" By MarketWatch
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) --
Among the shares expected to see active trade in Wednesday's session are those of Broadcom Corp., Apple Inc. and Nokia Corp.
Broadcom has agreed to settle a pending class action lawsuit against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors.
The lawsuit, which is related to the company's historical stock-option accounting practices, was brought on behalf of investors who bought Broadcom's common shares between July 2005 and July 2006.
Under the proposed agreement, the claims against Broadcom and its officers will be dismissed in exchange for a $160.5 million cash payment by the company. Broadcom will record the settlement amount as a one-time charge in the fourth quarter.
Nokia filed a complaint against Apple with the U.S. International Trade Commission over patent infringements in "virtually all" of its mobile devices, portable music players, and computers.
Nokia claims that Apple is using seven of its patents for key features in its products, including user interface and camera, antenna and power management technologies. "While our litigation in Delaware is about Apple's attempt to free-ride on the back of Nokia investment in wireless standards, the ITC case filed today is about Apple's practice of building its business on Nokia's proprietary innovation," said Paul Melin, general manager of patent licensing at Nokia. Read more about Nokia's complaint against Apple "
Source:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/stocks-in-focus-for-wednesday-2009-12-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp
Market Watch... Well Folks If you have STOCK in ANY companies on this BLOG - then don't Say you were NOT Given a Heads Up on the Lies your Company or your Stock Management Team is Feeding YOU... those in charge of your Portfolios, those in the Management and Corporate offices of these Companies - THEY know about a Trillion Dollar Liability and My Guess is NONE of them HAVE it on the BOOKS.
Bruce Sewill
Apple, Broadcom,
Showing posts with label Connections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Connections. Show all posts
Friday, January 1, 2010
CEO Paul Otellini Says - "It was a Surprise to Us" - this is the Line of BULL he Will Feed you about Iviewit when the TRUTH Surfaces.
" Intel CEO Paul Otellini Reacts to the Galleon Group Investigation
Monday, October 19, 2009
SUSIE GHARIB: More repercussions today from the big insider trading investigation at hedge fund Galleon Group. IBM put a top executive on administrative leave.
The move came after Robert Moffat, a senior vice president at IBM was arrested for allegedly passing tips to Galleon. An Intel executive was also implicated in the Galleon case. We had the opportunity to sit down with Intel CEO Paul Otellini today. Scott Gurvey began by asking him about Intel's connection to the Galleon insider trading case.
PAUL OTELLINI, PRESIDENT & CEO, INTEL: It was a surprise to us. And to my knowledge, no one at Intel knew about it, including the employee.
And they have not asked for our cooperation. Of course we would give it if they have.
SCOTT GURVEY, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: And does it require any special changes at this point in the way that you do business? I mean you must have these kind of protections.
Paul OTELLINI: I don't think so. People are people. And you know, our employees know in the area where he worked they know that there is a zero tolerance policy on this kind of thing. You just don't do it and the sake of your job and who knows what is true. I don't want to proclaim him guilty, but the allegations suggest that he leaked information. Whether he made any money off it or not, I don't know.
GURVEY: The other question of course goes on with some of the anti- trust issues that Intel is facing. There's an AMD lawsuit that begins, I believe goes to trial maybe next year. There is the EU which is still -- which is still outstanding. What is your position at this point on those? I mean is it the point where you are trying to make any kind of a settlement or arrangements or change the way you do things or is this going to be something that will be adjudicated?
Paul OTELLINI: They are on independent paths, independent parallel paths. The AMD case comes to trial in Delaware late March, early April. As much as you can I'm looking forward to that trial because it is the first time that these allegations will be brought forth in the manner which has clear evidentiary rules, third party judicial things, the jury, all the things that we take for granted in America in terms of justice and getting your story out will happen there.
GURVEY: And you're saying the kind of things you don't have in terms of the EU proceedings.
Paul OTELLINI: We certainly didn't see that in Europe. In Europe the same commission that begins the investigation completes the investigation, judges the investigation, levees the fine, is the same group of people. There is no third party independent review of that.
That first happens on appeal which is the quarter first (ph) instance and in Europe and that's probably two to three years out.
GURVEY: The earnings report surprised everybody, surprised them in a very positive way. Is that -- how much of that is cost-cutting? How much of that is new demand that you are seeing?
Paul OTELLINI: This quarter's news was all demand. Demand and some pipeline refilling on inventory which is seasonal. I don't think it is anything that is out of the ordinary. But it was the largest Q2 to Q3 growth of top line that we've seen in three decades plus and so it was very solid quarter. I think more than half of that was probably demand and the other was building the pipe for what looks to be the seasonal Q4 peak. The back to school selling season was very good.
GURVEY: And do you see that going forward in the holiday season with the release now of Microsoft's Windows 7 and things like that?
Paul OTELLINI: Yes, I do. I mean this is a global phenomenon. We saw in Q3 and actually the whole year has been global phenomenon. It's been consumer driven around the world. That's good. That says that when enterprise starts buying again, perhaps next year, you get an additive effect on top of that.
GURVEY: So the consumers will come first. Do you think the enterprise will pick up next year?
Paul OTELLINI: Eventually they have to. The fleets of corporations, the machines are aging pretty rapidly. The average notebook is over four years old, the average desktop is over three years old. That mean these are out of warranty. So the break-fix problem is costing more than buying a new machine at this point.
GURVEY: Let me ask you while you are here, do you have actually a position on some of these health reform strategies? I mean, for example, when you consider the cost factor of having an employee, an American employee versus an employee in any of the other countries that you operate.
Paul OTELLINI : We've had a very proactive program in the U.S. on wellness, employee wellness for three or four years now. And that has allowed to us attenuate the growth for the cost per employee over a three year period.
The things that we're looking at in terms of the legislation are really more focused along that line. So electronic medical records drive productivity up, take errors down, lower costs we like.
The home health care environment, the wellness parts of the program we like. The outcome- based payment systems we like because they are focused on results. Doctors and hospitals that deliver better results will get paid more. That is a good thing. We're not getting in the middle of the debate of who pays and what is the cost. There is enough people in the middle of that one. Whatever system we do get we would just like to be more efficient.
GURVEY: And you are, of course, opening some new facilities in the United States so this hasn't deterred you.
OTELLINI: Our next generation of technology will only be open in the United States this time. All 32 nanometer technologies are here and they're in four factories in the U.S.
GURVEY: What else is coming up that you can tell us about that I haven't asked you about?
Paul OTELLINI: I can't share those secrets with you.
GURVEY: You would have to shoot me.
OTELLINI: I would have to shoot you.
GURVEY: All right then the next time. Thank you.
OTELLINI: You are welcome. "
Source of Post
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/
intel_ceo_paul_otellini_on_galleon_group_091019/
CEO Paul Otellini - Above the Law ???
Zero Tolerance Policy Says CEO Paul Otellini - I Say Bull … he not only tolerates a WHOLE lot - CEO Paul Otellini Hides information from Shareholders that Could affect them and Legally breaks the law by NOT honoring Contracts.
