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"

Friday, May 9, 2014

PATENT OFFICE DIRECTOR DAVID KAPPOS CONVENED RARE SECRET COURT WITH IBM CRONIES TO KILL LEADER'S PATENT

Patents are worthless in the hands of “reexamination courts” convened by Patent Office judges and lawyers secretly allied with big infringers
Contributing Writers | Opinion | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION  | May 10, 2014, Updated May 26 | PDF
Breaking News, May 24, 2014

Federal Circuit Chief Judge Resigns Amid More Scandal Involving Actors In Leader v. Facebook

Randall R. Rader
Judge Randall Ray Rader
May 24, 2014—The Legal Times and The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall R. Rader resigned as Chief Judge after an email surfaced revealing more impropriety.  In his resignation letter, Rader said “I never expected that email to emerge as it did.” This is a curious statement from a high court judge who took an oath to recuse himself when personal relationships could bias a case. Is this a Freudian way of saying if I hadn't gotten caught, my bias would have been OK? Click here for media coverage of the Rader resignation.

The lawyer and his law firm at the center of this new controversy are well known to those who follow the Leader v. Facebook corruption scandal: Edward R. Reines and Weil Gotshal LLP.

Edward R. Reines & Weil Gotshal appeared in Leader v. Facebook  on Sep. 11, 2012 in an attempt to whitewash judge conflicts in the case, including Facebook stock holdings

Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO, Case No. 2010-1406 (Fed. Cir. 2010) re. Case No. 09-CV-4515-RWS (SDNY 2009)
Fig. B—Rader's Email Proves Collusion with Facebook also

Facebook's Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP, and Edward R. Reines, Weil Gotshal LLP, represented the interests of all the Federal Circuit judges, including Randall R. Rader in 2010. Collusion among Hungar, Reines and Rader is now evident. Click here for the Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO case. Click here for analysis of the doctored docket in that case.
New, May 26, 2014
Leader Tech v. Facebook, Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) filing by Edward R. Reines, Weil Gotshal LLP, Sep. 11, 2012
Fig. C—Edward R. Reine's F.C.B.A. filing in Leader v. Facebook   proves collusion with the court by their silence

Edward R. Reines, Weil Gotshal LLP, represented the interests of all the judges in this Leader v. Facebook filings as well. None of the judges disclosed their conflict with Reines. Click here to read the full filing.
Reines filed a request in Leader v. Facebook to absolve the judges of conflicts of interests following an amicus curiae (friend of the court) motion to compel the judges to disclose their conflicts of interests. Those conflicts included: (1) judge investments in Facebook and the Facebook Cartel, and (2) relationships among the judges with one of Leader’s potential witnesses and former attorney, Professor James P. Chandler, III, Founder and President of The National Intellectual Property Law Institute (NIPLI). Rader was Professor Chandler's law student at George Washington University. Rader was also a Chandler faculty member at NIPLI. Click here to see Reines’ Leader v. Facebook appearance on behalf of the Federal Circuit Bar Association. These filings were never properly docketed by the Clerk of Court, Jan Horbaly, who has also resigned. See coverage about Chandler and the USPTO scandal below.

Rader denied Leader’s petition for rehearing after his three-judge panel railroaded an opinion in favor of Facebook just as the IPO was starting. That panel consisted of Alan D. Lourie, Kimberly A. Moore and Evan J. Wallach. Each of the panel held substantial amounts of stock in Facebook interests, including Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. See Federal Corruption - Disclosures in the sidebar.

Judge Moore also failed to disclose that Weil Gotshal was her former client

Click here for Kimberly A. Moore Senate Judiciary Confirmation Hearing Testimony, Jun. 28, 2006, p. 79.

Her husband, Matthew J. Moore, went to work for Latham & Watkins LLP, the lobbying law firm for James W. Breyer, Facebook's largest shareholder and former chairman, and for the National Venture Capital Association (NCVA). Breyer was chairman of the NCVA, along with the fund managers for Fidelity, Vanguard and T.Rowe Price, among others, in whom these judges were heavily invested, most tellingly, Fidelity Contrafund, Vanguard Group and T.Rowe Price Group. T.Rowe Price was a 5.2% holder of Facebook stock at the IPO. T.Rowe Price and Baillie Gifford (Vanguard's "Advisor"), were the top two funds behind the "Chinese Facebook" Baidu (China) ADR, which, along with the Russian oligarch-(protégé of Larry Summers) owned VKontakte site, all started at the same time as Facebook, magically. See past post.

