It is not accusations, or speculation. .. it is Cold Hard Facts that MPEG LA pools patents that they have NO RIGHT to and then sells licensing agreements to patents they have no legal right to do so. Look at the www.IViewit.TV website and you will see that Proskauer Rose - Kenneth Rubenstein helped MPEG LA to steal the Iviewit Technologies Patent and to pool this technology with other patents to cover up a Trillion Dollar Fraud...
MPEG LA has been covering up this Trillion Dollar Technology Fraud for around a decade, and MPEG LA has certainly created massive fraud to investors and those who own stock in technology companies and all kinds of companies in which use the Iviewit Technology Illegally.
Question is How Long Will MPEG LA be able to cover up their lies and deceit? How long will license holders, tech companies and all using these Patent Pools buy into the MPEG LA scandal?
Some MPEG LA Bull in the News and Blogs..
""Per Section 3.1.2 of the AVC License (Title-by-Title AVC Video), the royalty for each title greater than 12 minutes in length is 2.0 percent of the remuneration paid to the Licensee or $0.02 per title, whichever is lower. In other words, the royalty would not exceed $0.02 per disc for the videographer," said MPEG LA spokesman Tom O'Reilly.
But practical matters also factor into the likelihood of actual enforcement--for example in the situation in which a Windows 7 user watches H.264 video.
"Realistically, it's unlikely that a consumer who unwittingly plays a video clip from an unlicensed source is going to be pursued by MPEG-LA or by patent owners. The legal framework for patent damages is different than it is in the copyright area, so you're not likely to see lawsuits against ordinary consumers, like some of the highly publicized suits filed by the RIAA [Recording Industry of America] in the United States," Homiller said.
Another way where professionals can get off the hook for payments is if the video is broadcast for free over the Internet. Earlier this year, MPEG LA extended through 2015 a provision that means streaming H.264 video over the Net requires no royalty payments as long as anyone can see the video without paying.
Ultimately, for the license terms one sees in software, MPEG LA errs on the side of sounding tough.
"The purpose of the provision in the MPEG LA license is to ensure that the license doesn't cover commercial distribution of H.264-encoded video," Homiller said. "It would be nice if there were a 'gentler' way to convey this, but it might be challenging to do so without opening up some loopholes that the licensers would regret.""
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html?tag=mncol
Seems to me that MPEG LA is pretty high and mighty and throwing their weight around on patents and technology rights that MPEG LA Really has no Right to.
MPEG LA Charging Royalties - what a Joke... Look Deeper Folks - Knowledge is Power.
""Apple is missing because it put its full support behind another video codec, H.264. H.264 is not an open standard. H.264 is free to use for the next five years, but after that MPEG LA plans on charging a royalty for using it.
It is a proprietary standard, owned by a consortium of tech companies called MPEG LA. Apple and Microsoft have both contributed patents to MPEG LA, so they are part of the consortium.""
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/05/20/businessinsider-google-apple-webm-vp8-h264-2010-5.DTL#ixzz0oZy83rPY
This article is interesting in that Apple and MPEG LA seem to be in bed together .. hmmm on Trillions of Dollars in Video licensing and technology schemes... it is my understanding that Bruce Sewell was at Intel as their general council when Kenneth Rubenstein - Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney participated in MPEG LA illegally pooling the iViewit stolen Technologies into MPEG LA Patent Pools - in connection with Warner Bros. - Time Warner Inc.
Bruce Sewell then General council of Intel knew of the Fraud against the Iviewit Technologies Inventors and his solution seemed to be to do nothing, there by aiding and abetting Illegal activity and Massive Shareholder Fraud on the shareholders of Intel and in turn the shareholders of Time Warner Inc. , Warner Bros. and on AOL - which has massive financial consequences to the shareholders and insurance providers and to this day has not been disclosed.. though Jeffrey Bewkes CEO and Curtis Lu General Counsel are fully aware of this Massive Fraud on the Shareholders.
Anyway Bruce Sewell left Intel under very odd circumstance... and well I believe that Bruce Sewell had more than just General Council Skills to bring to the table when Bruce Sewell went to Apple... and now it seems that Apple and MPEG are very close even to the point of going up against google together.. hmmmm..
Bruce Sewell Knew... Click Below
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090306%20Intel%20Demand%20Letter%20&%20Liability%20Exposure%20%20Signed%203549l.pdf
More on this connection at http://www.deniedpatent.com/ and at http://www.brucesewell.com/ as well as http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/ and http://www.ceopaulotellini.com/
Showing posts with label Bruce Sewell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bruce Sewell. Show all posts
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Daniel Cooperman Was Bought Out Because APPLE needed D. Bruce Sewell to fight NOKIA
What ever it Cost to buy out Daniel Cooperman you can be sure it was Worth It.
Obviously this is speculation on my part, however, Come on, What else Could it be
Mark My Words it was Not without a HUGE back Story on Why Bruce Sewell Left Intel Corp, What Motivated his Leave, Who had to Sign off on him Leaving, Who had to pay of Daniel Cooperman To Give his Job to D. Bruce Sewell and Just What Bruce Sewell Was bringing to APPLE that they wanted so Bad.
D. Bruce Sewell Knows his Way AROUND Anti-Trust Laws - Durward Bruce Sewell Certainly knows how to shut up those Pesky Inventors and Keep them from having ANY rights or Revenue from What they invented, and who knows what other "Connections" - "Cover Ups" and "Perks" D. Bruce Sewell brings to APPLE.
Maybe it is FCC, SEC, or FTC Connections that D. Bruce Sewell Brings to the APPLE Table, Whatever it Is, I Hope it Was REALLY worth it to APPLE and their Reputation.
" Intel's Sewell Replaces Cooperman as Apple GC
Zusha Elinson
The Recorder
September 16, 2009
Steve Jobs has shown great staying power.
The general counsel who have served him lately have not.
On Tuesday, Apple Inc. said that its top lawyer, Daniel Cooperman, is retiring after two years on the job. At the same time, the company announced that it's hired D. Bruce Sewell, who stepped down as Intel Corp. GC on Monday.
"We are thrilled to have Bruce join our executive team, and wish Dan a very happy retirement," said Jobs in a press release.
"With Bruce's extensive experience in litigation, securities and intellectual property, we expect this to be a seamless transition."
The timing of Cooperman's retirement, at the end of this month, is unusual. He is 58 and he is potentially leaving about $17.5 million worth of unvested restricted Apple stock on the table.
Cooperman was granted 133,000 shares of Apple restricted stock on Nov. 1, 2007, after he was personally recruited by Jobs to replace the short-tenured Donald Rosenberg as GC.
Cooperman's stock grant was scheduled to vest over four years and he got the first quarter last fall, worth about $5.8 million at the current $175-a-share value.
The next quarter of the grant was scheduled to
vest on Nov. 1, six weeks from now.
Last year, the company gave Cooperman 60,000 shares that would vest in 2012.
Neither Apple nor Cooperman would say if the company had agreed to give him the stock early.
In an e-mail, Cooperman said he is looking forward to his free time after spending 11 years as the GC of Oracle Corp. and two at Apple.
"It is not often that we get to pursue our dreams," Daniel Cooperman wrote. "After 13 consecutive years in the GC role at two major Valley companies, with virtually no time to myself, I am looking forward to pursuing some other interests: community service, board and advisory roles, consulting, teaching, maybe even taking up golf. But it will be at my own pace, and on my own time."
Cooperman's predecessor, Rosenberg, lasted just 10 months on the job.
An East Coast lawyer from IBM Corp., Rosenberg had been brought on to shine up Apple's image after a stock option backdating scandal landed then-general counsel Nancy Heinen in hot water with the government.
