
Certainly there is a possibility that the SEC filed form 4 has a typo error. I think it is a worthy possibility given the market web site posts shown below. Let's wait and see if this gets straightened out.
Yahoo Finance
Insider Transactions Reported - Last Two Years
BLAISURE JOHN Officer
Purchase at $0.02 per share. Direct 44,000 Sep 27, 2016 2,200,000
OTCMarkets.com
SEC Transactions Last 2 Years
Sept 28, 2016 BLAISURE JOHN Officer direct Buy 0.02 2,200,000
Nasdaq.com
BLAISURE JOHN Officer 09/28/2016 Buy direct 2,200,000 0.2 30,567,573
CNN Money
Blaisure John Chief Executive Officer
Buy 9/28/2016 2,200,000 $0.02 $44.0K
Morningstar.com
09/28/2016 John Blaisure President and Chief Executive Officer 2,200,000 Buy at $0.02 per share.
CEO purchasing shares, Nash over ruled and VSL/Vedanti now cooperating with MAXD, Ruroni possibly told to keep confidential impactful news that might be considered inside information? ....great time to be a MAXD investor, one would think.
I guess perspective of the available information can vary?
Well, there are some obvious possible answers to his investment timing.
First, events may have transpired recently to give Blaisure a high level of confidence that the stock would be climbing in the near future, and now was the most reliabled time to buy.
Another possibility is that Blaisure had $44K of spare cash become available only recently, cash that he did not have available months ago.
Last, perhaps you can ask why any investor is purchasing MAXD shares today when the price was lower months ago? Or why any investor buys stock at a price above a previous time's level?
If you haven't seen disclosure filings from Blaisure, you haven't looked. But perhaps you're saying the volume of shares he has is greater then Form 4 filings indicate? That seems to be the case, so share compensation from MAXD for services, or other activity, would seem to be a possibility. If so, it is likely detailed in the MAXD quarterly filings.
I guess this is the news you mention?
http://www.investopedia.com/news/apple-loses-virnetx-fined-302m-aapl-vhc/
There are postings on various stock sites showing it as a buy, and others showing it as a sell. That's confusing, for sure.
I did find that John Blaisure in the Form 4 filing listed something like 30 million shares ownership after this transaction. The last Form 4 he filed, done a couple of years ago, showed he had about 22 million shares ownership. Having an increased share volume would certainly argue against Blaisure "getting out" of MAXD.
Blaisure DID BUY stock, not sell it.
Sept 28, 2016 BLAISURE JOHN
Officer direct Buy 0.02 2,200,000
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/MAXD/insider-transactions
VSL always stood for Vedanti Systems Limited. That was posted earlier, I believe by Ms. Nash.
This is just my view from what I've seen so far. The dispute claim was that MAXD had an agreement with VSL, but not Vedanti. Supposedly, VSL was worthless; Vedanti is the entity with the technology.
I believe the new entity was created to remove that claimed distinction between VSL and Vedanti, and to clarify and confirm the license to be represented by MAXD. I think the new entity name reflects that: Vedanti Licensing Limited.
It may be unusual for a press release regarding just a term sheet, but due to the very unusual nature of this dispute, and the impact MAXD may believe it has on their investors, I don't think it is out of line, or meant to decieve. Again, just my view...
Ms. Nash, I would recommend that you let the final court rulings speak for you. I don't believe anyone on this message board has any influence or impact on the legal activity in progress, so posting to them does not appear to have any beneficial purpose.
You are very angry at Greg Halpern, and I think it's safe to say anyone who's spent time on this message board knows that. As such, I believe readers might see a bias, and question your posts because of it.
I believe the cout's actions are the source for providing whatever justification or credibility you may be seeking. Please be patient, and wait for those court rulings, as all of us must do.
Also, consider that MAXD is not just Greg Halpern; it's a lot of investors. When you attack MAXD, you attack them.