Monday, October 19, 2009
SUSIE GHARIB: More repercussions today from the big insider trading investigation at hedge fund Galleon Group. IBM put a top executive on administrative leave.
The move came after Robert Moffat, a senior vice president at IBM was arrested for allegedly passing tips to Galleon. An Intel executive was also implicated in the Galleon case. We had the opportunity to sit down with Intel CEO Paul Otellini today. Scott Gurvey began by asking him about Intel's connection to the Galleon insider trading case.
PAUL OTELLINI, PRESIDENT & CEO, INTEL: It was a surprise to us. And to my knowledge, no one at Intel knew about it, including the employee.
And they have not asked for our cooperation. Of course we would give it if they have.
SCOTT GURVEY, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: And does it require any special changes at this point in the way that you do business? I mean you must have these kind of protections.
Paul OTELLINI: I don't think so. People are people. And you know, our employees know in the area where he worked they know that there is a zero tolerance policy on this kind of thing. You just don't do it and the sake of your job and who knows what is true. I don't want to proclaim him guilty, but the allegations suggest that he leaked information. Whether he made any money off it or not, I don't know.
GURVEY: The other question of course goes on with some of the anti- trust issues that Intel is facing. There's an AMD lawsuit that begins, I believe goes to trial maybe next year. There is the EU which is still -- which is still outstanding. What is your position at this point on those? I mean is it the point where you are trying to make any kind of a settlement or arrangements or change the way you do things or is this going to be something that will be adjudicated?
Paul OTELLINI: They are on independent paths, independent parallel paths. The AMD case comes to trial in Delaware late March, early April. As much as you can I'm looking forward to that trial because it is the first time that these allegations will be brought forth in the manner which has clear evidentiary rules, third party judicial things, the jury, all the things that we take for granted in America in terms of justice and getting your story out will happen there.
GURVEY: And you're saying the kind of things you don't have in terms of the EU proceedings.
Paul OTELLINI: We certainly didn't see that in Europe. In Europe the same commission that begins the investigation completes the investigation, judges the investigation, levees the fine, is the same group of people. There is no third party independent review of that.
That first happens on appeal which is the quarter first (ph) instance and in Europe and that's probably two to three years out.
GURVEY: The earnings report surprised everybody, surprised them in a very positive way. Is that -- how much of that is cost-cutting? How much of that is new demand that you are seeing?
Paul OTELLINI: This quarter's news was all demand. Demand and some pipeline refilling on inventory which is seasonal. I don't think it is anything that is out of the ordinary. But it was the largest Q2 to Q3 growth of top line that we've seen in three decades plus and so it was very solid quarter. I think more than half of that was probably demand and the other was building the pipe for what looks to be the seasonal Q4 peak. The back to school selling season was very good.
GURVEY: And do you see that going forward in the holiday season with the release now of Microsoft's Windows 7 and things like that?
Paul OTELLINI: Yes, I do. I mean this is a global phenomenon. We saw in Q3 and actually the whole year has been global phenomenon. It's been consumer driven around the world. That's good. That says that when enterprise starts buying again, perhaps next year, you get an additive effect on top of that.
GURVEY: So the consumers will come first. Do you think the enterprise will pick up next year?
Paul OTELLINI: Eventually they have to. The fleets of corporations, the machines are aging pretty rapidly. The average notebook is over four years old, the average desktop is over three years old. That mean these are out of warranty. So the break-fix problem is costing more than buying a new machine at this point.
GURVEY: Let me ask you while you are here, do you have actually a position on some of these health reform strategies? I mean, for example, when you consider the cost factor of having an employee, an American employee versus an employee in any of the other countries that you operate.
Paul OTELLINI : We've had a very proactive program in the U.S. on wellness, employee wellness for three or four years now. And that has allowed to us attenuate the growth for the cost per employee over a three year period.
The things that we're looking at in terms of the legislation are really more focused along that line. So electronic medical records drive productivity up, take errors down, lower costs we like.
The home health care environment, the wellness parts of the program we like. The outcome- based payment systems we like because they are focused on results. Doctors and hospitals that deliver better results will get paid more. That is a good thing. We're not getting in the middle of the debate of who pays and what is the cost. There is enough people in the middle of that one. Whatever system we do get we would just like to be more efficient.
GURVEY: And you are, of course, opening some new facilities in the United States so this hasn't deterred you.
OTELLINI: Our next generation of technology will only be open in the United States this time. All 32 nanometer technologies are here and they're in four factories in the U.S.
GURVEY: What else is coming up that you can tell us about that I haven't asked you about?
Paul OTELLINI: I can't share those secrets with you.
GURVEY: You would have to shoot me.
OTELLINI: I would have to shoot you.
GURVEY: All right then the next time. Thank you.
OTELLINI: You are welcome. "
Source of Post
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/
intel_ceo_paul_otellini_on_galleon_group_091019/
CEO Paul Otellini - Above the Law ???
Zero Tolerance Policy Says CEO Paul Otellini - I Say Bull … he not only tolerates a WHOLE lot - CEO Paul Otellini Hides information from Shareholders that Could affect them and Legally breaks the law by NOT honoring Contracts.
CEO Paul Otellini cares about Employee Wellness.. Are you Kidding.. Cares about the Quality of life of some but Condones the Total Ruin of Others.. Makes No Sense.
CEO Paul Otellini Claims that this is NEWS TO US - my Guess is when the Shareholders are Faced with the TRUTH about the Iviewit Stolen Patent and the Trillion Dollar Liability that Intel Faces, that CEO Paul Otellini will have the Same Lies to Tell … “It Was a Surprise to Us”. BULL.
I wonder if CEO Paul Otellini is Looking Forward to His Trial as he becomes involved in the Trillion Dollar Patent Heist - in FULL Public View - Coming SOON to a Court Near YOU.
And CEO Paul Otellini seems to be BRAGGING about the Zillions Intel is Making.. Well I can See why if they Do NOT have to Pay for Patents They are Using.
Doe Shareholder Still Have NO Idea About the Trillion Dollar Liability with the Iviewit Stolen Patents and Contracts Intell Assumed .....
Why is CEO Paul Otellini NOT talking about this.
Paul Otellini does know inside information that WOULD definately affect the Price of Intel Stocks and When the Truth is ALLOWED in the US Lack of Justice System.. WELL Intel Corporation and Shareholders Will Certainly Be taking a Financial Hit.
And this Financial Fiasco is Something that THE then "General Counsel" Bruce Sewell KNEW about and So did and DOES CEO Paul Otellini.
CEO Paul Otellini
Chadbourne and Parke - Now Weren't they involved in TRYING to Silence Blogger, Attorney Mik Morgan - who was Telling us All the Truth on Golman Sachs?
Chadbourne and Parke
Stolen Patent
Much More On this Will Be Posted...
Chadbourne and Parke LLP seems to Really Care about Intellectual Property Rights? The Thing is Whose Rights Do they Care About... ?? Oh I Know.. the Billionaires...
Chadbourne and Parke
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Stanford Fall-Out: Partner Leaves Proskauer And Chadbourne Sued
"The numbers of lawyers caught up in the fall-out from Allen Stanford's alleged fraud continues to grow.
