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.
825,352,459 listed number of outstanding shares on the 10-Q.
"On August 9, 2016 the Company has moved a level down from OTCQB to OTC Pink Current Information where it is within the continued standards and pricing requirements as found in Section 2 of the OTCQB Eligibility Standards. The company’s services, which remain active and are paid current with OTC Markets through the end of 2016, may re-apply at any time after a price increase to meet all of the OTCQB Eligibility Standards to be moved back to the higher OTCQB marketplace."
From the 10-Q
Here is the MAXD 10-Q for the second quarter:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1353499/000135349916000046/qtr2_2016.htm
It's probably more good news then bad. As I read it, it refers to being compensated for the legal costs from being sued by a "patent troll" who uses the cost of litigation for the defendent as the primary method of winning an award through a settlement. Or simply, "pay me a settlement because it will cost you less then fighting me in court". It's now apparently more likely a defendent can sue for, and recover, those costs of fighting.
This was likely the motivation for Google to sue MAXD for recovery of their legal costs after the California case was dismissed; expecting they could present MAXD as a patent troll that had tried to extort them (so to speak.)
However, MAXD is not a patent "troll". The method behind being a troll is to find someone/something with a technology/patent similar to another patent, and sue claiming the similar technology was stolen. The similarity of technologies can allow enough doubt in a court to sustain a long and expensive litigation, which the troll then uses to negotiate a settlement from the defendent, who is forced to settle to save money overall (settling costing less then fighting in court.)
The lawsuits MAXD has against Google are not trolling. They involve specific interaction between Google and the technology inventors, specific written agreements as part of that interaction, and pre-existing patents the inventors held, which Google later used in the application of Google patents of the same technologies. In short, Google stole the specific technologies, and are being called into accountability for the theft. Google is not being sued by MAXD because one of Google's patented designs is similar to another patent holders technology. The evidence strongly supports Google's guilt in this accusation.
It appears Google may have somehow increased their risk by asking for legal fees for being "trolled", when in fact they are being rightfully sued for theft. Google may also have added risk by rushing into the demand for recovery of legal fees while the case dismissal itself is being revealed to have been in error (more acurately a judge's improper decision favoring Google's legal team) in the appeal to reverse the dismissal.
The most encouraging thing I see in the article is that MAXD's legal team is quoted in it, which would indicate they are well versed in these new court practice implications, and prepared to defend against them.
Thanks for posting the article; good info for sure.
$1.68 transaction? Too funny! If so, it's just another silly price manipulation move. Of course, if the price triples, that's a dollar menu lunch (less bevarage.) Oh wait, if there's a commission involved, it might take a 10 times return just to break even!
So true...while progress is a productive thing, in the legal industry, counter-productivity is a PROFITABLE thing.
I have some good friends who are attorneys with the highest level of integrity and professionalism. Unfortunately, my own observation indicates that they are a minority in the legal industry.
This info was posted a while back. The other follow up links also contain info that was previously revealed.
The injunction requested by VSL initially received approval, as referenced in this link, because MAXD did not respond (with injunctions, the defendent is guilty until proven innocent.) There was some strategy by MAXD behind that, though I'm not sure of the details.
As it stands now, to the best of my understanding, the injunction request by VSL is set aside, and the request by MAXD to have the case dismissed (sic) is also set aside, at the legal parties request, while they engage in discussions or negotiations of some sort.
We aren't privy to the nature of the discussions, but my own experience sees this as a good thing, in that plaintiff to defendent negotiations usually accelerate the legal process time line.
As Jainash25's post reveals, there are scheduled dates, but not for hearings, just administrative process. The completion of that activity should lead to hearing dates.
Also, it appears that the Arbitration Court ruling is holding up the progress of at least the California MAXD vs. GOOG case.
There is one solid published date I'm aware of; on August 12th there will be a CMC (Case Management Conference) of the Attia/ASL/MAXD case against GOOG. Technically, this is not a court hearing, rather a private meeting between the judge and opposing legal firms.
Legal progress is very, very slow.
You're part of an agenda, and your opinion is anything but unbiased...and it's more then obvious. Facts have no place in your review of the company and its associated activity.
The court process is not limited to formal court hearing dates. Much of it involves administrative procedure, with deadline dates for completion, that ultimately can lead to a formal hearing.
If I understand Rurouni's post, there are formal disussions between the legal firms at this time. The judge will allow this in hopes of settling a case and avoiding trial dates and court usage (the courts are overbooked, so they ideally want as little trial process as possible.)