So too, VSL/Vedanti is not only Constance Nash. Your actions directly affect the other investors, and employees of VSL/Vedanti. Seeking a solution that includes their best financial interest, IMHO, should be more important than any personal grudge with Greg Halpern. It appears that the personal dispute with Greg Halpern is your priority, but I don't know for sure....only you know. It is a free country, so do as you choose, but these are just some of my thoughts.
I think it's actually fine, pretty straight forward. First, as I understand it, the agreement is between MAXD and a new entity, Vedanti Systems Licensing...not VSL.
I believe this new entity exists to confirm MAXD's rights of license representation of the video technology, possibly with some negotiated variations to satisfy both parties, and to address issues having risen since the original agreement
The purpose of the term sheet is to confirm an agreement has been reached. However; the legal teams must go through the process of writing the final legal agreement, to the satisfaction of all parties involved, which can then be signed and executed. It takes the lawyers time to put together the final document.
A term sheet implies a "done deal", barring any changes in the final written agreement that are not contained in the term sheet. The press release, IMHO, was done to inform investors that the dispute is at, or near, an end. I think that's a reasonable release to put out, particularly since it properly reveals it as only a term sheet so far, leaving investors to respond, or not respond, to that as they choose.
You are correct that VSL did not license to Greg Halpern, but it did license to Max Sound Inc. The info below is copied directly from the publicly filed agreement:
1.02 VSL Opportunities. As Exclusive AGENT, MAXD will act on behalf of VSL to facilitate and negotiate all opportunities on behalf of VSL and ODT Technology to Companies, Organizations and other qualified Entities. Upon any closing, VSL shall receive 50% (Fifty Percent) of Gross Dollars and MAXD shall receive the other 50% (Fifty Percent) of Gross Dollars, at the time of a completion of any transaction opportunity, including legal settlements after subtracting applicable contingent legal fees (See 1.01(1)(ii)).
1.03 Exclusive ODT License to MAXD. VSL is granting the Exclusive Worldwide License to MAXD to VSL's ODT Technology for all fields of use.
b) Authorization. The execution of this Agreement and the consummation of the Representation Agreement contemplated by this Agreement have been duly authorized the board of directors and shareholders of MAXD and the owners/members of VSL; no other corporate action by the respective parties is necessary in order to execute, deliver, consummate and perform their respective obligations hereunder; and MAX!) and VSL have all requisite authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
You're coming in on this late in the process, and seem to present yourself as knowing all about it....and demanding that you be accounted to, while not taking the time and effort to properly research. Still, to address some of your comments, see below:
The allegation is: Google is filing new patent(s) that incorporate the existing '339 patent.
Read the complaint. It details Google's activities. Google filed for patents within a couple of weeks after receiving the confidential information from Vedanti.
I don't understand why Google would waste time examining technical materials if their intention was simply to attempt to re-file portions of the '339 patent as a new patent, since the '339 patent had been viewable by the public for something like 8 years before that.
Right, just copy and refile it, maybe even use Nash's name, etc. That's a sure way to conceal the fact that it's someone else' design (note; I'm being sarcastic here.)
Patent applications are not required to publicly reveal confidential details, for obvious reasons.
Ican's allegation that Google is attempting to patent this technology while simultaneously challenging the patentability of this technology is....confusing.
No, it's not. First, if you're referring to the invalidation possibility, I didn't say Google was part of that process; I assumed that referred to the Patent Office review. If you knew the business side, you would understand why Google themselves might challenge the validity of the patent. If you "steal" a valid patent protected product, you risk trouble. But, if you can prove that patent is not valid, not qualified for protection (i.e. it is composed of prior industry knowledge), then you can not be liable for stealing anything (although you might still be at risk for contract breach or fraud, dependinging on the events.)
It's also strange that he is saying the unpatentability challenge "doesn't mean much" ... if it means so little why does Google spend money on it? If it "doesn't mean much" why does Nash write a message complaining at her unhappiness that 7 of the 13 claims in the patent will likely be successfully challenged?
