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.
Max Sound (MAXD) closed today at $0.01 per share on volume of 1,620,600 shares.
There were no apparent press releases today by Max Sound (MAXD), and no posted SEC filings about Max Sound (MAXD.)
Max Sound is currently in legal proceedings with Google Inc. (GOOG.) There did not appear to be any posted news today on the progress or activity of legal actions between Max Sound (MAXD) and Google (GOOG.)
New MAXD press release with update:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/max-sound-corporation-offers-litigation-010926321.html
Loses??? As I understand it, Google's motion to dismiss the appeal was denied.
In other words, Google asked the court to dismiss MAXD's appeal (and in doing so keep the contested case dismissal in place), and the court denied Google's motion.
The court denied Google from stopping MAXD from appealing, and reversing the dismissal.
The court has now approved the appeal by MAXD to be ruled on next month.
Some of my observations from today's hearing audio:
- It appears Google's intent is to gain time by getting the court to uphiold the dismissal, and have MAXD file a new lawsuit. They seemed to focus on the failure of the original VSL/MAXD written agreement to include the name "Vedanti", or reference the number (339) of the associated patent.
- MAXD's primary argument is that the cause of the dismissal, that of MAXD not having standing, was incorrectly ruled. MAXD argued that the agreement, and Nash's contribution to it, clearly refers to the Vedanti technology of the 339 patent, with Vedanti being a subsidiary of VSL.
- Neither party, nor the Court itself, disputes the right of VLL/MAXD to sue Google now that there is a new agreement between them. In other words, the lawsuit will happen, whether it be by way of a reversal of the dismissal and resumption of the case, or a new suit filing.
- MAXD's attorney argued that MAXD would be harmed by time lost from not having the dismissal overuled, and the case resumed. I think part of that is related to time lines to the claim filing. This seemed to be offering reason to the FCCOA to not take the easy way out, and not over rule the dismissal, knowing that MAXD can still sue Google. In other words, the court might unintentionally harm MAXD by not taking action by reversing the case. Later, the FCCOA judges did state that MAXD would still be able to sue for all claims in a new lawsuit, but they also did not seem to dismiss the possibility that some harm could still impact MAXD if there is not a reversal. At some point too it was argued that Google's filing for recovery of legal fees from MAXD would be disallowed if the ruling is reversed. Would MAXD still be liable for legal fees if the case is not reversed, but a new lawsuit is filed?
- MAXD argued that they always had standing to sue. The Vedanti name was not written, but VSL was a new entity created to issue representation of the Vedanti technology, confirmed by Ms Nash herself, verbally and as the concurrent CEO of Vedanti and VSL. The 339 patent is titled "Optimized Data Transmission", which is the written language in the agreement, clearly defining the 339 patent. Regardless, the VSL umbrella is stated to globally cover all technologies, including Vedanti owned technologies.
- The FCCOA judges appeared to consider the possibility that the dispute between VSL and MAXD is outside of Google's liability, perhaps implying that MAXD may have been defrauded by VSL, and therefore MAXD needs to take action against VSL, and not Google. On further discussion, they appeared to acknowledge that the MAXD/VSL dispute did/does not release Google from the lawsuit liability. Maybe I can better state that as the judges implying that an internal dispute between VSL and MAXD can not be used by Google as a cause for dismissal of the claims of the case.
- Google's attorney seemed to emphasize that there were no prior legal cases to use, for reference, in which an agreement would "expand the rights of a party to represent the patent". They argued this in a strange way, seeming to agree with MAXD's argument that VSL did have control over Vedanti, and the right to issue representation of the Vedanti technology to MAXD, but also insisting that this did not give MAXD the right to sue on behalf of the patent itself. It seemed strange in that Google's argument at this point seemed to agree with MAXD's argument that it's representation rights allow MAXD to sell, license, and distribute the technolgy of the patent (all forms of legal representation), but then Google claims an exception regarding the right to represent the patent in protecting it against infringement. The written agreement between MAXD and VSL made no such limitation or separation, as I recall. In effect, Google's attorney seemed to be attempting to define the meaning of "representation" beyond what the written agreement states. My impression is that the FCCOA judges were not openly receptive to the argument.
Even though I can't say what the final ruling will be, I am encouraged in knowing the lawsuit will go on, either as a resumption after a reversal, or a newly filed case. Of course, I prefer an immediate settlement, and an end to all this litigation!!
