MPEG LA, DVD Licensing, Toshiba - Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division

More Iviewit Proof of Fraud and MPEG LA Involvement.Proskauer Rose LLP Corruption. Patent Fraud ?

June 10, 1999 - Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division - Assistant Attorney General

" Carey R. Ramos, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6064

Dear Mr. Ramos:

This letter is in response to your request on behalf of Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Time Warner Inc., Toshiba Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (collectively, the "Licensors"), for the issuance of a business review letter pursuant to the Department of Justice's Business Review Procedure, 28 C.F.R. § 50.6.

You have requested a statement of the Department of Justice's antitrust enforcement intentions with respect to a proposed arrangement pursuant to which Toshiba will assemble and offer a package license under the Licensors' patents that are "essential," as defined below, to manufacturing products in compliance with the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats and will distribute royalty income to the other Licensors.

I. The DVD-ROM and DVD-Video Formats

The Standard Specifications for the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats describe the physical and technical parameters for DVDs for read-only-memory and video applications, respectively, and "rules, conditions and mechanisms" for player units for the two formats.

(1) In either format, the DVD has more than seven times the storage capacity of a compact disc; a single-layer, single-sided DVD, for example, can store 4.7 billion bytes (4.38 GB) of information including audio, video, text, and data. Employing compression technology, a DVD-Video disc can hold a 135-minute feature film on a single side.

The Licensors, along with a number of other producers of consumer electronics hardware, software, or both,

(2) established the Standard Specifications.

(3) These Standard Specifications appear to implicate the intellectual property rights of numerous firms.

II. The Proposed Arrangement

A memorandum of understanding among the Licensors (the "MOU," attached as Exhibit 1 to your letter) sets forth the central terms of the proposed arrangement, pursuant to which Toshiba will aggregate the Licensors' "essential" patents and disseminate rights under them to makers of Digital Versatile Discs (DVDs), DVD players, and DVD decoders

(4) ("DVD Products"), and distribute royalty income to the other Licensors. The arrangement will be carried out through a group of other agreements, including:

(1) a license that Toshiba will receive from each other Licensor to enable Toshiba to license users of the Standard Specifications under that Licensor's "essential" patents (the "Authorization Agreement," attached as Exhibit 3); (2) Toshiba's sublicense to makers of DVD Products under the Licensors' patents (the "DVD Patent License," attached as Exhibit 2);

(3) an agreement among the Licensors concerning the retention and authority of experts to select and evaluate the patents to be licensed (the "Expert Agreement," attached as Exhibit 4); and

(4) the "Ground Rules for Royalty Allocation" (attached as Exhibit 7), which set forth the formula that will determine how Toshiba will distribute royalties among the Licensors.

(5) A. The patents to be licensed In the MOU, the Licensors commit to license each other and third parties to make, use and sell DVD Products under their present and future patents that are "essential" to doing so.

(6) The Licensors agree to two separate means of carrying out this obligation. First, they agree to grant Toshiba the right to sublicense third parties under their present and future "essential" patents for these purposes, and Toshiba agrees in turn to sublicense those patents, along with its own such patents, in the DVD Patent Licenses.

(7) Second, each Licensor agrees to "offer to license its essential DVD patents on a non-exclusive basis to interested third-party licensees pursuant to separate negotiations on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, whether or not said third-party licensees intend to make, use and sell DVD products that are in conformity with the Specifications."

(8) A Licensor's patent is "essential," and thus subject to the commitments in the MOU, if it is "necessarily infringed," or "there is no realistic alternative" to it, "in implementing the DVD Standard Specifications."

(9) Initially, each Licensor will identify its own "essential" patents in an attachment to its Authorization Agreement with Toshiba.

(10) Toshiba will then incorporate those patents in a list attached to the DVD Patent License.

(11) Shortly, however, an expert individual or panel, with "full and sufficient knowledge and skill in the relevant technology,"

(12) will complete a review the patents each Licensor has designated as "essential" in order to determine whether they satisfy the MOU criteria.

(13).MOU, ¶ 8; Expert Agreement, preamble.

(14) At that time, any patent initially designated by a Licensor for inclusion in the DVD Patent License that the expert determines is not "essential" will be excluded from subsequent DVD Patent Licenses, although current licensees will have the option to retain it in their existing licenses.

(15) The expert will repeat this comprehensive review of all the patents in the DVD Patent License portfolio every four years.

(16) In between the quadrennial reviews, the proposed program also provides a mechanism by which the expert may review individual patents whose essentiality comes into question. If a Licensor comes to a good faith conclusion that a licensed patent is not "essential," and provides a reasonable basis for that belief, the expert will re-examine the patent.

(17) If the expert concludes that the patent is not "essential," the patent will be excluded from the DVD Patent License.

(18) The agreement provides that the expert's determinations are "conclusive and non-appealable," although the expert must submit a report explaining any decision that a patent was not "essential."

(19) Compensation will be at the expert's "standard hourly rates."

(20) Each Licensor will bear the cost of the expert's review of its patents; the Licensors will share costs attributable to all of them, such as time spent reviewing the DVD Standard Specifications.

(21) The expert, although retained by the Licensors and selected by a majority vote among them, will not have an economic affiliation with any individual Licensor.

(22) A majority of the Licensors may remove the expert for failure or inability to perform the duties set forth in the Expert Agreement "in a professional, competent, reliable or timely manner."

(23) Although the proposed licensing program currently includes the patents of only the Licensors, it is open to any owner of an "essential" patent willing to license on the program's terms and conditions.(24)


Full Letter and Source of Post
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/2485.htm

Save and Print the Above for Your Records.

Note: over the Last year of Writing on iViewt the companies at the top of this post have been all over my Blogs, they Ignore what is happening because the UPSTO, US Judges, Corrupt Law Firms like Foley and Lardner and ALL on my blog at http://www.deniedpatent.com/ seem to be protected by US Billionaires and Politicians. THEY know that the Massive Shareholder Liability is Inevitable and Are Protecting themselve from it.

No ONE is Protecting Investors or Inventors.

More on the Massive Shareholder Fraud Coming Soon to a Pocket Book near You.

http://www.iviewit.tv/

http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

http://www.kennethrubenstein.com/

Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney for MPEG LA - Involves Attorney Raymond Anthony Joao.

Kenneth Rubenstein 's lackey, attorney Raymond Anthony Joao, who was a patent attorney working DIRECTLY under Proskauer Rose Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein 's direction.