Latham & Watkins LLP's former partner, Thomas J.Kim, issued the now infamous S.E.C. 500-shareholder exemption to Facebook that open the floodgates for billions of dollars in dubious funds from Moscow oligarchs to purchase insider shares sold by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley. The Wall Street Journal article described these relationships as "clubby." That was too kind.

In an evident circling of the Leader v. Facebook corruption wagons, Judge Wallach was assigned to the case from which Rader had recused himself. Out of the frying pan, and into the fire.

These new developments prove that the Leader v. Facebook case was tainted by judicial bias at the highest levels.
The Dreyfuss Initiative
Update, May 24, 2014: "Are you comfortable, confident and at ease, or uncomfortable and uneasy, when you think of the future of the Nation in 30 years?"

Consider supporting The Dreyfuss Initiative. http://www.youtube.com/user/dreyfussinitiative
Update, May 16, 2014

[Editorial]: F.C.C.'s net neutrality action unites the Left and Right

Free Speech Pacman
Free Speech Pacman.
Graphic: Mashable.
The F.C.C.'s current proposal to let deep-pocket providers pay for superior Internet access is bad for free speech. Don't be fooled by the morality play allegedly pitting some of the players for and others against the proposed changes. That's nothing but window dressing to fool the masses. They all want it.

As we describe below, the America Invents Act (A.I.A.) was another of their crony achievements. All it has done is give excuses for regulators to secretly rewrite rules that their handlers don't like, especially where prior, well-tested regulations used to toss them out on their ears.

Free Speech & Property Destroyers

Fig. a—Electronic Frontier Foundation video titled "Stop Watching Us: The Video," Published on Oct 23, 2013. StopWatching.us is a coalition of more than 100 public advocacy organizations and companies from across the political spectrum. Join the movement at https://rally.stopwatching.us.
If we allow these predators to create Internet access haves and have nots, it will permit these people to manipulate the underlying gears and pulleys of communications—at the router level. With that level of control, free speech will be destroyed. The F.C.C. is going through the motions, just like the S.E.C. did in granting Facebook the unprecedented exemption from the 500-shareholder rule. Facebook's handlers at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan used that exemption as the excuse to make a multi-billion private market from Russian oligarchs (FACTS: who were partnered with Goldman in Moscow and who were mentored by Obama's bailout director, Lawrence "Larry" Summers, along with Facebook's COO, Sheryl K. Sandberg) and pump Facebook's pre-IPO valuation to $100 billion. The S.E.C. turned a blind eye (Commissioner Mary L. Schapiro was in on the pump-and-dump scam; in fact, she was more heavily invested in the Facebook Cartel than any other Obama administration official). And, just like Commerce Secretary Rebecca M. Blank was in on the A.I.A. scam. Blank has the second most Facebook Cartel holdings. See sidebar, Federal Corruption, Disclosures.

We cannot allow these criminals to create more excuses at the F.C.C. to sieze control of our democracy. That's not good for the Left or Right. If this happens, the only question will be whether the resulting totalitarian regime will be labelled communist or fascist. Either way, democracy dies.
Patent Sorta-maybe Cover Page
Fig. 1—Sorta-maybe Patent Cover. In the hands of patent reexamination courts, a patent is a worthless piece of paper. Inventors can win a patent infringement lawsuit, then watch their property rights evaporate in the hands of the lawyers inside the Patent Office who are secretly allied with big infringers. It is time for inventors and those who believe in the U.S. Constitution to unite and stop this corruption.
"Mistrial!"
See Facebook's Mistrial! humor below — The Tale of Xerox's Mr. Swartz. Click here.