Chadbourne & Parke has been added as a defendant to a shareholder class action lawsuit that also names Proskauer Rose and its former partner, Thomas V. Sjoblom.
The suit claims defendants aided and abetted Stanford's alleged fraud.
Sjoblom withdrew from the firm sometime after the class action was filed in August, The National Law Journal said.
NLJ: The class action alleges that attorney [Sjoblom], while he worked at New York-based Chadbourne & Parke and later at New York's Proskauer Rose, participated in a $7 billion investment fraud orchestrated by the Texas company...
Sjoblom's withdrawal [from the Proskauer partnership] follows a guilty plea in August by former Stanford Chief Financial Officer James Davis, which appeared to implicate Sjoblom in a conspiracy to thwart a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into the alleged fraud.
Sjoblom joined Proskauer in 2006 from Chadbourne. Before that he spent 20 years at the SEC.
Chadbourne declined to comment to the National Law Journal. Proskaur said the plaintiffs have no basis for their claims against the firm.
*I worked at Chadbourne in 2007 and 2008 "
Source of Post
http://www.businessinsider.com/staford-fall-out-partner-leaves-proskauer-and-chadbourne-sued-2009-10
Proskaur - standord
Chadbourne & Parke has been added as a defendant to a shareholder class action lawsuit that also names Proskauer Rose and its former partner, Thomas V. Sjoblom.
The suit claims defendants aided and abetted Stanford's alleged fraud.
Sjoblom withdrew from the firm sometime after the class action was filed in August, The National Law Journal said.
NLJ: The class action alleges that attorney [Sjoblom], while he worked at New York-based Chadbourne & Parke and later at New York's Proskauer Rose, participated in a $7 billion investment fraud orchestrated by the Texas company...
Sjoblom's withdrawal [from the Proskauer partnership] follows a guilty plea in August by former Stanford Chief Financial Officer James Davis, which appeared to implicate Sjoblom in a conspiracy to thwart a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into the alleged fraud.
Sjoblom joined Proskauer in 2006 from Chadbourne. Before that he spent 20 years at the SEC.
Chadbourne declined to comment to the National Law Journal. Proskaur said the plaintiffs have no basis for their claims against the firm.
*I worked at Chadbourne in 2007 and 2008 "
Source of Post
http://www.businessinsider.com/staford-fall-out-partner-leaves-proskauer-and-chadbourne-sued-2009-10
Proskaur - standord
FTC files antitrust suit against Intel - Isn't Intel Above the Law
" The U.S. Federal Trade Commission accused Intel Corp. in a lawsuit Wednesday of illegally trying to keep competitors out of the semiconductor market.
Santa Clara-based Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) systematically kept rivals' chips from being used through illegal strategies, the government said in its complaint.
In the complaint, the FTC has asked for the court to order Intel to stop using threats, bundled prices and other tactics aimed at manipulating the market.
Earlier this month, reports surfaced that Intel was trying to head off a federal complaint by discussing how it prices its products. That doesn't appear to have worked.
Both Sunnyvale-based Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (NYSE:AMD) and Santa Clara-based Nvidia Corp. (NASDAQ:NVDA) have leveled unfair pricing accusations against Intel, complaining that it offers big incentives to customers who buy its chips only.
Intel last month announced it would pay AMD a $1.25 billion settlement and agreed to a five-year cross license deal to settle their long-running antitrust and patent disputes.
That followed a record $1.45 billion fine levied earlier this year by European Union regulators for anticompetitive practices by Intel. The company is appealing that fine.
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has also sued Intel, accusing the computer company of violating state and federal antitrust laws.
Cuomo alleged that Intel bullied clients and paid them billions of dollars to use Intel’s computer microprocessor parts instead of those from AMD.
In a prepared statement Wednesday, Intel said it has competed fairly and lawfully and called FTC’s case "misguided. It is based largely on claims that the FTC added at the last minute and has not investigated. In addition, it is explicitly not based on existing law but is instead intended to make new rules for regulating business conduct. These new rules would harm consumers by reducing innovation and raising prices.”
Intel senior vice president and general counsel Doug Melamed added, “This case could have, and should have, been settled. Settlement talks had progressed very far but stalled when the FTC insisted on unprecedented remedies -- including the restrictions on lawful price competition and enforcement of intellectual property rights set forth in the complaint -- that would make it impossible for Intel to conduct business.
“The FTC’s rush to file this case will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars to litigate issues that the FTC has not fully investigated. It is the normal practice of antitrust enforcement agencies to investigate the facts before filing suit. The Commission did not do that in this case,” said Melamed."
Full Article and Source
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2009/12/14/daily46.html
Intel
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
ACORN's model whitewash - led by former Chief Judge Judith Kaye
Looks like things are starting to look up for those scoundrels, er, "community organizers," at ACORN.At least, their friends are starting to run interference for them again.
A congressional research arm said Tuesday that the left-wing pressure group -- which Congress recently voted to cut off from federal funds after a sting operation caught employees dispensing housing-fraud advice to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute -- violated no federal regulations.
This follows a Brooklyn federal judge's ruling this month that Congress' action was itself unconstitutional -- and an "internal review" (read: whitewash) by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger that found "no evidence" of illegal action on ACORN's part.
Indeed, Scott Harshbarger of Proskauer Rose blamed the whole mess on lax standards introduced by the group's disgraced former leader, Wade Rathke, explaining that the scandal "erupted just as ACORN's reform leadership was about to complete an ambitious and professionally directed organizational and cultural transformation."
How convenient.
But recall that Rathke, ACORN's founder, resigned last year after it was revealed that he'd helped cover up embezzlement of group funds by his brother.
The likelier explanation: ACORN was a suspect endeavor from the start -- and still is.
Certainly, it's beyond absurd to claim that such a group has a constitutional right to pick taxpayers' pockets.
But we're more interested in what all this means for ACORN's bastard child in New York, the equally sketchy Working Families Party.
The WFP is being probed by the Staten Island DA and the Manhattan US attorney for allegedly circumventing campaign-finance law by undercharging candidates for its services.
And, sure enough, it's commissioned its own internal "review" -- this one led by former Chief Judge Judith Kaye.
No doubt, she's spending her holiday taking notes on Harshbarger's technique.
But, ironically enough, one section of Harshbarger's report may have direct bearing on the WFP.
To introduce some quality control into ACORN's operations, he suggests dissolving the dozens of semi-autonomous front groups that now do much of the organization's heavy lifting.
Any chance that might include the WFP itself -- which was founded by ACORN and Big Labor, and which still shares senior leadership with its parent group?
Alas, given the party's recent electoral successes, that seems unlikely.
But hey, we can hope.
'Tis the season for miracles, after all."
Source of Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/acorn_model_whitewash_mg5LzZXl2sp2asY5CFMqpK
proskauer
Is this the Same Scott Harshbarger that is Senior Counsel at Proskauer Rose? Doesn't Judith Kay and Proskauer Connections, Favors, Affiliations and Look the Other Ways .. Go Way Back...These folks are all in bed together and Circling the Wagons, the Truth is Irrelevant, Corruption and Connection is all that Matters and YOU Lose.