No doubt in anticipation of a ruling coming Monday from the Appeals Court. I would expect the dismissal granted to Google last year to be overturned, and the lawsuit restarted. This is mainly because Google's argument of MAXD's not having standing to sue can no longer exist. Now, as co-owner of the patent, MAXD has complete standing to sue. The original dismissal ruling was awarded only on the judge's belief that MAXD did not have the right to represent the Vedanti technology, but the recent change to patent co-ownership with Vedanti / MAXD clearly confirms MAXD's right to represent the technology.
I found this view on the Netflix/Google relationship. I read into it that Google is not charging for an ISP service that has the Vedanti technology embedded in. That has no doubt helped it to be widely used on the internet. But the fact that Google did/does not charge for it does not mean that MAXD/Vedanti can't, or won't...so a cost liability to MAXD/Vedanti possibly exists for every entity using the Google ISP. I'm not sure that's the case, but it appears to be so. I hope the Germany legal rulings can provide better clarification for us.
"Some people questioned what does Netflix has 2 do with Alphabet Inc. Google Settlement. n Y would Netflix wants 2 settle as well or even b4…
What association does Netflix has 2 do with Alphabet Inc. Google n Y they seem 2 b together on litigation?
Read carefully with $$$ in MIND -
Google said that it doesn’t charge companies like Netflix for a direct interconnection to its Fiber Internet network. Such connections are necessary to deliver online content across the so-called “last mile” of the Internet to users’ computers. Netflix has paid other ISPs, such as Comcast and Verizon, to establish a direction interconnection to their networks and boost streaming speeds.
“We don’t make money from peering or colocation,” a Google Fiber official wrote in the post. “Since people usually only stream one video at a time, video traffic doesn’t bog down or change the way we manage our network in any meaningful way — so why not help enable it?”
Google’s argument is essentially the same as Netflix’s—that Internet service providers have already agreed to provide customers download speeds at a certain rate and should honor those deals without also charging content companies to meet those speeds. Companies like Comcast argue that there are costs associated with delivering the large amount of video data Netflix carries into people’s homes, and Netflix should bear those costs instead of everyone that uses a given ISP. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler has said that the FCC will look into Netflix’s complaints regarding paid peering agreements.
Though Google Fiber is an ISP that could theoretically make more money charging companies like Netflix, it’s a minuscule part of Google’s business that is mostly aimed at shaming traditional Internet providers like Comcast into building faster networks (faster Internet means more Google searches, which means more advertisements served).
Free peering deals are another opportunity for Google to attempt to set a standard that other ISPs might follow. Larger parts of Google’s business, such as YouTube, would greatly benefit from a future where content companies don’t have to pay ISPs to guarantee their content streams speedily in customers’ homes.
Netflix is Alphabet Inc Google biggest internet customer. N all of Alphabet Inc Google customers will infringe on MaxD/Vedanti ODT PATENT….$$$$$"
Other recent info I found on the MAXD legal cases:
"Food 4 Thought -
Settlement offer from Alphabet Inc. Google n Netflix insinuate MaxD/Vedanti ODT PATENT r like to prevail in the litigation in the EU. After the verdict it will give MaxD/Vedanti even more POWER 2 negotiate a higher settlement price as well as ongoing royalties. The rest will b history with other infringing companies….FB, AMAZON, etc…
There r no reasons 4 a power house like Big Giant n Netflix 2 even consider the offer.
Keep in mind once January 9Th rolls in, Alphabet Inc. Google has conceded that Vedanti is the PATENT OWNER n the original STAY PENDING as requested in regards 2 STANDING issue will rise again ….n that is where they make an offer of settlements in the USA.
With the IPR, Big Giant is grasping 4 straws throwing in New Arguments n Failing to Specify Where Each Element is Found in the Prior Art.Also the PTAB stated they will ensure New Arguments will not b considered as evidences. This is major development…I am so excited once the US litigation is mirrored with the EU litigation.
Some of u r whining over pennies fluctuation….I am looking at the whole picture of SETTLEMENTS, ROYALTIES N LICENGING AGREEMENTS…
Once MaxD/Vedanti get this, it won’t matter ..Market Maker can only play so much…
Smiling ^_^"
Some updated EA Systems / MAXD / Google legal info I found:
Additional Case Against Google
Our case number "2014-1-cv-274103" has made significant progress (CA case for theft of Engineered Architectural Systems building design software, which Google had valued internally at potentially generating $21 billion annually in gross sales.) Stay tuned for an update and possible resolution on this matter in late January 2017. January 27 Hearing New Judge Honorable Brian C. Wash
EA v Alphabet Inc. Punitive Damages looking good, EA/MaxD zooming in on this closely.