Raymond Joao now claims 90 patents in his own name and Iviewit gives him kudos as the greatest slime ball inventor and patent attorney.

No really, Iviewit considers our former counselors Raymond Joao and Kenneth Rubenstein to be nothing more than co-inventors of a system and method to defraud shareholders and inventors of their inventions and commit fraud upon worldwide patent intellectual property organizations, an invention that should carry some stiff federal sentences.

Click here for a press article on the amazing inventiveness of Joao

Raymond Joao was so non-inventive that many of these patents resemble ideas and concepts lifted straight from the Iviewit business plan and invention disclosures and ideas that he was supposed to be patenting for the inventors and shareholders.

More on Raymond Joao Click Here

Source of Above and LOTS More
http://iviewit.tv/about/index.htm


More on Iviewit Massive Shareholder Fraud

www.JeffreyBewkes.com

www.CEOpaulOtellini.com

www.BruceSewell.com

www.iviewit.TV

www.DeniedPatent.com

posthed here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Proskauer Rose LLP Elects Joseph M. Leccese as Chairman of the Corrupt Proskauer Rose LLP.

Does Joseph M. Leccese Know about the Federal RICO Lawsuit that Proskauer Rose LLP is involved in over the STEALING of the Iviewit Technologies?

Does Joseph Leccese - Proskauer Rose LLP NEW Chairman KNOW about the HUGE Liability he is Taking in NOT Looking into the Kenneth Rubenstein and Illegal Patent Pooling of MPEG LA over the Iviewit Technologies ?

Joseph Leccese is in deep on this... Does Joseph Leccese know of the SEC Complaint that Proskauer Rose is involved over the Iviewit Technology?

Does Joseph Leccese KNOW about the Perjured Deposisiton of Kenneth Rubenstein Proskauer Rose LLP over the Blatant Theft of a Multi-Trillion Dollar Technology.

My Guess is that Joseph Leccese - Proskauer Rose LLP is Either CLUELESS or Corrupt .. Either way is dangerous.

Here is the Breaking NEWS on Proskauer Rose LLP, as if it's a Good Thing..

Proskauer Rose LLP has Elected Joseph M. Leccese as Chairman

Proskauer Rose LLP has elected Joseph M. Leccese as the next Chairman of Proskauer Rose LLP.

Joseph M. Leccese is said to be assuming office in January 2011.

Joseph M. Leccese is 49, is the youngest Chairman of Proskauer Rose’s 135-year history.

Joseph M. Leccese began his legal career at the firm as a summer associate, and is currently a Partner in the Corporate Department, a member of the firm’s Executive Committee, and co-head of its renowned Sports Law Group.

Joseph M. Leccese will succeed Allen I. Fagin, who has served as Proskauer's Chairman since 2005, and is completing his maximum six year term as Chairman.

This Corrupt Gibberish is Said on Allen Fagin

“Under Allen’s leadership, Proskauer Rose LLP has made significant strides building a global platform, expanding our presence in key markets, enhancing our capabilities in a number of practice areas and deftly navigating challenging economic times,” said Mr. Leccese. “I am honored and delighted to take on this role as the firm enters its next exciting chapter.”

According to Allen Fagin, Joseph M. Leccese is the right person to continue the firm’s momentum and growth to best serve its clients. This means that Joseph M. Leccese is the Right Man to keep the Legacy of Corruption Alive at Proskauer Rose LLP, and that Joseph Leccese is easily bought of... and will HIDE their Secrets..

Joseph M. Leccese will maintain his practice, represents many of the most prominent sports teams, leagues and sports lenders in a range of corporate, finance and transactional matters, including the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, Major League Soccer, the ATP Tour, the WTA Tour, J.P. Morgan, Citibank and Bank of America.

Ok so the Corrupt Proskauer Rose LLP is in Bed with the Corrupt JP Morgan, no wonder the Cozy - Cozy with George Demos who Protected JP Morgan from the SEC Fraud Charges over $300 Million Dollars...

Joseph M. Leccese also has led numerous stadium and arena developments and related project financings, including the New Meadowlands Stadium, Prudential Center, Amway Center and Lincoln Financial Field. - GOT an tips on Corruption, Conflicts of Interest ??? on Joseph M. Leccese - eMail me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Over the past six years, Proskauer Rose has opened offices in Chicago, Hong Kong, London, and São Paulo, and increased its revenues by over sixty percent. The firm recently announced plans to move its New York headquarters in early 2011 to a new, state-of-the-art building at 11 Times Square.

About Proskauer Rose LLP

Founded in 1875, Proskauer Rose is a global law firm widely recognized for its leadership in a variety of legal services provided to clients worldwide from offices in Boca Raton, Boston, Chicago, Hong Kong, London, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York, Newark, Paris, São Paulo and Washington, DC. Additional information about the firm, which has extensive experience in all areas of practice important to businesses, not-for-profit institutions and individuals.

Source information in post on
Joseph M. Leccese - Proskauer Rose LLP Post
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101004006860/en/Proskauer-Elects-Joseph-M.-Leccese-Chairman

More on Allen Fagin at
www.AllenFagin.com

More on Proskauer Rose Fraud at
http://www.proskauersucks.com/

and More To Come on Joseph M. Leccese
at http://www.josephleccese.com/

posted Here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

Perjured Deposition by Corrupt Proskauer Rose Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein - MPEG LA Corrupt Patent Pooling.

Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt Patent Attorney from Proskauer Rose LLP - Working with MPEG LA. Kenneth Rubenstein Perjured himself in Depositions Regarding the Iviewit Technologies Patents in Which Kenneth Rubenstein was Directly Involved in Derailing the Rightful Inventors to Getting their Rightful Patent.

MPEG LA - with the Help of Kenneth Rubenstein Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney, Pooled the Technology in patents and well the Iviewit Inventors NEVER got rights or any compensation for the Mult-Trillion Dollar Invention that WE ALL USE.


Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6 - Final

www.Iviewit.TV
For More on Iviewit

www.ProskauerSucks.com
more on Proskauer Rose Corruption

http://www.kennethrubenstein.com/
more on MPEG LA Corruption and Kenneth Rubenstein
Corrupt Patent Attorney.

posted by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Perjured Deposition Proskauer Rose - MPEG LA for Iviewit and Eliot Bernstein

Part 1
Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Deposition
Proskauer Rose & MPEG LA for Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein.

