I see the iHub Gods granted me more posts today.
Yes, I agree the license was mislabelled, but still this does not change the contents of the license itself.
It appears nobody in the Court bothered reading the actual 2000 ISI/DFI license to understand what this case was even about.
"The court will also wonder why Tmmi bothered to purchase DFM"
There were still a number of DFI shareholders still loyal to TMMI who tendered their own shares to raise money for the 2000 ISI/DFI "PVS/SGI Source Code License" purchase. TMMI made good on the promise to follow though with the original agreement with those shareholders and issued 11,000,000 TMMI common shares for the acquisition of DFI.
Should the 2000 ISI/DFI deal even happened? imo there was no reason for TMMI to purchase the "PVS/SGI Source Code License" since it was not using million dollar plus IBM PVS multi processor super computers to compress .fvf files. I believe other factors were at play back then, i.e. money grab from TMMI's run to $2.87 per share and extreme greed evolved into a state of insanity by some involved.
TMMI was correct at the start of the litigation staing they were not using anything covered by the "PVS/SGI Source Code License". In 2013 I am not aware that TMMI had a IBM PVS multi processor super computer to run the code on. As for the Court, I believe they just have to read the actual "PVS/SGI Source Code License" to clarify what they ruled on.
TMMI's other licenses issued by ISI in 1994 are not part of this litigation, they have nothing to do with DFI. The bankruptcy Court in 1996 already made a ruling regarding these licenses. TMMI is free and clear to utilize its VDK2.1 and other licenses. Also, I should point out all of the relevant patents have expired and now its just an issue of source code copyright.
VDK3 is a derivative of VDK2.1 source code. TMMI owns the modifications it has since made to this code and other derivative software. Nobody has any claims on the VDK2 core technology, not even HP, the patents have expired.