Scott Harshbarger of Proskauer Rose: Either You Stand with the Victim or you Stand with the Criminal. Judith Kaye as a Supreme Court Judge protected Proskauer Rose in a Trillion Dollar Paten Heist Case Right? And he husband Was a Partner there right? Well there is no justice, no Truth - there is only Opinion and Favors Owed.
Harshbarger Scott
Sunday, December 27, 2009
a Fox in the Hen House to Say the Least - Patent Office Director David Kappos Connected to IBM - say What ??
"Patent Office Director David Kappos on innovation
Each month we interview a different leader in innovation.
This month: Q&A with David Kappos, the newly appointed Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), whom we met when he visited our hometown of San Francisco in mid October, and then interviewed recently for this newsletter.
Kappos is an engineer-turned lawyer who headed patenting at tech giant IBM—so let’s just say he’s seen more than a few patents over the years—before President Obama tapped him for government service as the nation’s top patent person. Here’s perspective from the Director:
Q: What’s been your biggest surprise since moving from the private sector to the USPTO?
David: I have to say that I have a new appreciation for the challenges that come with running a complex agency within the U.S. government.
Q: What's been the most fun part of your relatively new job?
David: The last several weeks have been a blur of intense activity as we have rolled out a number of new initiatives and policies at the USPTO. So it was a special pleasure for me to participate in activities on our campus and at the White House honoring the 2008 National Medal of Technology and Innovation and the National Medal of Science Laureates.
I was particularly pleased to host a reception and dinner sponsored by the National Inventors Hall of Fame and the National Technology and Science Medals Foundation in our museum and auditorium. The men and women who gathered here for the two days of ceremonies truly are the creative and innovative giants of our time.
It was, frankly, great fun and exciting to meet and talk with pioneers like Forrest Bird, the inventor of the portable respirator, the team at Adobe that developed desktop publishing and Dr. Esther Takeuchi who invented the battery technology used in implantable cardiac defibrillators. They and their fellow honorees have saved millions of lives, improved the quality of life for countless others and transformed the way we do business.
Q: Do you ever review individual patents these days?
David: No, we have a team of more than 6,000 examiners in whom I have the utmost confidence.
Q: What's the first thing you'd suggest a person do after he or she comes up with an exciting product idea?
David: Develop a sound business plan in which intellectual property protection is a part. Any business decision has to be an informed one, though, so I would suggest first taking a look at our web site designed with the independent inventor in mind (http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/index.jsp).
Here you will find basic information on applying for a patent or a trademark registration, transcripts of our online chats with independent inventors, and other useful information.
Q: Any other brief advice or words of wisdom for the independent inventors out there?
David: Independent inventors should seek an interview with their patent examiner early in the process as a means to get patents issued quickly and cost-effectively. The statistics show that an interview can help the examiner and the applicant get to the heart of the patentability determination quickly and efficiently.
Interview data from FY 2008 shows that the allowance rate after a first office action on the merits (FAOM) is more than doubled when an interview is held between the examiner and the practitioner. Similar gains are apparent from the First Action Interview Pilot program, which typically includes an interview prior to the FAOM.
It’s no surprise to me that this is the case. When people talk to one another and listen to one another they can quickly understand points of agreement as well as differences, and resolve those differences in real-time. The applicant should come to the interview prepared, willing to answer questions, willing to listen and be receptive to claims modifications the examiner suggests. Sometimes no claims will be allowable; but even if that is the case, an interview that produces an “agreement to disagree” is valuable both to the USPTO and to applicants.
Q: In your perfect world, how long would the patent examination process take, on average?
David: Our goal is 20 months to patent issuance. This would be a major drop from where we currently are—over 33 months on average. Twenty months is optimal because it does not take away trade secrecy lead time (18 months, since that is when most applications publish), and leaves enough time for prior art to become available and searchable, while waiting no longer than needed to serve these two interests. Of course, for applicants who want their patents even faster, we are working on a new accelerated examination process, available for payment of a fee, which will aim to get patents processed in under a year.
Q: Why must patent application and maintenance fees so high in a time when the nation is trying to encourage more innovation?
David: Fees for the patent application, issue and maintenance fees and other related fees are reduced by 50% when the applicant is a small business or individual inventor. Unlike most other federal entities, the USPTO receives no taxpayer dollars; it subsists solely and completely on user fees. Our user fee structure is generally based upon a “fee for service” economic model. In order to obtain, or attempt to obtain, a patent or a trademark from the agency, an applicant must pay certain fees at various stages of the process.
Q: Has President Obama shared any invention ideas with you? And if so, is he filing for patents on any of them?
David: Well, even if I knew I surely wouldn’t betray an inventor’s trust. But if President Obama did get a patent, he would be only the second U.S. president to do so. While a Congressman from Illinois in 1849, Abraham Lincoln received Patent No. 6,469 for “A Device for Buoying Vessels over Shoals.”
Q: What’s your favorite invention from history, and why?
David: Well, thinking about the ones I use most these days—I’d say the computer, the cell phone or the airplane!
David Kappos
Source of Above
http://www.absolutelynewsletter.com/patent-office-director-david-kappos-on-innovation.html
Kappos
Tiny Bit of Hogwash Here... Come on David Kappos is Pretending to Be a Good Guy and Seems to Be Proclaiming to Really Want to Protect Inventors, if So where Is he on Protecting a Trillion Dollar Technology - and the Inventors that are Seemingly Collateral Damage?
Independent Inventors Should Seek Patent Council, Says David Kappos Patent Office Director - Well WHY?
When the USPTO seems to have NO Issue with the Patent Attorney Stealing the Invention and Putting Patents of their Clients in the Patent Attorneys Name... David Kappos Says for you to seek patent council ... I Say Beware... In the Iviewit Trillion Dollar Patent Theft there is Millions upon Millions of Shareholder / Investors Money at Stake, there is Trillions in Benefits ... there is thousands of documents of proof and 8 years of proof on top of proof and the US Justice System Can Do NOTHING to Restore Justice ...
So you the Little Inventor without the Millions .. without the Big Name and Big Connections backing you.. Well you don't stand a Chance, if your Invention is any good the Patent Attorney will Make sure, one way or another that you Don't Actually get to REALLY benefit from it...
Who Better to Protect the Interests of IBM at the US Patent Office then Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO).
David Kappos is an engineer-turned lawyer who headed patenting at tech giant IBM - Does this Raise an Eyebrow to anyone, how will David Kappos Really be able to be in the best interest of the Inventors, those trying to patent something really great when he has Connections, and Affiliations that may be in direct Conflict with the Invention?
You are fighting for the rights to your Holy Grail High Tech invention and the Keepers to the Kingdom in which would not exist if it were not for you.. well they are IBM Cronies in the USPTO and the Supreme Court, they are Politically Connected Judges and Attorneys, they are "Evil Doers" and there is NOTHING you can do to get the Rights to Your Invention... So Give up.. and if you Do Get the Nerve Up to Make a Stand.. well You will Pay the Price...
