EPass doesn't seem to be about a PHR, or transmission of Patient health record between EHR and PHR (446 realm), or from PHR to/from Pharmacy (883 realm). From what I gather it is a HiT search engine on over-drive, tailored to patient specific information (presumed patient provided permissions associated).

Hey TLG, how is that 8k for news?

Outstanding, Thanks S7.
I asked why would MMR put these issuances/grants in an 8k? when they always put this in a Q or K? I think MMR is cleaning up its filings for the agreement.

Item 3.02 Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities.
(a) If the registrant sells equity securities in a transaction that is not registered under the Securities Act, furnish the
information set forth in paragraphs (a) and (c) through (e) of Item 701 of Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.701(a) and (c) through (e). For purposes of determining the required filing date for the Form 8-K under this Item 3.02(a), the registrant has no obligation to disclose information under this Item 3.02 until the registrant enters into an agreement enforceable against the registrant, whether or not subject to conditions, under which the equity securities are to be sold. If there is no such agreement, the registrant must provide the disclosure within four business days after the occurrence of the closing or settlement of the transaction or arrangement under which the equity
securities are to be sold.
(b) No report need be filed under this Item 3.02 if the equity securities sold, in the aggregate since its last report filed under this Item 3.02 or its last periodic report, whichever is more recent, constitute less than 1% of the number of shares outstanding of the class of equity securities sold. In the case of a smaller reporting company, no report need be filed if the equity securities sold, in the aggregate since its last report filed under this Item 3.02 or its last periodic report, whichever is more recent, constitute less than 5% of the number of shares outstanding of the class of equity securities sold.
The link to the 8K- http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1285701/000113626114000049/body8k.htm

Notable BUYs
1:23 - 130,000
2:04 - 150,000
2:27 - 125,000
2:30 - 337,500
3:07 - 125,000
3:09 - 50,000

3:35 - 3,000 paint play

Didn't see any dumping or heavy Ask burden through the afternoon.
Yes, with exception of the paint job, very nice.

However, if you consider this a credible source for news, I would invite you to look at the archives of buys after "Peacetalks" with WebMD, or the "Congrats" with the meeting in Deerfield. The latter only tolerable because we finally see a CREDIBLE source telling us we are culminating in a settlement agreement with agreed upon deal points being drafted.

If those deal points are known and they are good, there would be a lot more buying than this afternoon. See archive buys when SCM 30 million 8k "news" hit Dec 2011 as example; too bad that one tanked for other reasons. We see an 8k, WAG PR, or joint PR on those deal points, and those deal points are what I expect, it will be huge. (note: I intentionally omitted MMR PR or MMR FB post w/exception of language speaking on behalf of WAG).

News does come in many ways. Where (source) it comes from, as opposed to how, is more important in context of MMRF's history. Knowing the source allows for better "filtration." A masterful yet incredulous source can shape a turd on a potter's wheel to resemble exactly what you have been hoping for, dreaming of; but not for your gain.

This WAG/MMR settlement agreement is a deal of a lifetime for MMRGlobal. Make or break moment.
However, anyone that knows MMRF's history, or has been with MMRF a long time, knows that the potter's wheel is still on over-drive. This is precisely why the only news that is going to get this going anywhere is people finding out from a credible source what those "Deal points" concluded were.

So when is it being delivered MarMo?
And what were the "Deal points" that were concluded by the parties?

Just checked Pacer(Infringement cases) and LASC (SCM case).
NOTHING posted. There is a lag on hanging docs on these systems.
However, I am confident enough in my search and notification setups that there is NO NEWS. Atleast not open source free from Regulation FD or tipper/tippee scrutiny.

I havnt checked the PTMO sites today, but MMR's problem isn't that it is short of another two or three patents (it has plenty), its getting a win on the patents it is litigating now.

Its a contracts case, not patent infringement. Dispute over SCM failure to pay IAW their obligation in the contract.

Technically, SCM licensing the IP in the first place says they at least SCM validated the value of the patents, to the tune of 30 million over 5 years. Technically, SCM acknowledged patent dispute within the contract driving the licensing and acknowledgement of the leverage value of MMR IP. Unfortunately, that was undermined by the parallel JER deal (same key people - Omidi - as SCM). That allowed a cloud of perceived shadiness to develop over the intent behind the SCM licensing deal. i.e. if JER was to merge with MMR, wouldn't SCM essentially be paying IP licensing fees to them selves (same key people as JER) after the merger?
There has been speculation on here about reason JER merger tanked; namely over dispute on how the RHL debt was to be handled (hence why it is important to see how RHL debt handled in this WAG deal; it will exhibit how true "taking care of the little guy 1st" statements are).

