News Focus
News Focus
icon url

zenus

05/22/14 6:08 PM

#9234 RE: 4retire #9233

If the license is not valid, they can just get another one from HP. Obviously both companies want an exclusive, but one potential outcome of the case is that both companies may wind up with a license to modify it, but only TMM has the technical expertise to market it commercially. Also, 2.0 is the issue between the two companies. No mention of a dispute over the earlier 1.0-1.5 which TMM has already said it was using.

Remember, according to DD, the base codec is too flawed to be a commercial product.

Think for a moment what the real issue really are here.
icon url

4retire

05/22/14 6:16 PM

#9235 RE: 4retire #9233

I am trying to understand how TMMI could have an exclusive when Iterated licensed DFMI and actually took 5% of the stock in DFMI as part of the price for the exclusive license for 2.0.

I believe that Alan Sloan was the executor (Iterated signature) of this agreement with DFMI
icon url

jay14

05/22/14 7:59 PM

#9237 RE: 4retire #9233

Letters are there,but NO SIGNATURE from DFI to complete the Addedumn as pointed out by the Court, but don't believe my because am a liar;LLOLs!!. TMMI TRUDEF moves onward and upward Worldwide!!.