Heinen was charged by the SEC and ultimately settled for $2.2 million. She had lasted nearly 10 years as GC under Jobs.
When Daniel Cooperman was hired, he was seen as a Valley guy who could handle Jobs' strong-willed personality, since he'd previously worked under Oracle CEO Larry Ellison. And most thought he'd be a better fit than Rosenberg, a Silicon Valley outsider.
During his tenure, Daniel Cooperman shaped up Apple's legal department. He hired Charles Charnas from Hewlett-Packard Co. to head up the corporate department, a position that had not been filled for years. He also instituted a preferred provider program where the company whittled down the number of outside law firms it uses.
"I leave Apple with great pride in the talented men and women who staff the Apple Legal Department," Daniel Cooperman wrote. "They have been marvelous colleagues. And, of course, I wish Bruce Sewell the best of luck in his new role."
D. Bruce Sewell will have his hands full.
The company is currently under scrutiny for its public disclosures of Jobs' ailing health.
The company initially downplayed the CEO's health problems last winter, but soon after announced that Jobs would take a six-month leave of absence.
Jobs received a liver transplant. Because investors believe that Jobs is so important to the success of the company, the SEC has reportedly opened an informal investigation into the adequacy of Apple's disclosures.
Apple is also facing an FCC inquiry into why the company rejected a Google software application for the iPhone that allows users to make cheap calls over the Internet. The company also has the usual mix of litigation facing tech companies, like patent infringement and product liability lawsuits.
D. Bruce Sewell, 50, was general counsel at Intel for the past five years.
A litigator by trade, he joined Intel in 1995. He's an old hand with antitrust issues, as one of his primary tasks at the chip company was to fight accusations brought by competitor Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
The European Commission fined Intel a record $1.45 billion for unfairly squashing competition earlier this year.
Intel announced that Sewell was leaving Monday amid a management shakeup. Tuesday's announcement that he would be taking Apple's top spot and Cooperman would be retiring caught the San Francisco Bay Area legal community off guard.
"This is a surprise and we are not going to know the truth of this for a while," said Martha Africa, an in-house recruiter with Major, Lindsey & Africa who was not involved in the deal. "One can speculate why this musical chairs is going on. But what is clear again is that the Valley is again valuing Valley insiders."
Apple did not respond to questions sent via e-mail and Daniel Cooperman didn't respond to questions about the circumstances surrounding his decision to leave.
Links to Read Full Article Above and for More on This...
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202433833262
Daniel Cooperman, Bruce Sewell
So Google was going to Work With APPLE on the iPhone and Now Google has it's own Phone... hmmmm... Not Fair Play over there at Apple no Wonder they needed Bruce Sewell.
Obviously this is speculation on my part, however, Come on, What else Could it be
Mark My Words it was Not without a HUGE back Story on Why Bruce Sewell Left Intel Corp, What Motivated his Leave, Who had to Sign off on him Leaving, Who had to pay of Daniel Cooperman To Give his Job to D. Bruce Sewell and Just What Bruce Sewell Was bringing to APPLE that they wanted so Bad.
D. Bruce Sewell Knows his Way AROUND Anti-Trust Laws - Durward Bruce Sewell Certainly knows how to shut up those Pesky Inventors and Keep them from having ANY rights or Revenue from What they invented, and who knows what other "Connections" - "Cover Ups" and "Perks" D. Bruce Sewell brings to APPLE.
Maybe it is FCC, SEC, or FTC Connections that D. Bruce Sewell Brings to the APPLE Table, Whatever it Is, I Hope it Was REALLY worth it to APPLE and their Reputation.
$$$$$$
" Intel's Sewell Replaces Cooperman as Apple GC
Zusha Elinson
The Recorder
September 16, 2009
Steve Jobs has shown great staying power.
The general counsel who have served him lately have not.
On Tuesday, Apple Inc. said that its top lawyer, Daniel Cooperman, is retiring after two years on the job. At the same time, the company announced that it's hired D. Bruce Sewell, who stepped down as Intel Corp. GC on Monday.
"We are thrilled to have Bruce join our executive team, and wish Dan a very happy retirement," said Jobs in a press release.
"With Bruce's extensive experience in litigation, securities and intellectual property, we expect this to be a seamless transition."
The timing of Cooperman's retirement, at the end of this month, is unusual. He is 58 and he is potentially leaving about $17.5 million worth of unvested restricted Apple stock on the table.
Cooperman was granted 133,000 shares of Apple restricted stock on Nov. 1, 2007, after he was personally recruited by Jobs to replace the short-tenured Donald Rosenberg as GC.
Cooperman's stock grant was scheduled to vest over four years and he got the first quarter last fall, worth about $5.8 million at the current $175-a-share value.
The next quarter of the grant was scheduled to
vest on Nov. 1, six weeks from now.
Last year, the company gave Cooperman 60,000 shares that would vest in 2012.
Neither Apple nor Cooperman would say if the company had agreed to give him the stock early.
In an e-mail, Cooperman said he is looking forward to his free time after spending 11 years as the GC of Oracle Corp. and two at Apple.
"It is not often that we get to pursue our dreams," Daniel Cooperman wrote. "After 13 consecutive years in the GC role at two major Valley companies, with virtually no time to myself, I am looking forward to pursuing some other interests: community service, board and advisory roles, consulting, teaching, maybe even taking up golf. But it will be at my own pace, and on my own time."
Cooperman's predecessor, Rosenberg, lasted just 10 months on the job.
An East Coast lawyer from IBM Corp., Rosenberg had been brought on to shine up Apple's image after a stock option backdating scandal landed then-general counsel Nancy Heinen in hot water with the government.
Heinen was charged by the SEC and ultimately settled for $2.2 million. She had lasted nearly 10 years as GC under Jobs.
When Daniel Cooperman was hired, he was seen as a Valley guy who could handle Jobs' strong-willed personality, since he'd previously worked under Oracle CEO Larry Ellison. And most thought he'd be a better fit than Rosenberg, a Silicon Valley outsider.
During his tenure, Daniel Cooperman shaped up Apple's legal department. He hired Charles Charnas from Hewlett-Packard Co. to head up the corporate department, a position that had not been filled for years. He also instituted a preferred provider program where the company whittled down the number of outside law firms it uses.
"I leave Apple with great pride in the talented men and women who staff the Apple Legal Department," Daniel Cooperman wrote. "They have been marvelous colleagues. And, of course, I wish Bruce Sewell the best of luck in his new role."
D. Bruce Sewell will have his hands full.
The company is currently under scrutiny for its public disclosures of Jobs' ailing health.
The company initially downplayed the CEO's health problems last winter, but soon after announced that Jobs would take a six-month leave of absence.
Jobs received a liver transplant. Because investors believe that Jobs is so important to the success of the company, the SEC has reportedly opened an informal investigation into the adequacy of Apple's disclosures.
Apple is also facing an FCC inquiry into why the company rejected a Google software application for the iPhone that allows users to make cheap calls over the Internet. The company also has the usual mix of litigation facing tech companies, like patent infringement and product liability lawsuits.
D. Bruce Sewell, 50, was general counsel at Intel for the past five years.
A litigator by trade, he joined Intel in 1995. He's an old hand with antitrust issues, as one of his primary tasks at the chip company was to fight accusations brought by competitor Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
The European Commission fined Intel a record $1.45 billion for unfairly squashing competition earlier this year.
Intel announced that Sewell was leaving Monday amid a management shakeup. Tuesday's announcement that he would be taking Apple's top spot and Cooperman would be retiring caught the San Francisco Bay Area legal community off guard.