Thankfully, the SCM court filings are sticking to pure merits of the contract and status of the parties(MMR DE corporate status) at time of contract. If you want a legal opinion on filings, seek out an attorney. From my non-lawyer read, I think MMR is doing pretty good shooting holes in the constantly moving targets (read obvious delay) that SCM presents. SCM's Demurrer rejected last week (though most are). still good thing.

Its a falsehood to presume that the additional cost is all relating to the litigation.
There is continuing expansion of MMR's IP. Each one of those patent applications requires Attorney's to draft and process through the PTMO system up until issuance.

A guy that is waiting for Nostrodamette MarMo to tell us "deal points" is in the know? LOL

Only things I know (like most-from factual Ct Filings):
1- Deal Points in settlement were concluded
2- Wag/MMR moving on drafting settlement agreement

What I believe
1- That MMR's IP portfolio is rock solid and will prevail in court.
2- That BL isn't going to get out without $$$ money and his ego intact. The latter I believe is a stronger motivator.
3- That MMR made a big $$$ deal with Wag
4- That even though Liner agreement wasn't pure contingent (warrants), they still would not take what they got (5 Patent / 1 Contract case simultaneously) if they didn't have estimate they would get paid big $$$ for it. How they get paid is still concern (more warrants, or grants?)

What consistently undermines what I believe and gives me justified reason to have concern though:
1- Historical evidence of consistent BS side-show over-grandiose good news cloaked intentionally in ambiguity to cause over-zealous positive speculation beyond the reality that consistently is revealed.
2- By no-coincidence, along with the BS; heavy sale of shares into the "news."
3- Ultra sensitivity and back lash to any critique placing news in context of reality. Or is it sensitivity to any critique to the news believing it will stifle the strangely concerted sell-off?

You bring up another indicator we can look for based on your presented scenario (lawyers don't call shots, they have to take what parties settle on). An indicator that can tell us how good or limited the deal was...

That being: Whether MMR switches attorneys for follow on cases or terms of retaining Liner change.

Agree, an attorney on a contingent has to eat what parties agree to; too bad so sad for firm to over-estimate contingency value based on clients initial desires to seek more.
But I would hope that doesn't mean they have to keep representing a client under those changed conditions.
The alternative would be worse. If a firm is stuck representing a firm that they now realize will probably low ball the settlement on follow on cases, I would think the amount of quality time they spend on that case will be mitigated to reduce being bit again.

https://www.caoc.org/index.cfm?pg=contingencyfees

Completely agree with you. BUT; we have seen warrants go out to attorneys when we were told straight contingency.
Even seen the oxy moron statement "warrants provided as part of contingency agreement." It is either contingency or it aint.

That is one of the things we need to examine in this deal, though when the official answers come, it will be too late if the deal isn't big $$$ for MMR; those in the know would have already sold.

1- What is BL's take on the deal/acquisition/buyout?
2- How is the RHL debt handled (recall SCM/JER merger)?
3- Is there MMR shares given out to lawyers to make up / in lieu of sizable % on otherwise larger deal?

That would be part of the problem (foreseen) if we don't hear from her/he/it before the Feb 20 answer deadline.

While this occasion of news is very different; actual court filing that not only says working on resolution, but says "deal points concluded...focusing on drafting settlement agreement"; there nonetheless is the same side-show going on that has bit us in the past.
MarMo knew this was coming, it is obvious to me. Every day of silence up until the 20 Feb WAG answer deadline will in my mind only reinforce speculation that the deal isn't as great as the side-show portends it to be.

No doubt that there is a deal happening though-court filings say so. I figure whatever the result will be, if there isn't significant cash (e.g. it isn't much more than MMR selling their PHRs in Walgreens); it will expose Nostrodamette's quatrains for what they really were, further discredit credibility of MMR and sink the PPS.

Still counting on Nostrodamette to tell us what the "Deal Points" are before that. I think the longer it goes up until the 20th and we havnt heard what those "deal points" are or no change in PPS, I can figure what those "deal points" were.
Marylyn?

Im seeing significantly higher share amounts on the ask. Ive been watching it and it has me concerned regards the significance of what the WAG/MMR "Deal Points" actually are.
There is no denying consistently high dumping on the ask.