When all administrative duties are met, and when no negotiations are in progress, the court will take the next step and schedule a hearing date.
The behind the scenes discussion and process can be used by one side as a delay tactic, which is unfortunate. I don't know if that's the case here, but it is what it is.
Like of all of us, I would like to see all this stuff start wrapping up!
So..Google used Vedanti's accusations/claims as the foundation of it's request for dismissal of the MAXD case against them in California?
That's how I read what you're saying here, and certainly it makes sense, as apparently VSL/Vedanti were trying to back door MAXD and negotiate directly with Google.
What it does in the immediate time period is hard to determine (for me.) Litigation moves at a snails pace (actually, snails look like land speed record holders next to the pace of US courts.) The expected result of the Appeals action, as I see it, is to simply restore the dismissed California case against Google. The VSL/Vedanti vs MAXD case should result in the removal or denial of the injunction request. The Arbitration case should confirm and validate the MAXD/VSL/Vedanti written agreement, restoring licensing and legal control of the video technology to MAXD.
Which is to say, all the current activity does not appear to be leading to an immediate settlement (which I would love to see!) Rather, it would just remove the delays that stalled the cases, and allow the lawsuits against Google and Netflix to proceed. While I personally think that Google should settle and get this behind them, it is not historically what they do.
So, I'll wait to see exactly what dialog/rulings come out of the court's mouth. With what little information is available now, it does not appear that any sense of urgency exists for Google. I do sense a weakening of Google's position, and strengthening of MAXD's, but again, without a real sense of urgency on Google's part.
I hope I'm wrong!
We might be seeing the selloff, finally, from this short term pump and dump...not fun, but I wouldn't mind these players going away.
MAXD price accuracy should be based on real news. Let's hope the court activity ramps up for August!
Right, but they're not going to be large sales if no one is buying (bidding) volume to an an uptick.
The more liquitable range of the stock is to the down side, and volume for downtick transactions is considerably higher right now.
Even if the price jumps up over $0.02, it only means something if it's reasonably liquitable at that price.
We all know that on a play by pump/dump teams, they'll be looking for new outside investors (not aware as to what's really going on with the stock) to commit to buy in at the higher levels, so the pump/dumpers have someone to sell off to.
The risk for a rapid price increase stock, with only minimal support, is a rapid fall...
Still, as I see it, the ruling from the FCCOA is just a first step that, if favorable to MAXD, opens the door to additional proceedings. In other words, I would not expect the entire legal package to wrap up in the days immediately following the appeat ruling. Rather, it seems the appeal ruling merely allows everything to resume.
What I'm basically saying is that there's still a time line beyond the court ruling.
We would all love to see a global settlement immediately after a favorable appeals ruling, I'm just not inclined to believe Google has a need to rush to settlement that quickly, if at all.
Really, we don't know until it happens. With legal matters, it's very risky to speculate. Legal is a different world.
I just hope the courts get on with it! None of us likes the waiting.
I wouldn't rely too much on the board postings as to the effect on the current stock price. There was what I believe to be a artificial run up, and now the price is being propped up by mostly small volume buys on the uptick. There was a little bigger buy at the end of the day today, but for the most part, buys up are around $120.00 transactions.
I'm expecting a sell off and abandonement soon, which has been the pattern I've seen in the past.
Not to say MAXD isn't going to see a real return to a higher price; I just don't see it happening on rumor alone. Real news should bring a real reaction by the stock.
I'll be there next to you ezweze!
Personally, I do believe we'll see it back up there, and zooming past, based on my due diligence so far. Unfortunately, it's likely I only see maybe 10% of what's going on out there, so my diligence is limited. I could be wrong, but I'm praying I'm not!!
One of my key inspirations is the legal team having taken on the MAXD cases on a contingency. That speaks volumes, as they're in it for profit only, and willing to front what may be costs as high as seven figures. I just don't see those powerful firms haphazardly risking their own cash.
Akyumen and Luna have both signed agreements to put MAXD audio in their mobile devices, but things could have changed since the agreements were signed. We've heard nothing to confirm yay or nay to MAXD actually being installed, as no products seem to be in USA production yet.
As with everything else, we'll have to wait until the fat lady sings, in this case by way of product being completed and on the shelves for purchase.
Whoops! Thought you were talking CDEL, the most common player. My mistake.
GLED I believe is Glendale Financial, who brokered for MAXD going public. They've been with this from the beginning, so it could be a good sign of confidence. It could also be a simple positioning in order to recoup their investment.
Regardless, I'm not inclined to see other investors moves on speculation as a sure fire validation of that speculation...but to each their own.