(May 10, 2014)—Ohio innovator Leader Technologies released a letter sent this week to the U.S. Patent Office. Leader’s CEO Michael McKibben asked the Patent Office to rescind the latest decision of a secret “patent reexamination” court. This administrative court was convened by former director, David J. Kappos, using a rare statute that pundits say has never been used in their memory.

On Jul. 27, 2010, Facebook was found guilty in federal court of infringing Leader’s patent for social networking on 11 of 11 counts. Even so, this Kappos administrative court decided on May 6th in secret deliberations to kill Leader’s entire patent. Leader filed for the patent in 2002; was awarded the patent in 2006; and, proved Facebook was infringing the patent in 2010.

Dirty little secret: a crony lawyer underground runs the USPTO

Few inventors realize that being awarded a patent is only the beginning. Patent reexaminations can create as much or more expense and time to protect the patent from predators as it took to get it.

One veteran inventor interviewed—a holder of over a dozen technology patents—is facing nine reexaminations right now, on just one patent. This inventor believes that reexaminations have become the new tool that big infringers use to “kick the can down the road” until the inventor runs out of money. In this way, the “America Invents Act” has been nothing more than a license for big infringers to harass and steal from smaller inventors.

Patent administrative “reexaminations” are the dirty little power secret of the crony lawyer underground in Washington, D.C. If you lose in open court, then you can still kill the patentee in secret using “administrative actions” by cronies inside the Patent Office. After all, the people staffing the Patent Office usually worked at the law firms who file patent applications, and they look for employment at those same firms later.  The revolving door of conflicting influences is evident, and it is slowly choking American innovators. The Leader v. Facebook matter, though, has gone well beyond everyday corruption.

Randall R. Rader (center), Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, on the podium wih Davvid J. Kappos, Director of the U.S. Patent Office, center and left respectively
Fig. 2—David J. Kappos (left) and Randall R. Rader (center) speaking at a conference about "How to Bridge the Transatlantic IP Divide."

[Editorial: Evidently, the answer is to grease the skids for their cronies to steal the innovations of others, and exploit them globally... after all, they know what's best for us. While they run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution in private, they praise it publicly with such euphamisms as "The America Invents Act."] Photo: Flickr.

On Apr. 19, 2013, the secret Kappos court decided that supposed new prior art evidence had compelled them to reverse en masse 12 years of their previous decisions affirming Leader’s patent claims. However, Kappos cited no evidence whatsoever for this claim. Instead, the court merely regurgitated Facebook’s earlier spurious arguments, arguments that were defeated already at trial and in two previous reexaminations. The examiner, Deandra M. Hughes, appears to have bowed to the pressure from the Kappos' kangaroo court.

In their failed arguments, Facebook repeatedly cited Microsoft and Xerox documents. This is an important fact in this story.

The new evidence must be “compelling” and the use of this power “rare”

According to patent law (specifically, 37 CFR 1.520 of the Code of Federal Regulations regarding patent reexaminations), reexaminations are intended to occur if “compelling” new evidence of prior art comes to light that could bring a patent’s validity into question. The powers are to be used only in a “rare” circumstance where a gross injustice would otherwise occur. Reexams were a big topic in the America Invents Act. The Act was heavily promoted by two key players in this story, Director David J. Kappos, and PTO Counsel Pinchus M. Laufer.

Former IBMer suspects foul play

Kappos initiated this reexam order against Leader on his own initiative. Curiously, three weeks earlier, on Mar. 22, 2010, IBM sold Facebook 750 patents. This sale was puzzling to one former IBMer interviewed for this story. He said, “This sale never made sense to me. IBM takes great pride in its patent portfolio. In fact, as recently as January 14th of this year, IBM issued a press release announcing its 21st straight year of patent leadership. Selling away patents is against IBM’s core mission. License, for sure, but sell outright, never. The moment I heard that news, I suspected foul play.”

Leader CEO Michael McKibben said, “When our lawyers received the order they were dumbfounded. They had never in their careers seen a Patent Officer Director use this ‘rare’ privilege. ”

AFI investigators, too, have puzzled over Facebook’s relationship to IBM, ever since Facebook purchased the 750 IBM patents. That was two months before Facebook went public on May 18, 2012.

