USPTO director and Former ibm-ER, David J. Kappos, mentored secretly by NSA Advisor & Leader Technologies’ first patent counsel
Why didn't he disclose these obvious conflicts of interest? Because he likely already knew that the outcome was a foregone conclusion, orchestrated by his mentor, Professor Chandler, for the benefit of the NSA and its global surveillance strategy to exploit social networks.
(Apr. 4, 2014)—The Patent Office continues to stonewall requests for basic background information on former Patent Office director, David J. Kappos, and the judges and staff that he assigned to his unprecedented third patent office reexamination of Leader Technologies’ patent for social networking, U.S. Pat. No. 7,139,761.
Those Patent Office people are Stephen C. Siu, Meredith C. Petravick, James T. Moore, Allen R. MacDonald, Deandra Hughes, William J. Stoffel, James C. Payne and Kathryn W. Siehndel. See Request for Congressional Intervention for more detail.
The Patent Office appears to be hiding damning evidence.
What does the U.S. Patent Office consider so secret about Director Kappos’ biography that they are willing to claim Executive Privilege to hide it?
We asked veteran research librarians to find out more about David J. Kappos. While Kappos touts his 25+years at IBM, little is actually known about his personal activities. Despite Kappos’ high profile positions, including IBM Corporate Counsel and assistant general counsel, these librarians concluded that “the web has been cleansed of Mr. Kappos’ history."
Veteran Researchers: The web info on David J. Kappos "has been cleansed"
These librarians are part of a prestigious library system. They do research for top government, education and business clients every day. They were suspicious of the complete lack of information about Mr. Kappos. “It’s too clean,” they concluded. “Someone doesn’t want us to know about Mr. Kappos.”
This is the third person's activity prior to certain dates that has been cleansed from the web. The first was Mark Zuckerberg's 2003-2004 activity that went "missing." The second was John P. Breyer, the shadowy Chinese venture capital figure behind son, James W. Breyer, Facebook's largest shareholder and managing partner of Accel Partners LLP, Fenwick & West LLP's client. Wehave documentation that know that John P. Breyer founded IDG/Computer World and is a Hungarian refugee contemporary of George Soros. Ironically, despite Breyer's high profile association with Computer World, the world's computers seem cleansed of him.
The researchers then started consulting their archivist sources in Washington D.C. This is when the inquiry got interesting. One source confirmed that Mr. Kappos had been heavily involved with The National Intellectual Property Law Institute in the passage of the Federal Trade Secrets and the Economic Espionage Acts in 1996.
Warning: “Be careful . . . this is being watched at high levels.”
NSA domestic syping tramples on inalienable American rights to privacy and property.
Then, in a turn right out of a Grisham spy novel, this Washington source cautioned the inquirers to “be careful’ because queries about Kappos’ involvement “are being watched at high levels.” This source also said that at least three similar inquiries had occurred in the last few months. This person would not elaborate on what “high levels” meant. We posit this tidbit of information as a data point for the reader.
Of course, to us journalists, such warnings are like throwing red meat to a dog.
The librarians consulted Kappos’ Senate confirmation hearing. GPO Summary | HTML | PDF (40MB). Surprisingly, Kappos failed to disclose his association with The National Intellectual Property Law Institute and its founder, Professor James P. Chandler, III, in his Senate testimony. This is a material nondisclosure. It appears to be an intentional omission.
Testimony about Professor Chandler figures prominently in the Leader v. Facebook trial transcript since Professor Chandler was Leader’s chief patent counsel. We contacted Leader Technologies who confirmed that to their knowledge Professor Chandler was an important outside intellectual property counsel to IBM, and that Professor Chandler had initiated contact between Leader and IBM during the engagement. Leader said nothing ever came of the introduction, at least as far as they were concerned.
Kappos also continued his failure to disclose this conflict of interest when he ordered the unprecedented third reexamination of Leader’s well-tested seven-year old patent. This patent had already been thoroughly tested at trial where Leader proved that Facebook infringed on all 11 of 11 claims, and there was no prior art.
Yet magically, in the third patent reexamination, Facebook produced the same worn out prior art on which they had lost at trial and in two prior reexaminations. But this time, the patent examiner, Deandra Hughes, had an epiphany so clear and bright that she and the three-judge Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) panel invalidated the entire patent with the stroke of their administrative pens, without a hearing, and without a shred of legal justification. This action killed the other 24 claims of Leader's patent that had not been asserted at trial. The whitewash was complete.
Social media has a creator, and deserves to be paid for their property.
The strategy is now clear. In their hubris, the Facebook cartel doesn't want Leader Technologies' patent rights to be associated with social networking. They want to give it away for free. And, they will corrupt any person or law necessary to achieve that objective. The trouble is, they are breaking the law, and we are a nation of laws, not of people and their often fickle notions.
Kappos also failed to disclose his substantial Facebook holdings.
IBM – The original “patent troll”
IBM has been highly criticized for prosecuting many of its “crappy patents” in the late 1990’s.
In Patently-O, on May 4, 2009, Dennis Crouch, Associate Professor, University of Missouri School of Law, wrote on his reservations about Kappos’ nomination by President Obama:
“Patent pundit Greg Aharonian has oft complained about Kappos and his tendency to talk about patent quality and then charge forward with junky IBM patent applications.”
“Unfortunately, in the past 25 years, Kappos may have forgotten that most of the world does not operate like IBM. Thus, when he says that ‘people no longer innovate individually’ or that ‘many new innovations require investments of unprecedented size,’ I worry that his vision is skewed."
Greg Aharaonian implied that David Kappos was the original patent troll when he wrote:
“Last week IBM was issued its usual batch of patents, many of which are crap - crappy patents whose sole value is to clog the PTO's patent examination pipelines to the detriment of everyone else. A patent application policy actively embraced by David Kappos.”
What are these facts telling us?
A commenter asked last week, “Who’s side was Professor Chandler on?” Simple geometric logic says that Chandler was deeply involved in IBM’s litigation of “crappy patents” before Leader Technologies came along. Is the modern “patent troll" actually the brainchild of Professor Chandler’s advice to IBM? As the commentators point out, this strategy was good for IBM’s revenues, but bad for the individual inventor who doesn’t have the PR machine or influence or large prescense at the Patent Office to fight the pejorative “patent troll” moniker. Further evidence of this practice was revealed with IBM sold 750 "crappy patents" to Facebook on Mar. 22, 2012, and on Jan. 31, 2014, IBM sold Twitter sold 900 more "crappy patents."
What good would these old patents be to Facebook and Twitter except to continue Professor Chandler's big infringer patent trollism, on steriods?
Facebook's opening PR salvo against Leader Technologies, after Leader filed the Leader v. Facebook patent infringement lawsuit on Nov. 19, 2008, was that Leader was a patent troll. As is typical for unscrupulous people and companies, they accuse the victim of their crimes and force them to prove a negative. Ahhm. Leader proved it.