Wrong you are. That speculation can be played to move the stock up and down. In other words, it has nothing to do with the potential success or failure of the company, only the PERCEIVED potential of the company (by other traders.)
Whoever or whatever is trading from a broker that uses CDEL has been consistently playing small percentage increases and decreases to take quick, generally small, profits from MAXD stock. When MAXD starts trading by appointment, the CDEL identifier often sets both the buy and sell levels.
I'm confident the source behind these trades has no long term investment interest in MAXD. MAXD stock is just easy money for them while it's in this weakened condition.
Some interesting posturing here, much of it a little more obvious then their posters think.
The simple truth remains that all is speculation until it becomes reality. The reality for MAXD will come in the form of published court rulings, and completed product sales and revenues.
Waiting is a pain, but waiting for real news, and not speculation, would seem to be a safe investment decision.
This particular price jump is likely just a result of some market making, trying to create some excitement from the latest news or rumors. We'll know if that's the case when the sell offs begin and profits are pulled, leaving MAXD to drop back down.
This type of short term activity has happened before to MAXD. I'm speculating, but I think there's a group of investors that prey on select small cap stocks, moving from company to company to create activity that allows them to pull quick profits. I don't think these traders have any associations to the companies whose stock they manipulate; they're just "pirates", so to speak, roaming the stock market seas looking for isolated ships to plunder.
The real stock activity, IMHO, will result from confirmed news on MAXD. That news will be regarding legal case activities, and/or sales from MAXD accounts like Akyumen and Luna.
Let's hope the court is ready to rule on the validity of the contract, including rights over all entities of the technology, as the agreement states.
It's always good to finally get past all the legal delays and posturing, and finally get the court to actually examine the evidence. How novel is that?
MAXD investors have been patiently waiting; it's time to hear from the courts so we can move forward!
Lookhu has not worked out apparently; no revenues, and only a web page with no new products. This is old news.
Ok, if those were the demands, then certainly they were unreasonable. $20 billion is way, way out there.
$20 billion? Is that what VSL/Vedanti was expecting, or wanted, for a settlement amount??? I can't see Google offering that.
That's I think extremely unlikely. In fact I think it might be an amount well beyond the highest patent infringement award ever given.
I really have no idea where the settlement could be, but anything above $1 billion would certainly make me happy!
...and here comes the sell off! Pulling the profits!
We all hope so, but I personally get concerned over some occasional hit and run traders who pump out silly optimistic phrases to encourage a quick short term, small gain, pump and dump.
They were here before, and I suspect will return at the first sniff of positive news that can be played.
Watch out for them.
Great to hear that the legal stuff is progressing. It's frustrating tolerating the endless delays, while the merits of the cases lay dormant. To finally get some ruling and resolution will be a huge relief for investors!
Wait; you're saying MAXD sued for an injunction against itself?
Well said; our legal system has some shoring up to do. To 4retire's point, my post was regarding a legal strategy that can be used across multiple suits, and multiple companies.
In my own experience, I felt the company that accused me falsely was attempting to extort me. In effect, it was an attempt to force me to pay them to not pursue a litigation process that would force me to pay out legal fees to defend myself. Simply put, it's "give us money, and it will cost less for you then defending yourself."
That is a type of extortion, in that I was completely innocent, and could prove it beyond doubt, so no legal action should have been allowed. The worst part is the court system both enabled, and supported, this activity.
It would be like being accused of a crime in New York, when you had undisputable evidence that you were in Los Angeles at the time, with the court forcing you to go through the entire pre-trial process, without being allowed to present the alibi proving your innocence until the trial started. The alibi evidence should immedietely remove you from any further legal activity...but it doesn't work that way with many an injunction request.
Good question; why did you bad mouth MAXD on my speculation?
Umm...in case you didn't notice, MAXD does have representation, and is fighting.
My point was to reveal an ugly side to the court system, not to give you opportunity to bad mouth MAXD.
Oddly, you made no attempt to bad mouth VSL for taking a nasty strategy, if this strategy was in fact their intent.
For the record, the strategy I discussed has been used against me, and that's how I learned about it. I never imagined I could be guilty until proven innocent, particularly on a completely false allegation, but the legal system demonstrated this major flaw as part of its offered services.
MAXD looks well poised to get through this, but we'll only know for sure after the courts make their respective rulings.
This is a classic example of the dark side of the civil court legal system, in my experience. In the case of this type of injunction, the defendent is guilty until proven innocent.