Remember Alphabet Inc. Google conceded they breached the contract; however, the statue of limitation has expired is the Big Giant claimed…will not with stand..very interesting ^_^
Alphabet Inc. Google been using delay tactics, settlement is imminent, it will cost them more if they don‘t settle…hoo hoo O_o
Statement on both parties 2 b turned in 15 days b4 Hearing.
UrbanLegend, you really need to contact Netflix's legal team to show them how you can free them from these proceedings. I'm sure their legal staff is lost, and can richly benefit from your expertise!
If you had done your due diligence, you would have seen that MAXD filed lawsuits in Germany after the German officials confiscated Android devices at a trade show, and physically verified that the Vendati technology was being used in those devices. It is likely the same holds true with Netflix; the use of the stolen Vedanti technology was verified in their broadcasts.
Netflix was sued in Germany (separately from Google) by MAXD, shortly after MAXD sued Google. Netflix will pass through any legal liability to Google, since the claim is for use of technology they sourced from Google. I would assume that's why Google and Netflix are coordinating their efforts....Netflix is Google's customer, and Netflix expects Google to take care of the problem.
I don't see an "automatic rally" as practical, in that this is not a hot stock that everyone's (particularly larger traders) watching closely. I would expect a day or two for a real price response, perhaps even longer. Immediate price jumps or drops on MAXD, IMHO, are short term traders trying to pull a quick profit by creating an emotional fear/greed response.
MAXD stock has a history of the price being pushed down on perceived good news. This is likely done by some bad guys trying to create a panic to get a better price for them to buy in. I noticed the last buy of the day was for something like $80.00, on a down tick. That could be something to consider.
Congratulations on the sale! May it end many frustrations for you, and allow you to move on to bigger and better things.
"Vedanti Systems Limited settled with John Blaisure, CEO along with the blessing of the founder of Max Sound, Greg Halpern. All parties put their differences aside."
Bravo! This is a great thing to hear, especially after all the wasted time (from an investor viewpoint) spent fighting!
By way of packaging the Vedanti video and MAXD audio together, something they could not do until now.
The PR claims co-ownership of the patent between MAXD and Vedanti Licensing:
MAXD's CEO John Blaisure says, "This strategic partnership has been carefully thought through by both companies. By working together as co-owners of this important international patent portfolio, VLL and MAXD will have significantly more legal and financial strength to effectively implement our global enforcement monetization program."
I had not expected that, as licensing alone can allow for economic return. Co-ownership might indicate a stronger level of committment and sales capability.
Excellent News!! No more "term" agreement, this announces a completed deal.
I assume the arbitration case will now be formally dismissed, if it has not been already, as the dispute between MAXD and VSL/Vedanti is ended.
I hope to see the lawsuit in Germany against GOOG and Netflix refiled shortly...the sooner the better.
So too, I hope to see the Appeals court overturn the dismissal of the case against GOOG in California, particularly as there is now absolutely no dispute of the standing of MAXD to bring the suit against GOOG. It will be curious to see how that appeal proceeds. I guess there is a hearing scheduled in January to argue whether or not Judge Davila incorrectly interpreted MAXD's standing, based on the old agreement, but the new agreement should confirm that MAXD has standing without any dispute...making any arguments to the previous actions irrelevent.
"Intellectual property law firm Buether Joe & Carpenter is co-counsel in both suits..."
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/271079641.html
The link you posted is a year old (CEO update.) On what do you base your claim that 1/2 of the lawyers "no longer believe the strength of MAXD's infringement claim"?
This can be for any number of reasons, and is typically done for a change in the nature of the case. It does not imply an abandonement of the client...which would not be financially wise with a contingency based fee.
We need more specific information.
A dismissal does not confirm that one party has prevailed over another. For example, a dismissal request by the legal representatives is done when a settlement is reached, indicating that there is no need to proceed with the litigation, and requesting the court close the case. It can also be done when the litigation is refiled to address a change in the specifics of the claim.
I'm confident the courts are not conducting their activity based on what is said on this message board.
What aspect of waiting for official (non-speculative) news don't you understand?
Show you proof?(lol)
How about proof that no no official word is yet given, and the discussions are speculative.
Relax everyone! It's obvious that Vedanti Licensing was created to accomodate a new or revised agreement between VSL/Vedsnti and MAXD.
Let's wait until official announcements are made to confirm or deny that purpose; these discussions are just speculation, and will not change the events now in process.
