I am not a betting person, but I believe they will file.

If they intended to go non-reporting, like SunnComm, then they would not have filed the NT 10-K that stated they would file within 15 calendar days. They simply would have not filed the NT document

[X] (b) The subject annual report, semi-annual report, transition report of
Forms 10-K, 10- KSB, 20-F, 11-K or Form N-SAR, or portion thereof will
be filed on or before the 15th calendar day following the prescribed
due date; or the subject quarterly report or transition report on Form
10-Q, */10- QSB, or portion thereof will be filed on or before the
fifth calendar day following the prescribed due date; and

Why is mrfence banned? Multiple aliases?

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/seebans.asp?board_id=1596

Mrfence,

Actually I wasn't suggesting that you had used the term politically incorrect. I thought someone else had used it.

The idea being that, it was allowed to expire at a time in which a lawsuit was basically challenging the patent. The Eula is a part of the software and the patent.

No you are way out there. The EULA has nothing to do with the patent. In fact the EULA came from BMG, not SunnComm.

The lawsuit was in no way challenging the patent and it doesn't make sense to let it lapse because of the lawsuit. In fact rather than let it lapse, they applied for an extension of time to respond on 12/16/05 and by then the lawsuits and controversy were well underway.

Just because something is in a patent, doesn't mean you have to implement it. And if there are some claims made in the patent that might appear to be politically incorrect and could prove an embarrassment, then all you have to do is drop those claims. Patent apps are far too costly a process that one would drop the application at this late stage and then reapply.

That patent application had 29 different claims and ALL 29 were rejected because of Prior Art. IMO SunnComm simply were in a hopeless position with all 29 claims rejected and decided to waste no further resources fighting the rejection. Prior Art is Prior Art, so what arguments did they have in their arsenal to get the rejection overturned?

Sometimes it is better to just walk away.

Mrfence

There seems to be a lot of erroneous assumptions relating to the 4 patent applications you listed, which includes the one in Kenco's post.

Firstly because the patents do not yet have an Assignee, it doesn't mean they are owned by the inventors. I would think Peter and Eric's contracts stipulate that any inventions made by them will be assigned to SunnComm (or MediaMax). So I am not worried to see SunnComm not listed.

20050177516 System and method of protecting digital content

The suggestion that patent application 20050177516 (2nd on your list and the same one as in Kenco's post) was rejected because it was politically incorrect or because it suggested spyware is false. That application was rejected long before the fiasco last November/December. The 'non-final rejection' was made 6/16/05 and the reason given was that all of the claims under the patent were already anticipated by others. I think "Prior Art existed" is the correct term. SunnComm had the opportunity to respond to the non-final rejection (they even asked for a time extension to do so), but never responded. Thus the USPTO designated that patent application as having been abandoned.

Rejection of this patent application is worrying, because it seems to cover the technology that is central to the working of MediaMax. I don't believe that means we infringe on anyone else necessarily, just that we cannot patent our protection method (so anyone else can effectively do what we do - increasing the potential competition).

Of the other 3 patent applications on mrfence's list

20050278256 System and method of promoting copy-managed digital content

This has the status "Final Rejection" as of 10/24/05

20040103115 System and method of protecting digital content

This has also the status "Abandonment for Failure to Respond to Office Action" as of 10/31/05. It too has a non-final rejection issued that SunnComm didn't respond to.

20040103044 System and method of protecting and promoting digital content

This has the status "Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU" as of 3/1/06

I am not sure what that status means, but I assume that it is positive that it is still active. That patent application seems to cover the Promo-mail feature only, from how I read the description:

A system and method of marketing digital content such as audio and video works involves collecting recommendation information as to a specific digital work and a specific individual to which the digital work is being recommended. Preferably, this is accomplished by software that is provided in a second data session of a digital recordation of content, such as a CD or DVD, containing the digital work. The software gives the license holder the option to recommend one or more works on the digital recordation of content to a third party such as a friend. An Internet server receives the recommendation and contacts the third party using electronic mail, providing a unique link offering access to the recommended work on a limited basis for promotional purposes.

Sting,

We have been in the silly season since mid-December. All those posts that have been telling us that the mess we are in is the best thing that could have happened to us. Plus these...

Our product had no defects....
Even though we missed 3/31, our 10K will be timely....
We can sell our patents to Microsoft....
Kevin hit the floor running....
etc etc

What on earth has the SP got to do with having an Annual Shareholders Meeting? I think this is just a feeble excuse not to have to front investors.

Steh. I couldn't agree more.

"Maybe MSFT will buy out their patents? "

I don't believe they have any issued patents on their current technology, just patent applications that seem to be going nowhere.

Mrfence,

Our group did research that a bit some time back.