The strategy is clear; it is to force the defendent to spend large amounts of money to defend themselves, with the hope that they can't afford to. The court will not allow the defendent to be heard without legel counsel, and allows for the typical endless legal filings that can run up the bill. In this way, the legal system can assist unethical actions and abuse. As long as the money flows, the system is good with it.
The only opportunity for the defendent is to spend the money, and lose the time, in order to get the evidence supporting them to be heard. Usually, if the injunction is without merit, the plaintiff will drop the case just before it comes under court review in a hearing.
This case might provide an explanation of motive to trash the MAXD stock, and prevent other investment possibility. The strategy would be to force financial failure, effectively removing MAXD's ability to protect themselves. The legal system only considers justice for those who can pay for the price of legal process. The courts, in effect, use strong arm tactics against the defendent, in support of the plaintiff.
The strategy fails if the defendent can fight back. While the court will often attempt to protect the plaintiff from accountability for their actions against the defendent, they can only do so much. The plaintiff then is at risk of a counter suit by the defendent to recover the costs and damages from the plaintiffs actions.
Justice only comes with proper investment, and IMHO I think that's always been the real issue here; can MAXD be forced out by an inability to "pay to continue?".
With all this in mind, it helps explain the growth of the litigation. The battle between VSL and MAXD seems to have become every bit as complicated as the battles with Google.
Ultimately, it is MAXD's investors who become outside victims in the hands of these events.
One of the more bizarre things I've ever seen is how VSL is both a plaintiff (as VSL/MAXD), and a defendant (as Vedanti), in the same case (FCCOA appeal.)
This is awkward, to say the least. I'll be happy when this is sorted out, and we all get clarity on the activty that led to this unusual situation.
Why wouldn't Google's willingness to discuss settlement be a sign of weakness, using your reasoning?
The truth is, the vast majority of lawsuits never go to trial.
Yes, the initial settlement talks are part of the process. But would you think it wise strategy to tell the judge that you refuse to participate in those initial talks? Do you think the judge would be impressed by that?
In the legal arena, you play by the legal industry rules, or you fail.
An incorrect filing procedure can destroy a case....don't expect law practice to be what sounds reasonable to you. It is a totally odd and unfamiliar world to most people, and does not work like other industries.
I believe that Max Sound will win confirmation on the right of representation of the VSL/Vedanti technology, based on its written agreement with VSL. There's been a lot of distraction thrown out to make it appear that the agreement means nothing, but it is the center of the dispute, and bears the greatest weight to any court decision.
As far as the fight with Googliath; by now Googliath would have destroyed a small company like MAXD, were there nothing there. Evidence released so far has indicated improper activity to varying degrees on Google's part, from the post-it notes, to the ruling by a judge in favor of causes of action in the AST suit.
Emotion by outside observers has no influence on the legal process. It will not alter the way the courts rule. With respect to that, the only sure option is to wait and see what happens.
Stock down on massive $1000.00 of trading volume so far!!!!
We're talking the big news on Wall Street this morning folks!!!
LOL !
Discussing settlement is great news...but it is only discussion. Better then no discussion at all, possibly reason for hope, but no sure thing.
My experience in settlement discussion has often seen something like this:
Party A: We want a million dollars to settle.
Party B: We'll give you 50 bucks and a cup of coffee.
Settlements take time, but a serious commitment to finding an acceptable solution is always a good thing.
As best I can tell it is that VSL/Vedanti may have proceeded with legal filings without following acceptable court procedure. For example, in my experience, some filings must be presented to opposing council for review prior to the filing, I think usually as a method to allow a prompt response of a filing of their own.
So too, accusations or claims must be reviewed. I don't think a party can ask for a judgement on evidence that is introduced for the first time.
MAXD not participating is not necessarily unusual either. I myself had a situation where my opposition attempted to get me to fly out of state to attend a hearing so they could essentially "pre-interrogate" me in the court, even though I was not named in the suit, nor was any reason given for my having to be there. The judge in that event tried to intimidate me into going (a little home cooking), but I refused. The judge referenced in the post could have sided with VSL, as stated in the post, but sided to what? He could have sided to move on to a scenario that could require attendance from MAXD, but he would need sufficient evidence/justification to do so.
The inference I also see in the post is that time allowed MAXD to respond in some method, and perhaps VSL to fail to respond or present info to the court. VSL may be revealed to have used improper procedure, to have used unjustifiable accusations in its request, and/or possibly violated ethical or legal gidelines in their activity.
That's all pure specuation on my part, in trying to interpret the post. As with everything, let's wait for the courts to rule. They will dictate what will be defined as truth.