FINDINGS OF FACT Case No.: A-13-678054-B and Case No.: A-19-798443-C:
Despite the FUD that continues to permeate on this board for what ever reason here are some points to consider:
Case No.: A-13-678054-B
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. The PVS/SGI Code also known as the VDK 2.0 Code (the "Code") was created by Iterated Systems, Inc. ("ISI") who is the predecessor in interest of MediaBin.
2. TMM, Inc. ("TMMI") is a Nevada corporation, and the purported holder of the license to the Code.
3. Digital Focus, Inc. ("DFI") is a California Corporation, who entered into an agreement with ISI, for a license to the Code.
Back to the original ISI/DFI License:
As I recall, this agreement with ISI was for a version that runs on certain multi processor computers which is why the name of the license is "PVS/SGI Source Code License" as it is referenced in A-19-798443-C. https://dimensioninc.tv/news/Abuse.pdf
Page 6 line 1
"Plaintiffs’ perpetual, fully-paid, exclusive world-wide license to certain software code known as
the PVS/SGI Source Code (“Exclusive License” or “License”) that Defendants had conveyed to
Plaintiffs approximately 13 years earlier in exchange for $500,000."
Page 7 line 7
Iterated Systems, Inc. (“ISI”) originally created the PVS/SGI Source Code. In
early March of 2000, Simpson learned that ISI would sell an Exclusive License in the Code for
$500,000. At the time, Simpson held approximately $1.2 million in proceeds from his sale of
stock on behalf of certain investors that later became the investors in Plaintiff DFMI (“Investors”).
VDK 1.0-1.4 is mentioned twice on Page 13 Line 16 and page 14 line 4
They do not refer directly to VDK2 in Abuse.pdf.
The license itself is the basis of the lawsuit. The devil is in the details and I can assure you the 2000 $500,000 ISI/DFI license did not cover $5,000,000 worth of previous licenses already granted by ISI to TMMI for other hardware platforms.
Just because a certain "label" is slapped on a license for litigation doesn't change the content of the license, which in this case is a version of the code intended for IBM PVS multi processor super computers that ran on the IBM AIX UNIX operating system. Those were the multi millions dollar super computers TMMI provided to ISI for the development of this code in the first place.
Is "The PVS/SGI Code also known as the VDK 2.0 Code (the "Code")" the actual name of the 2000 ISI/DFI license? I think not, so the label applied to litigation is meaningless. Go back to the original license before making outrageously expanded claims far in excess of what is being litigated.
TMMI emerged from bankruptcy in 1996, reorganized and owning the VDK2.1, VDK2.2, VDK2.3 and VDK2.4 licenses that originated with ISI in 1994, and also previous VDK 1.0-1.9. The cost of the VDK2.1, VDK2.2, VDK2.3 and VDK2.4 licenses was $5,000,000 which TMMI settled in full.
September, 1996 TMM, Inc. entered into an agreement with Advanced Multimedia Concepts Inc., ("AMCI") of Camarillo, California for the enhancement of TMM's Soft Video codec (VDK2.1).
In 1997 TMM, Inc./AMCI made modifications to VDK2.1. VDK2.1 runs on i386 Intel hardware.
In early 2000 with TMMI's stock coming off a run to $2.87 per share ISI offered TMMI the opportunity to purchase the "PVS/SGI Source Code License" for $500,000 and arrangements were made to conduct this transaction through DFI due to TMMI's share structure.
In 2000, certain individuals conspired to strip this ISI/DFI opportunity from TMMI which over time morphed into bizarre public claims of owning the rights to all of ISI's fractal technologies, implying that TMMI had nothing. TMMI struggled for years against constant public attacks regarding legal ownership over its ISI fractal codec licenses.
In 2013 TMMI launched legal action against Dimension over the DFI/DFMI non legal merger and also due to Dimension's attempts to patent ISI's prior art that covers TMMI's VDK2.1 and other licenses.
The current fight is over "PVS/SGI Source Code License", TMMI's VDK2.1, VDK2.2, VDK2.3 and VDK2.4 licenses are not part of this litigation, end of story.
TMMI's website describes a derivative of ISI's VDK2.1 called VDK3 that has been updated for today's hardware.
Nothing from Case No.: A-13-678054-B and Case No.: A-19-798443-C effects TMMI's ability to move forward with VDK3 is it so chooses.
Having said that, the window of opportunity is closing due to advancements in competing technologies so TMMI needs to step up with deployment of this technology in some form into the market.
In conclusion TMMI still owns its VDK2.1, VDK2.2, VDK2.3 and VDK2.4 licenses that are separate from the DFI, DFMI and Dimension "PVS/SGI Source Code License" issues. Ignore any noise claiming otherwise.
Also, if I understand correctly, do 20,000,000 TMMI Preferred shares Dimension is asking for convert into 2,000,000,000 TMMI common shares? If so that's like Ms. King x 10.