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, May 29, 2014

GLOBAL SURVEILLANCE TECHNOCRACY UNCOVERED

Larry Summers founded Chinese, Russian & U.S. social networks with support of U.S. Agencies, Banks and Tech

Contributing Writers | Opinion | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION  | May 29, 2014, Updated Jun 01 | PDF
Technocracy - ''Larry Summers & his friends know best''
Fig. 1—Lawrence "Larry" Summers, Obama's first Director of the National Economic Council, appears to have personally directed the establishment and funding of the three largest social networks in the world: Facebook (U.S.), VKontakte (Russia) and Baidu (China).
Lawrence ''Larry'' Summers
The two law firms who brought him the technology to achieve such an objective were Fenwick & West LLP and Chandler Law Firm. These firms had close relationships to the three-letter agencies: N.S.A., C.I.A., D.I.A. and F.B.I. In the 1990's, these agencies tried to force Phil Zimmerman into building a backdoor into his PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) encryption software, but he refused. Clearly, Facebook, Baidu and VKontakte are more cooperative since they know they are founded on stolen technology. Facebook's values are the polar opposite of Zimmerman's. And thus, their current cry of foul at the exposure of the NSA's activity rings hollow. Now we know why. Photo: Business Week

May 29, 2014NBC broadcaster Brian Williams interviewed whistleblower Edward Snowden last evening. Snowden shared chilling facts.

Edward Snowden
Edward Snowden
Photo: NDR

The NSA is collecting data on every American without a warrant under internal interpretations of the Patriot Act that have never been scrutinized by public debate.

The NSA collects information on non-U.S. citizens and their leaders with abandon—conduct that begs the question: "Is the best way to support democratic ideals to abuse the privacy of others?" Snowden contends that having more data is not making us more secure. Clearly, the snooping is making the NSA the brunt of jokes across the globe. Brian Williams even admitted they made NSA jokes in the newsroom.

The FISA court, which is supposed to check abuses of power, is essentially staffed with "old boys" who approve virtually all requests, and therefore, do not protect our privacy rights. It appears the FISA court is like one drunk recommending to another drunk to quit drinking.

Snowden's concerns were rebuffed by superiors

Contrary to complaints that he should have taken his concerns through channels, Snowden said he did go to his superiors, multiple times. (Isn't it interesting that the knee-jerk reaction of many policy makers was that he did not, without having any insight into whether he did or didn't?) However, he said the responses were classically bureaucratic, ranging from we'll get back to you to shut up if you want to keep your job.

warrantless surveillance is a much bigger problem than the NSA—all roads lead back to Harvard and Lawrence "Larry" Summers

Investigations into the Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal have now verified intimate, direct links among Lawrence “Larry” Summers, President Obama’s first National Economic Advisor, and the world’s three largest social networks: Facebook (U.S.), VKontakte (Russia) and Baidu.(China). None of these conflicts have ever been disclosed. Such nondisclosures are in direct violation of Summers' Nov. 2008 Ethics Pledge to the American People:

Larry Summers' Ethics Pledge in 2008:

"As required by 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect on my financial interests or those of any person whose interests are imputed to me."

Summers facilitated the movement of approximately $33 billion in 2008 bank bailout funds to Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and State Street Corp starting within weeks of his appointment. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan underwrote Facebook's IPO where they were big takers, along with Goldman's partners in Moscow, Digital Sky, Mail.ru, Yuri Milner and Alisher Usmanov. Thus, Summers's ethics pledge was DOE (Dead On Arrival), not counting his almost $3m in Goldman Sachs speaking fees. Will anyone hold him accountable? If common car thieves serve years in prison, what is Summers's appropriate punishment? See Congressional Briefing.
U.S. Map

1. Facebook (United States) started at Harvard while Summers was President on Feb. 4, 2004. In the 1990's, Sheryl K. Sandberg, Facebook’s COO, was Summers’ graduate student at Harvard, then protégé at the World Bank, then at the U.S. Treasury where she was his chief of staff. This alliance runs so deep that observers have concluded that Summers is the shadow power behind Facebook where Sandberg and Zuckerberg merely follow orders. See Congressional Briefing.

U.S. Map

2. Baidu, Inc. (China), called “the Chinese Facebook” was funded by D.E. Shaw & Co. while Summers was Managing Director. Baidu’s list of financiers replicates Facebook’s (e.g., T.Rowe Price, Baillie Gifford, Vanguard, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, UBS, and a slew of secret Cayman Island investors). The current CEO, Robin Y. Li, was appointed the same month that Zuckerberg started Facebook on Feb. 4, 2004. Li named his Cayman Islands stock holding company "Handsome Reward." See previous post; See also Baidu S.E.C. filings.