Waiting for solid info sucks, particularly with the long delays we've all had to endure already, but it is what it is.
I think a quiet period will only be beneficial is it's followed by positive news, good financial news, etc. Let's hope we see that after this quiet period!
"the con?"
The market value of a stock is whatever people choose to pay for it. And here's something remarkable; it changes!.
I'm not sure what value a story has, but I know that if I buy a stock, then sell it later at a profit, it has value to me.
If you have any Android products, and if your TV streams internet (like ROKU, or something similar), they are "running applications licensed to them by someone with purported Vedanti rights".
I'm sure you're aware that, given your in depth understanding of the claims of the legal actions in the USA and Germany.
No doubt your piano player is a little nervous these days!
I suppose you could be correct in assuming most legal firms would invest multiple hours over a couple of years, generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees, before addressing the issue of any standing for a lawsuit.
My own experience in legal is that the very first action by a defendant, after the filing of a legal claim against them, is to request a dismissal by the court of the case for lack of merit. Of course, it's likely I don't have your legal expertise; I'm just trying to understand all this time and cost invested by Google, MAXD, and VSL, over something that is...as I understand your observation..nothing.
No doubt you say this after your expert review of the written agreement posted publicly with the SEC years ago.
So, you're saying that agreement never gave MAXD rights to anything?
I see written language describing exclusive global distribution rights to license and distribute, and also to pursue litigation....but I may be wrong in assuming that what's written is what exists...
Certainly that must be so; I'm pretty sure most legal firms, when faced with suspicion that a client may not pay them, immediately offer that client services on a contingiency based fee!
"What I was interested in knowing is whether there is in existence an actual product that could be used to handle video and audio data in some beneficial way, licensed under the patent."
As for the video; given that Android devices in Germany were confiscated as evidence, I would assume there is an actual product....but perhaps that's a reach on my part. So too, given that Google copied the patents under their own name, in some cases word for word, I might assume that Google felt there was a product as well. More so, given that a product has been running on Google video products since 2010, it's likely that the existing product is a product.
As for audio; as far as I know there are many devices that combine audio with video; my TV, for instance. As to a method, I believe the software is part of a chip (such as a Qualcomm Snapdragon), but I do not believe the software for the audio and video are required to be mixed together under one software program. I could be wrong.
I don't believe that the Vedanti patent and MAXD patent are required to be merged into one in order for the video and audio to be used on the same device...again, I could be wrong.
Just a thought; you might contact Google's and MAXD's legal firms and advise them of your findings. No doubt you can save them a boat load of legal fees when you reveal to them that, based on your review, no foundation for litigation exists....I would think they'll be very grateful.
Here are some of the original patent request details:
https://www.google.com/patents/US7974339
What? Do you mean the Vedanti Systems Ltd. (VSL) video codec that was stolen by Google, and is at the heart of the past year plus of discussions and disputes?
As I understand it, Trumax is an audio/video bundled package. MAXD was planning to team with TMMI to promote and sell this package, but apparently that partnership never materialized.
I recall something saying the TMMI audio portion was actually the stolen VSL codec licensed through Google, though I have not seen anything to confirm that.
If it were baseless, the cases would be gone, the legal teams would not be racking costs up under the contingency they are in, and VSL would not have tried to kick MAXD out and take a settlement for themselves.
With the 3rd quarter filing due on Tuesday next week, and recent activities, I'm hoping MAXD will reveal some detail as to the immediate plans of the company. I would love the public report to include the following:
- Confirmation (copy) of a new executed agreement between MAXD and VSL Licensing, and any other related corporate entities.
- Details on the new Vechery Family Trust ownership, which ultimately now own 1/3rd of MAXD.
- Confirmation of the new float volume, which should be about 1.2 billion shares.
- Any updates for the ongoing legal activity.
- Any updates on sales, particularly updates on Luna and Akyumen.
- Confirmation that MAXD is now able to "bundle" sales of the MAXD audio with the Vedanti video, and the company's plans to move that forward.
- Acknowledgment of any changes in management resulting from the ownership change. I still believe MAXD needs operations and management leadership. Greg Halpern and John Blaisure are promotional/marketing people. They can remain in that role, or be shifted to other duties.
WOW! There was a confusing post on this earlier, but this SEC filing makes it clearer. What it would indicate is that MAXD now has a majority shareholder that is not part of the original founding and management team. I'm not sure of all individual percentage ownerships, but this group now owns 33% of MAXD.
