InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 139
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/29/2004

Re: stehvestor post# 41177

Wednesday, 05/03/2006 4:20:03 PM

Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:20:03 PM

Post# of 341694
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong??

This agreement represented the SINGLE LARGEST asset on our balance sheet last year. During the required audit, management and the auditors became concerned about the agreement's valuation. Management along with the audit team believed that the agreement's VALUE had been impaired. It is important to note the concerns about the value of the marketing agreement related to the specific products covered in the agreement.
(a stock cannot stay on this exchange with its SINGLE asset with no value, it must be kicked down to the pinks.)
(Where are they going with this RE-VALUATION????)

The marketing agreement, as written, MAY OR MAY not cover the newest products currently in development and testing. At this particular point in time, the management of MediaMax can not determine when revenues will be generated from the existing products included in the marketing agreement, as written."
(zero revenue, MMXT agreement only for CD protection so management can exlude future products to MMXT?)

It is expected that wide use of copy protection WILL NOT take place in the U.S. until such time as standards are defined and the pending legal cases (GREAT we're dependent upon the courts, which may or may not conclude this year?) have been adequately resolved. Management believes the protection of intellectual property is critical to the success of content creators and content owners alike. Both MediaMax and SunnComm continue to work with their customers (what customers?) and consumer advocacy groups (GREAT the EFF dictates to us?)to resolve ongoing litigation and develop a set of standards and best practices for copy protection technologies moving forward. Many of the required guidelines have already been established as evidenced by SunnComm's public response on February 2, 2006 to an open letter from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) dated December 9, 2005. The EFF's open letter to the Company requested commitment to various best practices with respect to the development and use of copy protection technologies.

Not looking good. The positive out of this..... Kevin speaks

SOS... BOLTA