Each month we interview a different leader in innovation.
This month: Q&A with David Kappos, the newly appointed Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), whom we met when he visited our hometown of San Francisco in mid October, and then interviewed recently for this newsletter.
Kappos is an engineer-turned lawyer who headed patenting at tech giant IBM—so let’s just say he’s seen more than a few patents over the years—before President Obama tapped him for government service as the nation’s top patent person. Here’s perspective from the Director:
Q: What’s been your biggest surprise since moving from the private sector to the USPTO?
David: I have to say that I have a new appreciation for the challenges that come with running a complex agency within the U.S. government.
Q: What's been the most fun part of your relatively new job?
David: The last several weeks have been a blur of intense activity as we have rolled out a number of new initiatives and policies at the USPTO. So it was a special pleasure for me to participate in activities on our campus and at the White House honoring the 2008 National Medal of Technology and Innovation and the National Medal of Science Laureates.
I was particularly pleased to host a reception and dinner sponsored by the National Inventors Hall of Fame and the National Technology and Science Medals Foundation in our museum and auditorium. The men and women who gathered here for the two days of ceremonies truly are the creative and innovative giants of our time.
It was, frankly, great fun and exciting to meet and talk with pioneers like Forrest Bird, the inventor of the portable respirator, the team at Adobe that developed desktop publishing and Dr. Esther Takeuchi who invented the battery technology used in implantable cardiac defibrillators. They and their fellow honorees have saved millions of lives, improved the quality of life for countless others and transformed the way we do business.
Q: Do you ever review individual patents these days?
David: No, we have a team of more than 6,000 examiners in whom I have the utmost confidence.
Q: What's the first thing you'd suggest a person do after he or she comes up with an exciting product idea?
David: Develop a sound business plan in which intellectual property protection is a part. Any business decision has to be an informed one, though, so I would suggest first taking a look at our web site designed with the independent inventor in mind (http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/index.jsp).
Here you will find basic information on applying for a patent or a trademark registration, transcripts of our online chats with independent inventors, and other useful information.
Q: Any other brief advice or words of wisdom for the independent inventors out there?
David: Independent inventors should seek an interview with their patent examiner early in the process as a means to get patents issued quickly and cost-effectively. The statistics show that an interview can help the examiner and the applicant get to the heart of the patentability determination quickly and efficiently.
Interview data from FY 2008 shows that the allowance rate after a first office action on the merits (FAOM) is more than doubled when an interview is held between the examiner and the practitioner. Similar gains are apparent from the First Action Interview Pilot program, which typically includes an interview prior to the FAOM.
It’s no surprise to me that this is the case. When people talk to one another and listen to one another they can quickly understand points of agreement as well as differences, and resolve those differences in real-time. The applicant should come to the interview prepared, willing to answer questions, willing to listen and be receptive to claims modifications the examiner suggests. Sometimes no claims will be allowable; but even if that is the case, an interview that produces an “agreement to disagree” is valuable both to the USPTO and to applicants.
Q: In your perfect world, how long would the patent examination process take, on average?
David: Our goal is 20 months to patent issuance. This would be a major drop from where we currently are—over 33 months on average. Twenty months is optimal because it does not take away trade secrecy lead time (18 months, since that is when most applications publish), and leaves enough time for prior art to become available and searchable, while waiting no longer than needed to serve these two interests. Of course, for applicants who want their patents even faster, we are working on a new accelerated examination process, available for payment of a fee, which will aim to get patents processed in under a year.
Q: Why must patent application and maintenance fees so high in a time when the nation is trying to encourage more innovation?
David: Fees for the patent application, issue and maintenance fees and other related fees are reduced by 50% when the applicant is a small business or individual inventor. Unlike most other federal entities, the USPTO receives no taxpayer dollars; it subsists solely and completely on user fees. Our user fee structure is generally based upon a “fee for service” economic model. In order to obtain, or attempt to obtain, a patent or a trademark from the agency, an applicant must pay certain fees at various stages of the process.
Q: Has President Obama shared any invention ideas with you? And if so, is he filing for patents on any of them?
David: Well, even if I knew I surely wouldn’t betray an inventor’s trust. But if President Obama did get a patent, he would be only the second U.S. president to do so. While a Congressman from Illinois in 1849, Abraham Lincoln received Patent No. 6,469 for “A Device for Buoying Vessels over Shoals.”
Q: What’s your favorite invention from history, and why?
David: Well, thinking about the ones I use most these days—I’d say the computer, the cell phone or the airplane!
David Kappos
Source of Above
http://www.absolutelynewsletter.com/patent-office-director-david-kappos-on-innovation.html
Kappos
Tiny Bit of Hogwash Here... Come on David Kappos is Pretending to Be a Good Guy and Seems to Be Proclaiming to Really Want to Protect Inventors, if So where Is he on Protecting a Trillion Dollar Technology - and the Inventors that are Seemingly Collateral Damage?
Independent Inventors Should Seek Patent Council, Says David Kappos Patent Office Director - Well WHY?
When the USPTO seems to have NO Issue with the Patent Attorney Stealing the Invention and Putting Patents of their Clients in the Patent Attorneys Name... David Kappos Says for you to seek patent council ... I Say Beware... In the Iviewit Trillion Dollar Patent Theft there is Millions upon Millions of Shareholder / Investors Money at Stake, there is Trillions in Benefits ... there is thousands of documents of proof and 8 years of proof on top of proof and the US Justice System Can Do NOTHING to Restore Justice ...
So you the Little Inventor without the Millions .. without the Big Name and Big Connections backing you.. Well you don't stand a Chance, if your Invention is any good the Patent Attorney will Make sure, one way or another that you Don't Actually get to REALLY benefit from it...
Who Better to Protect the Interests of IBM at the US Patent Office then Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO).
David Kappos is an engineer-turned lawyer who headed patenting at tech giant IBM - Does this Raise an Eyebrow to anyone, how will David Kappos Really be able to be in the best interest of the Inventors, those trying to patent something really great when he has Connections, and Affiliations that may be in direct Conflict with the Invention?
You are fighting for the rights to your Holy Grail High Tech invention and the Keepers to the Kingdom in which would not exist if it were not for you.. well they are IBM Cronies in the USPTO and the Supreme Court, they are Politically Connected Judges and Attorneys, they are "Evil Doers" and there is NOTHING you can do to get the Rights to Your Invention... So Give up.. and if you Do Get the Nerve Up to Make a Stand.. well You will Pay the Price...
the Connections - the Cronies - the Affiliations -
the Conflict of Interests.... OMG to say the Least...
Kappos
OPEN LETTER NO. 2 TO JUSTICE JUDITH KAYE & GOVERNOR ELIOT SPITZER
This Article is Kind of Funny, almost Seems Like Someone is Complaining to Judge Judith Kay about IBM as if they don't know who has IBM Connections and I Believe IBM Work Experience. Anyway, Here is this Article wiht a Link to the Source Below... As we Explore the Connecting of Dots, the Affiliations and Players in the Iviewit Trillion Dollar Stolen Technology Holy Grail Heist. ... Who was Involved ?