If you paid attention to my post, you would know you just answered your own question. In most patent applications multiple claims for protection are usually submitted, and rejection of some of them is common. So if seven claims are challenged, it "doesn't mean much", IMHO, because what would matter is the six unsuccessfully challenged claims remaining. Those remaining claims were apparently important enough to Google that they "spent money on it".
I don't know how it's possible to slice this unpatentability challenge to be a positive result for MAXD, but I'm sure management + supporters on the forums will somehow claim it was an essential and expected part of the master plan to eventually win billions from google.
Do your due diligence, and then you will be better prepared to review and comment on the issues surrounding the patent.
I agree. I suspect the revised, or new, agreement resulting from the term sheet is in process with the lawyers, with an uncertain finish date.
The announcement of the term sheet, while not providing a finished binding agreement, may have been just a way to imply an end to the dispute between MAXD and Vedanti/VSL. One could argue the pros and cons of releasing the info now, but under due diligence (which folks on this message board are doing, which is cool) one could see the term sheet as promising, but not binding, and invest or not invest based on how they choose to view that.
The original agreement between MAXD and VSL remains in force, as I have not seen any announcement that it has been invalidated.
I have a hard time believing Nash was an innocent victim. If you believe her claim, she got MAXD to sign a deal paying cash and stock to pursue an unknown and likely worthless trademark violation, and kept the more valuable patent/idea theft for herself.
It appears she took action in objection of the MAXD/VSL agreement only after learning of a proposed settlement, one negotiated by the MAXD provided legal team. That action appears to have been an attempt to remove MAXD and its shareholders from any share of a settlement, and to take it all for Nash/Vedanti.
None of us know for sure what happened (at least not yet), but it is certainly a possibility that Nash/Vedanti intended to fraudulently misrepresent to MAXD, take the cash, stock, and legal activity MAXD provided, and keep the apparent MAXD settlement share for themselves.
And that's not to say that MAXD is an innocent player; I simply don't know. However, I am not aware that MAXD ever attempted to exclude Nash/VSL from a share of a settlement, or changed the agreement after it was executed. Certainly the possibility exists that MAXD could have made changes to the original draft, but VSL never brought any evidence for that to a court to review, something you would certainly expect them to do.
The nature of VSL activities that occured during the dispute, including attacks against an unrelated third party individual, have appeared to me to be a planned attempt to destroy MAXD, so that MAXD could not fight VSL's challenge or be in a position to claim it's share of a settlement. If a settlement does end up happening, with an amount into nine figures, it would confirm a whole lot of reasons ($$) to try to steal MAXD and it's investers share of the settlement.
"Mostly" doesn't mean much. If you're familiar with most patent requests, they typically submit every function possible for patent protection, knowing some, if not most, are likely to be denied by the patent office.
A more telling reality is that Google is using the technology, patented it under their name (I guess they didn't feel it was invalid), and the technolgy has not yet been superceded.
Patent law and idea theft is very complex, and not limited to an awarded patent.
I believe Female Executive claimed that MAXD was only authorized to sue for trademark infringement. What trademark? Does anyone even know what the trademark is? If one does exist, what has Google gained from it? I'm personally unaware of anyone who uses the Google video products because they recognize and prefer a VSL/Vedanti trademark. As such, I can see the trademark being invalid.
While this news is encouraging, it is not a sure thing (I wish it was!)
There's still this thing about Alphabet/Google being a multibillion dollar monster, with paid for politicians and legal professionals on their leash.
The right business decison for Google is to settle this, particularly in light of the fight they are in with Oracle (I believe there's some dirty little secrets here that could be used by Oracle against Google.) Unfortunately, many business decisions are tainted by oversized egos obsessed with power.
We all want to see this settle, and quickly...but wise minds must prevail. As such, it truly isn't a done deal, until it is! We can hope and speculate all we want, but that fat lady needs to start singing.
