e.g. "IBM Eclipse Foundation" or "racketeering"
Yet another reason to press the PAUSE button on Obamacare
Deceptive Obamacare “open source” claims induce the American public into the theft and infringement
In a galaxy far away, a nation once existed that aspired to high democratic ideals of freedom, fairness and justice, but succumbed to moral complacency and the rule of a small group of corrupt politicians and businessmen.
(November 4, 2013)—In a cigar smoking Harvard watering hole along Mass. Ave. in the late 1980’s, Barack Obama was selected as the Manchurian Candidate for a club of “progressives.” Club members were mostly lawyers, led by economist Professor Lawrence "Larry" Summers. They agreed amongst themselves that they were just a little wiser and little smarter and a lot more worldly than you or me. And, in case you didn’t get the memo, they know what's best for us.
In order for this club to achieve permanent dominance, they decided to acquire control over all our personal information, specifically our financial, healthcare, personal and social relationships, communications and political data. With that information they figured they could control world populations, no matter who the elected officials were. Better living through statistics and game theory, they surmised.
Such a system required the management of a lot of data. As luck would have it, one of them, Gordon K. Davidson of Fenwick & West LLP, had a software development client, Columbus innovator, Leader Technologies, who was inventing a platform that could organize all of this data. Like cavemen around a wooly mammoth carcass, they carved up Leader's invention into various segments that each would exploit, with the plum going to alum James W. Breyer and his Accel Partners LLP to start Facebook.
In late Oct. 2003, Leader Technologies finished debugging a critical module of their code—an effort costing over $10 million and taking 145,000 man-hours. Then, just three months later, on Feb. 4, 2004, Facebook went live. To explain the illogic of Facebook being able to develop a platform so quickly, the club hired Hollywood story tellers . . . and to their amazement, the public and media believed their fabrications, hook line and sinker—even quoting these story tellers as primary sources! They couldn't believe their luck. The Free Press was asleep at the wheel and did not corroborate their stories.
The club prioritized their data collection. Social networking was the first and easiest, followed by political, communications and financial. They all knew that healthcare data would be the most challenging to acquire.
Enter the Manchurian Candidate, Barack Obama. They agreed that universal, government-run healthcare was essential to their data gathering scheme. However, they knew that if they were going to offer a software platform to make it happen, it needed to be “open source” so that they would have unfettered control over it.
Kill off Leader Technologies' Property rights
However, they had a pesky problem. Leader Technologies now had patents and copyrights on the platform they had stolen and carved up. So, they agreed that Leader Technologies had to disappear. No deals. No licenses. Death was the only solution.
Leader threw a monkey-wrench into their plans by hiring one of the nation’s top patent litigation experts, Paul Andre of King & Spalding LLP, and they sued Facebook. They proved on all 11 of 11 claims that Facebook is “literally infringing” Leader’s patent. This meant the engine running Facebook was Leader's property. They also proved that there was no prior art as Facebook had been shouting.
However, instead of licensing the technology from Leader, Facebook’s legal hacks went to work to undermine the legal case with judicial misconduct. Among the dozen or so areas of substantial misconduct, the hacks cajoled the judges into buying Facebook stock, and thus becoming beneficiaries in the Facebook IPO. These judges then refused to investigate shocking new evidence that Mark Zuckerberg had lied about the existence of 28 hard drives and Harvard emails in the case. The Facebook lawyers holding those hard drives was Gibson Dunn LLP, who, it turns out, was counsel to the Federal Circuit itself, and was a protegé of Chief Justice John G. Roberts.
To make matters worse, they arranged for Obama’s political appointee, head of the Patent Office, David J. Kappos, to order an unprecedented 3rd re-exam of Leader’s patent. When Leader’s shareholders cried foul and demanded FOIA information, the Patent Office assigned a former Facebook attorney to respond, Kathryn W. Siehndel. At every step of appeal, the stonewalling at the behest of Facebook's legal hacks was evident.
failed Obamacare launch exposes the Facebook Club
However, Obamacare couldn’t wait any longer. So, it went ahead and made this egregiously false statement about the platform in its Privacy Policy:
How HealthCare.gov uses third-party websites and applications
As a response to OMB Memo M-10-06, Open Government Directive, HealthCare.gov uses a variety of technologies and social media services to communicate and interact with citizens. These third-party website and application (TPWA) tools include popular social networking and media sites, open source software communities, and more. Examples include Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
This policy claims, or at least strongly implies, that social networking sites, like "Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube" are “open source.” Problem is, Facebook has been judged to be anything but open source. To the contrary, they are self-confessed hackers who steal other people's stuff for fun and profit.