Russia Map

3. VKontakte (Russia), called “the Russian Facebook” (a.k.a. DST, Digital Sky, Mail.ru, Yuri Milner, Alisher Usmanov) was started by Summers’ other protégé from the early 1990’s at the World Bank, Yuri Milner. Summers, Sandberg and Milner pressed upon the failing U.S.S.R. the now infamous and wrong-headed Soviet voucher system that spawned the current oligarch system. Chief among them is Alisher Usmanov, now “Russia’s Richest Man.” Usmanov and Milner funneled billions of dollars of funds from dubious origins to purchase pre-IPO Facebook private shares underwritten by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan. Some suspect that these funds were redirected TARP funds originally given to Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and overseen by Summers when he was appointed as Director of the National Economic Council by President Obama.

The Hubris of the Cartel could not admit that their ideas were trumped by innovators in Columbus, Ohio

Two law firms, Fenwick & West LLP and Chandler Law Firm, both with deep Harvard Law ties, appear to have provided Summers with the large-scale technological invention required to implement this global scheme—namely the social networking invention of their mutual client, Columbus innovator Leader Technologies, Inc.—U.S. Pat. No. 7,139,761.

Fenwick and Chandler are well known in Washington, D.C. circles to have deep, long-standing relationships with the NSA, CIA, DIA, Justice and FBI intelligence gathering. Leader's first director, Major General James E. Freeze, U.S. Army (ret.), was head of the U.S. Army Security Agency and #3 at the NSA. It would appear that Leader was thrown under the bus by this security cartel. Freeze and Chandler appear to have already been making plans for a universal Internet operating system at the time when Leader sought legal help from Chandler to protect their invention. Chandler's early website shows his collaboration with "The Open Group" whose mission is "Boundaryless Information Flow."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jan. 19, 1961: Beware the military-industrial complex

Fig. 2—President of the United States (and five-star general during World War II) Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term "military-industrial complex" in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961. Video: C-SPAN

Fenwick's associations and inter-relationships with the CIA's In-Q-Tel funding arm are notorious. In-Q-Tel's trustees include Marc Andreessen's former partner, James Barksdale; a former Chairman of the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA), Howard Cox; Stanford Professor Elisabeth Pate-Cornell; and, Fenwick's collaborator at venture capital company Kleiner Perkins, Ted Schlein.

According to Senate testimony, Chandler advised the entire government on matters related to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. It appears that once these individuals learned of Leader's invention, they planned to feed it to their other clients, like IBM, Microsoft, Xerox, Accel Partners, Boston Scientific and the U.S. government.

For example, Leader v. Facebook trial testimony indicates that once Chandler saw Leader's invention, he advised them to "reduce it to practice" before he would file the patents. Patent experts say this advice was so horribly misguided, especially coming from a well-respected professor of patent law, that it had to have been intentional. Viewed in light of an intent to feed Leader's code to an international "open source group" network, it now makes perfect sense. Normally, a programming client would not give its attorney a full copy of its source code. In any event, Chandler did not file that code with Leader's provisional patent, even though he could have. Also note that Chandler taught intellectual property law both at George Washington University and at Harvard.

Fenwick has filed patents in Facebook's name that are really Leader's

According to trial evidence, Chandler claimed that Leader had over 60 patents or patentable inventions in 2001. It appears that Fenwick & West LLP filed those patents in Facebook's name instead. That same Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory CRADA (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) document proves that Chandler and Fenwick were provided a copy of Leader's source code for ostensible safekeeping—all while Zuckerberg was still in high school. The question is: Safekeeping for whom? Clearly not for their client who invented it.

Accountable To No One

A common set of lawyers, financiers, regulators, judges and companies appear to be at the center of an emerging US-Chinese-Russian technocracy organized by Lawrence Summers & Friends that have relied upon stolen technology to organize and fund themselves, including:

Larry Summers' Global Technocracy

Tech Lawyer Financier Agency Regulator Judicial Public Funds Exploited
Accel Partners Blank Rome LLP Baillie Gifford C.I.A. Baharara, Preet Ellis, Thomas S. III 12(g) exempt.
Accenture Chandler Law Firm BlackRock Commerce Bauer, Robert F. Horbaly, Jan Bank Bailout
Andreessen, Marc Cooley Godward LLP Fidelity D.I.A. Blank, Rebecca M. Jackson, Amy B. Facebook IPO
Baidu Inc. cn DC Bar Assoc. Goldman Sachs F.B.I. Chopra, Aneesh Kegan, Elena En'gy Stimulus
Boston Scientific Fed. Cir. Bar Assoc. IDG (China) F.C.C. Clapper, James R. Lourie, Alan D. HealthCare.gov
Breyer, James W. Fenwick & West LLP JPMorgan F.E.C. Dunn, Anita B. Moore, Kimberly A. Ancillary IPOs
Breyer, John P. Gibson Dunn LLP Lamont, Ann H. H.H.S. Freeze, James E. Rader, Randall R.  
DST Digital Sky Latham & Watkins LP Meritech Int’l Trade Holder, Eric H. Jr. Roberts, John G.  
Facebook Orrick Herng'ton LLP Morgan Stanley I.R.S. Kappos, David J. Stark, Leonard P.  
Groupon Perkins Coie LLP N.Ven.Cap.Assoc. Justice Kim, Thomas J. Wallach, Evan J.  
Hoffman, Reid Weil Gotshal LLP Sands Capital N.S.A. Kocher, Robert    
IBM White & Case LLP Soros, George S.E.C. Obama, Barack H    
IDG Cap. (China)   State Street U.S.P.T.O. Park, Todd Y.    
Instagram   TIAA-CREF WH Pelosi, Nancy    
LinkedIn   T.Rowe Price   Petravick, Meredith    
Mail.ru   Vanguard   Pritzker, Penny S.    
Microsoft       Reid, Harry    
Milner, Yuri       Schapiro, Mary L.    
Thiel, Peter       Sheehy, Mike    
Usmanov, Alisher       Siu, Stephen C.    
VKontakte ru       Summers, Larry H.    
Xerox            
Zynga            
Table 1: Individuals and organizations known to be collaborating toward a supra-territorial technocracy. Updated Jun. 01, 2014