Mymedicalrecords.com showed up in this month's IGLiving
Article:
http://www.igliving.com/Assets/IGL/Articles/IGL_2014-02_AR_Medical-Data-Storage-for-Patients.pdf
Main IGLiving page:
http://www.igliving.com/

Copy that, but I was talking about episode in MMR history (WebMD), not pending WAG settlement agreement. It was a hit on previous instances where all you had was a BS FB post obviously designed to get you to think something that later would be exposed as just not true.
In those type of BS cases, the confidentiality (agree, typical for such agreements) is nonetheless convenient for the FB BS ambiguity and concerted pump. e.g. you can blame your intentionally ambiguous FB BS on constraints of the "confidential" agreement.
HERE, with WAG, its an actual court filing - REAL - Tangible - truth. No big deal if the agreement is confidential, so long as the main points and $$$ show up in the Q/Ks. I should have been more clear for those that were not around for the "Peacetalks" and the "Congrats" posting/pump fiascos.

Data-based response?

If this deal ended up equivalent to WAG allowing MMR to sell PHRs off their pharmacy counters, I think what is left of the credibility of BL and MMR would be tanked.
I think you would see the PPS tank further than it did after the WEBMD Peacetalks BS.

However, I think this deal is much more than that.
Its different than WebMD agreement. WebMD we just had a BS "Peacetalks" campaign, a concerted pump on here, and a "confidential" agreement (how convenient).

Here we have WAG attorneys saying they concluded Deal points and are moving to settlement agreement.

WAG/MMR Deal points please?
I think Marilyn has left the building - through the back window after the SEC knocked on the front door. LOL

Actually there you are wrong re: settlement. Parties are moving on drafting the settlement agreement. They have already agreed to the "Deal Points."
You may be very right on those points just being "selling MMR PHR off the pharmacy counters of all Walgreens."
We will see.
You apparently have not been talking to Marilyn. I can tell.

Only one thing keeping this thing from going up fast:

Concur, when you do a search on PTMO site, the hit list is everywhere (each patent) the key word (or in this case "Walgreens") is mentioned. I presume the patents that will show up on any agreement are the 446 and 883.

This is a pretty good site for patents by company, though I am sure it has some descrepancies. The one that Walgreens is claiming infringement against Riteaid, CVS and Shopko are there.

http://stks.freshpatents.com/WAG-sym.php?max=2000

Looks like people are wary of the details of the WAG/MR settlement deal. Understand completely. Still great news though.

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!! Coincidence? I think not.

Proof: The Walgreens filed joint stipulation:

MMR has never settled a patent infringement with one of the largest companies on the planet before. This is a whole new kind of future.

A settlement with one of the largest company's on the planet regards your IP, that validates your patent.
LOL

Three words that adequately, articulately and accurately counter anyone that says today's court filing (REAL-Tangible) isn't a huge deal for MMRF: Ha Ha Ha.

Good stuff today. Unlike historical PRs, FB posts, where reality consistently reveals the opposite $$$ of what is forecasted, this is the real deal here. I read the copy of Walgreen's joint stipulation on drafting the settlement agreement off Pacer. It only gets better after this one. How much better? Still going to avoid PRs and FB to answer that question; wait for the SEC filings and coming court documents for that. Regardless, only gets better after today.

Additional part of PR that is key:

NOT yet, no money awarded.
However, the PR points out what I have been harping on regards SCM putting all its counter-claim eggs into the one basket that MMR just overturned in its Opposition and follow on court ruling.

Not sure why you still perpetuate this falsehood: MMR never provided any goods and services to SCM.

Its a Lisencing agreement for MMR's IP. The agreement makes it clear what has been provided (threatened suit driving the agreement), what will continue to be provided after license:

Its not that MMR sued only a month after contract became effective; its that SCM failed to pay first installment as per their obligation. A fact that is getting ever more clear that is not in their favor.
If you read the SCM Demurrer and the MMR opposition, you will see SCM putting all their eggs in the Demurrer basket.
You will see MMR opposition turning that basket over.
My "what could SCM's answer and following filings really say now?" question was rhetorical.
They really don't have any answer. They blew their load and exposed their beef in that demurrer.
Like I said,
SCM is sitting in a gondola with a deflated hot-air balloon. And the balloon is riddled with holes so it cant go anywhere.

YES, ABSOLUTELY an outstanding court ruling in MMR's favor against SCM. no sarcasm here.
Ive already been posting how impressive the MMR opposition to SCM's Demurrer was in its gravity against SCM's most foundational claim on why SCM did not pay / perform their obligation to a contract they signed.
Also, the judge did not grant SCM any extra time to answer; slapped them with standard 10 days to answer.