Concurrently, while the Executive Branch makes this false claim, its Patent Office is attempting to kill off Leader's entire patent in an unprecedented 3rd re-exam at the U.S. Patent Office. Facebook had already lost these arguments three times previously before the Kappos ordered a 180-degree turn. Leader’s attorneys made changes which have thwarted this railroad job, at least for now.
Hit the pause button on Obamacare
All this uncertainty surrounding the Obamacare website is misleading the public. The Obamacare website is inducing the American public to use stolen intellectual property. The site should at least carry a HAZARD WARNING.
This is all the more reason to hit the pause button on Obamacare, at least until a thorough investigation can be conducted surrounding the dubious intellectual property claims of this Administration.
* * *
About Americans For Innovation
A grassroots movement to fight against the abuse of constitutional rights for authors and inventors to enjoy the fruits of their creations, as a matter of basic property rights and sound public policy.
After finding the boldface lie about the Obamacare website being "open source" (thanks for the attaboy!), I started reading the site's Privacy Policy in detail. Now I discover without even having to dig that hard, that our nation's first Chief Technology Officer, Obama appointee ANEESH CHOPRA cannot even read his own checkbook properly. No wonder the Obamacare website is a disaster. Keep reading, this isn't hard to follow...
ReplyDeleteThe Policy cites "OMB Memo M-10-06, Open Government Directive" as the justification for their "open source" claims. That made me wonder, What additional lies will we find if we start scratching this itch?
Here's the White House link to OMB Memo M-10-06, Open Government Directive, which was published on December 8, 2009:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf
The first paragraph says "This Directive is informed by recommendations from the Federal Chief Technology Officer..." Obama had appointed ANEESH CHOPRA to that position which became official on May 21, 2009.
So, the White House is laying its false claims at the feet of ANEESH CHOPRA, whose SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING occured on May 19, 2009. Here it is from the Government Printing Office:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg54288/pdf/CHRG-111shrg54288.pdf
CHOPRA lists his political donations on p. 37. He has just one listing for donations relative to Pres. Obama:
"$2,750 Obama for America (2007–8)"
However, the Federal Election Commission shows:
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml
4/19/2007 Obama For America $250
2/07/2008 Obama For America $250
4/14/2008 Obama For America $250
7/31/2008 Obama For America $1000
8/27/2008 Obama For America $200
8/27/2008 Obama For America $200
Subtotal=$2150
7/01/2008 Obama Victory Fund $1000
8/15/2008 Obama Victory Fund $1000
Subtotal=$2000
TOTAL ANEESH CHOPRA donations to OBAMA = $4150
He misrepresented his donations to Obama by 34% in his own Senate Confirmation Hearing. He couldn't even add up 8 items in his checkbook? And we put America's information technology infrastructure into his hands? Incompetent or Deceptive?
Thanks AGAIN Rain!!! Great find. Since documents that expose the Facebook Club have an uncanny habit of disappearing from the web, we have re-posted the White House OMB document.
Deletehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/181805763/OMB-Memo-M-10-06-Open-Government-Directive-Dec-8-2009
OBAMA'S CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER AND FACEBOOK'S COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTORNEY COLLABORATED DURING THE LEADER V. FACEBOOK PROCEEDINGS.
ReplyDeleteBINGO! The conflict of interest merry-go-round continues. According to his Senate Confirmation Hearing (PAGE 40), Obama's Chief Technology Officer, ANEESH CHOPRA, served "as a member of the Obama Transition Team working on technology, innovation and government reform policy memoranda."
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg54288/pdf/CHRG-111shrg54288.pdf
Facebook's Leader v. Facebook law firm, COOLEY GODWARD LLP, had partner DONALD K. STERN who was also on the Obama Transition Team. Stern "advised" the Justice Department on judicial appointments, incl. two of the four Leader v. Facebook judges (Leonard P. Stark and Evan J. Wallach).