BIG jump? Based on MAXD/VSL ending their internal dispute? I'd love to see that alone cause the stock to zoom back up, but some pesky issues remain.
Revenue (there is still none.)
Google lawsuit USA (likely to resume, but by no means finished.)
Google/Netflix Germany (a new lawsuit has to be filed.)
While these events may be closer to happening, or perhaps even right around the corner, the fact is they have not. At this time they are all only speculation.
I want this stock to take off as much as anyone, but as with anything there is a process that has to happen first.
Here's a definition on "term sheet". Keep in mind that the original MAXD/VSL agreement is in place...unless it is replaced by a new agreement, which may be in the writing stages with the lawyers now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_sheet
I hate Greg Halpern, blah blah blah, Greg Halpern is the source of all the world's problems, blah blah blah, I'm going to insult him and call him names, blah blah blah...I'm telling my mommy on him...blah blah blah...
...oh, by the way, I'm a sophisticated long term investor sharing unbiased, carefully considered, evaluated information of the Max Sound company for the benefit of all investors...blah blah blah..
Matt Mushlin is a long time friend of Greg Halpern, and an investor in Max Sound. He once apparently served in an Investment Relations position for the company. I had an opportunity to speak to him a long time ago, and he came across as very credible.
His name is part of the conversion by some MAXD shareholders of their stock to "Preferred" shares. Based on the volume of shares converted, I think the participants were major shareholders, including Mr. Halpern, but I don't know for sure. They used "Hong Kong" in the entity name for some reason, even though everything indicates it is a USA entity. There's likely tax benefits if it has any actual connection to China. Or, possibly, one of the participants is from there.
I looked into the impacts, and reasons, for creating preferred shares. I did not find any sinister purpose in it. My conclusion was that it was for the big time tax savings that can come when converting shares to cash. As I recall, it allows something like 70% of the capital gains to be taken tax free (another tax loophole no doubt created by "support" for a member of Congress.)
At the time of the conversion to preferred shares, it was just ahead of some anticipated MAXD success, and prior to the disaster of the VSL dispute. I think the anticipation by the individuals who converted their shares to preferred status was that they were about to take in a windfall from big stock price gains, and were structuring to make the most of it. I think all of us would take advantage of the same tax loophole were we in that position.
The windfall never came, and I don't see that the preferred shares have had any impact, or advantage over any other shares, while the stock has remained tanked.
I think this is a real possibility. The price climb of recent has not had the characteristics of the typical pump and dump (by parties I believe to be completely unrelated to MAXD or VSL, just outsiders lokking for a quick and easy profit.) The climb has been slow, yet fairly steady, with limited buying strength...meaning strong volume individual buys on occasion, but not lots of daily strong volume buying transactions. The buying appears to be coming from a few individuals, or possibly investment groups and/or brokers.
This price growth has not been accompanied by the usual suspects, with a sudden increase in one liner postings from new usernames proclaiming "blue skies ahead", "moving average moving", "candlesticks lit", "get in while it's hot", or other silly comments.
Without the pumper/dumpers attacking the stock, it appears to be able to sustain this slow tick up. However, my biggest concern is the possibility of someone with a large volume of converted shares suddenly liquidating them. Are those folks out of the picture now? Are remaining shareholders balanced much more toward the long investment? If so, the stock can finally start showing some support.
How far the current uptick can go without any confirmed news is another question. I would not think much, but certainly would love to be wrong in that. How much more buying in money currently being spent is left out there? All that is to say the stock is still, IMHO, vulnerable. Future news on favorable legal results, or orders finally coming through, can change that. We've all been waiting a long time...
Maybe time for you to move on to bigger and better things?