A global data sharing ring has been established among them. HealthCare.gov was a key component of this plan. Healthcare spending is projected to be 18% of the Gross Domestic Product in 2014. Technocracy advocates evidently wanted that data to feed their algorithms.

To achieve their "big data" objectives, they arranged for Todd Y. Park to start Athenahealth and Castlight Health with funds from Cartel members. Then, they arranged to have President Obama appoint him CTO (Chief Technology Officer) at Health & Human Services to implement his technology and "Datapalooza" there. Then, he moved over to the White House as CTO to protect his creation. See previous post.

Robert C. Kocher, MD, the architect of Obamacare, then quit the White House and went to work for Park’s Athenahealth and Venrock financier to watch over their creation from the other end. No stone under the revolving door was left unturned, it appears.

H.H.S. & I.R.S. data—the mother lodes

HealthCare.gov gives these technocrats visibility into the mothers of all databases, HHS and IRS. To tie those two together, they evidently blackmailed Chief Justice John G. Roberts to flip his vote so that the system would be defined as a tax as the ruse to tap IRS data. Never mind that Robert’s financial portfolio is stacked with Cartel crony stocks. Perhaps that was the blackmail.

Judges, regulators and agency heads have blessed this unholy union.

Could this hidden agenda be the cause of Washington's dysfunction?

When someone knows your thoughts, all the time, they don't have to compromise.

When Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi ran Congress, they shoved Obamacare down the public's throat, supported by lies from the President that you could keep your doctor. This plan for a lawless global technocracy required America's healthcare data. Reid's and Pelosi's handlers used this power to get access to HHS and IRS data.

Case in point, our sitting U.S. Chief Technology Officer, Todd Y. Park, has implemented Athenahealth's and Castlight Health's technologies into HealthCare.gov. (Park signed the same Ethics Pledge to disclose conflicts that will benefit him that Summers signed.) This is a gross breach of ethics, yet the Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. is silent. Worse, Castlight just filed to go public—while Park is still working at the White House. These people don't even hide their disdain for law and ethics any longer. They know there will be no consequences for their lawlessness.

Why do "the masses" keep using these systems? —Titillation

People keep using their devices because certain unscrupulous vendors offer a continues stream of games, coupons, gossip, discounts, entertainment and sex—titillation. History teaches that unchecked pandering and titillation destroys empires from within. Compounding the problem, users leave their computers and iPhones on, which then allows these immoral vendors and intelligence compadres to take over the devices for any purpose.

This technocracy is clearly overtaking the sovereignties of smaller governments. Will the United States people allow it to overtake them?

The jury is still out.

* * *

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
David J. Kappos
Fig. 1—Twenty-five year IBMer David J. Kappos was appointed Patent Office Director by Barack Obama in a rare recess appointment in Aug. 2009. Kappos was a long time protege of Clinton national security advisor James P. Chandler, III who was directing the rogue C.I.A.'s operation to weaponize the Internet. This rogue C.I.A. stole the social networking invention of Columbus innovator Leader Technologies, Inc. and distributed it through the IBM Eclipse Foundation, started with a $40 million "donation" from IBM.
Contributing Writers | Opinion | AMERICAN S FOR INNOVATION  | May 10, 2014, Updated Oct. 25, 2017 | PDF

ORIGINAL POST

(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.

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. 4—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. 5—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. 6—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. 7—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.

* * *

Notices: This post may contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Photos used are for educational purposes only and were obtained from public sources. No claims whatsoever are made to any photo.

Comment

Click "N comments:" on the line just below this instruction to comment on this post. Alternatively, send an email with your comment to amer4innov@gmail.com and we'll post it for you. We welcome and encourage anonymous comments, especially from whisteblowers.