The product that SunnComm co-authored was called the data session toolkit. This isn't the underlying DRM, which is Windows Media, but an interface to it. It lets the record label easily create Windows Media Files to put on the second session of the CD and also has interfaces for the user end. Its great that SunnComm were acknowledged as a co-developer.

No problem Bleu. I understand where you come from.

Consultant shall have the right but not the obligation (the
"Put Right") for a period of 30 days following the second anniversary of the
Effective Time (the "Thirty-Day Window") to require the Company to repurchase
the Put Right Shares, free and clear of all liens, proxies, voting restrictions
and other encumbrances for $.10 per share or $1,000,000 in the aggregate.

How silly of me. I assumed he would actually get the $1M. But he must ASK for it before he gets it. How did I miss that performance requirement. I mean that's right up there with having to get a signed contract from EMI or UMG and having to secure a few million in finance.

His "performance requirement" is he must ASK for the shares to be bought back for $1M, in which case MMXT are contractually obliged to comply.

mrfence

Can you fish for the consulting agreement dated 11/2/2005???
in 2 minutes???

I GAVE YOU THE LINK????

So you think those are performance requirements too? LOL.

Did I say Jacobs IS a consultant?

Don't know about Whitmore, but Jacobs was to become a consultant.

He was to get 10M shares and had the right to sell them back to the company after 2 years for a guaranteed 10 cents/share. That is a cool $1M.

"WAS TO BECOME" is not IS. "WAS TO GET" is not "WILL GET"

"eh um you tell me!"

I will. It is NOT a performance requirement.

That's a performance requirement? LOL

I'll save you looking.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1057024/000119983505000572/exhibit_10-11.txt

To pre-empt an expected reply, please note this clause:

SECTION 15. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire
understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof,
supersedes and replaces in its entirety any and all prior agreements of the
parties with respect to the subject matter thereof, and cannot be changed or
extended except by a writing signed by both parties hereto. This Agreement shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective
legal representatives, executors, heirs, administrators, successors and assigns.

It shouldn't take you more than a few seconds (as in under 2) to list the performance requirements.

mrfence...

please also feel free to list the performance requirements.

And what are those performance requirements?

I don't see anything of note in the filed consultant agreement. Perhaps you can provide the details?

Don't know about Whitmore, but Jacobs was to become a consultant.

He was to get 10M shares and had the right to sell them back to the company after 2 years for a guaranteed 10 cents/share. That is a cool $1M.

New Principal Executive Office Address.

886 N. Cofco Center Court # 1053

It used be:

668 N. 44th Street

Is there anything significant in the change?

Perhaps Kevin could have worked out the name of the company he is working for by now. That is so unprofessional. We are not MEDIAMAX, INC., but MediaMax Technology Corporation.


MEDIAMAX, INC.
----------------------------------
(Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

Has caused this notification to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned
thereunto duly authorized.



By: /s/ Kevin Clement
Date: March 30, 2006 -------------------------
Kevin Clement
Chief Executive Officer

No.... Late Filing. NT 10-K "Notification of Late Filing" just filed


http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1057024/000119983506000201/nt_mediamax-123105.txt

"The Registrant's annual report on Form 10-KSB could not be filed within the
prescribed time period because the financial statements required to be prepared
by the Registrant's independent auditor were not completed and made available to
the Registrant in time for the annual report to be filed in a timely manner."

"Is here any disadvantage or penalty or declaration for using the "grace period""

The declaration is the company must file a form NT 10-K or NT 10-Q, so investors can see how often they have not been timely. This shows MMXTs history

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=mediamax+technology&CIK=&filenum=&State=...

The NT form must state the reason for the delay.

This is an example of Quiet Tiger's NT 10-K, 2 years ago.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1057024/000119983504000111/formnt_12312003.txt

If the reason seems plausible, most investors will accept. Continuously failing to file on time would obviously raise some issues of competence.

Sting.

The SEC deem it LATE, not timely. Can you provide a link to support your statement?

Sting

Where do the SEC say that a filing within the grace period is timely? The NT form that you must file prior to the expiry of the 90 day period calls the filing "late". Just check any NT form.

Just because there are no consequences attached doesn't mean its timely.

It's something that should be brought up with the SEC rather than me. I am just stating what their position on it is.

mrfence,

You are nearly there. It's not so much the frequency as in high or low notes, but the frequency as in bit rate, as tdj said. That was already in V5 and is part of the "on the fly" creation of Windows Media Files.

You see the same thing when ripping unprotected disks with Real Audio or Windows Media. You can chose the bit rate (although many would accept the default, not knowing what it means). The higher the bit rate, the better quality the sound. The downside is that higher bit rates take longer to rip and require more disk space. In V3 MediaMax had pre-ripped Windows Media versions of the files at a fairly low bit rate (I can't recall, but maybe 24K or 32K). This was necessary as there was only so much left over space on a CD to hold the WM versions of the tracks, in addition to the normal audio.