We all know there's only one side to every story. Also, never fact check; go with what you're given. :)
Here's another good article on Oracle vs. Google, discussing Google's havimg lied to the court:
"But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what Google told its lawyers. All that matters is what absolute untruths Google's expert witnesses, directed by Google's lawyers, told the judge and, especially, the jury."
http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/08/oracle-pushing-hard-for-android-java-re.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fosspatents%2FzboT+%28FOSS+Patents%29
Yes, but as I recall, it was only for a week. I don't know the details of the activities around this.
Yes, MAXD was all that I feared IMHC was. I don't think anyone would want to see the last seven years or so repeated, particularly MAXD investors. We all hope they are much wiser and better prepared to go forward, but that remains to be seen.
There are some positives out there for MAXD, stemming from the legal activity, but there's no room for any more failed ventures.
As in any business, success depends on meeting all the requirements demanded by customers of the product or service.
Typically, the members of a company team have varied areas of expertise, each addressing it's specific challenge. There is sales, engineering, manufacturing, administration, legal, etc.
I have typically seen companies run by sales based managers, usually at the expense of all non-sales related duties. This has caused those companies to operate below their potential, and often fail. My point is that company leadership must be capable of making sure all the parts and pieces of the company are working as they should, and not restricted by a fixation on one aspect of the operations.
A company run by an engineering focused management faces the same challenge of fixation, just in a different category. There needs to be a balance. I think Ms. Nash is brilliant in her technology designs, but I do not believe that it automatically translates to being brilliant in business overall.
I often tell people that the higher the intelligence, the closer one is to insanity. That's because it is very difficult to adapt in a world that moves at a much slower pace then your own. Many higher intelligence individuals are socially awkward, and seen as aloof, which can often be intimidating. It does not usually allow for strong communication skills. They are not people choosing to have a difficult personality, they are people who struggle with a world that seems to deliberately lag behind. I'm not saying that referring to Ms. Nash personally, only saying that intelligence alone is by no means an assurance of management/leadership success; there must be a balance to meet all the needs that a business must address.
I suspect this deal was like others, trying to jump on an opportunity without having had the plan and resources addressed first. The initial agreement probably provided a foundation for IMHC to seek outside investment to fund the venture.
I'm glad it did not work out, because I think the MAXD audio (if sold) requires a company with a strong financial foundation, market experience, and credibility to move it forward. The MAXD audio does not need to be put in the hands of a start-up, enthusiasm based, new venture...which, in my opinion, is what IMHC was. As IMHC was apparently not able to find investors to fund the opportunity, I do not see them as being able to find customers for MAXD audio sales.
I don't disagree with the intent of selling off the MAXD audio technology, but it has to be done right, maximizing the financial return to MAXD investors.
Here's an article posted today on Google's lawsuit with Oracle. I don't know for sure, but I think the MAXD suits might impact the Oracle case, or vice-versa, if Google is found to have done things they shouldn't have. I did see in the article that Google filed for payment of their legal fees by Oracle, much like they did against MAXD. The article seems to imply that the request won't get approved.
A quote from the article:
"In retrospect it's really hard to understand what Google did here. And even harder to justify."
http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/08/judge-may-order-new-oracle-v-google.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fosspatents%2FzboT+%28FOSS+Patents%29
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that, only to explain some of the stock price spikes up and down as coming from outside sources, not inside manipulations of MAXD management.
Specifically on the IMHC deal, it makes far more sense that it is a legitimate effort to put together a profitable deal, then to address a small number of short sellers. It's clear that MAXD management is primarily focused on the legal activities in the fight with Googliath, and their history with MAXD audio sales is poor. It makes good business sense to find another method of moving the audio forward. As I recall, MAXD could realize revenues from existing audio deals (Luna and Santok) plus a share of the first two years of new deals, and potential gain from IMHC stock gain, in the proposed terms of the IMHC sale.
I actually see the proposed IMHC deal as a good move...given IMHC as a solid company that could drive the sales of the MAXD audio. Unfortunately, it appears that IMHC is not that solid company, at least not now. Who knows? Perhaps IMHC has some audio customers lined up, and can get a large investment to fund aggresive sales to those customers. Then it could become a winning deal.