I don't see this as a bad thing, and it could be a very good thing, given the record of success of the new ownership (Harvey and Linda Vechery)....or not, only time will tell. Much to look into on this.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1353499/000149315216014283/sc13d.htm
One of the Vechery's companies:
https://keybrands.com/info/about
Being that a term sheet (which is understood to be outside court activities) would require public filing, per SEC rules, it is likely no final document has been agreed to. Not to say it won't happen, only that it has not yet, from what we can see.
This does not say that the legal firm the two attornies work for, Grant & Eisenhofer, no longer represents MAXD. Nor does it say what case it refers to. In the arbitration case against VSL, MAXD originally used a local lawyer, which did not work out well, then brought on some part of the team involved in the other litigations.
It would make sense for the Grant and Eisenhofer attornies to be removed from the arbitration case, if they were on it, and if it has been resolved.
Also, MAXD has three legal firms, I believe from New York, Texas, and California, that make up their legal "team". These two attornies only represent one of the firms.
Last, there's nothing to indicate that, if this is regarding one of the cases against Google, Grant and Eisenhofer are not reassigning attornies for the case.
While that sounds reasonable, I think what you're failing to consider is that it's not MAXD behind the silence...it's Google. Google requested the sealing of documents. I think we're all aware of the tendancy of MAXD to put out press releases that reveal activities planned, but not necessarily completed. MAXD has done press releases on court info before.
Google has very much at stake in these legal activities. In the EA Systems case, Google founders Eric Page and Sergey Brin are personally named in the lawsuit, along with Google corporate. In the VSL/Vedanti/MAXD case, all things Android are effected. In addition, there are some parallels in the MAXD case that could harm Google in their massive, and very public, legal fight with Oracle. Google needs to keep this under wraps, and they certainly have the means and methods to do so.
One of the common misconcenptions in civil law is that it works in a "public" methodology. It is in fact an industry that serves its own needs, and caters to the money stream. It's a nasty business. In that sense, I would say the greatest assurane we might take, for the moment, is that MAXD's legal team (a very highly respected player in the legal industry) is still onboard, and still on contingency. They have not panicked or quit.
"Nov 08 is 2nd extend deadline to reply 2 the court. Now think about it closely, that day will b publicly show where Vedanti n MaxD stands n where it will go with the Alphabet Inc Google litigation."
It's good to get a date of something, finally! I will be hoping for an announcement confirming that all disputes between MAXD and VSL/Vedanti are ended, and that MAXD/VSL/Vedanti are moving forward with all lawsuits against Google.
On top of that, I'm hoping to see a new licensing agreement, one that will allow MAXD to bundle the MAXD audio with the Vedanti video, to sell as a package to customers. The combined package is a much stronger position for the MAXD audio, and should actually generate some new, non-legal related, income.
"what legal action are they pursuing? How do you know this if they don't reveal the outstanding actions & their statuses?"
Go back and look at the original complaints filed with the court; they haven't changed. The VSL action (through arbitration) is an added case since then.
"Lawsuits & court dates are already public record. What "legal reason" do you think they have to not communicate this information clearly to investors?"
If you'd been paying attention, you would have seen that Google requested the court to seal court documents, on both the VSL and Attia cases. They are now only accessible to the legal teams, and not public.
To your point earlier about not hearing anything, you're wrong in your assumption. If the suits were failing, Google would have filed actions to close out the cases already, and possibly filed counter suits. They took those actions earlier on the California MAXD/VSL vs Google case, the one that is expected to soon be overturned in the appeals court. In other words, Google would be very noisy if they were sure they have won these cases.
I think you should call MAXD, and inform them that they must submit all info of activities, accounting themselves to you personally...they may not be aware that you expect them to do this.
No news is no news....as the courts move on at a pace that makes a lava flow look like a mach 2 jet.
Here's some news from the Eli Attia/EA Systems lawsuit. It appears the case information is no longer public, and restricted to "registered" folks only, but I found this article from a couple months back. Basically, it takes at least one of the "causes of action" which had been ruled in Google's favor, and reverses it.
That now means at least three of the five causes of action in the lawsuit have been approved by the judge to move forward in court against Google.
What's unique is that in my review of the Google argument, Google seemed to admit to doing what they were accused of, but denied being responsible due to the statute of limitation expiring. With the reversal, I see this as a very good ruling for EA Systems...but would love to see what an attorney (expert) thinks of it.
http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202765039155/Judge-OKs-Trade-Secrets-Suit-Against-Google?slreturn=20160912223458