Kenneth Rubenstein - Patent Attorney Proskauer Rose Partner



Hear More on Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Deposition Proskauer Rose & MPEG LA for Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein at Eliot Bernstein's Iviewit Technologies Channel - Click Here

More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.Iviewit.TV and www.DeniedPatent.com

Proskauer Rose Law Firm involved in Mass Cover Ups of Multi-Trillion Dollar Patent.

"Where once caught stealing the patents, Proskauer Rose has gone through elaborate steps to obstruct justice and deny due process of complaints against them.

Through abuses of public office positions and a series of diabolical conflicts of interests at Supreme Court bar associations and in a civil court in Florida, where initial complaints were filed, including a counter complaint.

The counter complaint was denied to be allowed and in this civil billing case Proskauer Rose won through a default judgment after the judge dismissed two sets of Iviewit counsel and granted Proskauer Rose a victory for Iviewit's failure to retain replacement counsel.

This case will be appealed pending information from the investigations, because as it turns out, Iviewit defended companies it did not own, as Proskauer Rose appears to have sued the companies they fraudulently set up to own the stolen patents.

That once caught stealing the patents, Proskauer Rose made a desperate attempt to rid the shell companies that they had put the Stolen IP into and gain control of the assets through a lawsuit claiming monies owed, while their management referrals tried and involuntary bankruptcy claiming monies owed.

In fact, the company was not even aware that Proskauer Rose and their management had taken such actions.

The company was notified by members of AOLTW/WB while seeking a twenty five million dollar raise that such legal actions were found while doing their due-diligence but the company was never made aware they were even lawsuits or bankruptcy, as these were for companies named similar and identical to the shareholder companies but not owned by the shareholders.

Upon learning of the legal actions and involuntary bankruptcy the company through a friend and hero (and you will learn of many who have helped carry the torch this far through personal sacrifice and risk), Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esq. fired the counsel we were unaware we had and filed the counter complaint in the civil case and filed in the bankruptcy.

We retained new counsel, Steven Selz, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, and others to begin to peel the onion and file back but Judge Jorge Labarga would not allow us to present our case and through denying due process and procedure threw the case. All prior counsel was fired that had been prior representing the companies without authorization and this new team took over the cases.

At the time, it was not known that two sets of identical companies had been set up and that the companies we were now defending were not owned by the shareholders but by the companies lawyers. Therefore, Iviewit at the time thought that it was representing companies that its shareholders owned.

It was not until the USPTO found that certain patents listed by the attorneys as assets of the Iviewit companies, where not in fact owned or assigned to the parties the attorneys listed on the IP dockets, (USPTO LETTER SHOWING THAT CERTAIN IP ASSETS THOUGHT TO BE IVIEWIT ASSETS ARE OTHERS) that evidence of the multi-layered corporate and patent shell scheme began to surface.

Identically named companies, as illustrated in the Company History section, were formed to transfer stolen IP in the wrong inventors names and with no assignment or ownership to shareholders; fascinating, like a shell game of hide the real patents.

Upon attempting to ascertain why the patents were all wrong in inventors, assignees, owners and content, it was learned that dual named corporations were set up and again the information has been forwarded to state and federal authorities and the company is awaiting the outcome of these investigations.

Federal and international authorities have been notified that the organization MPEGLA LLC and other patent pools now controlled by our former Proskauer patent attorneys are acting as anti-competitive and monopolistic criminal enterprises to further aid in the theft and proliferation of the Iviewit inventions through a tying and bundling scheme.

This scheme denies paying royalties to the Iviewit Shareholders including the SBA.

Why, you may ask, is Proskauer Rose LLP a former real estate firm since the 1800's, suddenly controlling patent pools that directly infringe upon the Iviewit inventions, after Proskauer Rose learned of the inventions directly from the inventors?

In fact, Proskauer Rose attorney Kenneth Rubenstein, a member of the Advisory Board for Iviewit and lead patent counsel to MPEGLA LLC, is now trying to claim that he never heard of Iviewit under deposition (Kenneth Rubenstein Deposition) and sworn statements to a civil court.

Where evidence shows Rubenstein's direct involvement, Kenneth Rubenstein is found to be a BIG FAT LIAR..

Evidence such as his name in the Iviewit billings and letters from executives of AOLTW/WB showing that he opined favorably on the patents to induce investment from them, contradicts his perjured deposition.

Evidence like his name as an Advisory Board Member in a Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum, co-authored, disseminated and billed for by his firm Proskauer Rose and hosts of other evidence clearly showing his knowledge and involvement.

When confronted under deposition with such evidence, Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose LLP refused to answer direct deposition questions (at his civil billing case) and left his deposition stating that we would have to have the court order him back to answer questions that directly affect the shareholders.

The court did order him back to the answer the questions but before he could be re-deposed the civil case trial was thwarted by the judge. Iviewit after being released of retained counsel by the judge never got the opportunity.

Kenneth Rubenstein who swears under deposition, under sworn statements to the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division: First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee and in a written statement to Judge Jorge Labarga of the civil court in Florida to have never heard of Iviewit, the Iviewit inventions or inventors; cannot be the same Kenneth Rubenstein opining favorably on the Iviewit patents to AOLTW/WB -

(click here for AOLTW/WB letter dusting Rubenstein's statements and exposing him for perjury).

Source and More
http://iviewit.tv/about/index.htm

More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent
and the Massive Shareholder Fraud

www.DeniedPatent.com

www.Iviewit.TV

www.JeffreyBewkes.com

www.CEOpaulOtellini.com

Kenneth Rubenstein Corrupt Patent Attorney at Proskauer Rose Law Firm CONSPIRES with MPEG LA to Commit Massive Fraud and Anti-Trust Violations

MPEG-LA hit by antitrust suit over video codecs. Kenneth Rubenstein Corrupt Patent Attorney Proskauer Rose DOES it Again...

MPEG LA has been in the Illegal - Unethical
Patent Pooling Business for Years.

Proskauer Rose Law Firm has made a Living and Lifetime Business of Billion Dollar Corruption Schemes and screwing over investors. And Well Proskauer Rose's Patent Department has a Billion Dollar Patent Pooling Scheme going on with the help of Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein and the Illegal, Secret Patent Pool technology Stealing Schemes of MPEG LA.

