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.
Mr jay I won't argue with you but you have no idea what you are talking about. I was there last week didn't read everything because there's too much but did see the web site copies and information in the exhibits. I only went because I was within a few blocks for my job you should go so you will have some clue about what you are always babbling about. You will find out everything you thought you knew is just a lie. Done with you clowns for a while.
Mr retire I did see documents showing the defendants web site information for those ten years at the courthouse. If they want answers there's about ten thousand pages of them there. Some of it redacted but even some of that you can figure out from what it says before and after. Lawyers aren't always that smart. BTW I don't post often because I now know what is going on and these guys don't really want to know so why waste my time.
Mr fooled that would be great if true but if you read the 1996 iterated agreement and lawyer letters it was all a lie and TMM didn't own it according to the judge. Another one from the filings is TMM says they bought code from DFI but DFI never had it as an asset on taxes per legal requirement because they had transferred it and all shareholders to DFMI in 2000. And TMMs star witness Simpson already pled fraud. The judge must be laughing her butt off!
Mr jayxlaxstewpicker you drank the coolaid so who knows how many posters you are. Fool talks, you should listen! He knows all!
Mr jayxlaxstewpicker I am just doing my due diligence to see if I should load up on this stock or take a massive dump on it. Tough choice!
Mr retire I think mr laxjaystewpicker is going to get deflowered in May by his buddies. Can't confirm any tech, patents, licensing rights, nothing! Except a lot of unsubstantiated website BS.
Actually the poor English was from quoting you. Don't make fun of Fool, he's got this figured out, which makes him smarter than most posters here.
Mr picker you said new management are a bunch of liars and scammers? And pump and dumpers? Sounds harsh! OK, maybe not but you said it not me. Be careful you may get kicked off the illegal insider info list.
Mr picker you say you know who I am? Who is "we"? You have a mouse in your pocket or are you and mr lax close buddies? You would have no reason to know me I don't know you, I don't associate with people who try to pump penny stock shells.
Mr jay if TMM loses then the other side can't also lose, they keep their 2.0 code and probably sue TMM for whatever's left. Sloan sold out eons ago makes no difference if he was there in the beginning. Same for Barnsley he sold out too neither have patent rights to that stuff anymore and Kramer never did.
Mr jay Sloan took the money and bailed out of iterated ages ago. He has no say in who owns any tech from there. Nice paying gig with TMM for him but no his word isn't worth much. Will HP let TMM live after the judge gets done, that's the question.
But it seems clear the judge is saying TMM doesn't own that earlier code so somebody else must own it. If iterated didn't sell it then HP must own it now. How can TMM get a major contract if they are using tech they don't own? Is there an insurance policy for that?
Mr lax I'm trying to figure out what the judges point of view is not mr paniks or dimensions. I'm pretty sure she is saying TMM does not own the tech it is claiming. How do they survive that verdict?
Mr lax that had me stumped for a while then I figured it out. TMM thinks if they can take DFMI out of the suit then the statute of limitations won't apply. If the judge had an IQ of 10 it might work. Smacks of a desperation move.
More like I skimmed it. There's around 10,000 pages of crap filed for this case. Insane!
Jay I read the amended complaint. I think they dropped that midnight theft complaint. The problem though is that the judge already made it clear what she thought about that 1996 agreement. After reading it I think she's right. And with TMMs star witness admitting to fraud how can you look forward to the hearing?
Jay I think the judge shot all that down in her first hearing. Read the online minutes. She says TMMs Simpson admitted fraud and that the documents say TMM lost all their iterated technology in 1996. She already decided that. TMMs website says they are using that old iterated technology but if the judge says they don't own it sounds like trouble to me. Not sure why you are looking forward to the next hearing sounds like lights out to me.
If only anyone cared what you thought. Feel free to not read any of my posts, they could contain big words and I wouldn't want you to break anything trying to understand them.
Now I understand. There's only one person who disagrees with you and jay and he has a dozen different personalities. Makes perfect sense.
Jay my boss expects me to get some work done here too so maybe I'll take a long lunch tomorrow and check out a few of the docs. I heard there's thousands of pages, can't spend all day on it.
Jay you're right what I got so far from the other poster is hearsay until I see some actual documents. But what I read from the judge on the court site is not hearsay and the stories match so I'm inclined to believe him or her for now. I'll be in Vegas all week maybe I'll check out the actual reports not sure yet.
Kaboom! Just a few days after I posted about my concerns over the appmobi breach of contract suit they finally settled both that one and the Chuckie suit, at least they both show as closed now. Good news.