Do you get a match ? Work forward and backwards from there. A side by side analysis of the two briefs will reveal numerous similarities in structure, organization, strategy, argument, and syllable for syllable overlaps. Even some footnotes bear resemblance and evidence of the copy and paste techniques of these "independently" prepared briefs. How do you define collusion ???
Well, there is just one little problem...
IBM, Union Carbide, and more than a dozen other global corporations were understandably "sensitive" about the public, government, media, or the investment community scrutinizing the sordid behind the scenes cover-up in hundreds of settlements in IBM's cancer and birth defect cases.
So what did they do ? With the witting or unwitting assistance of the Supreme Court of Westchester County New York (White Plains), IBM and the other Defendants conveniently sealed everything they could get away with. So, if you want to read the plagiarized brief filed by IBM, you will have to wait until the hundreds of cases are unsealed.
BELOW IS A LIST OF THE CASE NAMES AND FILE NUMBERS THAT I HAVE ACCUMULATED TO DATE. THESE ARE ALL HOUSED AT THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE IN WHITE PLAINS, NY.
SOME PLAINTIFFS ARE GROUPED UNDER ONE FILE NAME, FOR EXAMPLE "RUFFING".
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASJcaptcha
IT IS SOMEWHAT TEDIOUS, BUT A SEARCH OF "UNION CARBIDE" UNDER THE DEFENDANT LINK FOR WESTCHESTER COUNTY ON THE ABOVE WEB SITE, WILL BRING UP ALL THE CASES, CURRENT AND CLOSED.
NOTE: THE INITIAL COMPLAINT IS USUALLY UNSEALED.
THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARE GENERALLY THE RECORDS THAT IBM AND THE CHEMICAL SUPPLIER DEFENDANTS HAVE HAD SEALED BY THE COURT, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION.
(UC=UNION CARBIDE)
1 KELLEY DALEY V UC INDEX 014308-1997; INDEX 018755-1997
KELLY DALEY V. UC (DALEY II) INDEX 014206-1997
2. ROBERT KELLEHER V UC INDEX 004048-1997
ROBERT KELLEHER V SHIPLEY COMPANY (KELLEHER II) INDEX 015665-1997
3. RITA BASS V. UC INDEX 018275-97; INDEX 002550-1999
***4. ZACHARY DAVID RUFFING V HOECHST (RUFFING II) INDEX 015664-1997
THIS CASE INCLUDES CLOSE TO 100+ PLAINTIFFS.
5. CAROLYN BAILEY V UC INDEX 002465/1998
6. ALYCE BAILEY V. UC INDEX 017951/2002
THIS CASE IS GROUPED WITH A FEW OTHER PLAINTIFFS.
***7. RYAN BURGER V. UC INDEX 015612-2000
THIS CASE INCLUDES ABOUT 20 PLAINTIFFS.
8. ZACHARY DAVID RUFFING V. UC INDEX 4049-1997
THIS CASE INCLUDES A NUMBER OF OTHER PLAINTIFFS.
9. MARGARET ABIDI V UC INDEX 014712-2001
10. DONALD MELE V. UC INDEX 004047-1997
11. CYNTHIA MOKRITSKI V. UC INDEX 012838-1997
12. JOHN CATALDO V. UC INDEX 013561-1998
13. JOHN WILLIAM EVANS V. UC INDEX 002549-1999
14. MARY ALICE CASTALLANO V. UC INDEX 003045-2001
15. NATHAN SMITH V. UC INDEX 005643-2002
16. AMBER ANN KARDAS V. UC INDEX 009011-2000
THIS CASE INCLUDES 12 OR MORE PLAINTIFFS.
17. HEATHER KELLY V. UC INDEX 012300-1999
18. BONNIE BENNETT V. UC INDEX 018426-2001
19. CHRISTINA CORDARO V. UC INDEX 002548-1999
20. JAMES ABBATICCHIO V. UC INDEX 02550-1999
21. DIANE PAOLICELLA V. CANDACE CURTIS INDEX 7884-2004
I AM NOT SURE WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT.
BUT CANDACE CURTIS IS THE CASE IBM SETTLED FOR "AN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT" ON MARCH 3, 2004, JUST AS THE JURY SELECTION WAS ABOUT TO BEGIN.
22. KELLY DALEY V. EKC TECHNOLOGY INDEX 000146-1998
23. ALYSSA PFLEGING V. IBM INDEX 019667-2001
24. DAVID FREER V. UC INDEX 004171-2003
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL CERTAINLY GET YOU STARTED. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
INTERVIEWS OF THE VARIOUS NAMED NYS PLAINTIFFS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES WILL VERIFY MY ACCOUNT OF THE DECEIT AND UNETHICAL PRESSURE EXERTED ON SICK PERSONS AND THIER FAMILIES TO BRING ABOUT THE SETTLEMENTS.
IS THERE A GIDEON TO TAKE ON IBM ???
Part of a series of exposes on IBM's cancer and birth defect cases.
Gideon feared death.
Does the main stream media fear the loss of current or potential advertising revenue, diminishing personal investment portfolios, or facing the wrath of Zeus ?
It takes big bucks to intervene in a lawsuit involving IBM. And it takes a whole lot of heart. Only a few organizations have the financial and legal resources to wage war with IBM. Are there any that have the courage and resolve ???
IBM ducked a heart rending trial on the East Coast USA by settling the Curtis v Union Carbide/IBM suit for an "undisclosed sum". Plaintiff and widow Carolyn Bailey maintains that IBM sought to avoid hundreds of similar trials by:
1. Extensive and unnecessary sealing of court records, and
2. Nudging the "opposing" attorneys into doing IBM's dirty work.
The Westchester County Supreme court's application of New York's current law regarding the sealing of court records has made it easy for IBM, Union Carbide, and the court to conSEAL "messy" cases from public scrutiny. Take a look at California's enlightened version --
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 243.1(d) SEALED RECORDS
(d) [Express factual findings required to seal records] The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:
(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;
(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;
(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and
(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.
News organizations did a masterful job of promoting the public's interest in the recent Brooke Astor case. Judge Stackhouse's August 29, 2006 ruling in Matter of Astor 2006 NY Slip Op 51677(U) has shown that public interest in court proceedings overrides the preference of private parties. That includes such big wigs as IBM and the chemical suppliers who prefer to do business on the hush-hush !!!
It is far past time to pull the rug from under the secret shenanigans of IBM, Union Carbide and more than a dozen other international corporations who have hid their dirty laundry under court seals. "
Full Article and Source of Post Below
http://www.grayhatsbegone.com/spitzerletters.html
Who was married to Who, What politics played in all this and for the Purpose of this Serious of Posts... how is Ex-Supreme Court Judge Judith Kay connected to this whole mes besides the obvious of Being married to a Proskauer Rose Partner.
This is Good Stuff.. But What did Ex-Judge Super Judith
Do to Help .. hmmm.. I Bet NOTHING !!!
Do to Help .. hmmm.. I Bet NOTHING !!!
The Following is From an Awesome Website
I Just Discovered Today...