Corrupt Law Firm ... Proskauer Rose Corrupt Law Firm...

MPEG-LA hit by antitrust suit over video codecs - MPEG LA is Corrupt, it is my understand that MPEG LA Stole a Trillion Dollar Patent with the Aid of Corrupt Law Firms, Tech Companies, Patent Attorneys and Executives

"MPEG-LA hit by antitrust suit over video codecs

German software maker Nero has filed an antitrust complaint against MPEG-LA, the company that oversees licensing for the H.264 video codec favoured by Microsoft and Apple.

MPEG-LA (MPEG Licensing Authority) controls the licenses for the pools of patents needed to use the MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and AVC/H.264 video standards.

As such, it collects royalties from the sale or distribution of almost every PC, DVD, DVD player, digital TV set, TV set-top box, still camera, video camera, iPhone and BlackBerry in the world.

Nero, best known for its CD burning software, alleges that MPEG-LA abuses its monopoly power in these technology markets.

The company filed its antitrust complaint in California district court in Los Angeles on 14 May, seeking unspecified monetary damages and an injunction to halt the alleged anti-competitive actions.

"Absolute power has corrupted MPEG-LA absolutely,"

Nero maintained in its complaint.

"Once MPEG-LA obtained monopoly power in the relevant technology markets, it used that power to wilfully maintain or extend its monopolies for years beyond their natural expiration... and administer its licences in an unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory manner that stifles competition and innovation, and harms consumers."

MPEG-LA charges licensees different amounts for the same MPEG-2 patent, collects administration fees and royalties multiple times for the same device, and does not communicate its policies adequately to certain licensees, according to Nero.

"By remaining silent on vital aspects of its licensing programs, MPEG-LA has created a system that favours some licensees, such as insiders (ie, licensors), and disfavours others, such as outsiders (ie, non-licensor licensees)," Nero's complaint read.

"As a result, outsiders such as Nero have great difficulty planning technology changes and embarking on programmes to research, develop and implement technological innovations — and are charged supracompetitive royalties on distributions as to which they never agreed to pay royalties — while other licensees, such as insiders, do not face such problems."

According to Nero's complaint, MPEG-LA only obtained monopoly power in the relevant audio and video codec markets after getting assurances in 1997 that the Department of Justice (DoJ) would not launch antitrust proceedings against it.

These assurances were conditional on patent pools not being used to stifle competition, Nero stated. It added that MPEG-LA suggested to the DoJ at the time that the pool for MPEG-2 contained no more than 53 essential patents.

MPEG-LA subsequently added around 800 patents it deemed to be essential to the MPEG-2 pool, so as to extend the duration of the codec's licence, Nero said.

The company did the same thing with the MPEG-4 pool, which now includes more than 1,000 patents, and the AVC/H.264 pool, now with over 1,300 patents, according to the filing.

AVC/H.264 is the video codec of choice for Microsoft, which will support it natively in Internet Explorer 9, and for Apple, which is backing it as a superior alternative to Flash.

While Google also supports H.264 in Chrome, it recently open-sourced its own alternative, VP8, in a bid to provide a free alternative to the proprietary and paid-for H.264.

As part of its complaint, Nero said that MPEG-LA used its own patent counsel, Kenneth Rubenstein, as "a so-called 'independent' expert" to evaluate the essentiality of patents.

MPEG-LA had not responded at the time of writing to a request on Tuesday for comment on Nero's allegations. The next stage in the case will be for MPEG-LA to answer Nero's complaint. ""

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2010/05/25/mpeg-la-hit-by-antitrust-suit-over-video-codecs-40089042/

Lets See How German Tech Companies Handle the Corrupt,
UnEthical and Illegal Behavior of MPEG LA....

Ok so a Decade after Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt MPEG LA - Proskauer Rose Law Firm Patent Attorney, helped MPEG LA to steal the Holy Grail of Video / Technology inventions in which we all use every day and have for years upon years, well now this same Corrupt Patent Attorney is involved in more patent theft and illegal patent pool... why is Proskauer Rose standing with Kenneth Rubenstein?

I mean Christopher Wheeler was involved in this stolen patent and he was pushed out.. Kenneth Rubenstein was not even at Proskauer Rose when he first started his patent theft FOR MPEG LA to illegally pool the iviewit technologies in patent pools to hide their existence.. then Corrupt Law Firm Proskauer Rose hired Kenneth Rubenstein after he already lied to the Iviewit Company and said that he was with Proskauer Rose.. so Corrupt Law Firm - Proskauer Rose must be getting billions from MPEG LA dirty dealings or they would not have harbored a CRIMINAL for so long.. also see.. Proskauer ROSE was the reason for the Fall of Enron with this patent .. this technology theft.. and no accountable?

Well that day has come... Unless of Course Corrupt Proskauer Rose also owns judges, ethics committees, supreme courts, and patent officials in Germany as Well as the US?

I will discuss a WHOLE lot more about MPEG LA, Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer ROSE and the Horrible Injustice, Flat Out Fraud, Shareholder Deception, and more that surrounds MPEG LA - Proskauer Rose and Kenneth Rubenstein Corrupt Patent Attorney STEALING a Trillion Dollar Technology and Illegally Pooling this Technology in MPEG patent Pools.. all orchestrated by ONE very Corrupt Patent attorney Kenneth Rubenstein..

PS don't forget.. MPEG and APPLE are seeming quite cozy and Bruce Sewell knew about Iviewit .. while at Intel and when informed went to APPLE.. more on that later..

Collecting Royalties from Stolen Technologies and Illegal Patent Pooling,
What an Incredible Racket... Billions hand over Fist on Someone Else's Invention .. and many of these inventors are harassed, bankrupted, their cars bombed and well just plain ol' SHUT Up..