Mar. 22, 2012 (IBM Patents Sold)   -  Apr. 17 (former IBMer Kappos Reexam Order)  -  May 18 (Facebook IPO)

Sandwiched in between the 750 patent sale and the Facebook IPO, on Apr. 17, 2012, Director Kappos invoked his “rare” statutory privilege against Leader. The fog is finally clearing as to his motive.

AFI investigators have researched the backgrounds of USPTO personnel involved in this kangaroo court.  The first glaring fact is that IBMer Kappos staffed the court with former IBM devotees, and in doing so, “stacked the deck” against Leader.

The IBMer we interviewed quipped: “once an IBMer, always an IBMer, it becomes part of our DNA. We took great pride in metaphorically bleeding ‘IBM blue.’”

The Patent Office invoked Executive Privilege to block FOIA disclosure in Leader v. Facebook

Here’s a summary of the patents these former examiners have issued to IBM, Microsoft and Xerox (a.k.a. Palo Alto Research Center - PARC). We’ve included check marks (X) for known relationships also. Since the Patent Office FOIA officer, Kathryn W. Siehndel, has stonewalled release of the judicial and employee conflicts logs (except for William J. Stoffel), we have marked the other relationships as “concealed.” Note that FOIA officer Siehndel invoked executive privilege to block release of information. We can only presume that President Obama was protecting his political interest in Facebook.

David J. Kappos' secret kangaroo court

Kappos' Kangaroo Court, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)* Title IBM Patents Issued Microsoft Patents Issued Xerox Patents Issued*   Vanguard Fund Relationship Fidelity
Fund Relationship
White & Case LLP Relationship
U.S. Department of Commerce
(Kappos' & PTAB bosses)
     
Penny S. Pritzker Sec'ty X X X   X X X
Rebecca M. Blank Sec'ty X X X   X X X
Cameron F. Kerry Counsel X X X   X X X
U.S. Patent Office      
David J. Kappos Director X X X   X Concealed Concealed
Stephen C. Siu* Judge X X Concealed   Concealed Concealed Concealed
Allen R. MacDonald* Judge 127 8 12   Concealed Concealed Concealed
Meredith J. Petravick* Judge Concealed Concealed Concealed   Concealed Concealed Concealed
Kimberly Jordan* Counsel 12 10 Concealed   Concealed Concealed Concealed
Daniel Ryman* Counsel 21 8 Concealed   Concealed Concealed Concealed
Pinchus M. Laufer* Counsel 9 3 2   Concealed Concealed Concealed
William J. Stoffel* Counsel x Concealed Concealed   X X Concealed
Kathryn W. Siehndel FOIA X X Concealed   Concealed Concealed X
SUBTOTALS   169 29 14   X X X
Table 1: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) convened by the unilateral initiative of Director David J. Kappos, former IBM General Counsel for intellectual property, to reexamine Leader Technologies, Inc.'s U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 a third time, even though Facebook had not asked for the action, and Facebook had lost the arguments at trial and in two previous reexaminations.

Updated, May 11, 2014

Mistrial! your honor, Leader is trying to let facts get in the way of a good story

*Xerox also assigned patents to its research arm named Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). Of particular note: One of the patents Facebook continues to push forward as prior art (and has lost the argument each time), is Swartz et al, Xerox Corporation, U.S. Patent No. 6,236,994.

The Tale of Xerox's Mr. Swartz

The Tale of Xerox's Mr. Swartz
Fig. 3—Facebook argued that Leader's patent examiner, Diane Mizrahi, later got it wrong with Leader's innovation, but that she earlier got it right with Xerox's Swartz patent application. So, they argued that Mizrahi was both credible and not credible in the same argument. This has come to be expected from Facebook's duplicity. Photo: Stepbystep.com
Here's the hilarious backstory on Facebook's The Tale of Xerox's Mr. Swartz. According to the trial transcript (p. 308 teed up, click here), Leader's attorney Paul Andre, pointed out that the Patent Examiner on Leader's patent application, Diane Mizrahi, had examined Swartz earlier. So yet again, Facebook was speaking out of both sides of their mouths. They wanted the jury to believe that the examiner, who had earlier examined Swartz and got it right, had later gotten it wrong on Leader's application. Now here's the funny part, Facebook filed for a mistrial over this fact!