Time To Bring Light to the Dark...
$$$$$$
"OPEN LETTER NO. 2 TO JUSTICE JUDITH KAYE & GOVERNOR ELIOT SPITZER
Chief Court Attorney James Garfein sent me an embarrassing response on your behalf. But his feeble effort proved my point better than anything else -- the New York State court system has been so manipulated by IBM that Mr. Garfein could not even identify the correct case. The IBM cancer and birth defect cases have been sealed, and then the Order sealing the sealing Order has been sealed. You've heard of double dealing and double dipping. Now you have double sealing !!!
The case involving the plagiarism of IBM's attorneys, Jones Day, and "opposing" attorneys Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, is the appeal of Bailey v. Union Carbide Index # 17951/2002 Westchester County (Second Department Appellate Division Docket # 2005-03440.)
Look at page 16 of the Jones Day Respondent brief. Compare Jones Day's submission with the "opposition" Respondent brief of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP on page 23. Do you get a match ? Work forward and backwards from there. A side by side analysis of the two briefs will reveal numerous similarities in structure, organization, strategy, argument, and syllable for syllable overlaps. Even some footnotes bear resemblance and evidence of the copy and paste techniques of these "independently" prepared briefs. How do you define collusion ???
Well, there is just one little problem...
IBM, Union Carbide, and more than a dozen other global corporations were understandably "sensitive" about the public, government, media, or the investment community scrutinizing the sordid behind the scenes cover-up in hundreds of settlements in IBM's cancer and birth defect cases. So what did they do ? With the witting or unwitting assistance of the Supreme Court of Westchester County New York (White Plains), IBM and the other Defendants conveniently sealed everything they could get away with.
IBM was so adept that even Chief Attorney Garfein could not find the file ! If that continues to be the case, I can send you a copy of the two briefs.
C' est la vie.
Someone needs to investigate and examine the process used in handling all of the IBM cancer and birth defect cases. IBM should not be able to silence the plaintiffs as it has. IBM should not be able to manipulate the court system as it has.
What say ye, Justice Kaye and Governor Spitzer ???
Carolyn Bailey
www.GrayHatsBeGone.com
cc: Select Media
Select Concerned Individuals
OPEN LETTER TO JUSTICE JUDITH KAYE & GOVERNOR ELIOT SPITZER
IBM has made a mockery of the New York State court system !
IBM's lawyers Jones Day and Levy Phillips & Konigsberg submitted plagiarized briefs and relied upon court seals to cover their collusion. (See details in the expose reprinted below.) And if that were not bad enough, Levy Phillips yielded to the lure of easy contingency $$$$$$$ and functioned as IBM's hatchetmen. As a result, 100's of New York State plaintiffs have been denied informed and fairly negotiated and aboveboard settlements in the IBM cancer and birth defect cases. And all that was done with Westchester County Supreme Court conSEALment and stamp of approval !!! So far IBM has pulled this off because the plaintiffs were unethically pressured by Levy Phillips to sign chump-change releases that included an unconscionable clause requiring them to repay 25% of their few coins unless they remained silent.
Governor Spitzer, will your clean sweep include a broom for IBM and others who manipulate the current court rules to deprive ordinary people of their just deserves ???
" ... and who knows whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this ?" Esther 4:14
* * * * * * * * * *
PART OF EXPOSE SERIES
IBM WROTE THE BOOK ON PLAGIARIZED BRIEFS
Look at page 16 of the Jones Day (IBM's legal representative) Respondent brief in Bailey v. Union Carbide et al (Docket # 2005-03440 Second Appellate Division New York State). Compare Jones Day's submission with the "opposition" Respondent brief of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP on page 23.
I Just Discovered Today...
Time To Bring Light to the Dark...
$$$$$$
"OPEN LETTER NO. 2 TO JUSTICE JUDITH KAYE & GOVERNOR ELIOT SPITZER
Chief Court Attorney James Garfein sent me an embarrassing response on your behalf. But his feeble effort proved my point better than anything else -- the New York State court system has been so manipulated by IBM that Mr. Garfein could not even identify the correct case. The IBM cancer and birth defect cases have been sealed, and then the Order sealing the sealing Order has been sealed. You've heard of double dealing and double dipping. Now you have double sealing !!!
The case involving the plagiarism of IBM's attorneys, Jones Day, and "opposing" attorneys Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, is the appeal of Bailey v. Union Carbide Index # 17951/2002 Westchester County (Second Department Appellate Division Docket # 2005-03440.)
Look at page 16 of the Jones Day Respondent brief. Compare Jones Day's submission with the "opposition" Respondent brief of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP on page 23. Do you get a match ? Work forward and backwards from there. A side by side analysis of the two briefs will reveal numerous similarities in structure, organization, strategy, argument, and syllable for syllable overlaps. Even some footnotes bear resemblance and evidence of the copy and paste techniques of these "independently" prepared briefs. How do you define collusion ???
Well, there is just one little problem...
IBM, Union Carbide, and more than a dozen other global corporations were understandably "sensitive" about the public, government, media, or the investment community scrutinizing the sordid behind the scenes cover-up in hundreds of settlements in IBM's cancer and birth defect cases. So what did they do ? With the witting or unwitting assistance of the Supreme Court of Westchester County New York (White Plains), IBM and the other Defendants conveniently sealed everything they could get away with.
IBM was so adept that even Chief Attorney Garfein could not find the file ! If that continues to be the case, I can send you a copy of the two briefs.
C' est la vie.
Someone needs to investigate and examine the process used in handling all of the IBM cancer and birth defect cases. IBM should not be able to silence the plaintiffs as it has. IBM should not be able to manipulate the court system as it has.
What say ye, Justice Kaye and Governor Spitzer ???
Carolyn Bailey
www.GrayHatsBeGone.com
cc: Select Media
Select Concerned Individuals
OPEN LETTER TO JUSTICE JUDITH KAYE & GOVERNOR ELIOT SPITZER
IBM has made a mockery of the New York State court system !
IBM's lawyers Jones Day and Levy Phillips & Konigsberg submitted plagiarized briefs and relied upon court seals to cover their collusion. (See details in the expose reprinted below.) And if that were not bad enough, Levy Phillips yielded to the lure of easy contingency $$$$$$$ and functioned as IBM's hatchetmen. As a result, 100's of New York State plaintiffs have been denied informed and fairly negotiated and aboveboard settlements in the IBM cancer and birth defect cases. And all that was done with Westchester County Supreme Court conSEALment and stamp of approval !!! So far IBM has pulled this off because the plaintiffs were unethically pressured by Levy Phillips to sign chump-change releases that included an unconscionable clause requiring them to repay 25% of their few coins unless they remained silent.
Governor Spitzer, will your clean sweep include a broom for IBM and others who manipulate the current court rules to deprive ordinary people of their just deserves ???
" ... and who knows whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this ?" Esther 4:14
* * * * * * * * * *
PART OF EXPOSE SERIES
IBM WROTE THE BOOK ON PLAGIARIZED BRIEFS
Look at page 16 of the Jones Day (IBM's legal representative) Respondent brief in Bailey v. Union Carbide et al (Docket # 2005-03440 Second Appellate Division New York State). Compare Jones Day's submission with the "opposition" Respondent brief of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP on page 23.
