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.
I don't know the details as to how or why things changed, but note that the source of the info is the legal team, not MAXD management.
It's not a patent contract; it's the representation agreement. It's not difficult to understand.
There are four different legal events in play right now, but the topic being discussed was the hearing in San Diego this week.
Agreed, those claims should never have been made.
Regarding the agreement; questioning is good, but if you have the agreement in front of you, and you have doubts about the position it has MAXD in, I recommend you read and review it personally.
"On April 13, 2016, after receiving all of the evidence the Court made the following determinations: (1) The Court determined TopFemaleExec-2014 to be that of Constance Nash. However, while the Court determined TopFemaleExec-2014 to be that of Constance Nash, it determined that the Injunction Award was limited to VSL Communications, and would not entertain any alter ego analysis. (2) The Court determined that the Injunction Award was ambiguous as to whether VSL Communications was required to withdraw its striking off proceedings. (3) The Court determined that the Injunction was further ambiguous as to whether it pertained to “online” commentary."
I see this as Nash being excluded (but not VSL Communications) from the injunction on a technicality.
I would not be surprised to see MAXD request from the arbitration court an expansion of the injunction language to eliminate this loophole.
What a pain legal battles are! From a business perspective, it's almost always a lose/lose proposition (excluding the legal firms.)
"Yesterday’s OSC ruling allows MAXD to move forward with its various actions against Google and others, including filing an appeal in the US Infringement Case Against Google. “We intend to appeal the court's decision and are confident that it will be reversed by the court of appeals," said Eric Buether of Buether, Joe & Carpenter, Max Sound's lead council in the United States’ case. This Appeal and other corresponding litigations are slated to begin being filed within the next 30 days."
THIS IS KEY!!
Why don't you start by reading the agreement? It seems a little short sighted to speculate without reviewing the info right in front of you. Here's the link:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1353499/000121390014005920/f10q0614ex10xv_maxsound.htm
Note too that the original document filed with the SEC included exhibits to further confirm the patents and technology descriptions that the agreement referred to.
If you read the VSL/MAXD agreement, you will understand the "So What?".
The agreement has no dependency or stipulations tied to a contempt charge or ruling. It stands alone, outside of any such things.
Sadly, it appears that the MAXD "side" was being falsely presented by Rurouni. Be it intentional or not, he inferred way, way more then was actually going on.
The interference by VSL was to dispute the agreement. MAXD obtained some type of restraining order, which VSL/Nash did not comply with. A judge ruled that there was just enough doubt to not rule for contempt (perhaps doubt as to whether the contempt was intentional or not, I don't know.) The judge did not deny that VSL/Nash interferred. MAXD can, in fact, still sue VSL for financial damages stemming from the interference (in a new lawsuit; such is the legal system), provided the agreement is valid.
The German and USA courts stopped the cases on the doubt presented. Courts will do that, without investigating and ruling themselves, in effect saying "go figure this out, get a legal ruling, and then you can come back."
From day one, MAXD should have been confirming the validity of the agreement. I'm not sure where the focus on the contempt charges came, but that could have just appeared that way due to the Rurouni postings.
MAXD has done press releases stating that they would get their standing (right to sue for the VSL technology theft) verified. I'm assuming they have done so, or are in the process of doing so. It would be good to get an update from them.
As far as I can determine, the arbitration court ruled the VSL/MAXD agreement valid. I say this because they issued a court order against VSL/Nash. I don't believe the arbitration court would have done so for an invalid contract.
We could feel much better if we saw some news from MAXD that confirmed that the validity of the contract is not in dispute.
The MAXD/VSL agreement, from my interpretation, gives MAXD 100% representative control of the technology. Not even VSL, Vedanti, or any other entity can license the technology without MAXD's approval.
As I'm not an attorney, or a judge ruling in court, it is necessary to hear confirmation on the agreement from the parties involved in the litigation.
To be honest, I'm surprised MAXD has not addressed this issue with direct language in some press release. Hopefully, they will do that soon.
Until then, this recent hearing appears to have been nothing more then a tool for someone to use to push the stock price down.
As far as the contempt charge ruling, SO WHAT???
Whatever the ruling (charge dropped), it has no bearing on MAXD, and never did. The contempt was between the court and VSL/Nash. In truth, MAXD had nothing more from participating then providing testimony to assist the judge in making her determination on contempt.
What is key for MAXD is validation of the agreement.