But seeing the IMHC proposal as just a ploy aimed at short sellers? I personally don't think so, and that's just my opinion.
No. It's a little silly to even think that MAXD management could, or would, play any such games. While they are unquestionably over optimistic, they are not, IMHO, Wall Street sharks. MAXD stock itself is mostly unknown, and incapable of the kind of big dollar manipulations you may be implying. Until MAXD generates big revenue, by sales or settlement, major traders just don't care about it.
In my observation, the pumps and dumps that have hit MAXD stock in the past few years have been from outside sources. For instance, a few years back an online "short sellers club" discovered MAXD, played it, had success, and would return from time to time to play the stock again. For the past few years outside entities or individuals have also pumped the stock when any potential good news came up, using it to create a false excitement and pocket a quick (small) profit. Some even played a strategy of pushing the stock down on positive news releases, stirring a panic so they could pick up shares for cheap. As best as I can tell, these are small hit and run players.
I'm confident these players I've mentioned prey on more then MAXD stock. They have no long term interest or associations with MAXD; they're just looking to spring a quick buck.
It will be good to see if the Appeals judges do correct this. I posted earlier my belief that this was one of the back door deals between a local judge and local legal firm, in which a ruling is made that is, technically, not illegal...but inproper, or in error. The strategy is to put burden on the party ruled against, forcing them to spend the time and money to correct/overturn the ruling, while hoping they can't find the time and finances to do so.
This is one of the "dirty little secrets" of the legal industry, and it's always good to see things like these exposed and corrected.
Here's an informing article, revealing Google's political ties to the White House, sent to me by a friend. Google is the DNC's #2 donator in the country, and they reap strong influence and benefits for it.
http://e-edition.fairfaxtimes.com/Olive/ODN/FairfaxCountyTimes/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=FCT%2F2016%2F08%2F12&entity=Ar00108&sk=414539B0
Not a dead deal, at least not yet. Again, I like the idea that MAXD expects IMHC to show financial viability for moving the MAXD audio technology forward, and generating sales. IMHC's stock value (compensation to MAXD and its investors for the sale) is dependent on IMHC's sales success.
I don't know how the original proposed agreement was written, but I'm certainly pleased to see that there are what appear to be minimum qualifications of IMHC's performance ability.
This is about increasing investor return, not just doing a deal.
It's probably Paul Myers or Michael Spatz, the two others on the management team (in addition to Blaisure and Halpern.)
It also is likely not being paid in cash, but rather being put on the books as debt to be paid out after MAXD settles or somehow raises cash. I'm pretty sure MAXD currently doesn't have the cash to pay out $12K per month.
I consider this good news, in that I would not want an IMHC deal unless IMHC can generate and grow the MAXD audio sales. The first two years of the agreement involve some shared revenue to MAXD from IMHC sales, and no sales would be of no benefit to MAXD and its shareholders.
If IMHC can demonstrate the ability to make MAXD audio sales take off, then I'm good with the deal....but if not, a better acquisition source should be found.
Info from the 10-Q on the Santok and Luna agreements, which as of yet have not produced any sales/revenue. I do not see anything on Akyumen.
"On June 20, 2015, the Company entered into a license agreement with Santok LTD of United Kingdom (“Santok). The term of the agreement is three years. Santok will pay the Company a royalty fee of $1.50 for each licensed product. Santok guarantees to the Company a minimum total of 150,000 cumulative licensed product installation with a minimum total guaranteed value of $225,000 over the three years of the agreement. If the total royalty paid is less than the guaranteed value, Santok will pay the difference.
On July 13, 2015, the Company entered into a license agreement with Luna Mobile, Inc. of United States (“Luna). The term of the agreement is three years. Luna will pay the Company a royalty fee of $1.50 for each licensed product manufactured and sold."