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.
Jay, he said the lottery pay out isn’t in the filings. That’s because it was never paid. How could it be? MaxD owes millions of dollars, it’s bank accounts were garnisheed, liens placed on its patents, and it’s directors were found personally liable for MaxD debt because the company is a sham.
Not even a few hundred in the bank. Google cleaned out what remained after the last ditch spending on vitamins and car washes. But of course you’re right that MaxD threw an embarrassing contest with a promise to pay out money it didn’t have, and didn’t pay out. As the filings clearly demonstrate.
What?
What would be worth 8 million today? MFST shares at the IPO were 21 dollars. 1 share would be worth about 7000 dollars now wouldn’t it?
Although I’m not sure why it matters or what point you’re making.
Wise.
Total trash. All that is left is the entertainment value in watching the spin as the damn thing falls apart.
And because MaxD has nothing of value, Google is pursuing its ‘operating mind’ (to the extent it has one).
Unless of course if settles though, right? You really should look at the court record online rather than talking to Greg. It’s in Santa Clara. Attia v. Google et al.
... a reminder to you, and others: MaxD claims to have an interest in Attia’s IP and proceeds from any judgment or settlement of a trade secrets claim. MaxD has never claimed it has a right to the damages from an award or settlement for Attia’s employment dispute. Even it somehow does, the claim is weak and the damages wouldn’t amount to much.
Attia lost the trade secrets claim. Attia might appeal that but (a) it’s a loss based on lack of evidence rather than an appeal on a legal question and so likely hopeless. And (b) an appeal probably can’t be brought before the end of the lawsuit including the counterclaim.
It also appears that the RICO appeal will go nowhere as Attia has lost the case that gave him standing.
Pretty hopeless circumstances. But I guess there’s always the Qualcomm deal to fall back on. Hardy har har.
As I have tried to explain, a few times, Attia lost the trade secrets case - the big claim - last month. There is still a jury trial on the remaining claim, wrongful dismissal essentially. And there is Google’s claim for compensation for challenges to their IP.
There’s nothing to settle that could provide a net benefit to MaxD shareholders. If you don’t believe me read the court record.
But this started with your claim that something was happening with Qualcomm. What?
I don’t know what that means. But I am curious about what you think is happening next month that might benefit MaxD shareholders in some way.
I see. What’s happening in the beginning of 2020?
The only thing I can think of that might settle before the scheduled jury trial is the remaining claim for breach of Attia’s service agreement with Google and Google’s claim for reimbursement of expenses. I think the expenses vastly exceed the claim for damages for breach of contract (assuming one could be proved) so the only settlement negotiation would likely be about how much Attia/MaxD owes Google in addition to the sums MaxD and its directors owe for the Vedanti disaster.
It was “see you in court” that threw me. If you weren’t talking about a court case what sort of court did you have in mind?
Jury trial is no longer about trade secrets. The trade secrets case was lost. There’s nothing about the remaining claim and counterclaim that has anything to do with trade secrets. Or Qualcomm. But it never had anything to do with Qualcomm.
The claim seems to be that proof of MaxD’s relationship with Qualcomm is part of a case against Google and will be revealed in court unless Google settles. I think someone is confused.
San Diego? What lawsuit is happening in San Diego? The trade secrets case was lost in Santa Clara. The appeal of the lost RICO case is in San Francisco. The collection proceeding on the debt MaxD owes to Google was filed in San Diego but it’s already been determined that MaxD can’t pay because it’s judgment proof. No evidence there of any business with Qualcomm. That’s the proceeding in wish the CEO testified nothing was going on with Qualcomm.
Reminder: the CEO testified under oath that there is no active Qualcomm work being done and hasn’t been for years. Was he committing perjury? Is MaxD making material non disclosure in their SEC filings about this? I don’t think so.
Predictably, now that the lawsuits have collapsed, the spin reverts to the exciting Qualcomm prospects. Hilarious.
Quick reading of 10Q/K reveals this is nonsense, of course.
What? Lol.
Good question.
Come through with what?
December 7th, 2019: “Application status is abandoned”
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090234696A1/en
The Attia tech is worthless anyway.
New discovery will be limited to the remaining claim, breach of contract. Google will be keen to discover how it is that Attia’s contract was breached. Should be interesting.
There won’t be an appeal for awhile, I don’t think. I think the third amended complaint has to complete in its entirety before Attia has an appeal by right.
