SANTA MONICA, CA / ACCESSWIRE / August 14, 2014 / Max Sound Corporation (OTCQB: MAXD) is a Santa Monica based technology development company whose mission statement is “Bringing forth technologies for the betterment of our world.”
The firm has gained recognition with “MAX-D” a proprietary process that converts any audio file to high definition quality, without increasing file size. MAX-D restores harmonic and dynamic Range in real time, while enhancing clarity and sound quality. Lloyd Trammell, who contributed to the creation of MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface), invented “MAX-D” to provide listeners the most true-to-life audio possible. His relentless pursuit for better sound led to several patents, as well as an endorsement from Electronic Musician Magazine as one of the top four audio engineers in the world. MAX-D is to audio, what HD is to video.
In May of 2014, Max Sound Corporation acquired from VSL Communications the worldwide license, representation rights, and rights to bring forth pre-approved legal claims to protect VSL’s Optimized Data Transmission System. VSL’s proprietary technology gave Max Sound a video solution that complemented its HD audio technology.
On August 9 and 11, 2014, Max Sound Corporation & VSL filed two lawsuits against Google, Inc., YouTube, LLC, and ON2 Technologies, Inc. The first lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware is for patent infringement. The second lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, is for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and fraud. Max Sound Corporation retained the prominent law firm, Grant & Eisenhofer, as their legal counsel and champion of justice. G&E is one the nation’s leading law firms in terms of the amount of settlements and damages awarded.
The duration of the described proceedings are unknown, and with such a well-funded adversary the claims could prove to be a challenge. However, in response to Uptick News Wire’s question of how would little Max Sound Corporation be able to financially handle such an adversary as Google, lead counsel Adam Levitt responded as follows – “The cases are on contingency so we obviously think we have a winner. You can look us up. We litigate against the Fortune 100 companies every day and have great success doing so, so we’re well-suited to this type of challenge.”
As alleged in the complaints, from April 2nd to December 13th of 2010, VSL personnel granted Google access to its proprietary technology, and other trade secrets, for evaluation purposes and pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement between both companies drafted by Google; under the premise of entering into a possible business transaction with Google. VSL made several attempts to contact Google regarding the status of pending negotiations late that year. Google failed to return correspondence, and on December 13, 2010, VSL requested that all documents, information, and VSL trade secrets originally provided be returned (pursuant to the NDA). On December 16, 2010, Google returned materials VSL provided, and included a cover letter, which itemized all returned documents and trade secrets on in accordance with the original NDA. VSL assumed that Google complied with the NDA and that all proprietary information remained confidential.
As further described in the complaints, months later, however, VSL noticed the files contained several of Google’s own Post-It notes that it returned with VSL’s documents and materials. The following excerpts are taken directly from the lawsuits filed with the court –
“Ms. Majerus included a cover letter that provided an itemized list of documents and other things that Google was returning to VSL pursuant to the NDA. Included with the materials was a collection of Post-It notes apparently written by Google personnel” as follows…. “Suggestions that engineers should be discouraged from “digging deep” and should “close eyes to existing IP”; Emails should “try” to be destroyed; Google needed to obtain a non-infringement opinion from outside counsel; Google should be concerned regarding the “recklessness” of its conduct; Google should evaluate the risk of getting sued if Google’s products are “money making”; Google is “possibly” infringing VSL’s then-pending patent; Google should “keep an eye” on VSL’s technology and should “get our own patent” on VSL’s technology; Google should “invoke interferences” in any patenting process to try to destroy VSL’s intellectual property rights; Handwritten descriptions of VSL’s Trade Secrets; and Discussions regarding various Google products in which VSL’s technology might be utilized.”
The complaints further allege that VSL’s proprietary code was used within YouTube.com, Google Play, Google TV, Chromebook, Google Drive, Google AdSense, Google+, Google Maps, Google Chrome (Browser), and several other “Google” based platforms.
A final note - the complaints point to Google’s 'Don't Be Evil' mantra that is listed on their investor page as their Code of Conduct. You can review that piece of irony here. https://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html
Safe Harbor Notice
Certain statements contained herein are “forward-looking statements” (as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995). Statements made in this news release constitute forward-looking statements and makes no guarantee of future performance. Forward-looking statements are based on estimates and opinions of management at the time statements are made. These statements may address issues that involve significant risks, uncertainties, estimates and assumptions made by management. Actual results could differ materially from current projections or implied results. Uptick Newswire undertakes no obligation to revise these statements following the date of this news release.
10000 N. 31st. Avenue
Source: Uptick Newswire