Here are some Sites for more information in the iViewit Stolen Technology and the Illegal Patent Pooling Tricks and Schemes at MPEG LA with the Help of Proskauer Rose and Kenneth Rubenstein that has created Massive Shareholder Fraud that is now a High Profile SEC Complaint and a Federal RICO Lawsuit .. still undisclosed to unsuspecting shareholders of IBM, Intel Corp, AOL, Time Warner Inc. , Lockheed Martin, Warner Bros. , SGI, and More involved in the Blatant Theft of a Trillion Dollar Technology that We all used Every Day...

www.Iviewit.TV

www.DeniedPatent.com

www.ProskauerSucks.com

www.KennethRubenstein.com

www.BruceSewell.com

www.JeffreyBewkes.com

www.CEOpaulOtellini.com

Proskauer Rose bio Clip on Kenneth Rubenstein"


" Kenneth Rubenstein is co-head of the Patent Law Group and a Partner in the New York office. He also is a registered patent attorney before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and a former member of the legal staff at Bell Laboratories. While there are numerous patent law groups at various firms, Ken and his group distinguish themselves from competitors by being able to deal with very sophisticated technology. "


Source
http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/Detail.aspx?professional=0eae1af8-e822-4a75-9414-d8ee3f87e890&tabId=0


posted by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

more on the MPEG LA stealing and pooling patents
.. at www.iViewit.tv/
and at www.DeniedPatent.com

Why Is MPEG-LA Getting Into The Patent Trolling Game? MPEG LA is Corrupt and Steals Patents now they Want to Cry Patent Infringement?

MPEG-LA is Corrupt - MPEG-LA has been involved in Illegal Patent Pooling for a Very Long Time. MPEG-LA will have to be accountability at some point for all the damage they have done.

MPEG is Suing for Patent Infringement ?

What a Crock -

MPEG LA with the Help of Corrupt Patent Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose stole a Trillion Dollar Patent from Iviewit Technologies around a Decade ago, they have made Billions from this Stolen Technology - Now MPEG LA wants to sue others for infringing on a patent that MPEG LA Stole in the First Place, what a Joke.

" Joe Mullin has a great blog post, looking in detail at MobileMedia, a recently launched "company" that fits all the traditional characteristics of a "patent troll" or "non-practicing entity" (if you'd prefer).

It doesn't appear to do anything but hold patents, demand licensing fees and sue. So what's so interesting about this one?

Well, it's a subsidiary of MPEG-LA, the company that manages some important digital video standards, and manages the patent pools related to them -- and both companies have the same CEO. In some cases, it seems like there's a clear conflict here:

Even more unusual is that one of the companies targeted in MobileMedia's initial batch of suits is Apple (the others were BlackBerry maker Research in Motion and HTC). Apple happens to be among the companies that has contributed patents to MPEG-LA patent pools, including those covering the MPEG-4 and the IEEE 1394 (Firewire) standards.

That puts Horn in the position of collecting money for Apple on behalf of MPEG-LA while at the same time trying to wring money out of the company on behalf of MobileMedia.

Considering the breadth of MobileMedia's patent claims--the company claims to hold patents relating to all the central functions of "call handling, speed dial functions, database searches, audio download and playback, and still picture and video processing"--it's easy to imagine that Apple won't be the last company to wind up on both sides of Larry Horn.

While some may claim that MPEG-LA and MobileMedia are basically in the same business, Mullin notes the important distinctions:

But there are big differences between the MPEG-LA licensing operation and the nascent MobileMedia campaign.

First of all, MPEG-LA's patent pools are widely recognized as vital to digital video technology throughout the industry. And they're accepted as covering industry standards. MobileMedia, on the other hand, holds patents that cover phone features but not industry standards.

Second, MPEG-LA's licensing rates are relatively low--$2.50 per device for those that want to make a DVD player using MPEG-2 standards, for example, down from $4 back in 2002.

And the pool is controlled by a large group of competitors with a shared incentive to keep those rates low (lower licensing costs means more devices made means more revenue for pool contributors).

Finally, MPEG-LA doesn't file enforcement lawsuits on its own.

If a user of the MPEG-2 standard, for example, refuses to pay to license patents from the company's pools, MPEG-LA notifies the patent-holders that they may want to file suit.

MPEG-LA simply plays an administrative role.

By contrast, MobileMedia owns its 122 U.S. patents (and related foreign patents) outright, and so can enforce them directly. And its majority owner is a pure patent-licensing company that doesn't make products.

That gives it an incentive structure more like those of typical "non-practicing entities"--also known as "patent trolls"--that use the threat of litigation to collect settlement cash without concern for the actual market in question.

Mullin has much more detail in the article, including some quotes from the CEO, and also some more details on the patents in question -- including the fact that they came from Nokia and Sony, opening up more questions about why MobileMedia targeted Apple, RIM and HTC in its early lawsuits.

What I find interesting, of course, is that many patent system folks have said that patent pools are the "answer" to issues like non-practicing entities filing crazy lawsuits.

And yet, here we have an example of one of the major patent pooling administrators apparently deciding it's more lucrative to get into the other side of the business instead...

In the meantime, while all this has been going on, it's worth noting that Steve Jobs -- one of the targets in this lawsuit -- has apparently been telling people that MPEG-LA is getting ready to sue open video codecs, such as Theora, for patent infringement.

Of course, such threats have been made before and never carried out -- but if MPEG-LA now thinks that suing for patent infringement (rather than just alerting the patent holders to possible infringement) is the way to go these days, perhaps the lawsuits above were an opening salvo.

On top of that, a whole bunch of you have been submitting this somewhat speculative story that notes that MPEG-LA has structured its licensing program in such a way that pretty much any video camera you buy -- even the so-called "professional" ones -- includes a clause saying that it's only for "personal and non-commercial use," because MPEG-LA's licensing terms for anything else are ridiculously high.

It appears that this clause has been almost universally ignored by... well... pretty much everyone. But if MPEG-LA is suddenly moving into more questionable means of bringing in revenue... it could get more troubling quickly. "

Source Of Post
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100430/0232599255.shtml

MPEG LA is a Patent thief Period. MPEG-LA has NO Morals, no Ethics, breaks the law and now wants to whine and moan and sue of some Patent Infringment Claim... when they have STOLEN the Patents that they Pooled illegally in the First Place?

MPEG LA is outside the Law Above the Law and Well with Proskauer Rose Law Firm in your Corner, How can you miss right ?

Proskauer Rose is in the Business of Corruption and they are ver good at it and have connections all the way to the TOP everwhere and they think THEY answer to No One... However.. You the People are watching, are reading blogs and you know just how Corrupt MPEG LA and Proskauer Rose Law Firm is and one Day Soon, after a Decade of Corruption - Stress - Bullying - Car Bombs - Attempted Murder - and Billions of Dollars Made Illegally.. well soon MPEG LA and Proskauer Rose will Be Held Accountable and all who have invested in them, insured them stood by them... WELL you WILL Lose Everything.. and possibly face prison senctences...