We can see about it now by reading the court website.
Incorrect.
I don’t know what judgment you are reading from but you’re got it all wrong. Are you reading the 22 Nov 19 decision, 2014 1 CV 2714103? If so, please quote the judge where he gives the plaintiff two weeks for further reply.
I don’t know what you mean about discovery. Perhaps you could clear that up too. The trial date on the remaining claims is now scheduled for October 2020.
I look forward to it.
Here are some other things to look in to and consider:
1. The trade secrets misappropriation is crucial but it isn’t the only claim, and there is still a trial next September. Google has counter claimed, suing on Attia’s contractual indemnification against costs associated with any challenges to the IP Attia brought to Google. Attia in turn has claimed that Google breached his contract in some unspecified manner and says consequently the indemnity doesn’t apply.
2. Can the dismissal of the trade secrets claim be appealed until the jury decides the remaining factual issues next September?
3. If Google wins next September, and ordered compensation, how many millions of dollars with Attia owe Google?
4. Can Attia and/or Google seek compensation from MaxD for those millions?
5. If MaxD is liable to Google for those millions as well as the 800k already owed, and it can’t pay, is there any reason why Google can’t pursue Halpern and Blaisure for the full amount given that Halpern and Blaisure have been determined to be personal liable for the 800k as alter egos?
If the appeal is successful, then the RICO case goes back to the federal trial court. If that happens, Google will motion to dismiss it on standing based on the Santa Clara loss. Unless of course the appeal is dismissed for mootness before then. The hearing won’t be until well in to next year.
Attia/MaxD may also wish to appeal the dismissal in Santa Clara. Eventually. I don’t think they can bring an appeal until the Santa Clara lawsuit is completely resolved, in which case the appeal will be in 2021.
But in any event, Google has no incentive to negotiate a settlement in terms favorable to Attia\MaxD. The only settlement now will be unconditional surrender.
You are missing the point. Even if John E Floyd (the leading expert on RICO according to MaxD and Floyd’s law firm) is right that Judge Freeman erred in dismissing the RICO claim on the grounds she did, the loss of the trade secrets case sewers the RICO claim on other grounds.
The Santa Clara case has everything to do with the RICO claim. You will recall that the purported leading expert and author of the RICO statute, Blakey, briefly saved the day in Santa Clara last year by suggesting the issue of standing could be split off from the merits of the RICO claim. He proposed litigating standing first.
The issue of standing to bring a RICO claim includes among other requirements that the plaintiff be the plaintiff on a RICO case. The plaintiff here said that his RICO case is based on trade secrets misappropriation.
If the plaintiff loses the trade secrets case, he loses standing to bring a RICO case.
Tentative ruling on motion to dismiss has been released. The motion to dismiss has been granted. Is now a good time to discuss the implications and the prospects of a settlement?
If the trade secrets claim is lost today (which is possible) then the Rico case is toast and the appeal is moot.
There are two possibilities in the hearing today: Either MaxD/Attia loses and the trade secrets case is dismissed {devastating), or the case continues to trial next September.
The only way for the current RICO case to be successful is for Attia to establish standing through a trade secrets claim. Let’s not forget about this week’s hearing before we jump ahead to the appeal months from now. The trade secrets claim is not going well even if it manages to survive this week’s motion to dismiss.
There’s no reason to think there’s a settlement coming. That's wishful thinking.
Previously you thought a settlement would involve a licensing agreement. Now that you know Attia already has a licensing agreement, what form will settlement take? And why is in “in play”? What has changed that makes a settlement more likely?
We are a long way from the RICO appeal hearing. And whatever John E Floyd has to say, Attia’s RICO standing depends on a trade secrets claim. The trade secrets claim is in very serious trouble in Santa Clara.
Besides, if Attia already has a licensing agreement regarding Engineered Architecture, how has he been injured? And why hasn’t any product been developed under this license? Is it possibly because the technology is worthless?
What is it about the lawyers presentation that you think is convincing?
And what do you think about the fact that Attia already has a license agreement? Do you feel mislead?
The judge certainly will read it. Why do you think a settlement is likely based on what you have read?
You may want to read Google’s reply.
The response was filed November 12. Google replied November 15. Have you had a chance to read any of it?
One thing I noticed is that Attia has had a license for years. Does that change your thinking about a settlement negotiation involving a licensing agreement?