If the agreement is valid, the GOOG and NFLX will not suddenly be free of liability because Nash was not ruled in contempt. The case for theft of technology has no dependency on anyone being charged with contempt.
So too, if the agreement had been ruled invalid, and Nash found guilty of contempt, it would not suddenly make the agreement valid. The validity of the agreement has no dependency on anyone being held in contempt.
Something else important to note: the judge's ruling did not stamp approval of Nash's activity. The judge only stated that a reasonable doubt existed for finding her guilty of a contempt charge.
VSL/Nash is still under a court order to not interfere with MAXD.
Spoke to a friend who was there yesterday. Nothing really changed as a result of the hearing. What frustrates me is that the clear agenda of the hearing was rolled over by false hype, creating a false expectation.
The hearing was never about anything more then determining if charges would be brought against Nash for contempt of court. Nothing more, period. Although the judge did apparently feel Nash had done some improper things, with regard to finding Nash guilty of contempt she felt that a reasonable doubt did exist, and therefore withdrew the charge.
And that was it. Nothing else was on the agenda.
I'm beginning to suspect Rurouni is an anti-MAXD poster. The inside info was a little too strong, the hype a little over the top, and the "Chairman and CFO" tag clearly implying the holder of those positions at MAXD, Greg Halpern.
But Greg Halpern is not Rurouni (what Greg testified in court.)
So, all the expectations for this hearing were created by Rurouni hyping things well above and beyond what the court had on its agenda.
Some strange things are in play here. I'm hoping to get some clarity soon. There could be some seriously ugly stuff going on.
The hearing doesn't begin until 1:30 PM PST.
I would look for news sometime tomorrow.
Optimism and enthusiasm are wonderful, but reality is far better. Let's wait for the rulings, and any future announcements confirming success.
All MAXD investors are hoping for the best, but the best reality, not the best speculation. Until it happens, it is only speculation.
There is a half day session tomorrow on top of a completed day long session; last week's court activity was not erased.
The desired result I'm hoping for has already been ruled; that being the validity of the agreement. My fear would be that the agreement validity somehow might be overruled, but doing so would be going against legal precedences that have been in place for decades, and open up a massive legal industry can of worms for other similar cases.
No. The amount is already fair, and agreed to.
VSL and MAXD both stood to benefit well from a fair settlement offer, if the rumors are true. I believe the terms of the agreement give a 50/50 split after legal fees.
VSL aparently wanted more, but stopping the cases in Germany and the USA was foolish; it did not/would not work for renegotiation to a bigger share, nor would it allow for access to settlement funds with no settlement happening. It would not strengthen VSL in an individual legal fight against GOOG and NFLX. (VSL would technically be able to pursue GOOG if they won their argument against MAXD, but not likley have the means to do so. That's why they partnered with MAXD in the first place.)
What caused VSL to suddenly want a greater share is unknown, but there's absolutely no reason for MAXD to rewrite the agreement. I suspect there may have been outside parties influencing VSL's actions, but that's just a theory.
The argument VSL is now taking in court implies something very ugly; that is, they wrote an agreement for representing the technology, but in truth (their argument) the agreement was actually tied to a worthless entity. Fortunately for MAXD, the agreement was properly written to prevent that claim; the technology is clearly part of the agreement, regasrdless of the entity name(s) it may be under.
VSL took the risk that stopping the action would benefit them in some way. My thought is they felt they could take a 100% settlement share, and leave MAXD with nothing.
The hearing results will provide some clarity, and I hope more information will come to light after that time as well.
Google is not part of, and has not been part of, the hearing this week. The San Diego case involves an arbitration ruling between VSL and MAXD.
Actually, the topic did not come up when I spoke to my friend after the hearing. We spoke again last night, and he remembered three things MAXD requested. MAXD's desired outcome is likely beyond these three things, but I believe they asked the judge for (in general terms):
- VSL to remove whatever filing they used to halt the case against Google in California.
- VSL to do the same in Germany, remove whatever filings or actions they used to halt the cases in Germany.
- VSL to remove all statements on InvestorsHub stating that MAXD had/has no licensing rights for the video technology.
Back to a desired outcome, I speculated on the obvious, which I believe to be to remove the doubts about the agreement created by VSL, and return to MAXD proceeding with lawsuits against Google and Netflix, and generating licensing sales of the VSL/Vedanti video technology, as per the terms of the agreement.