More on the MPEG LA and Proskauer Rose Patent Theft
at http://www.deniedpatent.com/ - and at http://www.iviewit.tv/ -

Posted Here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

Baryn Futa - MPEG LA - Googling Baryn Futa

Why - Crystal@CrystalCox.com

more Coming Soon to this Post...

MPEG Lawyers Accused Of Taking Inventions They Reviewed And Patenting Them

One Wonders How MPEG Attorneys Can Take Inventions and be a Part of a Trillion Dollar Lawsuit, a RICO Lawsuit, and a part of Florida Supreme Court Fraud and Corruption and The Legal System does not seem to Care.

Thousands of pages, Literally, of Documentation and the USPTO, the Florida Supreme Court, th Florida Attorney Bar, the New York Supreme Court, the New York Bar, the SEC, the FBI, the FTC, the FCC .... Senators... Governors No One Can do anything about it, Why?

It would seem that an Internet Changing, Mind Blowing invention that changed the way EVERYTHING was done on the Internet, well this kind of invention should certainly have enough money to pay off a few judges, the SEC, those who handle RICO complaints, Supreme Court Judges, those who handle attorney complaints, the USPTO and Government Officials at the Top Levels.

Warner Bros. Signed agreements - John Calkins, Chuck Dages, and Alan Bell were fully aware of this. And yet Time Warner Inc. went ahead and used the Technology with no compensation to the Inventors thought they had signed Confidentiality agreements.

Which apparently meant nothing because they did not honor them and no one made them, kind of like a Pinky Swear. However, Time Warner had Contracts with Iviewit Technologies - How many years can they get away with NOT honoring these contracts?

What Court will have the Moxy to Stop Time Warner from doing this to Inventors?. Kind of makes you scared to take an invention to Warner Bros. When you know full well they can easily steal the technology.

The Thing is it is Inevitable that Time Warner Inc. will have to come clean on all this and will it then not be an obvious SEC Violation as they had years upon years of warning and knowledge and not only did they do nothing to make it right, but they also neglected to tell their shareholders of this pending Trillion Dollar Liability.

Sony had Contracts with Iviewit Holdings - Iviewit Technologies, and what do Sony and Time Warner Have in Common? John Calkins and his Career advancement and the fact that John Calkins knows of has for years of this technology that is Illegally being Used. Did John Calkins tell Sony any of this or was that part of how John Calkins got his job?

So how does an MPEG attorney Steal a Trillion Dollar Patent? I would suppose that IBM Connections don't hurt, patent pools to protect is a plus, and all the years of Connections that Kenneth Rubenstein brought with him made him think he was above ALL laws. Kenneth Rubenstein Primary patent reviewer for MPEG, and a former IBM patent counsel thinks he can control the USPTO and the US Justice System.

Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose thinks that Proskauer Rose will protect his Conflicts of Interest, Law Breaking, Ethics Violations, Flat Out Lies - and I have a Feeling with all the Proof I have read that some court somewhere SOON is going to have to listen to this case and go by the facts of the Trillion Dollar Lawsuit with thousands of documents of Evidence and that the Super Power of Proskauer Rose will No Longer Protect the MPEG Patent Pools. And the MPEG Corruption will end and the Iviewit Inventors will get justice.

One More Note Here on the Kenneth Rubenstein MPEG Lawyer who VIOLATED the Iviewit Inventors Rights ~ I ask this If David Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) - Who Used to be the vice president and assistant general counsel for intellectual property at IBM and Specifically, David Kappos managed IBM’s patent and trademark portfolios – protecting and licensing intellectual property worldwide. ... Well then David Kappos must be connected to Kenneth Rubenstein Right? I mean both at IBM and Kenneth Rubenstein was a former IBM patent counsel ?

I mean Come On the Conflicts of Interest in this Case runs Rampant and How Long Will You all sit back and let this Injustice, this High Level Corruption Keep Going On. The Department of Justice, the SEC, the FTC, the FCC, the Supreme Court and Congress ... and none of them are listening the FACTS of the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case - the Evidence is Overwhelming - it is Obvious and the Constant Cover up year after Year is So Blatant that there is No way to Not Scream Foul - no Way to Imagine there is No Pay offs or Government Corruption - there would be no way to pull off a Trillion Dollar Patent Heist without it.

More on the Iviewit Trillion Dollar Patent Heist
www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV
MPEG LA, MPEG-4, MPEGLA
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ktIVkVh6K68J:www.iviewit.tv/20091005%2520NY%2520Judiciary%2520Committee%2520Prepared%2520Statement.doc+%22David+Kappos%22+%22Iviewit%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.inventorsdigest.com/?p=1504

MPEGLA - Guilty and Above the Law - Consolidation of DVD royalties collection is goal ofConsolidation of DVD royalties collection is goal of MPEG LA .

"Billboard, August 9, 1997 v109 n32 p3(3)
Consolidation of DVD royalties collection is goal of MPEG LA (digital video disk;
licensing administrator) Seth Goldstein.

Abstract: MPEG LA, a newly formed royalty collection agency, has set its goals on consolidating digital video disk (DVD) royalties collection in an all-in-one fee from program suppliers and disc replicators to make DVD prices within consumer range. However, its plan to charge 40 cents for each DVD title for rent and 4 cents for each title for sale has been criticized for its impracticality, considering the separate tracking requirements of rental and sell-through inventories.

However,MPEG LA believes that separate tracking is possible and the proposed rates are reasonable. Full Text: COPYRIGHT 1997 BPI Communications NEW YORK - The movers and shakers in DVD, including Hollywood heavyweights, are about to be jostled by a well-heeled new company with five employees.

MPEG LA has set itself up as a collection agency for the holders of about 80% of the MPEG-2 patents that made possible the home entertainment format.

MPEG LA - "LA" stands for "licensing administrator" - is just now contacting program suppliers, including Hollywood studios and disc replicators, about an all-in-one fee that would avoid the expense of multiple royalties paid to CD licensers. Without MPEG LA, according to one replicator, DVD could be priced beyond the reach of the mass-market consumer.

But, unless it changes course, MPEG LA will bump up against one of the pillars of the home video
trade and reignite a controversy the industry thought it settled 15 years ago: recognition that the First Sale Doctrine permits retailers to rent or sell prerecorded videocassettes as they wish.
Program suppliers lose control once the cassettes are in distribution. MPEG LA seeks to turn back the clock, in the view of several observers.