"This is a surprise and we are not going to know the truth of this for a while," said Martha Africa, an in-house recruiter with Major, Lindsey & Africa who was not involved in the deal. "One can speculate why this musical chairs is going on. But what is clear again is that the Valley is again valuing Valley insiders."
Apple did not respond to questions sent via e-mail and Daniel Cooperman didn't respond to questions about the circumstances surrounding his decision to leave.
Links to Read Full Article Above and for More on This...
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202433833262
Daniel Cooperman, Bruce Sewell
So Google was going to Work With APPLE on the iPhone and Now Google has it's own Phone... hmmmm... Not Fair Play over there at Apple no Wonder they needed Bruce Sewell.
Prepared Remarks of D. Bruce Sewell - Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice - Intel... Above the Law.
"Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Intel Corporation
Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice
Hearings on Section 2 of the Sherman Act
February 13, 2007
I want to begin by thanking the antitrust enforcement agencies for giving me the opportunity
to participate in these very important hearings.
I appreciate the considerable effort that
has been devoted to these hearings and the dedication that the agencies’ able staffs have brought to bear on these issues. I am confident that the agencies’ report will make a significant contribution to the analysis of single-firm conduct.
The development of the law of single-firm conduct is of obvious interest to my company.
We are the defendant in a highly visible Section 2 litigation that has generated considerable
interest in the press and among antitrust specialists.
I was somewhat dismayed to see that the
plaintiff in our case used these hearings as a forum to rebroadcast allegations that it has already
made in its district court filings and in the press. With respect to this, I will only say the following:
Intel prefers to litigate in the courtroom, and I therefore will not use this policy forum to
argue the merits of our case, other than to state that I unequivocally deny the allegations that
were made against Intel at the January 30 hearing in Berkeley.
Instead, my remarks today will address the policy issues that have been the focus of these
hearings. In particular, I would like to discuss the appropriate role of Section 2 with respect to
pricing and discounting practices.
I hope that my company’s perspective on these policy issues will help to advance the debate that the agencies have generated through these hearings.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the challenge of Section 2 enforcement is to curb anticompetitive single-firm conduct that harms consumers without deterring the type of aggressive competition that benefits consumers through lower prices and greater innovation. This is a great challenge.
As Professors William Baumol and Janusz Ordover observed 20 years ago; “[t]here is a specter that haunts our antitrust institutions.
Its threat is that, far from serving as the bulwark of competition, these institutions will become the most powerful instrument in the hands of those who wish to subvert it.”1 Professor Baumol and Ordover stressed the important concept that “rules that make vigorous competition dangerous clearly foster protectionism,”2 and they warned of the “runner-up who hopes to impose legal obstacles on the vigorous competitive efforts of his all-too-successful rival.”
3 These observations were more recently echoed by Professors Preston McAfee and Nicholas Vakkur, who catalogued seven strategic abuses of the antitrust laws, including punishing non-cooperative behavior and preventing a successful firm from competing .....
Full Document At..
http://www.brucesewell.com/2010/01/prepared-remarks-of-d-bruce-sewell.html
CEO Paul Otellini
Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice
Hearings on Section 2 of the Sherman Act
February 13, 2007
I want to begin by thanking the antitrust enforcement agencies for giving me the opportunity
to participate in these very important hearings.
I appreciate the considerable effort that
has been devoted to these hearings and the dedication that the agencies’ able staffs have brought to bear on these issues. I am confident that the agencies’ report will make a significant contribution to the analysis of single-firm conduct.
The development of the law of single-firm conduct is of obvious interest to my company.
We are the defendant in a highly visible Section 2 litigation that has generated considerable
interest in the press and among antitrust specialists.
I was somewhat dismayed to see that the
plaintiff in our case used these hearings as a forum to rebroadcast allegations that it has already
made in its district court filings and in the press. With respect to this, I will only say the following:
Intel prefers to litigate in the courtroom, and I therefore will not use this policy forum to
argue the merits of our case, other than to state that I unequivocally deny the allegations that
were made against Intel at the January 30 hearing in Berkeley.
Instead, my remarks today will address the policy issues that have been the focus of these
hearings. In particular, I would like to discuss the appropriate role of Section 2 with respect to
pricing and discounting practices.
I hope that my company’s perspective on these policy issues will help to advance the debate that the agencies have generated through these hearings.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the challenge of Section 2 enforcement is to curb anticompetitive single-firm conduct that harms consumers without deterring the type of aggressive competition that benefits consumers through lower prices and greater innovation. This is a great challenge.
As Professors William Baumol and Janusz Ordover observed 20 years ago; “[t]here is a specter that haunts our antitrust institutions.
Its threat is that, far from serving as the bulwark of competition, these institutions will become the most powerful instrument in the hands of those who wish to subvert it.”1 Professor Baumol and Ordover stressed the important concept that “rules that make vigorous competition dangerous clearly foster protectionism,”2 and they warned of the “runner-up who hopes to impose legal obstacles on the vigorous competitive efforts of his all-too-successful rival.”
3 These observations were more recently echoed by Professors Preston McAfee and Nicholas Vakkur, who catalogued seven strategic abuses of the antitrust laws, including punishing non-cooperative behavior and preventing a successful firm from competing .....
Full Document At..
http://www.brucesewell.com/2010/01/prepared-remarks-of-d-bruce-sewell.html
CEO Paul Otellini
Friday, January 1, 2010
OMG - Bruce Sewell the Pompass ASS, Says - "“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,”
From the Apple Press Room - Online Of Course.. We have the Double Standards, Flat out Lies and Serious Double Talk from One D. Bruce Sewell General Council to Apple.
I mean this Cannot Really Be CAN IT..?.. Shocking Statement by Now Infamous Double Talker and Patent Infringement Companies BEST BUDDY - Bruce Sewell ...
DurWOOD.. oh I mean DurWard - Bruce Sewell Says THIS...
"“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell, Apple’s General Counsel and senior vice president. " "
OH Yes, there it in Lights. Never Forget this Now Famous Statement that Will End Bruce Sewell's Career as He Once Knew It. Bruce Sewill - the POT Calling the KETTLE Black - per say... as he Smacks down the REAL inventors NOW at his NEW Job at Apple just like he DID at Intel Corp... Now at Intel - CEO Paul Otellini KNEW - we Wonder WHO at APPLE knows the TRUTH about Bruce Sewell and if that is WHY he Was Hired as General Council...
Bruce Sewell knowing Full Well of the Trillion Dollar Patent Theft of the REAL Inventors of the Iviewit Technology - Having FULL knowledge that "other companies" the ONE he was Representing was USING this Stolen Patent and NOT honoring Contract Commitments with the Iviewit Technology Company, and having been Fully Informed of the Importance this Matter was to the Financial Future of the Intel Company and to their Shareholders.... Bruce Sewell withheld this information and Denied the Real Inventors THEIR RIGHTS.
D. Bruce Sewell did this Blatantly, he knew he was above the Law and would never be held accountable for this. For NO ONE would EVER know RIGHT?
Boy if I Was APPLE ... I would Want to Hire the Almighty Bruce Sewell as Well this Way, all those Smart Boys and Girls out there inventing that Really Neat Stuff will have no rights and Get nothing and when they squirm and Fight about it we will just sick Ol' Bruce on Em' - Cuz... Bruce Sewell has Connections in VERY high places, and Bruce Sewell Knows the Ropes when it Comes to SHUTTING up those Pesky inventors, those Patent Owners...
So Again This Statement...
"“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell, Apple’s General Counsel and senior vice president. "
and Oh Believe Me this Will SOON be the Most Highlighted Statement of D. Bruce Sewell's Career... Anyway...