Question is, since SCM's foundational counter-claim they exposed in their demurrer had holes shot in it by actual CA/DE law presented by MMR/Liner, what can SCM possibly use in their answer/follow on adversarial filings? Its like SCM is sitting in a gondola of a deflated hot-air balloon. LOL

Outstanding. 10 days to respond? Yeah, its going MMR's way. Slap damn.

To my knowledge, SCM/Omidis went through and settled all those wrongful death cases last year. That is not saying they are free to pay MMR ruling when that occurs, just that Omidi's dumped a lot of that pressure already.

Copy also that Demurrers are shot-down 99 percent of time. Difference with this one is that in SCM demurrer they put all their eggs into the "MMR not a DE Corp in good standing(late on tax); therefore contract void and reason we did not pay" as their foundational defense. Not only did MMR's opposition point this out to be wrong, but SCM shot themselves in foot further by erroneously cherry pick citing caselaw that clearly (as pointed out by MMR opposition) held that contracts are NOT void just because a temporary loss of Corporate status over tax bills.
Its already bad enough for SCM to step on their own junk. Worse for them to then mark time march on it.

After reading MMR's opposition to SCM demurrer, Im speculating MMR will get ruling in their favor. If not for entire case, at least against SCM's demurrer. MMR's opposition to SCM's demurrer literally tears SCM's foundational claim on why they didn't pay to shreds.
Enforcement / collecting damages another story.
That's where getting that original MMR writ to attach (SCM's stuff) would have came in handy, but if I remember, the Judge didn't give that to MMR. Therefore not sure how much MMR will get.

Im long as well. Always have been behind:
1- Patent portfolio
2- BIO- Potential for similar to Celgene Revlimid for Follicular Lymphoma deal.
3- PHR is actually pretty good.

That doesn't mean frustration to all Hades isn't justified about decisions cloaked in grandiose PR that are consistently exposed at a minimum, to lack insight; or at maximum, blatant misrepresentations hidden behind safe harbor.
Only explanation beyond that for such decisions and their Grand PRs (and certainly the BS on Facebook- hints hints), is that BL presumes investors (current and potential) are indeed stupid.

I know I feel more and more stupid the longer I stay a "long." NOT stupid for trusting in MMR's potential- its there. Stupid for putting up with the Ring Master's circus at incredible cost to the credibility of an otherwise great investment.

REMINDER- SCM Motion on Demurrer Hearing tomorrow. I have not seen SCM file an opposition to MMRs Opposition to their Demurrer (which was pretty good, turned their one basket of eggs upside down- all ought to read it).

Great company? SKTO? This is FAR from a good deal for MMR investor/shareholders with SKTO's background- further blown credibility/trust. The MJ "budding" industry beyond Medical does have promise. Banks don't trust doing business with MJ business still; cloudiness of Federal Laundering Laws. So even with promise of MJ, NOT good to venture out partnering with known scams when trying to induce trust in legitimacy.
Did anyone go to the "Grand Opening" of TLC Cooperative? The one that the MMR face book post said: "MMR will begin offering PHRs direct to cannabis patients on January 31st at the grand opening of the Los Angeles-based TLC Cooperative."
I found out it was a "Grand relocation event celebration." Actually been in business since 2006.
This is the one though for sure...
https://weedmaps.com/dispensaries/tlc-2-2
This is the google earth shot of its address: 1660 E. 23rd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90011.
https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&layer=c&z=17&iwloc=A&sll=34.015748,-118.244443&cbp=13,209.8,0,0,0&cbll=34.015981,-118.244282&q=1660+E.+23rd+Street,+Los+Angeles,+CA+90011&ei=zZHuUoLWDMWTyQHIhYDIDw&ved=0CCYQxB0wAA

This is their facebook page, has a post on there about their grand relocation event. I called and they did say an MMR rep was there on Friday. Just wish a trader/investor in Los Angeles had some scoop from actually attending this thing. Anyone?
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Unofficial-TLC-Collective/640429122680044

I was talking about this SKTO deal regards being disgusted. Its not my full-time job to be disgusted at MMRF, day after day on this board. So I don't believe your point relates to mine.
Its disgusting to me because there is otherwise so much greatness in MMRF's patent position and bio ownership.
Its like for every one step forward, two steps back with the second step being squarely placed in poo.
My frustration isn't with the potential of MMR and its Patent portfolio - its with the guy deciding the stepping with other peoples money - that being BL.