I was under the impression that the judge would give some type of annointing to the agreement, ending all dispute as to its validity. However, that appears to have already been done back at the time the court order was issued, as a court order would not have been issued on an invalid contract.
My friend said that VSL's attorney argued that VSL's agreement with MAXD did not include the technology under Vedanti control, trying to create a distinction between Vedanti and VSL. I see that as a request to reverse the ruling of the agreement's validity. I'm confident that MAXD would not want an outcome that invalidate's the agreement, and so speculate that they want a final undisputable ruling/annointing of some sort from the judge. I don't know that the judge needs to add anything more, other then to formally deny VSL's attempt to remove the Vedanti technology from the agreement.
Based on the written language of the agreement, and Ms. Nash's signature of the agreement, I don't see any chance that the judge will allow VSL's request. Still, it can only be classified as speculation on my part; we all need to wait for the hearing to conclude. It's the court that has the final say.
I need to correct this; Mr. Halpern was asked if he knew who Rurouni is, and he replied that he did not. Mr Halpern was not asked if he himself is Rurouni.
Well, MAXD has the answer to their desired outcome. I'm just speculating on what they're looking for. The obvious thing is the confirmation of the validity of the agreement between VSL and MAXD, allowing MAXD to proceed under the agreement's terms and conditions.
As far as a money award; I could see requesting compansation for damages from losing the opportunities in the December 8th hearing in Germany, particularly if MAXD was on the brink of a setttlement with Netflix and Google. My experience in legal sees that as a valid request. However, the legal process would likely require a separate hearing, or hearings, to present information as to the application and proof of damages from VSL's interference. Who knows; it might even have to be pursued under a new lawsuit. As such, I would not expect any ruling in this hearing on financial damage compensation.
Not just yet; I need to do a little fact finding, but hopefully it will be resolved soon.
I was also very surprised to learn that VSL's attorney revealed information publicly that may have been a violation of privacy regulations. I'll be doing more research on that; perhaps there is a possibility that it can be addressed at next weeks hearing.
Again, from an attendee's observation: VSL's attorney made many arguments, and the attendee felt some of them were compelling. However, he noted that the judge, whom he described as extremely sharp (intelligent), did not appear to be swayed, and on occasion stopped the VSL attorney from going a particular direction that she apparently felt was off track or irrelevent.
This is not a jury hearing; only a judge will rule. As such, many of the commonly used misleading or diversive tactics by attornies fail, because the judge can see right through them.
So, IMHO, this hearing will be based on the evidence, and how it applies to the law. If you review the MAXD/VSL agreement, I think you will see it is quite clear. I expect it to be enforceable, and the prior issuance of a court order would seem to confirm that.
IHub rules do not allow discussion of the personal names of (any) IHub posters. If you try to identify an individual here, your post may be deleted for privacy violations.
The sky is not falling. RELAX. The hearing ran out of time before it could be completed, and will finish next week.
Everyone knows that courts book in advance, so the hearing would not continue this morning. I'm glad they will be able to squeeze it in in only a week.
Not that I recall; he was mostly surprised by the amount of detail (process) that happens in a courtroom. He was surprised at how long it ran, and apparently even then they still had one witness to go as time ran out. Hence, the continuation into next week.
With my experience in legal matters, it comes as no surprise. The court has to allow as fair an opportunity as possible for all parties to present their arguments, and I think sometimes that privilege is abused (just my opinion.) The court can't be all things to all people, but it usually tries to allow enough time for fair process.
Again, take a deep breath everyone. I heard from someone who attended today's hearing. They had not finished hearing all the testimony before closing time (courts don't do overtime.)
They're apparently finishing the case next week.
As a rule, legal moves slowly. If any testimony or detailed arguments are involved, it will take time.
Remember too, the hearing was scheduled for 9 AM, and then there's a lunch break not too far after. I would think it would conclude around 4 PM, then everyone will vacate quickly to try to beat traffice out of town (which will be terrible this afternoon as it's raining in San Diego.)
We should get some info on what transpired in the court by the end of day tomorrow.
But limited facts, from an apparent small time frame you have observed from.
CDEL is the service provider that some individual/entity, that has been manipulating the stock for some time now, uses. They aren't getting out; they are positioning for their next manipulation. Things have been too easy for them to walk away now.
I'm not sure who/what out there is trading through VFIN, but it could be the same scenario.