Iviewit Did Invent "their own Technolgy" - D. Bruce Sewell then of Intel as their "General Counsel" Well he was informed of this.
Bruce Sewell knew that the Technology Was STOLEN - and he stood by the Criminals and NOT with the Victims as he Denied the REAL inventors their rights.
And now when the Shoe is on the Other Foot, the Self Righteous Pompass Ass Bruce Sewell says that " "“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell " -
How in the Heck do you COMPETE with a General Counsel from a MAJOR Tech Company when He is Above the Law, knows the Names and Players, has inside information and Stands Seriously on the WRONG side of the MORAL Compass?
You can't win against Liars like Bruce Sewell. He Condones the Stealing of Patents when at Intel and Now is suggesting that Nokai is Falsley Accusing Apple and that Nokai is "stealing ours" - sounds like a School Yard Bully .... but This School Yard Bully Packs a Trillion Dollar Punch and YOU LOSE!!
Here is the Now Infamous APPLE Press Release...
" Apple Countersues Nokia
CUPERTINO, California—December 11, 2009—Responding to a lawsuit brought against the company by Nokia, Apple® today filed a countersuit claiming that Nokia is infringing 13 Apple patents.
“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell, Apple’s General Counsel and senior vice president.
Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning computers, OS X operating system and iLife and professional applications.
Apple is also spearheading the digital media revolution with its iPod portable music and video players and iTunes online store, and has entered the mobile phone market with its revolutionary iPhone.
Press Contacts:
Steve Dowling
Apple
dowling@apple.com
(408) 974-1896
NOTE TO EDITORS:
For additional
Source:
Apples Own Press Room...
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/12/11countersue.html
Copy This, Print It Out... Frame It...
Words Durward... YEP thats his Name..
D. Bruce Sewell ..
Words He WILL never Forget Saying.
Bruce Sewell
I mean this Cannot Really Be CAN IT..?.. Shocking Statement by Now Infamous Double Talker and Patent Infringement Companies BEST BUDDY - Bruce Sewell ...
DurWOOD.. oh I mean DurWard - Bruce Sewell Says THIS...
"“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell, Apple’s General Counsel and senior vice president. " "
OH Yes, there it in Lights. Never Forget this Now Famous Statement that Will End Bruce Sewell's Career as He Once Knew It. Bruce Sewill - the POT Calling the KETTLE Black - per say... as he Smacks down the REAL inventors NOW at his NEW Job at Apple just like he DID at Intel Corp... Now at Intel - CEO Paul Otellini KNEW - we Wonder WHO at APPLE knows the TRUTH about Bruce Sewell and if that is WHY he Was Hired as General Council...
Bruce Sewell knowing Full Well of the Trillion Dollar Patent Theft of the REAL Inventors of the Iviewit Technology - Having FULL knowledge that "other companies" the ONE he was Representing was USING this Stolen Patent and NOT honoring Contract Commitments with the Iviewit Technology Company, and having been Fully Informed of the Importance this Matter was to the Financial Future of the Intel Company and to their Shareholders.... Bruce Sewell withheld this information and Denied the Real Inventors THEIR RIGHTS.
D. Bruce Sewell did this Blatantly, he knew he was above the Law and would never be held accountable for this. For NO ONE would EVER know RIGHT?
Boy if I Was APPLE ... I would Want to Hire the Almighty Bruce Sewell as Well this Way, all those Smart Boys and Girls out there inventing that Really Neat Stuff will have no rights and Get nothing and when they squirm and Fight about it we will just sick Ol' Bruce on Em' - Cuz... Bruce Sewell has Connections in VERY high places, and Bruce Sewell Knows the Ropes when it Comes to SHUTTING up those Pesky inventors, those Patent Owners...
So Again This Statement...
"“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell, Apple’s General Counsel and senior vice president. "
and Oh Believe Me this Will SOON be the Most Highlighted Statement of D. Bruce Sewell's Career... Anyway...
Iviewit Did Invent "their own Technolgy" - D. Bruce Sewell then of Intel as their "General Counsel" Well he was informed of this.
Bruce Sewell knew that the Technology Was STOLEN - and he stood by the Criminals and NOT with the Victims as he Denied the REAL inventors their rights.
And now when the Shoe is on the Other Foot, the Self Righteous Pompass Ass Bruce Sewell says that " "“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell " -
How in the Heck do you COMPETE with a General Counsel from a MAJOR Tech Company when He is Above the Law, knows the Names and Players, has inside information and Stands Seriously on the WRONG side of the MORAL Compass?
You can't win against Liars like Bruce Sewell. He Condones the Stealing of Patents when at Intel and Now is suggesting that Nokai is Falsley Accusing Apple and that Nokai is "stealing ours" - sounds like a School Yard Bully .... but This School Yard Bully Packs a Trillion Dollar Punch and YOU LOSE!!
Here is the Now Infamous APPLE Press Release...
" Apple Countersues Nokia
CUPERTINO, California—December 11, 2009—Responding to a lawsuit brought against the company by Nokia, Apple® today filed a countersuit claiming that Nokia is infringing 13 Apple patents.
“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell, Apple’s General Counsel and senior vice president.
Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning computers, OS X operating system and iLife and professional applications.
Apple is also spearheading the digital media revolution with its iPod portable music and video players and iTunes online store, and has entered the mobile phone market with its revolutionary iPhone.
Press Contacts:
Steve Dowling
Apple
dowling@apple.com
(408) 974-1896
NOTE TO EDITORS:
For additional
Source:
Apples Own Press Room...
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/12/11countersue.html
Copy This, Print It Out... Frame It...
Words Durward... YEP thats his Name..
D. Bruce Sewell ..
Words He WILL never Forget Saying.
Bruce Sewell
CEO Paul Otellini is Guilty of SEC Fraud the Way I See it..
CEO Paul Otellini of Intel knew of a Trillion Dollar Liability and REFUSED to tell his Shareholders. Why ? And now as insider Trading News is going around about Intel and IBM, now Paul Otellini says It is news to us... Paul Otellini KEEPS shareholders in the Dark, Does not Honor Contracts with Inventors and STANDS on the Wrong Side of the Moral Compass..
I Guess it is a Matter of Who Ya Know... Boy if I had Intel Stocks I would Sure Be MAD if the Boys in Charge and their Attorney ( Bruce Sewell ) Were .. Well aware of a Trillion Dollar Stolen Patent and were well aware of Contracts they Refused to Make Good on and ... D. Bruce Sewell ... Attorney and CEO Paul Otellini knowing of this HUGE Liability .. and Did they Tell their Shareholders... Is this a Crime? Is it an Ethics Violation? Does it Even Matter at All?
Did Bruce Sewell and CEO Paul Otellini Make any Attempt to Make Good on the Contracts they Assumed... or did they Just Ignore it.. and Now D. Bruce Sewell is at Apple where it Seems he is part of the Fight with Nokio and this Patent Infringment... anyway MUCH More on that Issue and Connected Parties Later...
http://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2009/09/apple-hires-bruce-sewell-as-new-general-counsel.html
Why are Lengthy Court Battles Needed in Fights Such as Iviewit Getting their Patent, or in Nokai Getting Their Rights Honored against APPLE?
I mean It should take a Week, may be a month to Read the Patents and to see if they have been used by APPLE and do the right thing.
However, Keeping Nokai, Iviewit and REAL patent owners such as them in Court for years well this keeps Stock Prices Stable as the Decision is Pending and Meanwhile Guys like CEO Paul Otellini, the Apple Owners, Intel Corporation, Warner, Sony, MPEGLA - well they can lie about all this so Shareholders won't panic.
