Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 14 - Contingencies Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company may be involved in various litigation matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. There is currently no litigation that management believes will have a material impact on the financial position of the Company. On August 26, 2015, the Company finalized a consulting agreement that it entered into on August 11, 2015 with Michael Korsunsky (“Consultant”) pursuant to which Consultant was engaged by the Company to (i) provide introductions to strategic business alliances, (ii) advise on exposure and risk in the operation of smart phone applications and (iii) advise on market fluctuations within the different categories of the smart phone application delivery services sector, in consideration of 100,000 restricted shares of common stock of the Company, which shares were issued on or around August 26, 2015. On or around November 17, 2016, the Company filed a complaint against Consultant in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, for Breach of Contract and Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. The Consultant been served, surrender his certificate but to date has not filed a defense. This case has since been dismissed. On June 10, 2016, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with Waterford Group LLC (“Waterford”) pursuant to which the Company engaged Waterford to provide sales and marketing consulting and advisory services to the Company in consideration of 100,000 shares of restricted common stock of the Company (the “Shares”) and a common stock purchase warrant (the “Warrant”) to acquire 750,000 shares of restricted common stock of the Company at an exercise price of $2.25 per share for a period of five (5) years. 50,000 of the Shares were issued to Waterford upon the execution of the Agreement. The Warrant vested on a quarterly basis in eight (8) equal quarterly installments each in the amount of 93,750 shares each quarter during the term of the Agreement. The first quarterly installment vested upon the execution of the Agreement and each subsequent quarterly installment was to vest each quarter thereafter. The Company believes that Waterford is in default of its agreement, as it failed to perform or provide any services under the agreement. As such, the Company put Waterford on notice in writing that the Company did not issue shares or warrants during the third or fourth fiscal quarters of 2016 due to the default. On or around January 23, 2017, the Company filed a complaint against Waterford and the Company’s Transfer Agent, in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside. On February 1, 2017, the Company obtained a temporary restraining order that prohibits Waterford from (x) lifting the restricted legend from the 50,000 shares that it received in connection with signing the Agreement; (y) selling the 50,000 shares to another party; and, (z) from exercising the warrant on 93,750 shares that was issued and vested upon the execution of the Agreement. As ordered by the court, on February 9, 2017, the Company deposited a Corporate Surety Bond in the amount of $42,875 to secure the temporary restraining order. The Company agreed with Waterford to go to binding arbitration, which is currently being scheduled. On or around February 27, 2017, the Company was issued a stay of the temporary restraining order barring its transfer agent from providing shares in connection with the exercise of the first Waterford warrant on 93,750 shares that was provided to Waterford in connection with the execution of the engagement letter that was executed by the parties on or around June 10, 2016. The matter is currently in arbitration. On or around April 10, 2017, the Company was billed by its transfer agent (“TA”) for approximately $11,500 for legal fees (“TA Charges”) in connection with a lawsuit brought by one of the Company’s shareholders against the TA. The Company is not a named party in this litigation. The Company disputes the TA Charges, as the Company’s position is that the TA Charges are not covered under the indemnification section of the Company’s agreement with its TA. As the TA refused to provide further services, the Company paid the fees, and booked it as an expense in this quarter. This matter has been resolved amicably, and the Company continues its relationship with the TA. SEC Matters On July 29, 2016, the staff of the Atlanta Regional Office of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” and the “Commission”) advised the Company in a telephone conversation, followed by a written “Wells” notice, that it is has made a preliminary determination to recommend that the Commission file an enforcement action against the Company alleging violations of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 13a-11, 13a-13 and 12b-20 thereunder. A Wells Notice is neither a formal allegation of wrongdoing nor a finding that any violations of law have occurred. Rather, it provides the Company with an opportunity to respond to issues raised by the Commission and offer its perspective prior to any SEC decision to institute proceedings. These proceedings could result in the Company being subject to an injunction and cease and desist order from further violations of the securities laws as well as monetary penalties of disgorgement, pre-judgment interest and a civil penalty. On September 20, 2016, the Company filed an amended and restated 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2014. In February 2017, the SEC advised that it concluded its investigation and that it does not intend to recommend an enforcement action by the SEC against the Company. Reserved Shares In connection with the derivative notes, the Company has reserved with its transfer agent common shares for each note held by the holders.

Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Note 14 - Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company may be involved in various litigation matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. There is currently no litigation that management believes will have a material impact on the financial position of the Company.

On August 26, 2015, the Company finalized a consulting agreement that it entered into on August 11, 2015 with Michael Korsunsky (“Consultant”) pursuant to which Consultant was engaged by the Company to (i) provide introductions to strategic business alliances, (ii) advise on exposure and risk in the operation of smart phone applications and (iii) advise on market fluctuations within the different categories of the smart phone application delivery services sector, in consideration of 100,000 restricted shares of common stock of the Company, which shares were issued on or around August 26, 2015. On or around November 17, 2016, the Company filed a complaint against Consultant in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, for Breach of Contract and Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. The Consultant been served, surrender his certificate but to date has not filed a defense. This case has since been dismissed.

On June 10, 2016, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with Waterford Group LLC (“Waterford”) pursuant to which the Company engaged Waterford to provide sales and marketing consulting and advisory services to the Company in consideration of 100,000 shares of restricted common stock of the Company (the “Shares”) and a common stock purchase warrant (the “Warrant”) to acquire 750,000 shares of restricted common stock of the Company at an exercise price of $2.25 per share for a period of five (5) years. 50,000 of the Shares were issued to Waterford upon the execution of the Agreement. The Warrant vested on a quarterly basis in eight (8) equal quarterly installments each in the amount of 93,750 shares each quarter during the term of the Agreement. The first quarterly installment vested upon the execution of the Agreement and each subsequent quarterly installment was to vest each quarter thereafter. The Company believes that Waterford is in default of its agreement, as it failed to perform or provide any services under the agreement. As such, the Company put Waterford on notice in writing that the Company did not issue shares or warrants during the third or fourth fiscal quarters of 2016 due to the default.

On or around January 23, 2017, the Company filed a complaint against Waterford and the Company’s Transfer Agent, in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside. On February 1, 2017, the Company obtained a temporary restraining order that prohibits Waterford from (x) lifting the restricted legend from the 50,000 shares that it received in connection with signing the Agreement; (y) selling the 50,000 shares to another party; and, (z) from exercising the warrant on 93,750 shares that was issued and vested upon the execution of the Agreement. As ordered by the court, on February 9, 2017, the Company deposited a Corporate Surety Bond in the amount of $42,875 to secure the temporary restraining order. The Company agreed with Waterford to go to binding arbitration, which is currently being scheduled.

On or around February 27, 2017, the Company was issued a stay of the temporary restraining order barring its transfer agent from providing shares in connection with the exercise of the first Waterford warrant on 93,750 shares that was provided to Waterford in connection with the execution of the engagement letter that was executed by the parties on or around June 10, 2016. The matter is currently in arbitration.

On or around April 10, 2017, the Company was billed by its transfer agent (“TA”) for approximately $11,500 for legal fees (“TA Charges”) in connection with a lawsuit brought by one of the Company’s shareholders against the TA. The Company is not a named party in this litigation. The Company disputes the TA Charges, as the Company’s position is that the TA Charges are not covered under the indemnification section of the Company’s agreement with its TA. As the TA refused to provide further services, the Company paid the fees, and booked it as an expense in this quarter. This matter has been resolved amicably, and the Company continues its relationship with the TA.

SEC Matters

On July 29, 2016, the staff of the Atlanta Regional Office of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” and the “Commission”) advised the Company in a telephone conversation, followed by a written “Wells” notice, that it is has made a preliminary determination to recommend that the Commission file an enforcement action against the Company alleging violations of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 13a-11, 13a-13 and 12b-20 thereunder. A Wells Notice is neither a formal allegation of wrongdoing nor a finding that any violations of law have occurred. Rather, it provides the Company with an opportunity to respond to issues raised by the Commission and offer its perspective prior to any SEC decision to institute proceedings. These proceedings could result in the Company being subject to an injunction and cease and desist order from further violations of the securities laws as well as monetary penalties of disgorgement, pre-judgment interest and a civil penalty. On September 20, 2016, the Company filed an amended and restated 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2014. In February 2017, the SEC advised that it concluded its investigation and that it does not intend to recommend an enforcement action by the SEC against the Company.

Reserved Shares

In connection with the derivative notes, the Company has reserved with its transfer agent common shares for each note held by the holders.