Still, to support your point of view, it appears some recent exercized options are being sold off. MAXD, based on their 10-K filings, purchased many services in exchange for shares, and obtained several loans/investments with options for share repayment. As many of the recipients of these shares have no long interest with the company, they could be liquidating their shares. How much of this type of sell off occurs is an issue, but I don't know how it can be quantified by anyone outside the company.
The August hearing is for the EA Systems vs. Google case in California. From my perspective, that case is proceeding favorably, if slowly. All the case filings can be downloaded for free at this link:
https://www.scefiling.org/cases/docket/newdocket.jsp?caseId=1052
The time line of what happens after the hearing tomorrow, with respect to the VSL/Vedanti technology, is a tough call, but it will involve:
- A settlement with Google and Netflix for a lawsuit in Germany. Part of this may include licensing fees from Netflix going forward (recurring revenue) above the settlement amount. As this was rumored to be near completion just prior to the VSL interference, it could happen as early as summer.
- A settlement with Google in the USA is an unknown; the case must be resumed, then we will see if the Germany results motivate Google to settle, or continue the fight, in the USA. There are global implications to how they proceed, as the VSL technology is in all Android products, YouTube, Google Chrome, and others. This could take years to conclude, which I believe is Google's preference, but may also finish much sooner in light of some of the other lawsuits (Apple and Oracle) Google is about to lose.
- The licensing of the MAXD and VSL technologies to some major product manufacturers, opened up for final approval after a favorable ruling tomorrow, should close in 2016, and hopefully be just the first of many orders to follow into 2017.
They are certainly fallible, but I don't believe they're money foolish. Getting into a fight with Google is a often a seven figure legal bill. I don't think a legal firm would risk that much money without a high assurance of winning.
To Quantum's point; no way is Google intimidated. They're some of the biggest bullies on the block.
If you review the legal teams for MAXD, however, you'll see that they're big dogs in this specialized legal arena. They're well aware of what a fight with Google involves, and powerful and experienced enough to beat them.
Trying to push the price down further are we? Have not seen you post here before, but now you're foretelling the doom of MAXD?
Consider that MAXD's legal team took this case on a contingency.
I'm thinking they would not have done so if they felt it would not be profitable, but that's just my opinion.
What won't for sure be happening tomorrow:
- A Google and Netflix settlement in Germany.
- An announcement of multiple revenue producing orders.
- A Google settlement in the USA.
That's not to say that the above are not possible in the future, or even near future; only to say it's not happening tomorrow!
So, I'm asking all of you to consider that tomorrow's hearing is only a step in the operations of MAXD, and hopefully a very positive one. But in itself, a favorable ruling is only a start down the road to success, and MAXD has to continue to move forward before the market gives it any real value.
I would love to see a favorable response that pushes the stock out of the sub penny range, but there seems to be a majority of buyers who want to hold the stock down, as it apparently suits their needs in doing so.
Ok everybody, take a deep breath!
The hearing tomorrow is not going to bring world peace, and end hunger and disease forever. Seriously, it's not going to do it!
It is an important event for MAXD, no doubt. But it should only restore the MAXD relationship to where it was supposed to be, before the disaster in December. I see that as:
- MAXD should be free to pursue a new lawsuit against Google and Netflix in Germany.
- MAXD should be free to resume the lawsuit against Google in the USA.
- MAXD should be free to license and distribute the VSL/Vedanti video technology, including packaging it with the MAXD audio technology.
- MAXD may be awarded financial damages for VSL/Nash's interference.
- Nash will likley be fined by the court for Contempt, and there is a small chance she may face jail time (although that's unlikely.)
I don't expect anything beyond that to be addressed by the court. We will likely hear the details of the hearing on a MAXD press release Friday morning.
I think that's a good indicator of the manipulating going on. Drive the price down through the day, stock up on bargain pricing at the end of the day. That last buy represented about $22K in investment.
I think that after pushing the price down, the bad guys are stocking up, looking to push the price up again, using the speculation of the Thursday hearing to fuel the trades. Of course, after they clear their profits, they'll want to short and push the stock down.
Sadly, MAXD is very vulnerable to this stuff right now.
The current trade activity has nothing to do with reality. The stock is being manipulated by bad guys, ones who prey on small cap stocks that they can pump and dump with ease, pull out some quick cash, and go on to the next small cap they prey on.