Though the Proof is Right there, if the Courts can be bought off in some way or some how manipulated well then it can drag on for years, GET those Attorneys Plenty of Money and NOT create a Panic in the Stock Market with the TRUTH that there is Trillions in Liability that Have not Been Reported on the Books.
Related Documents and Links...
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/intel_ceo_paul_otellini_on_galleon_group_091019/
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/intel-ibm-lockheed-sgi-in-trillion.html
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/intel-ibm-lockheed-sgi-in-trillion.html
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/federal-complaint-service-intel.html
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/to-paul-s-otellini-president-and-chief.html
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Crystal
Is all this Not Fraud?
I Guess it is a Matter of Who Ya Know... Boy if I had Intel Stocks I would Sure Be MAD if the Boys in Charge and their Attorney ( Bruce Sewell ) Were .. Well aware of a Trillion Dollar Stolen Patent and were well aware of Contracts they Refused to Make Good on and ... D. Bruce Sewell ... Attorney and CEO Paul Otellini knowing of this HUGE Liability .. and Did they Tell their Shareholders... Is this a Crime? Is it an Ethics Violation? Does it Even Matter at All?
Did Bruce Sewell and CEO Paul Otellini Make any Attempt to Make Good on the Contracts they Assumed... or did they Just Ignore it.. and Now D. Bruce Sewell is at Apple where it Seems he is part of the Fight with Nokio and this Patent Infringment... anyway MUCH More on that Issue and Connected Parties Later...
http://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2009/09/apple-hires-bruce-sewell-as-new-general-counsel.html
You will NEVER confince me that CEO Paul Otellini is not GUILTY, that he had no INSIDE information on any of this.
Come on Paul Otellini, as we Well Know .. had Knowledge of a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft which affects Stocks NOT ONLY in CEO Paul Otellini's Company but in many SEC Regulated Companies... Trillions of Dollars and ( Silent Fraud ) CEO Paul Otellini Said NOTHING to Shareholders RIGHT? And doesn't this So Called Pillar of the Financial Community owe any Fiduciary Duty to Other Companies, to Shareholders, to Inventors?
CEO Paul Otellini would have us believe he is NOT involved in this Multi-Billion Dollar Scandal....?? Hmmm.. Well I Say CEO Paul Otellini is GUILTY... But hey that is Just My Opinion.
We all Need to Complain to the SEC ON this guy.
Oh Nevermind CEO Paul Otellini and Intel are Above the Law because of Politicians they Know, Political Favors Owed to Them, Billions of Dollars and Corruption Beyond the Comprehension of Folks who have Morals.
Does the ITC (International Trade Commission) Really Care about Patent Infringement and the True Rights of Inventors, My Guess is AGAIN it is a matter of Who your Connected to, How Much Money the Bad Guys Have and Who is Above the Law, Ethics and Morals of Any Kind.Why are Lengthy Court Battles Needed in Fights Such as Iviewit Getting their Patent, or in Nokai Getting Their Rights Honored against APPLE?
I mean It should take a Week, may be a month to Read the Patents and to see if they have been used by APPLE and do the right thing.
However, Keeping Nokai, Iviewit and REAL patent owners such as them in Court for years well this keeps Stock Prices Stable as the Decision is Pending and Meanwhile Guys like CEO Paul Otellini, the Apple Owners, Intel Corporation, Warner, Sony, MPEGLA - well they can lie about all this so Shareholders won't panic.
Though the Proof is Right there, if the Courts can be bought off in some way or some how manipulated well then it can drag on for years, GET those Attorneys Plenty of Money and NOT create a Panic in the Stock Market with the TRUTH that there is Trillions in Liability that Have not Been Reported on the Books.
Related Documents and Links...
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/intel_ceo_paul_otellini_on_galleon_group_091019/
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/intel-ibm-lockheed-sgi-in-trillion.html
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/intel-ibm-lockheed-sgi-in-trillion.html
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/federal-complaint-service-intel.html
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/to-paul-s-otellini-president-and-chief.html
Insider Trading News Links ( Again Print or Copy to your Computer - as Links and Information Disappear once the BOUGHT Media see the Dots Being Connected by Obnoxious Bloggers.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10377395-64.html
http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/10/26/daily153.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/12/11/intel_insider_trader_fined/
More on What CEO Paul Otellini and D. Bruce Sewell ( Now a Liability at APPLE) - More on What they Knew and did not Disclose to Shareholders COMING SOON.... Oh and Don't Think that IBM and Intel Were NOT Talking on this Trillion DOLLAR Patent Theft that WOULD affect both their Stock Prices.Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Crystal
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Silicon Graphics NEVER been Served.. What.. Trillion Dollar Fraud - Does anyone Care?
Look on Page 2 of this Link.. Well just Read this Whole
Court Document.. Trillion Dollar Liablity.. oh Well..
Let's Pretend we Just did not Know...
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/SGI%20Bankruptcy/Ramirez%20Declaration.pdf
intel
Court Document.. Trillion Dollar Liablity.. oh Well..
Let's Pretend we Just did not Know...
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/SGI%20Bankruptcy/Ramirez%20Declaration.pdf
intel
To: Sewell, Bruce - D. Bruce Sewell Intel Corporation - Intell ABOVE the Law, not MADE to Honor Contracts, WHY?
"From: P. Stephen Lamont
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:14 PM
To: Sewell, Bruce - Bruce Sewell
Cc: Eliot I. Bernstein; Caroline P. Rogers Esq.; Andrew Dietz; Simon, David; Rodgers, Steve R
Subject: RE: Email to Paul S. Otellini
Mr. Bruce Sewell:
Thank you for your quick response on behalf of Intel, and, of course, Iviewit will abide by your wishes and communicate directly with you in the immediate future. Iviewit has the reputation in the community for creating those solutions necessary for the benefit of our children and our children's children.
Moreover, and perhaps this was not made clear in my previous email, but Iviewit's irritation stems more from the fact that contracts were walked away from in 1999, whereby Iviewit presented to Real 3D, taught them how to scale video and zoom on images without pixelation and for delivery over low bandwidth networks (clearly, we later found that such solutions apply to all networks at any higher bandwidth), witnessed Real 3D's validation of same, executed NDA's and alliance contracts with Real 3D, saw the acquisition by Intel with the promise that they would abide by such confidentialities and contracts, then saw the then Intel employees halt any further communication.
Second to this issue would be my recent discussion with SSG and DHG concerning Viiv, where you may know better than I what future business emphasis may be steered for this platform.
Additionally, grant it, I was not a participant, as I only assumed my post in December 2001, but at this point may I suggest a reverse chronological approach that might bring us to the heart of the matters in a quicker fashion:
• I have attached my email of December 12 to Rajeev Kapur (SSG) and David Vogel (DHG);
• Attached v-cards for those SSG and DHG employees concerned;
• Mutual production of executed Iviewit and Real 3D contracts that Intel assumed;
• Mutual production of Iviewit and Real 3D NDA's that Intel assumed; and
• As Intel is intimately familiar with its just past Managing Director in the Intel Capital Group, Hassan Miah, a discussion with Mr. Miah, as to what Iviewit is and what Iviewit does (v-card attached for your convenience), and a discussion with former head of Real 3D, Gerald Stanley, is in order (contact information unknown to Iviewit).
Iviewit looks forward to your response to this proposed approach and working together with Intel on these matters, and hopefully my friends in SSG and DHG; as should be clear from the email history attached, it is not Iviewit's style nor interest in a quick payment, but keeping our eye on the real prize, 105 million U.S. digital households, together.