Now they should really settle the other one. I got a ton of information about it from one of the other posters here in the last week and what I saw looks really bad. Really, really bad.
Jay not sure I should trust 18 year old statement from this Panik shareholder guy over what the judge said a few months ago. Make sense? The judge will make the final decision, not Mr Panik.
I got interesting private message need to check that out before repeating anything, just hearsay right now.
Mr Retire, I too saw in the online court minutes where the judge said something to the effect that TMM didn't own any Iterated technology from 1996 and before. Or at least that's her opinion and it sounds like that's how she will rule on that issue. On the Tmm web site it says they are using that old Iterated technology so maybe they could get sued by yet another company I guess. That blows!
Jay, then TMM doesn't actually have any patents of their own. Your saying the TMM tech is protected for the next year or so by the old Iterated patents. Which is fine but the difference between owning the patents and being protected by them is likely worth millions in valuation. No problem, just trying to pin these issues down.
Relax jay, this is just a chat board. Everyone should be able to give their opinions, good or bad. Every company has positives and negatives, discussing them shares the knowledge and we can all make better choices.
This morning I was looking into the patent question, can't seem to find any belonging to TMM, am I missing something?
Billy-Bob from 'Bama
Belden, wasn't me I never worked for them. My wife calls me Mr Right, hence the nick name.
I'm taking some heat here but just trying to find the good stuff and the bad stuff, TMM has both. If it was all good the price would be much higher and if all bad it would be much lower. So far my biggest concern is whether TMM will survive the three lawsuits I know about, no idea if there are more in federal court.
Sensitive bunch around here. I'm Bob not Billy. You say we are about to sign a big contract. TMM is a public company, do you have some insider information on upcoming contracts or are you pulling that outta your you know what?
My bad you said TMM was going to NAB assumed they had a booth and weren't just visitors. Also I bought low but not .001, wish I had.
Jay I will respectfully disagree, sure looks like TMM wrote that report themselves to me but I haven't talked to anyone at TMM so it's just my opinion. I will ask someone there when I get a chance. but I prefer hard evidence, been sweet talked too many times in the past.
TMM has booth at NAB? That's great! I might be there not sure yet.
Dr Sloan and the other advisors look solid. The tech sounds cool but need to see it in action or see a big customer sign up. Those lawsuits are very bothersome. A breach of contract and another one that seems to say we don't actually own the tech we are working on. Who's Panic? Should we panic?
Jay thanks for the ray dirks reference. I went to his site and read the article. Well written but looks like its obviously written by the same person who did the TMM website pages. Also says they did no verification of the information given to them by TMM, so no real independent research is indicated there. It's likely a pay for print piece. But it does help get the word out so that's not all bad.
My friends say I'm pessimistic but I just like to understand why we went from 2 cents to 17 cents and if it's going a lot higher or not. Everybody should do their own research and make their own decisions, I'm still checking it out.
Hope you're right jay but breach of contract suits can get ugly. And appmobi looks like a successful company, they sold some tools to Intel last year, a customer we'd like to have. I'd settle that one fast! BTW I hate lawyers and lawsuits!
I read through the minutes of the hearing last August on the dimension lawsuit. Wow, that one is really ugly. The judge says our guy Simpson testified he committed fraud against the investors. And the other side says we don't actually own the fractal tech and the judge sounds like he agrees with them. Looks like he gave us a lifeline on the statute of limitations but he doesn't expect us to win. Usually that means they are giving the loser some more time to settle a non winnable case, probably a smart idea. I have some experience with these kinds of cases.
Bought this as a penny stock gamble a few years ago but now that the price has gone up I'm trying to figure out if it's real or not.
I can find three different lawsuits on the Nevada state court site. TMM suing a Chuck Mariea and a Dimension and TMM being sued by Appmobi. Don't like that one, were being sued for breach of contract. No potential customers like to see something like that. Hope they settle that one fast!
The Chuck suit has no activity since last May so maybe both sides worked something out or lost interest. The Dimension one is a mile long list of actions, will read through it when I get a chance.
I used to read RB sometimes but it looks pretty dead. Happy Friday to all!
Bob
Thanks jay14. I'll check out the court site and see what it says. Read some of the recent posts here looks like patents are an issue too will also check that out when I get time. Lots of info on the TMM site too still haven't read all of it.
Had this stock awhile but just found this thread. Looks like a lot of spam on it. Looking for info on the court cases.