Its plan is to charge 40 cents for each DVD title priced to rent and 4 cents for each priced to sell. Differentiating between the two, never easy, has become increasingly difficult as more video stores stock up on $20-$25 cassettes to build inexpensive rental inventories.

"I can't see how anyone could propose a system of what was going to rent and what was going to sell through. There's no way anyone could tell," says a veteran movie industry source. "And if anyone did propose such a thing, the Video Software Dealers Assn. [VSDA] would be up in arms." As a fledgling trade group, VSDA earned its stripes defeating studio attempts in 1982 to rewrite the First Sale Doctrine to give them a share of rental revenue.

DVD inventories likely will be built along similar lines since the majority of releases are priced at
$24.98 suggested list. Indeed, at least one distributor, Major Video Concepts in Indianapolis, has already instituted a rental program for its accounts, based on sell-through pricing (Picture This, Billboard, Aug. 2).

But MPEG LA manager/CEO Baryn Futa, who owns a piece of the venture, disputes the argument that rental and sell-through can't be tracked separately at retail. "It's an element of folklore" that he maintains won't survive close examination. Baryn Futa says that conversations with some of the licensers supporting MPEG LA indicate the trade can support his two-tiered royalties.

"I'm not an expert in that area," Baryn Futa acknowledges. "We're going to ask a lot of questions. We're not dogmatic, and I'm here to listen. I want to find out for myself whether nobody knows." If the royalties "can't be implemented," he said during a meeting in New York last month, "we won't implement them."

Nonetheless, in a subsequent conversation, Baryn Futa maintained that the proposed rates are "awfully reasonable" and claimed that MPEG LA will "absolutely" pursue royalties on the 1 million-1.2 million DVDs estimated to have been shipped to stores. (The 130,000 DVD players on the market would be subject to a proposed fee of $4 per unit.)

Baryn Futa believes a set amount is "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory," in contrast to a percentage of the wholesale or retail price "where some people pay more than others."
His next step is determining who to pursue. "Our orientation is either the replicator or the content provider." Licensers, meanwhile, are responsible for enforcing the contracts. "We're not creating the MPEG police," Baryn Futa emphasizes. "I would find it ironic if [content providers] who respect intellectual copyrights ignored this. MPEG-2 investment is a total crapshoot, so the inventors deserve something."

Hollywood is slow getting the message. Because of the broad scope of MPEG-2 patents, which deal with various aspects of the data-compression technology integral to DVD, in computers, and direct broadcast satellite, home video has received scant attention thus far. Baryn Futa says he's held informal talks with the studios and replicators "but nothing since July 8," when a road show introducing MPEG LA got under way.

Only one of numerous industry executives contacted by Billboard admitted to knowing anything
about the company or its charter. That executive is Richard Marquardt, head of Warner Advanced Media Operations (WAMO) in Olyphant, Pa., which replicates discs for Warner Home Video, its distributed labels, and several DVD independents.

Marquardt would not comment directly on MPEG LA, but says that WAMO has already taken steps to make sure it complies with a payment schedule. "We're accruing reserves based on my personal estimate of what the royalty will be," he notes.

Fees paid to various CD patent holders are "exorbitant," Marquardt maintains. "We need to avoid that situation in DVD if the consumer is going to benefit from low-cost mass media. Otherwise, it has got laserdisc written all over it." Royalties are a big reason for the high cost of laserdisc production, hampering acceptance of the format.

Baryn Futa thinks the MPEG LA approach eventually will limit the royalties pain to a single check, smaller in total than ones written to a bevy of licensers. That is, once word gets out.

MPEG LA, which Baryn Futa says he conceived several years ago while at Cable Television Laboratories, an R&D company, only emerged from its cocoon early last month. It took flight after the Department of Justice approved the proposal of nine companies and one university - Columbia - to pool their MPEG-2 patents to create "a one-stop-shopping clearinghouse" for Fujitsu, General Instrument, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Philips Electronics N.V., Scientific-Atlanta, and Sony.

With a government green light, Futa and outside attorney Kenneth Rubenstein, who researched 8,000 patents, began a series of informational meetings in July that began in Tokyo and ended in Amsterdam. There were sessions in California and New York, as well. Handouts included a 25-page MPEG-2 patent portfolio license, with an attachment listing the holdings of the MPEG LA pool.

The list is incomplete, Futa acknowledges. Although mentioned in MPEG LA press materials as a
likely participant, Lucent Technologies (formerly AT&T subsidiary Western Electric) has elected to stay independent. So has Thomson Consumer Electronics, representing the GE/RCA patents. "I find it disappointing they're not coming in now," Futa says. "I don't know why."

Thus far, MPEG LA is closest to signing contracts with the replication and player manufacturing
arms of licensers such as Sony and Matsushita. The hope is those agreements will set the precedents -and a rate card - for the rest of the trade Baryn Futa expects other discussions to begin in earnest this fall.

MPEG LA, which has begun life with $3 million from Cable Labs and the licensers, takes a 10% cut of annual revenue during the start-up phase on a scale that slides to 2.5% at maturity. "The slope of the curve is fairly clear," Baryn Futa says. "When it starts is the issue."
He's anticipating rapid growth. MPEG opens a Washington, D.C., office in August, under the
direction of a new licensing VP, Larry Horn, and will have 10-15 staffers "at full trot."

Source of Post
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Copy%20of%20MPEG%20Articles/1997%2008%2007.pdf
p

Enter the Law Firm Proskauer - Christopher Clarke Wheeler of Proskauer - Proskauer was then retained for protecting the Intellectual Properties.

"First on the scene of these Historical Inventions in Boca Raton, Florida, Christopher Clarke Wheeler of Proskauer, Proskauer Rose was then retained for protecting the Intellectual Properties, including protecting them worldwide via Patents, Trademarks, Trade-Secrets and Copyrights. For example, Wheeler misrepresented to the Iviewit companies that attorney Kenneth Rubenstein was a Partner at Proskauer when introducing him.

Yet, to the contrary, investors found Kenneth Rubenstein was instead at the law firm of Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolfe & Schlissel ( Meltzer ) on Long Island at the time, Kenneth Rubenstein , now one of the many named Defendants in my Twelve Trillion dollar RICO and Anti-Trust suit “legally related” to Anderson. Why would Proskauer misrepresent that Rubenstein was a partner who would protect the properties when in fact he was with another firm?