Dear Mr. Lamont,
Given the nature of the allegations contained in your e-mail to Mr. Paul Otellini dated March 6, 2007, I have been asked to respond to you on behalf of Intel Corporation.
Intel treats the use of third party intellectual property very seriously.
the number, date of issuance, and ownership for each patent or patents that you believe Intel has infringed; each claim, including the claim number and a brief description of the specific claim language, that you believe Intel has infringed;
each Intel product that you allege infringes the patents and claims identified in answers #1 and #2; a brief description of the structures or methods within each product identified in answer #3 that you allege to be infringing;
a brief statement regarding the basis for your belief that the Intel products are infringing, i.e.,
describe the documentation or testing that you rely upon as the foundation for your allegations;
and, the names of the individuals within DHG and SSG with whom you have already communicated regarding the technology or the intellectual property rights that are the subject of your allegations, including a copy of the "December 12, 2006 email to DHG and SSG" referenced in your most recent note.
Receipt of this preliminary information will enable Intel to investigate and analyze your claims.
Your failure to provide any of the information requested will delay the point at which we can
effectively begin our investigation.
For the immediate future please communicate directly with me rather than with Mr. Otellini or any other executives within the company. As this matter progresses I may ask you to work with other lawyers either inside Intel or retained on behalf of Intel.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bruce Sewell
Senior Vice President
General Counsel
Intel Corporation
By way of introduction, I am CEO of Iviewit Holdings, Inc., and its subsidiaries, affiliates, and
related parties, where we have designed and developed video frame manipulation techniques
and image overlay systems for the encoding, delivery of, and rendering/decoding of, when
combined with other proprietary technologies, DVD quality video across all transmission networks and viewable on all display devices with the value propositions of lower bandwidth, processing, and storage requirements than other solutions than do not utilize Iviewit techniques and systems;
Hassan Miah was an early on looker and termed Iviewit solutions "Holy Grail" technologies, and a tagline we have used more than once.
Since October 2006, we have been in touch with Intel's Digital Home Group through the SSG
people when it became clear that the Intel G695 Express Chipset, and any other chipset
designed for the Viiv platform, probably through the chipset functions of, including but not limited to, Clear Video processing, overlaps our patent pending claims filed in 2000 in rendering full screen, full frame rate video encoded by your major motion picture studio partners who, upon information and belief, have all adopted Iviewit's patent ending video scaling and image overlay techniques.
Moreover, the issue is more serious than outlined above, and as we have discussed that it is mathematically impossible to deliver DVD quality, full screen, full frame rate video, in less than ideal bandwidth, storage, and processing power conditions without overlapping Iviewit's
proprietary rights, and since Iviewit management began discussions with representatives of Real 3D, Inc. some years ago we have watched our techniques drive across your product groups, including but not limited to microprocessors and chipsets for home entertainment PCs, and embedded consumer electronics designs such as digital televisions, video recorders, and set-top boxes.
Of course, it is Iviewit's goal to resolve the situation of the unauthorized use of Iviewit techniques embodied in prior Iviewit/Real 3D contracts and agreements in the easiest and most seamless way possible, prior to my shareholders pushing me to an edge I would rather not walk upon at this time, but will do so if the need be.
Please let us know when you are available for a conversation with our Founder, Eliot Bernstein,
and myself at your earliest convenience.
To: Caroline P. Rogers Esq.; Andrew Dietz
Cc: Eliot I. Bernstein
Subject: Intel Email and Advanced Royalty Agreement
Moreover, the issue is more serious than outlined above, and as we have discussed it is
mathematically impossible to deliver DVD quality, full screen, full frame rate video, in less than
ideal bandwidth, storage, and processing power conditions without overlapping Iviewit's
proprietary rights, and since Iviewit management began discussions with representatives of Real 3D, Inc. some years ago we have watched our techniques drive across your product groups, including but not limited to microprocessors and chipsets for home entertainment PCs, and
embedded consumer electronics designs such as digital televisions, video recorders, and set-top
boxes.
Please take notice that this is advise of a future complaint seeking permanent injunction, and that the previous offer of license is withdrawn, and is substituted in its entirety by the attached
agreement, executable only for 30 days post hence, else Intel must CEASE AND DESIST the use of rendering full screen, full frame rate video and image overlays where an image can be zoomed upon and panned without pixelation from Intel products, and please advise if anything will prevent you from accepting our demand, in which case we will file suit shortly thereafter complaining of breach of prior confidential disclosures and our attached offer will be deemed withdrawn;
certainly, as a public company governed by the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, you have
perfect record keeping of those 1999 discussions and the agreements signed thereunder.
Finally, I await timely execution of the attached and your request of wire transfer instructions,
where Iviewit is firmly committed to protecting its proprietary rights against any and all knowing and willful breaches of its confidential disclosures and disregard of recent advise and discussions.
Source of Post
http://iviewit.tv/press/press4.pdf
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:14 PM
To: Sewell, Bruce - Bruce Sewell
Cc: Eliot I. Bernstein; Caroline P. Rogers Esq.; Andrew Dietz; Simon, David; Rodgers, Steve R
Subject: RE: Email to Paul S. Otellini
Mr. Bruce Sewell:
Thank you for your quick response on behalf of Intel, and, of course, Iviewit will abide by your wishes and communicate directly with you in the immediate future. Iviewit has the reputation in the community for creating those solutions necessary for the benefit of our children and our children's children.
Moreover, and perhaps this was not made clear in my previous email, but Iviewit's irritation stems more from the fact that contracts were walked away from in 1999, whereby Iviewit presented to Real 3D, taught them how to scale video and zoom on images without pixelation and for delivery over low bandwidth networks (clearly, we later found that such solutions apply to all networks at any higher bandwidth), witnessed Real 3D's validation of same, executed NDA's and alliance contracts with Real 3D, saw the acquisition by Intel with the promise that they would abide by such confidentialities and contracts, then saw the then Intel employees halt any further communication.
Second to this issue would be my recent discussion with SSG and DHG concerning Viiv, where you may know better than I what future business emphasis may be steered for this platform.
Additionally, grant it, I was not a participant, as I only assumed my post in December 2001, but at this point may I suggest a reverse chronological approach that might bring us to the heart of the matters in a quicker fashion:
• I have attached my email of December 12 to Rajeev Kapur (SSG) and David Vogel (DHG);
• Attached v-cards for those SSG and DHG employees concerned;
• Mutual production of executed Iviewit and Real 3D contracts that Intel assumed;
• Mutual production of Iviewit and Real 3D NDA's that Intel assumed; and
• As Intel is intimately familiar with its just past Managing Director in the Intel Capital Group, Hassan Miah, a discussion with Mr. Miah, as to what Iviewit is and what Iviewit does (v-card attached for your convenience), and a discussion with former head of Real 3D, Gerald Stanley, is in order (contact information unknown to Iviewit).
Iviewit looks forward to your response to this proposed approach and working together with Intel on these matters, and hopefully my friends in SSG and DHG; as should be clear from the email history attached, it is not Iviewit's style nor interest in a quick payment, but keeping our eye on the real prize, 105 million U.S. digital households, together.
******
From: Sewell, Bruce [mailto:bruce.sewell@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:28 PM
Cc: Rodgers, Steve R; Simon, David
Subject: Email to Paul S. Otellini
From: Sewell, Bruce [mailto:bruce.sewell@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:28 PM
Cc: Rodgers, Steve R; Simon, David
Subject: Email to Paul S. Otellini
Dear Mr. Lamont,
Given the nature of the allegations contained in your e-mail to Mr. Paul Otellini dated March 6, 2007, I have been asked to respond to you on behalf of Intel Corporation.
