T M M Inc (TMMI)

[Urbanlegend]

Smitty, yesterday in discussing knowledge of Corene Dion King that Dimension/DFMI's motion contends should be imputed to Tmmi, you made reference to a court ruling in Califormia where you say the court adjudicated the issue of licensing rights to VDK 2, and ruled that DFMI was the owner of VDK. You went on to say that Corene Dion King knew about this ruling, and therefore so did Tmmi.

I have searched for a public record of the California case and the decision you refer to, and have been unable to find it. If such a decision actually exists, and there has been a ruling of this kind, I would have thought that it is the ruling that would be important not Corene Dion King's knowledge of it. The ruling itself would have determined the issue. It would also mean that Dimension/DFMI's claim for a declaration was unnecessary.

You have also said that Corene Dion King would have known that VDK 2 was (exclusively) licensed to DFMI, because she was involved in discussions about negotiating a sub-license from DFMI. This seems odd, as I don't think the VDK 2 license would have allowed sub-licensing. It may be that she thought she knew sonething but didn't. I don't see what significance would attach to imputing her error to Tmmi, even if she had been acting under authority.

It looks very unlikely that this latest motion will succeed, for these and other reasons. Perhaps Dimension and the dissolved counterclaimant are trying to run up expense and test the meddle of a new and likely underpaid lawyer.