The answer revolves around the fact that Proskauer at the time of learning of the inventions had NO Patent or Intellectual Property Department and was mainly a real estate law firm. If they were planning from the start to steal the “Holy Grail” technologies, they would need a patent department to monetize the royalties for themselves.

Turns out that Kenneth Rubenstein, an attorney admitted and regulated by the NYS First Dept, while at Meltzer, simultaneously was involved with the MPEGLA Patent Pool that he was in house counsel for and one of the founders of the MPEGLA pooling scheme.

Proskauer then set about to find for their benefit, not their clients benefit, Rubenstein, to apply the technologies to the MPEGLA patent pools and more for themselves. After finding Rubenstein, Proskauer introduced him as Proskauer’s Partner for the Oversight and Protection of the Inventions and the main IP Litigator who would get the IP protected and then placed in the MPEGLA pools for royalties to the Iviewit investors.

Misrepresented Proskauer partner Raymond Joao was retained to complete the Intellectual Property filing work in the US and every country around the world for IP protections.

Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond Joao thought initially to be Proskauer Rose partners in New York working to protect the Iviewit Inventions took invention disclosures from the inventors, opined on the technologies under Proskauer’s retainer for services at the time, while they were actually working on the MPEGLA Patent Pools at Meltzer and were not with Proskauer Rose at all.

Once investors discovered Proskauer’s misrepresentation of Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond Joao as Proskauer partners, when instead with the law firm Meltzer, Kenneth Rubenstein quickly switched firms to Proskauer Rose LLP.

Christopher Wheeler claiming that Proskauer ROse was in the process of acquiring Kenneth Rubenstein and virtually overnight Kenneth Rubenstein jumped ship with almost the entire Meltzer IP group to Proskauer Rose.

Details of Kenneth Rubenstein’s transfer were not clear to Rubenstein or Wheeler in their depositions related to these matters; in fact, Rubenstein was even unclear as to the terms of his partnership deal.

The net result of these fraudulent misrepresentations was that it now gave Proskauer, Iviewit Patent Counsel, control of the MPEGLA patent pooling schemes, putting Proskauer in direct competition with Iviewit via control of MPEGLA.

MPEGLA now the largest infringer of the Iviewit technologies through this massive Conflict of Interest created by Violations of Virtually All Attorney Conduct Codes and Law by the Attorneys.

A Conflict of Interest almost surreal in nature since attorneys are typically retained as “trusted” advisors considering there are supposed to be very strict federal Patent Bar and State Bar Association rules that presumably prevent lawyers and law firms from these type of conflicts with their trusting clients.

Raymond Joao on the other hand, also misrepresented as Kenneth Rubenstein’s Proskauer Partner and filing lackey was also instead working with Rubenstein at the Meltzer firm but he did not transfer from Meltzer to Proskauer Rose with Kenneth Rubenstein and the rest of the Meltzer team. Raymond Joao was to transfer to Proskauer Rose after cleaning up loose ends at Meltzer according to Wheeler.

Yet, Raymond Joao never made it that far, as within the first year of his work on the IP, it became learned that Joao might have been patenting inventions in his own name, inventions learned under disclosure and retainer with Iviewit and the Inventors.

Proskauer Rose and Christopher Wheeler confronted with the initial rumors that Raymond Joao, their operate, was filing patents wrongly on behalf of the Inventors and perhaps the right ones for himself instead. Wheeler of Proskauer volunteered to investigate Joao and was then further retained and billed for investigating the initial allegations that Joao was missing filings for Iviewit while busy patenting them in his name.

Raymond Joao the attorney Proskauer Rose referred and retained for Iviewit whom they had misrepresented to Investors and Board Members initially as a Proskauer partner, never made the conversion to Proskauer, terminated by Proskauer from Iviewit and then Raymond Joao left Meltzer and took a new position with now recently Convicted Felon Marc S. Dreier ( Dreier ). Marc Dreier convicted in a Ponzi scheme second only to that of Bernard Madoff ( Madoff ) and Sir Robert Allen Stanford ( Stanford ).

While advising the Iviewit companies on the Intellectual Properties, which posed a competitive threat to MPEGLA, including possible extinction of the MPEGLA pool without a license from Iviewit; Rubenstein, Proskauer and Meltzer then failed to put up a China Wall to protect the Inventions from this MASSIVE Conflict of Interest between Proskauer, Rubenstein and Proskauer’s new client MPEGLA & Iviewit.

Instead, they did the exact opposite and allowed MPEGLA to use the IP for their benefit while using Anti-Competitive Monopolistic practices to eliminate the Inventors and the Iviewit Companies and Shareholders. Perhaps, Joao’s 90+ patents were to be included in the MPEGLA patent pooling scheme by Kenneth Rubenstein, so that royalties could then be shared disproportionately with other inventors in the pool, 90+ patents giving a large share of the divided license royalties from the pool.

With Kenneth Rubenstein as Patent Counsel and the sole Patent Gatekeeper to the MPEGLA IP pools, it would be a no brainer, if Joao had not happened to get caught and a snowball of other crimes began surfacing at about the same time which led to uncovering evidence of a massive criminal enterprise operating within and controlling certain government agencies, law enforcement agencies and courts.

No wonder the Justice Department has historically broken up patent pooling schemes using Anti-Trust regulations, as this form of pooling works to deny ma and pa inventors of their Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 8, inventor rights.

Intellectual Property Rights protected at the top of the Constitution, I quote,

United States Constitution Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 8

The Congress shall have power To…Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

These Inventor Protections are the cornerstone of Free Commerce in the United States. In the past, allegations of pooling schemes actually in the business of murdering inventors to steal their inventions or other such heinous crimes discovered have led to the breakup of patent pools like RCA’s and Singer Sewing’s in order to protect inventors.

Typically Inventors need Constitutional Protection, the only civil job protected explicity by the Constitution, is due to corporations attempting to deny royalties through heavy handed methods not ones lawyers trying to steal their clients inventions. "

Source of This Post
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ktIVkVh6K68J:www.iviewit.tv/20091005%2520NY%2520Judiciary%2520Committee%2520Prepared%2520Statement.doc+site://www.iviewit.tv+Reardon&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Proskauer ROse Sucks

www.DeniedPatent.com
for More on this Trillion Dollar Patent Heist.

Proskauer Rose Sucks