Following Facebook's outrage, Judge Leonard P. Stark ruled that Mr. Andre could no longer speak of such vileness. Seriously, he prohibited any further exploration of the fact that Facebook was arguing an utter contradiction of logic.

So for non-patent people (most of us), here's the important point. Facebook lost the Swartz argument at trial, despite Judge Stark's help. They then lost the Swartz argument in two previoius reexams. The fact that the new examiner, Deandra M. Hughes, would do a complete flip-flop of her much tested opinion, stretches credulity. Bottom line, Facebook, IBM, Microsoft and Xerox are attempting by regulatory corruption and stealth what they could not win in a fair fight.

This kangaroo court has collectively issued 212 patents to IBM, Microsoft and Xerox (a.k.a. Palo Alto Research Center - PARC). William J. Stoffel specifically disclosed conflicts with IBM, Vanguard and Fidelity—all beneficiaries of Facebook interests.  FOIA Officer Kathryn W. Siehndel worked for Facebook’s attorney in this case, White & Case LLP. Everyone else has stonewalled disclosure of their conflicts logs. White & Case LLP also represents IBM and Microsoft.

Still being investigated are connections between these IBMers and Leader’s first patent attorney, Professor James P. Chandler. At the very least, these individuals should have disclosed their prior associations with Professor Chandler and recused themselves. Professor Chandler’s work as one of IBM’s chief outside counsels is public knowledge in the Washington, D.C. legal community.

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh made special mention of Professor Chandler and IBM in his now famous Feb. 28, 1996 Senate testimony on the proposed Economic Espionage Act.

Facebook – IBM Common Interest Discovered

Until now, the Facebook-IBM connection has been baffling―since IBM represents the Establishment, and Facebook the Wild West. However, the thing they have in common at the Patent Office is their lack of disclosure of Leader’s patent in their applications.

Inequitable Conduct

“Inequitable Conduct” is patent legal-speak for fraud. When you file for a patent, you are obligated by law to tell the patent examiner about other inventions, patents, technical journals, etc. that should be considered in deciding whether or not your invention is novel and unique. Failure to disclose material prior art references will usually get your patent invalidated.

Donna Kline, former Bloomberg TV investigative reporter, first reported this story on Mar. 29, 2012 – “Proof Fenwick & West LLP did not disclose Leader as prior art to Facebook.” Kline proved that Palo Alto-based Fenwick & West LLP, Facebook’s attorney (after being Leader’s attorney), did not disclose Leader’s patent in the prior art references for later Facebook patent applications. This was after they did disclose the Leader patent in earlier work for Marc Andreessen, now a Facebook director.

Patent Office Scandal – feed crony venture capitalists with a stream of new ideas from which to steal, then stonewall through regulatory obstruction

Facebook DID NOT disclose Leader’s patent when Fenwick & West LLP clearly knew about it since: (1) they had been Leader’s attorney, and (2) they had already disclosed their knowledge of it in three Andreessen patents in 2005, well before they started representing Facebook at the Patent Office.

Now we discover that three major firms, IBM, Microsoft and Xerox (aka Palo Alto Research Center), also DID NOT disclose Leader’s prior art. Not a single patent already issued to IBM, Microsoft or Xerox by the members of the kangaroo court who were examiners disclosed Leader’s patent in any of their work. See for yourself: Daniel Ryman, Kimberly Jordan, Allen R. MacDonald and Pinchus M. Laufer.

Inequitable Conduct Facts:

At the center of this scandal now are two attorneys/firms that Leader hired in 2002 regarding Leader’s own patents, intellectual property and securities:

  • Professor James P. Chandler, Washington, D.C.
  • Fenwick & West LLP, Palo Alto, CA

In later years and hundreds if not thousands of patent filings for Facebook, IBM, Microsoft, and Xerox later, not a single one of these filings disclosed Leader’s U.S. Pat. No. 7,139,761 as a prior art reference―even though their lawyers worked on developing the Leader innovations and clearly knew about it. The fact is, even if the current invalidation were to stick (which it cannot given the fraud), they had an equitable conduct obligation to have disclosed it anyway.

