AFI Custom Search

SEARCH by topic, keyword or phrase. Type in Custom Search box
Use this Custom Search toole.g. "IBM Eclipse Foundation" or "racketeering"

Thursday, December 6, 2012


(Leader Press Release)
American leaders from across the political spectrum urge the Supreme Court to fix the denial of constitutional rights

Columbus, Ohio (Dec. 6, 2012)—On Jan. 4, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court will meet to decide whether to hear Leader Technologies’ appeal in Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 12-617 (Supreme Court Nov. 16, 2012). See

Why should the average American care about this case? Perhaps the eminent American historian Professor Hy Berman, former political adviser to Vice President Hubert Humphrey, says it best:
“If intellectual property theft by the powerful and well-connected is not stopped, future innovation is jeopardized.” 

Prominent Americans speak out for Leader Technologies in the Leader v. Facebook U.S. Supreme Court appeal -...

Supplement: Before trial, on May 20, 2010 Leader had filed a "Motion In Limine" before the trial to exclude Facebook's new on-sale bar claim which Judge Leonard Stark allowed after the close of all fact discovery. Leader argued that it would confuse the jury. That argument has proved prophetic, and has fallen on deaf judicial ears ever since. Click here to read that May 20, 2010 motion. Click here to see a video explaining just how this confused the jury.

1 comment:

  1. Comment by: BG761 (I'm back!)

    Just read the Dec. 30, 2012 update describing how the DC Bar is refusing to investigate the attorney misconduct in Leader v. Facebook.

    We are getting to the time in which the Supreme Court makes a decision. Hopefully the court looks at the true facts of this case and then decides to hear the case on its merits not on the cover-up and in action by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

    On the Federal Circuit Bar Association’s website, can scroll down the page to the heading “State of Patent Litigation“, and read comments by Chief Judge Randall R. Rader.

    On September 27, 2011 Chief Judge Randall R. Rader pointed out areas deserving of attention to improve patent litigation before the Eastern District of Texas bench and bar. He points out six areas that the courts need to focus their attention on. It is very discouraging reading because he says all the right things of what should be done but as we have seen the courts practice, they are so willing to be judicial activists instead of true judges.

    Judge Rader even disregards his own statements when he allowed the Federal Circuit not to listen to the Leader v. Facebook case En Banc. (I think this was all decided by Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly. I wonder if any of the judges saw anything frankly.)

    Chief Judge Rader also points out the definition of a “patent troll” and a “grasshopper”. He states on page 17:

    “For that reason, I have always preferred an alternative definition of a “troll,” namely, any party that attempts to enforce a patent far beyond its actual value or contribution to the prior art.”

    Leader Technologies does not fit his definition of a patent troll because it was proven in court that the core software that drives Facebook is Leader's software. And we know that if Zuckerberg had produced the 28 hard drives during Leader's discovery, this question would have been definitively settled.

    However, the courts allowed Facebook to play their games and influence the courts and staff with their cozy relationships and who knows what else? He then goes on to describe the grasshopper:

    “The IP grasshopper is the entity that is quick to steal the “inventor-ant’s” work and research investment because he did no work himself and the winter of competition approaches. We can recognize the grasshopper because he refuses to pay any license fee until his legs and claws are held to the proverbial litigation fire. Once again, a grasshopper is hard to define, but I can venture a description according to the same basic notion that helped us identify the troll: A grasshopper is any entity which refuses to license even the strongest patent at even the most reasonable rates.”

    You notice he uses the word “steal” and he describes Mark Zuckerberg to a T! Remember, Judge Rader used those words for the description not me.

    Let’s hope the Supreme Court Justices can see the merits of this case and what it will do to future patents if allowed to stand as is.

    BG761 8-O


NOTICE TO COMMENTERS: When the MSM diatribe on "fake news" began, our regular commenters were blocked from posting comments here. Therefore, email your comments to a new secure email addess and we will post them.