They're using the upcoming hearing as fuel to support the extreme trading. By that, I mean they are trying to make us believe that there's a bunch of traders out there waiting in wild anticipation of what happens next, that MAXD is the talk of the market. It isn't.
The typical MO with these guys is to push the stock up on the anticipation of the upcoming event (whatever the event may be; it doesn't matter, it's just fuel for them), sell off just ahead of the event, then dump and create a panic on the day of the event. Stealthily buy in on a stock, drive the stock up, pull profits, short sell down. That's how they work it.
This time looks a little different. They pumped and dumped last week, and pulled profits. This week they faked a pump, and have since driven the price down. Oddly, I see a positive in this. I believe the bad guys are expecting the news from the upcoming hearing to be good enough, legitimate enough, to move the price up. So they're running it down now, staging a "panic" scenario, and looking to buy it back as cheap as possible. They'll then look to run it up after the hearing, and pull their profits shortly thereafter. How soon after the hearing they act will be interesting to see. They may pump it the day of the hearing, trying to create a false impression that something incredibly good happened, and that the buy time is now. Or, they may choose to wait a few days. They usually prefer the faster hit and run method.
In any case, the real reflection of the MAXD stock will come after these guys finish their crap, and move on. Then we'll see how the real investors respond to the hearing, and to future events.
Easy there Flyhigh. I'm thinking MAXD stock is not the center of the stock market universe, not even close.
No matter what happens in the proceedings Thursday, this stock is not prone to immediate substantial changes, except by hit and run false manipulation (which is occuring now.) Most of the trading world does not even know MAXD exists; it's a small cap stock.
Real investors will want to review and carefully analyze any and all impacts of the events around MAXD, and they won't be doing it in the first 10 minutes after the hearing finishes Thursday.
Watch over the next few months to see what transpires. Do due diligence, but don't hang your hat on a single event to blast MAXD into a multi-dollar stock.
All anyone knows for sure right now is that the next event is happening Thursday, it's results will likely be posted the following day, and MAXD's work challenges will continue from there.
Not listing the Vedanti entity by name means nothing; the agreement clearly defines VSL having rights for Vedanti or any other name the technology might be under. Nash, the inventor and principal of Vedanti, signed the agreement, validating it.
Claiming now that VSL was not able to assign the technology could imply that VSL/Nash defrauded and misrepresented to MAXD, a very, very serious offense.
Copied from the agreement:
"VSL is the lawful rights holder of all worldwide Intellectual Property Titled Optimized Data Transmission System and Method ("ODT"). Together MAXD and VSL shall hereinafter be the ("Parties")"
"VSL legally owns and controls all of the worldwide rights, title and interest to all fields of use of its Trade Secrets, Patents, and all other know-how, through its affiliated entities and owners, including the rights to license, the rights to develop and market ODT and the Rights to Sue ("RIGHTS TO SUE") and Legally Defend and Uphold its Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets and Proprietary Technology. ("TECHNOLOGY").
"VSL hereby grants to MAXD the Rights to Represent VSL, ODT and the TECHNOLOGY, and the RIGHTS TO SUE as set forth more fully in this Agreement; and
"WHEREAS, VSL and ODT Technology with certain intellectual property typically referred to as the Optimized Data Transmission System and Method which among other things can reduce multi-media content and data files by 97% (Ninety Seven Percent) during the encoding/decoding process"
MAXD has full distribution and licensing control of the VSL/Vedanti technology. If you read the agreement you would know that.
They do not have owbership the technology patents, nor should they.
I don't believe the people behind the pump and dump have any association with MAXD. They are a group that likely preys on several small cap companies, in a hit and run approach. They have hit MAXD a few times before.
They reveal themselves on this board through first time posters who sling out silly one liners trying to create excitement, or panic, depending on which direction they're driving the stock.
I doubt they make much money on a stock valued as low as MAXD, and much of the volume could be between themselves. But it's quick and easy cash they can get away with. I suspect the SEC is not aware of them, as they fly below the radar, in dollar volumes too low for the SEC to bother with.
That will be great if it happens. It has not happened yet, so I say let's wait until it does. Speculating now doesn't do any good; I believe the stock can only recover on confirmed news.
I'm not trying to be negative, only saying speculation is of benefit to no one on MAXD stock at the moment. The 10-K looks frightening, but it wasn't good before, and we all knew there was nothing new to make it look better.
I would love to see some big announcements on revenue generating deals, and I'll personally stay hopeful, but also personally can't trust rumors for MAXD.