AFI posted this Cooley press release on May 29, 2013:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/144442377/Cooley-Partner-Donald-K-Stern-Named-Advisor-to-U-S-Department-of-Justice-Transition-Team-Cooley-LLP-Dec-5-2008
Evidently, CHOPRA colluded with Cooley Godward LLP and the Justice Department to kill Leader Technologies' patent. This is the THIRD direct tie between Facebook and the Obama Administration. The other two are Obama's two personal legal counsels from Perkins Coie LLP, Robert F. Bauer and Anita B. Dunn.
With this comment I am going to take a break from exposing these moral misfits.
ReplyDeletePRESIDENT OBAMA'S CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER HAD DONE A PERSONAL DEAL WITH MICROSOFT (ONE OF FACEBOOK'S LARGEST SHAREHOLDERS) AND WAS LOADED DOWN WITH FACEBOOK STOCK. No wonder Obama For America, Barack Obama and the Patent Office "liked" Facebook so much during the Leader v. Facebook proceedings. They were already MIRED up to their necks in conflicts of interest.
Obama's Chief Technology Officer, ANEESH CHOPRA, held/holds a HUGE amount of stock in Facebook, as well as stock in Facebook's major stakeholders, incl. IBM, Microsoft, JP Morgan, Fidelity Funds, Vanguard Funds and T. Rowe Price Funds.
I found his OMB Financial Disclosure Form for 2009, presumably submitted just a few days before his confirmation on May 21, 2009. (Before posting this I asked AFI to repost the report.)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/181834394/Aneesh-Chopra-Executive-Branch-Financial-Disclosure-May-14-2009
ANEESH CHOPRA'S FACEBOOK-RELATED HOLDINGS include:
1. Fidelity Funds - 11 different funds (as many as Chief Justice John Roberts!)
2. Vanguard Funds - 7
3. T. Rowe Price Fund - 1
T. Rowe Price and Fidelity are two very large Facebook stockholders.
Get this, Microsoft purchased one of CHOPRA'S incubator start-ups, Navic Networks, Waltham MA (Boston) for an estimated $200-300 million on Jun 18, 2008, according to Techcrunch. CHOPRA mentioned the relationship in his SENATE DISCLOSURE (PAGE 41):
"Microsoft’s investment in Navic Networks (Boston, MA) for an undisclosed sum generated a 10–1 return on investment (July, 2008)."
Why "undisclosed" Mr. Chopra? Seems that TECHCRUNCH knew, but not you, one of the owners?. Would the $200-300 million amount have tainted your appearance of objectivity prior to your appointment?
Microsoft was certainly greasing the "you owe us one" loyalty skids, especially considering that Microsoft practically controls the Federal Circuit Bar Association where it is a "Sustaining Leader" along with Facebook's attorneys Weil Gotshal. This doesn't even take into account that Facebook's attorneys Gibson Dunn, Perkins Coie, Fenwick & West, Latham & Watkins, and Orrick Herrington are "Supporting Leaders" of the FCBA.
Clearly, Obaman's ANEESH CHOPRA's conflicts of interest in matters related to Leader v. Facebook are dripping. These people are rubbing shoulders so closely they might spontaneously combust.
Rain, I would hate to be a corrupt person with you on my heals. Great work. Thank you.
DeleteAneesh Chopra defined "open source" in response to a question from Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV on Page 116 of his Senate Confirmation Hearing Testimony. He wrote:
ReplyDelete"Open Source: From my perspective, this refers to the method by which software is developed--typically through a collaborative approach. This means often unrelated individuals or organizations work together, often in an ad-hoc manner, to deliver software that is of common interest. Key to this model is that the entirety of the intellectual property encourages sharing and collaboration (for example, under the General Purpose License) and allows for the distribution of source code or other related artifacts."
Leader Technologies spent $10 million and 145,000 man-hours to develop social networking. By contrast, Zuckerberg claims to have built Facebook in "one to two weeks" by himself, while studying for sophomore finals. Obamacare's claim to have used only "open source" software is another boldface lie to the American people.