Intel treats the use of third party intellectual property very seriously.
We endeavor to investigate and resolve any legitimate claim of unlicensed use that is brought to our attention. At the same time we are frequently a target for spurious or premature claims by individuals or companies hoping for a quick nuisance payment.
In order to properly characterize and respond to your assertions I must ask you to provide us with some more pertinent information about the nature of the intellectual property you believe you own and the basis for your claim that certain Intel products may infringe those rights. Specifically, please provide the following information at your convenience so that we may properly analyze your claims:
the number, date of issuance, and ownership for each patent or patents that you believe Intel has infringed; each claim, including the claim number and a brief description of the specific claim language, that you believe Intel has infringed;
each Intel product that you allege infringes the patents and claims identified in answers #1 and #2; a brief description of the structures or methods within each product identified in answer #3 that you allege to be infringing;
a brief statement regarding the basis for your belief that the Intel products are infringing, i.e.,
describe the documentation or testing that you rely upon as the foundation for your allegations;
and, the names of the individuals within DHG and SSG with whom you have already communicated regarding the technology or the intellectual property rights that are the subject of your allegations, including a copy of the "December 12, 2006 email to DHG and SSG" referenced in your most recent note.
Receipt of this preliminary information will enable Intel to investigate and analyze your claims.
Your failure to provide any of the information requested will delay the point at which we can
effectively begin our investigation.
For the immediate future please communicate directly with me rather than with Mr. Otellini or any other executives within the company. As this matter progresses I may ask you to work with other lawyers either inside Intel or retained on behalf of Intel.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bruce Sewell
Senior Vice President
General Counsel
Intel Corporation
******
From: P. Stephen Lamont
From: P. Stephen Lamont
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:38 AM
To: Arena, Marise G
Cc: Caroline P. Rogers Esq.; Andrew Dietz; Eliot I. Bernstein
Subject: Email to Paul S. Otellini
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Paul Otellini:
To: Arena, Marise G
Cc: Caroline P. Rogers Esq.; Andrew Dietz; Eliot I. Bernstein
Subject: Email to Paul S. Otellini
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Paul Otellini:
By way of introduction, I am CEO of Iviewit Holdings, Inc., and its subsidiaries, affiliates, and
related parties, where we have designed and developed video frame manipulation techniques
and image overlay systems for the encoding, delivery of, and rendering/decoding of, when
combined with other proprietary technologies, DVD quality video across all transmission networks and viewable on all display devices with the value propositions of lower bandwidth, processing, and storage requirements than other solutions than do not utilize Iviewit techniques and systems;
Hassan Miah was an early on looker and termed Iviewit solutions "Holy Grail" technologies, and a tagline we have used more than once.
Since October 2006, we have been in touch with Intel's Digital Home Group through the SSG
people when it became clear that the Intel G695 Express Chipset, and any other chipset
designed for the Viiv platform, probably through the chipset functions of, including but not limited to, Clear Video processing, overlaps our patent pending claims filed in 2000 in rendering full screen, full frame rate video encoded by your major motion picture studio partners who, upon information and belief, have all adopted Iviewit's patent ending video scaling and image overlay techniques.
Moreover, we have waited patiently for an answer to the implications of my
December 12, 2006 email to DHG and SSG, specifically advising them that Intel, in the rendering of full screen, full frame rate Iviewit encoded video from your studio partners on including but not limited to the Viiv platform, is directly infringing on our proprietary rights. Since their answer has not been forthcoming in almost 90 days, I can only assume that Intel is continuing to render such video in blatant disregard for Iviewit's patent pending claims and in direct, disregard for Iviewit's proprietary rights.
December 12, 2006 email to DHG and SSG, specifically advising them that Intel, in the rendering of full screen, full frame rate Iviewit encoded video from your studio partners on including but not limited to the Viiv platform, is directly infringing on our proprietary rights. Since their answer has not been forthcoming in almost 90 days, I can only assume that Intel is continuing to render such video in blatant disregard for Iviewit's patent pending claims and in direct, disregard for Iviewit's proprietary rights.
Moreover, the issue is more serious than outlined above, and as we have discussed that it is mathematically impossible to deliver DVD quality, full screen, full frame rate video, in less than ideal bandwidth, storage, and processing power conditions without overlapping Iviewit's
proprietary rights, and since Iviewit management began discussions with representatives of Real 3D, Inc. some years ago we have watched our techniques drive across your product groups, including but not limited to microprocessors and chipsets for home entertainment PCs, and embedded consumer electronics designs such as digital televisions, video recorders, and set-top boxes.
Since Intel acquired the Real 3D business in 1999, pursuant to Iviewit/Real 3D contracts and confidentiality agreements, therefore, Intel has consistently conducted these unauthorized uses on the aforementioned products, without limitation, learned in prior business discussions with executed contracts, confidentiality agreements, and such.
Of course, it is Iviewit's goal to resolve the situation of the unauthorized use of Iviewit techniques embodied in prior Iviewit/Real 3D contracts and agreements in the easiest and most seamless way possible, prior to my shareholders pushing me to an edge I would rather not walk upon at this time, but will do so if the need be.
Please let us know when you are available for a conversation with our Founder, Eliot Bernstein,
and myself at your earliest convenience.
******
From: P. Stephen Lamont
From: P. Stephen Lamont
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:35 PM
To: Caroline P. Rogers Esq.; Andrew Dietz
Cc: Eliot I. Bernstein
Subject: Intel Email and Advanced Royalty Agreement
-- Comments Requested
Importance: High
David/Raj,
We have waited patiently for an answer to the implications of my December 12, 2006 email,
specifically advising you that Intel, in the rendering of full screen, full frame rate Iviewit encoded video from your studio partners on including but not limited to the Viiv platform, is directly
infringing on our proprietary rights.
Importance: High
David/Raj,
We have waited patiently for an answer to the implications of my December 12, 2006 email,
specifically advising you that Intel, in the rendering of full screen, full frame rate Iviewit encoded video from your studio partners on including but not limited to the Viiv platform, is directly
infringing on our proprietary rights.
Since your answer has not been forthcoming in more than 60 days, I can only assume that you are continuing to render such video in blatant disregard for Iviewit's patent pending claims and in direct, disregard for Iviewit's proprietary rights.
Therefore, unfortunately, Iviewit must demand that you CEASE AND DESIST rendering such Iviewit encoded scaled video and imaging according to our claims, else we must follow-up on the issue in due course.
Moreover, the issue is more serious than outlined above, and as we have discussed it is
mathematically impossible to deliver DVD quality, full screen, full frame rate video, in less than
ideal bandwidth, storage, and processing power conditions without overlapping Iviewit's
proprietary rights, and since Iviewit management began discussions with representatives of Real 3D, Inc. some years ago we have watched our techniques drive across your product groups, including but not limited to microprocessors and chipsets for home entertainment PCs, and
embedded consumer electronics designs such as digital televisions, video recorders, and set-top
boxes.
Since Intel acquired the Real 3D business in 1999, pursuant to Iviewit/Real 3D contracts
and confidentiality agreements, therefore, you must similarly CEASE AND DESIST these
unauthorized uses on the aforementioned products, without limitation, learned in prior business
discussions.
and confidentiality agreements, therefore, you must similarly CEASE AND DESIST these
unauthorized uses on the aforementioned products, without limitation, learned in prior business
discussions.