With V5 and "on the fly", the WM versions are not stored on the CD, but are created "on the fly" when the user wants to download to the PC. The WM versions are created there and then and the user can chose a much higher bit rate than the pre-ripped V3.

Bit rate is analogous to pixels in digital photography. The more pixels per square inch, the sharper the image. The downside is the same. The image will take up much more disk space.

Sting

Let's call a spade a spade

If MMXT decides a fifteen day extension is needed, it does not make the filing late!

Using the 15 day grace period means they are LATE.

They will have to submit a NT 10K. The NT 10-K is called:

"Notification of Late Filing"

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1057024/000119983504000111/formnt_12312003.txt

I'm really don't think it is a big deal if they are late, but I do tire of things not being called what they are. Our product didn't have defects, although we had to issue fixes for it. Now we are saying that filing after the deadline isn't a late filing, even though the SEC calls it a late filing.

One would think that the labels would know if DRM is effective or not. They have been testing various DRMs for years, not just for CDs but for other distribution methods. I am sure they have tested the same releases with and without DRM in various markets and their decisions to continue with DRM would indicate that they see DRM as being, on balance, positive.

If the labels were to reject DRM completely, then it would obviously not be good for SCMI/MMXT. Unfortunately the use of DRM seems to be in those markets for which we do not have a product (digital downloads) and the one market we have a product in (CD distribution) is dead for the time being.

DRM for downloads is dominated by Windows Media from Microsoft and Fairplay from Apple. I do not believe there is even the remotest chance that any other download DRM format could compete as it would require garnising the support of consumer device makers to come on board and they have nothing to gain from supporting a new unheard of standard.

Our only hope is that the labels will at some stage revisit CD protection.

"You would have us censor mario, yet allow these others?"

No, there is a difference. Mario has stated in a few posts that he is the company IR Consultant. As such his posts would be viewed as being endorsed by the company. Without a disclaimer, his posts carry an authority that no other poster has here.

You don't hire people to be independent. You hire them to do what you want them to do.

Don't get hung up on titles. This is the real world.

SharonB

Its all here...

http://www.aacsla.com/what/overview

Stating the truth is off-topic?

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying it is OK to post incorect information concerning the company and its products, but to post the correction is off-topic?

Bleu

He is independent of the company hence the "independent consultant" title and has some financial arrangement that will not be terminated until the merger is completed

The financial arrangement means he is not independent of the company.

It is my understanding that he does not have the blessing of the management to post here.

Then let the company state that here. Better still, the moderators should add to the board header that SunnComm and MediaMax Technology do not endorse what Mario posts. The board moderators should remove any post from Mario that does not include a disclaimer saying his post is not endorsed by the company and he is posting his personal opinions only.

After all, the moderators don't want readers to be misled, do they?

IMO the reason that neither company acknowledge him as IR consultant is because they do not want to be held accountable for what he says, but they continue to employ him because they want him to to say what he is saying.

amx8559

I strongly suggest that you go read up on Blu-ray and HD-DVD.

They have absolutely nothing to do with MediaMax. They use a content protection system called AACS that has absolutely nothing to do with MediaMax.

AACS information is competely in the public domain.

Just because they have a common denominator of digital keys is meaningless.

If anyone from SunnComm or MediaMax Technology tells you that the Blu-ray or HD-DVD formats have any connection with MediaMax or anything produced from SunnComm, you are either being lied to or you are talking to someone who is completely clueless.

Screamingeagle,

SunnComm/MediaMax employ him and if they do not agree with what he is doing they can terminate his contract at any time. Also, it is not that Mario posts buy recommendations that I disagree with, it is that he posts false information.

The company knows it. They should drop him forthwith as IR rep. But IMO they want such information posted, so that is why Mario is still IR Consultant.

Masha,

Mario can post here as often as he likes for all I care. This is a public board.

However, SunnComm and MediaMax Technology continuing to employ him as IR Consultant reflects badly on both companies. Most here agree that Mario cannot be trusted. He represents both companies, which means they endorse what he does.

Clement has had a few months to make his mark. Mario remaining as IR consultant IMO means that Clement is no different to Jacobs.

sahd3

What I find utterly incomprehensible is why SunnComm and MediaMax Technology continues to employ as IR consultant someone who has no credibility and is willing to offer nothing but bs to the company shareholders.

Unfortunately I can only conclude that both companies actually employ Mario for that very purpose.

As IR consultant, whatever Mario states must have the company backing. If he continuously gives false information as he clearly does and the company continues to employ him in that capacity, then the only conclusion is the company wants investors to be fed false information.

One might accept the occasional error if subsequently retracted, but continuous misinformation seems to be the norm.

Does anyone know when MMXT will file their 10K?