What is appearing more evident each day is that Michael McKibben and Leader Technologies trumped the great and mighty IBM, Microsoft and Xerox patent mills regarding the new Internet. It appears that these organizations are now trying to rewrite history to keep from invalidating thousands of their patents that withheld knowledge of the Leader innovations from dozens of patent examiners, judges (and ultimately their bosses—the American people).

The Patent Office proof of this knowledge came from Fenwick’s filings for Marc Andreessen on Feb. 8,  2010.

Inequitable conduct made strange bedfellows among Facebook, IBM, Microsoft and Xerox.

Inequitable conduct regarding Leader’s patent is what these companies have in common. Their misconduct is exposed by the very existence of Leader’s patent.

Their solution appears to be to wipe Leader’s patent off the books in the secret Kappos kangaroo court and hope nobody notices.

Avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety

Judges and public officials have a well-known ethical rule: avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

These officials not only abused this rule, they obliterated it.

* * *

18 comments:

  1. Did a little of my own research found yet another "coincidence." Professor Chandler lists the Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall R. Rader as one of his faculty members. Last time I checked, such relationships should be disclosed by judges when cases come before them where they have a relationship to a witness or potential witness for one of the sides. Rader was in charge of the decision not to hear Leader's "en banc" petition. Do these judges follow any laws anymore, or just they ones they like.

    http://www.nipli.org/1/1-4.html

    P.S. Just in case this document "disappears" from the web, I have made a bunch of copies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't believe I missed this "MICHAEL R. NELSON" among Prof. Chandler's faculty: "DIRECTOR OF INTERNET TECHNOLOGY AND STRATEGY ***** IBM ***** One of Kappos' henchmen??? That's proof of Chandler's association with IBM, on his own website no less. Anyone else smelling a foul odor?

      http://www.nipli.org/1/1-4.html

      AFI, I just sent you the PDF file. Please post it so it doesn't disappear from the web like all of Zuckerberg's Harvard documents and emails.

      Delete
  2. Dear Rain,

    Here's a link to a PDF along with the full citation:

    "Present and Former Faculty Members." NIPLI - National Intellectual Property Law Institute, Professor James P. Chandler, III, President, accessed May 13, 2014, http://www.nipli.org/1/1-4.html;

    See also https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2SfG2nEsMfqVUVCbVlZWFo2bGM/edit?usp=sharing

    Great work!

    ReplyDelete
  3. We now see with the IR$ scandal that redacting a document by a federal agency is intended to cover up conflicts of interest! It is not being used for protecting national security! What is the Patent office trying to hide by stonewalling and redacting Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests from Leader shareholders?
    8-O

    ReplyDelete
  4. Email Comment by: Just fell off the pumpkin wagon

    C'mon Darren, you mean to tell me you didn't get the Memo when this administration took office? I voted for the guy and I didn't either. These Harvard bozos don't have to follow the ethical rules, they only have to pretend to. Ethics are only for us farmers (that's anybody 50 miles west of the Northeast coastline with an outpost in a 50 mile radius of Stanford University, the Ethics Sink Hole of the West).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unfortunately it appears that this post is more doublespeak and another attempt to disseminate misleading information.

    The "former IBMer" clearly did not have any type of role with respect to patents. IBM sells thousands of patents on a regular basis. See, for example:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-31/ibm-s-complaint-to-twitter-leads-to-patent-purchase.html

    http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/3/2680128/google-buys-217-IBM-patents

    http://www.techspot.com/news/45490-google-strengthens-android-defense-with-1023-ibm-patents.html

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/06/28/ibm-sells-some-patents-to-ultratech-for-8-million/

    And the 750 patents that were sold to Facebook had absolutely nothing to do with Leader. They were purchased to defend against a patent infringement suit by Yahoo. It's all very well documented here: http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/22/facebook-buys-750-ibm-patents-to-defend-against-yahoo/