Please take notice that this is advise of a future complaint seeking permanent injunction, and that the previous offer of license is withdrawn, and is substituted in its entirety by the attached
agreement, executable only for 30 days post hence, else Intel must CEASE AND DESIST the use of rendering full screen, full frame rate video and image overlays where an image can be zoomed upon and panned without pixelation from Intel products, and please advise if anything will prevent you from accepting our demand, in which case we will file suit shortly thereafter complaining of breach of prior confidential disclosures and our attached offer will be deemed withdrawn;
certainly, as a public company governed by the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, you have
perfect record keeping of those 1999 discussions and the agreements signed thereunder.
Finally, I await timely execution of the attached and your request of wire transfer instructions,
where Iviewit is firmly committed to protecting its proprietary rights against any and all knowing and willful breaches of its confidential disclosures and disregard of recent advise and discussions.
Source of Post
http://iviewit.tv/press/press4.pdf
intel
FEDERAL COMPLAINT SERVICE - Intel Corporation - Bruce Sewell
"From: Eliot I. Bernstein
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 11:23 PM
To: D. Bruce Sewell , Senior Vice President -
General Counsel @ Intel Corporation
Cc: Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire
(caroline@cprogers.com); Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster
Greenberg P.C.; Michele M. Mulrooney Esq. -
Jackoway Tyerman Wertheimer Austen
Mandelbaum & Morris (MMulrooney@JTWAMM.com)
Subject: FEDERAL COMPLAINT SERVICE Docket No. 08-4873-cv FINAL SIGNED BRIEF
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT BERNSTEIN USCA 2nd Circ 13988ll.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional D. Bruce Sewell and Lawrence S. Palley,
Please accept the following as service of my Brief in the USCA 2nd Circ. as INTEL
CORPORATION and Lawrence S. Palley, Director of Business Development are named
Defendants in these matters.
Please report this liability to all proper regulatory agencies,
shareholders, and liability carriers.
Thank you, Eliot Bernstein
From: Eliot I. Bernstein
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 7:05 PM
To: Deborah Holmes, Deputy Clerk,
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Pro Se
Cases @ United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit;
Civil Cases @ United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Cc: Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire;
Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.;
Michele M. Mulrooney Esq. -
Jackoway Tyerman Wertheimer Austen Mandelbaum & Morris; 'Andy Dietz';
Subject: Docket No. 08-4873-cv FINAL SIGNED BRIEF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT BERNSTEIN USCA 2nd Circ 13988ll.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional
I-VIEW-IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Surf with Vision
Dear Deborah,
I have enclosed, per our conversations and your instructions, a PDF copy of my FINAL
SIGNED BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT BERNSTEIN USCA 2nd Circ for
Docket No. 08-4873-cv.
I have also sent the document via US Mail as you specified and thus this electronic communication and the mailed copy should constitute a timely filing.
I have attached in the document the following,
1. US Postmaster Certified Letter Receipts showing the same Document as attached herein has been mailed and postmarked with the date Friday, February 27th 2009,
2. A signed Electronic Notification Agreement,
3. A Signed Anti-Virus Certification Form of which a virus check was performed, 4. A Signed Notice of Appearance Form and 5. A Signed Brief.
If you need additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
www.iviewit.tv
From: Eliot I. Bernstein
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 7:13 PM
To: D. Bruce Sewell, Senior Vice President
- General Counsel @ Intel
Corporation(bruce.sewell@intel.com);
Paul S. Otellini , President and Chief Executive Officer @
Intel Corporation (paul.otellini@intel.com);
Steven R. Rodgers, Vice President and Associate
General Counsel Legal and Corporate Affairs, Director,
Litigation @ Intel Corporation
(steven.rodgers@intel.com)
Cc: Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire
(caroline@cprogers.com); Michele M. Mulrooney Esq. -
Jackoway Tyerman Wertheimer Austen Mandelbaum & Morris (MMulrooney@JTWAMM.com);
Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.; Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.
(marcrgarber@verizon.net); 'Andy Dietz'; 'Barry Becker'; 'krhall007@aol.com'
Subject: INTEL DEFENDANT IN FEDERAL LAWSUIT
Please see the attached Amended Complaint wherein Intel is a Named Defendant in a Trillion Dollar Lawsuit.
Please report this liability to all proper regulatory agencies,
shareholders and liability carriers.
Thank you,
Eliot Bernstein "
Source of This Post
http://iviewit.tv/press/press4.pdf
Bruce Sewell
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 11:23 PM
To: D. Bruce Sewell , Senior Vice President -
General Counsel @ Intel Corporation
Cc: Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire
(caroline@cprogers.com); Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster
Greenberg P.C.; Michele M. Mulrooney Esq. -
Jackoway Tyerman Wertheimer Austen
Mandelbaum & Morris (MMulrooney@JTWAMM.com)
Subject: FEDERAL COMPLAINT SERVICE Docket No. 08-4873-cv FINAL SIGNED BRIEF
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT BERNSTEIN USCA 2nd Circ 13988ll.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional D. Bruce Sewell and Lawrence S. Palley,
Please accept the following as service of my Brief in the USCA 2nd Circ. as INTEL
CORPORATION and Lawrence S. Palley, Director of Business Development are named
Defendants in these matters.
Please report this liability to all proper regulatory agencies,
shareholders, and liability carriers.
Thank you, Eliot Bernstein
From: Eliot I. Bernstein
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 7:05 PM
To: Deborah Holmes, Deputy Clerk,
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Pro Se
Cases @ United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit;
Civil Cases @ United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Cc: Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire;
Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.;
Michele M. Mulrooney Esq. -
Jackoway Tyerman Wertheimer Austen Mandelbaum & Morris; 'Andy Dietz';
Subject: Docket No. 08-4873-cv FINAL SIGNED BRIEF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT BERNSTEIN USCA 2nd Circ 13988ll.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional
I-VIEW-IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Surf with Vision
Dear Deborah,
I have enclosed, per our conversations and your instructions, a PDF copy of my FINAL
SIGNED BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT BERNSTEIN USCA 2nd Circ for
Docket No. 08-4873-cv.
I have also sent the document via US Mail as you specified and thus this electronic communication and the mailed copy should constitute a timely filing.
I have attached in the document the following,
1. US Postmaster Certified Letter Receipts showing the same Document as attached herein has been mailed and postmarked with the date Friday, February 27th 2009,
2. A signed Electronic Notification Agreement,
3. A Signed Anti-Virus Certification Form of which a virus check was performed, 4. A Signed Notice of Appearance Form and 5. A Signed Brief.
If you need additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
www.iviewit.tv
From: Eliot I. Bernstein
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 7:13 PM
To: D. Bruce Sewell, Senior Vice President
- General Counsel @ Intel
Corporation(bruce.sewell@intel.com);
Paul S. Otellini , President and Chief Executive Officer @
Intel Corporation (paul.otellini@intel.com);
Steven R. Rodgers, Vice President and Associate
General Counsel Legal and Corporate Affairs, Director,
Litigation @ Intel Corporation
(steven.rodgers@intel.com)
Cc: Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire
(caroline@cprogers.com); Michele M. Mulrooney Esq. -
Jackoway Tyerman Wertheimer Austen Mandelbaum & Morris (MMulrooney@JTWAMM.com);
Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.; Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.
(marcrgarber@verizon.net); 'Andy Dietz'; 'Barry Becker'; 'krhall007@aol.com'
Subject: INTEL DEFENDANT IN FEDERAL LAWSUIT
Please see the attached Amended Complaint wherein Intel is a Named Defendant in a Trillion Dollar Lawsuit.
Please report this liability to all proper regulatory agencies,
shareholders and liability carriers.
Thank you,
Eliot Bernstein "
Source of This Post
http://iviewit.tv/press/press4.pdf
Bruce Sewell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)