    The reason that Leader's patent isn't disclosed as prior art in these patents is very simple; the Leader patent has absolutely nothing to do with the patents or the technology claimed. It's not some massive grand conspiracy by a gaggle of law firms, venture capitalists, and government officials. No such conspiracy could ever stay intact with so many players. I know that Mike (aka Rainonyourparade, aka Kathy Craine, aka Sandra Craine, aka Tex, aka Law Blogger, aka Derek, aka Surfer Dude, aka Linda Wilson, aka Steve Wilson, aka Bill Cranbrook, aka every Donna Kline post, aka every Dr. A. brief, aka virtually every "email comment" on this blog) is a huge fan of inventing conspiracies that revolve around him, but this one's really over the top!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol. And you are the one who just stumbled across this site several months ago? Talk about conspiracy theories. It's always the way with abusers. They personalize their attacks to try and deflect from the truth of their wrongdoings. No one is fooled, "Jill." As to the IBMer, you'll have to pound sand because that person is in the know. Any patents being sold are considered "trash" to IBM. Looks like the purchasers you cite intend them only for trolling, since they invented none of them. That isn't the point anyway. That conflict of interest demanded recusal by everyone on the Patent Office kangaroo court. They're probably your drinking buddies in the American Inns of Court. It's now our turn to out the good old boy network. The nest is about to get toxic.

      Delete
    2. Jill denies my existence. I'm shocked and hurt. NOT. Actually, I'm honored, the way Senator John McCain was when Vladimir Putin denied his holiday visa to Siberia. ROTFL (Jill, this means ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING)

      Delete
  6. Email comment by JJ

    Get rid of the career bureaucrats when we have a change of administration.

    Ban the career Washington lawyers from arguing more than X times in front of a tribunal.

    The Founders separated New York from Washington to keep money and political interests apart. We need to reconfigure that principle for our age of instant communication. Same principle, different circumstances. They did not envision this professional class of career bureaucrats and their crony lawyers.

    Therein is the old boy network.

    The people we elect don't stand a chance in Washington when walking into this den of thieves.

    A leading Minnesota Dem suggests moving the Commerce Department to North Platte, Nebraska, as an example. Has merit IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This CNN anlaysis of "Privacy" statements should be a wake up call. The level of deception is off the charts. Some compare it to the worst abuses in pre-War Germany. It describes the deceptive practices that "Jill" supports.

    CNN MONEY - FORTUNE & MONEY

    "What you really agree to when you click 'accept'"

    By Jose Pagliery @Jose_Pagliery May 19, 2014: 9:15 AM ET

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/19/technology/security/privacy-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

    ReplyDelete
  8. Saw Actor Richard Dreyfus interview last night about his "The Dreyfus Initiative." His site says:

    "Our Fundamental Vision:
    To teach our kids how to run our country with common sense and realism, before it’s time for them to run the country. If we don’t, someone else will run this country nation and the experiment of government by, for, and of the people will have failed."

    The initiative is promoting civics and ethics. This sounds like a worthy project to help counter the lawless lawyers of the Facebook cartel who have wormed their way into our national life. Here's the link:

    http://thedreyfussinitiative.org/

    "Starting this Fall: the National Conversation will be linked sites that represent all political opinion and all aspects of society, who meet on the Internet on a semi- regular basis to discuss the state of the country."

    -Richard Dreyfuss

    ReplyDelete
  9. The timeline Campbell Live have established is damning.


    March 8th 2011 – Jerry Mateparae is stepped down as head of the GCSB.

    March 15th 2011 – Top NSA spook, James Clapper, flies to NZ to meet with Key to discuss ‘synchronicity’ between the NSA and GCSB.

    March 22nd 2011 – High level intelligence meetings

    May 2011 – McCully visits Washington

    June 17th 2011 – Key meets with Ian Fletcher for breakfast at Stamford Plaza.

    July 22nd 2011 – Key is invited to Washington as pay back for this new ‘synchronicity’.

    July 26th 2011 – Key side steps normal protocols and appoints his old school friend Ian Fletcher to take over at the GCSB.

    October 2011 – John Key, the head of the SIS and NZDF join Ian Fletcher, the MFAT Head, and the DPMC boss for a secret dinner at the British High Commissioner’s home

    December 8th 2011 – A letter states that Key is going to meet Ian Fletcher on 12th December

    December 12th 2011 – Key meets with Ian Fletcher.

    December 14th 2011 – The Police boss responsible for spying on Dotcom meets John Key with other intelligence agencies present.

    December 16th 2011 – Kim Dotcom starts to be illegally spied upon.

    January 2012 – Raid on Kim Dotcom.

    It is almost as if there are two laws in America


    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/20/campbell-live-review-extraordinary-new-gcsb-revelations/#sthash.PSxjpc5M.dpuf

    What Campbell Live exposes is a covert effort to expand the GCSB into corporate spying for America, yes our country N.Z, is Cyber spying for America. One N.S.A. document tells New Zealand and its other Five Eyes intelligence partners its ambition is to Know it all, collect it all, Exploit it all, and Partner it all, YES STEAL IT ALL AND BLAME THE CHINESE ?. America spies on your email addresses, phone numbers, online chat, web-based email and attachment including text messages and phone calls. this corporate spying uncovers the fraud of the so called War on Terror, And What was the real purpose of Clapper’s visit to New Zealand?

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is proof that when there really is a conflict, the federal circuit judges do the right thing.

    http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/federal_circuits_chief_judge_resigns_post_after_email_controversy/

    ReplyDelete
  11. First, Judge Rader is resigning, not recusing. You don't have to quit your job when you have a conflict, you just back off the case. We suspect he is leaving to try and put distance between his skeletons in the closet. He is probably doing so to try and avoid the other shoe dropping in Leader v. Facebook over the way his conflicts prejudiced the case.

    Lest you forget, Mark, that very attorney that triggered Rader's action, EDWARD R. REINES of WEIL, GOTSHAL LLP is at the center of the Federal Circuit scandal in Leader v. Facebook.

    Reines entered an appearance on behalf of the Federal Circuit Bar Association (where all the judges and clerk are members) in Leader v. Facebook, yet Chief Judge Rader failed to disclose his conflict of interest and ruled against Leader anyway in the en banc petition. This is illiegal, and clearly he knows it, as your link PROVES!!!

    http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/arunachalum/2012-09-17-Response-to-Request-of-Federal-Circuit-Bar-Association-s-Request-for-Reissue-Re-Leader-v-Facebook-Case-No-2011-1366-Fed-Cir-by-Lakshmi-Arunach.pdf#page=30

    Also at:

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B2SfG2nEsMfqWkpiRjZmV3g0ZU0&usp=sharing

    Never mind that Judge Kimberly A. Moore did not disclose that WEIL, GOTSHAL was her former client, which she also failed to disclose.

    We don't think these judges know the meaning of impropriety.

    ReplyDelete
  12. British researchers just provided AFI with this analysis of "The Chinese Facebook" -- BAIDU, Inc.

    Email comment by The Crown Affair:

    It reveals that LAWRENCE SUMMERS founded Baidu, Inc. on July 12, 2005 while he was Managing Director of D.E. Shaw & Co. More analysis later, but this is a bombshell, yet no longer surprising.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2SfG2nEsMfqYTZIb3VRa2xHVkk/edit?usp=sharing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AND THE SADE THING ABOUT THIS IS THE F.B.I. NEW THIS AND THE N.S.A. NEW THIS. AND NEW F.B. WAS STOLEN?

      Delete
  13. BREAKING NEWS!

    "Judge Rader, Author of Controversial Email to Lawyer [Edward R. Reines, Weil Gotshal LLP], to Resign from Bench" by Ashby Jones, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL LAW BLOG, Jun. 13, 2014

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/06/13/judge-rader-author-of-controversial-email-to-lawyer-to-resign-from-bench/

    This is great news for advocates of justice and the rule of law over crony capitalism and the Wall Street-Washington Cartel, for which Rader was a hired gun. Now we need to call for declarations of MIS-TRIALS on cases that have come before the Federal Circuit where Radar, Reines and Weil Gotshal LLP were involved and thus tainted the proceedings.

    ReplyDelete

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 afi@leader.com and we will post them.