Do you get a match ? Work forward and backwards from there. A side by side analysis of the two briefs will reveal numerous similarities in structure, organization, strategy, argument, and syllable for syllable overlaps. Even some footnotes bear resemblance and evidence of the copy and paste techniques of these "independently" prepared briefs. How do you define collusion ???
Well, there is just one little problem...
IBM, Union Carbide, and more than a dozen other global corporations were understandably "sensitive" about the public, government, media, or the investment community scrutinizing the sordid behind the scenes cover-up in hundreds of settlements in IBM's cancer and birth defect cases.
So what did they do ? With the witting or unwitting assistance of the Supreme Court of Westchester County New York (White Plains), IBM and the other Defendants conveniently sealed everything they could get away with. So, if you want to read the plagiarized brief filed by IBM, you will have to wait until the hundreds of cases are unsealed.
BELOW IS A LIST OF THE CASE NAMES AND FILE NUMBERS THAT I HAVE ACCUMULATED TO DATE. THESE ARE ALL HOUSED AT THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE IN WHITE PLAINS, NY.
SOME PLAINTIFFS ARE GROUPED UNDER ONE FILE NAME, FOR EXAMPLE "RUFFING".
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASJcaptcha
IT IS SOMEWHAT TEDIOUS, BUT A SEARCH OF "UNION CARBIDE" UNDER THE DEFENDANT LINK FOR WESTCHESTER COUNTY ON THE ABOVE WEB SITE, WILL BRING UP ALL THE CASES, CURRENT AND CLOSED.
NOTE: THE INITIAL COMPLAINT IS USUALLY UNSEALED.
THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARE GENERALLY THE RECORDS THAT IBM AND THE CHEMICAL SUPPLIER DEFENDANTS HAVE HAD SEALED BY THE COURT, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION.
(UC=UNION CARBIDE)
1 KELLEY DALEY V UC INDEX 014308-1997; INDEX 018755-1997
KELLY DALEY V. UC (DALEY II) INDEX 014206-1997
2. ROBERT KELLEHER V UC INDEX 004048-1997
ROBERT KELLEHER V SHIPLEY COMPANY (KELLEHER II) INDEX 015665-1997
3. RITA BASS V. UC INDEX 018275-97; INDEX 002550-1999
***4. ZACHARY DAVID RUFFING V HOECHST (RUFFING II) INDEX 015664-1997
THIS CASE INCLUDES CLOSE TO 100+ PLAINTIFFS.
5. CAROLYN BAILEY V UC INDEX 002465/1998
6. ALYCE BAILEY V. UC INDEX 017951/2002
THIS CASE IS GROUPED WITH A FEW OTHER PLAINTIFFS.
***7. RYAN BURGER V. UC INDEX 015612-2000
THIS CASE INCLUDES ABOUT 20 PLAINTIFFS.
8. ZACHARY DAVID RUFFING V. UC INDEX 4049-1997
THIS CASE INCLUDES A NUMBER OF OTHER PLAINTIFFS.
9. MARGARET ABIDI V UC INDEX 014712-2001
10. DONALD MELE V. UC INDEX 004047-1997
11. CYNTHIA MOKRITSKI V. UC INDEX 012838-1997
12. JOHN CATALDO V. UC INDEX 013561-1998
13. JOHN WILLIAM EVANS V. UC INDEX 002549-1999
14. MARY ALICE CASTALLANO V. UC INDEX 003045-2001
15. NATHAN SMITH V. UC INDEX 005643-2002
16. AMBER ANN KARDAS V. UC INDEX 009011-2000
THIS CASE INCLUDES 12 OR MORE PLAINTIFFS.
17. HEATHER KELLY V. UC INDEX 012300-1999
18. BONNIE BENNETT V. UC INDEX 018426-2001
19. CHRISTINA CORDARO V. UC INDEX 002548-1999
20. JAMES ABBATICCHIO V. UC INDEX 02550-1999
21. DIANE PAOLICELLA V. CANDACE CURTIS INDEX 7884-2004
I AM NOT SURE WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT.
BUT CANDACE CURTIS IS THE CASE IBM SETTLED FOR "AN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT" ON MARCH 3, 2004, JUST AS THE JURY SELECTION WAS ABOUT TO BEGIN.
22. KELLY DALEY V. EKC TECHNOLOGY INDEX 000146-1998
23. ALYSSA PFLEGING V. IBM INDEX 019667-2001
24. DAVID FREER V. UC INDEX 004171-2003
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL CERTAINLY GET YOU STARTED. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
INTERVIEWS OF THE VARIOUS NAMED NYS PLAINTIFFS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES WILL VERIFY MY ACCOUNT OF THE DECEIT AND UNETHICAL PRESSURE EXERTED ON SICK PERSONS AND THIER FAMILIES TO BRING ABOUT THE SETTLEMENTS.
IS THERE A GIDEON TO TAKE ON IBM ???
Part of a series of exposes on IBM's cancer and birth defect cases.
Gideon feared death.
Does the main stream media fear the loss of current or potential advertising revenue, diminishing personal investment portfolios, or facing the wrath of Zeus ?
It takes big bucks to intervene in a lawsuit involving IBM. And it takes a whole lot of heart. Only a few organizations have the financial and legal resources to wage war with IBM. Are there any that have the courage and resolve ???
IBM ducked a heart rending trial on the East Coast USA by settling the Curtis v Union Carbide/IBM suit for an "undisclosed sum". Plaintiff and widow Carolyn Bailey maintains that IBM sought to avoid hundreds of similar trials by:
1. Extensive and unnecessary sealing of court records, and
2. Nudging the "opposing" attorneys into doing IBM's dirty work.
The Westchester County Supreme court's application of New York's current law regarding the sealing of court records has made it easy for IBM, Union Carbide, and the court to conSEAL "messy" cases from public scrutiny. Take a look at California's enlightened version --
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 243.1(d) SEALED RECORDS
(d) [Express factual findings required to seal records] The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:
(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;
(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;
(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and
(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.
News organizations did a masterful job of promoting the public's interest in the recent Brooke Astor case. Judge Stackhouse's August 29, 2006 ruling in Matter of Astor 2006 NY Slip Op 51677(U) has shown that public interest in court proceedings overrides the preference of private parties. That includes such big wigs as IBM and the chemical suppliers who prefer to do business on the hush-hush !!!
It is far past time to pull the rug from under the secret shenanigans of IBM, Union Carbide and more than a dozen other international corporations who have hid their dirty laundry under court seals. "
Full Article and Source of Post Below
http://www.grayhatsbegone.com/spitzerletters.html
Friday, December 18, 2009
Skull and Bones Connections and Information
Examing the Skull and Bones connection because they are on lists of people / groups involved. This kind of Money and Trillion Dollar Technology Grab, Well you would have to be VERY political Connected, and would have to have Old Money, HUGE money and a connection within EVERY government and political agencies or how would you pull off a Trillion Dollar patent Heist with No One Looking into ANY of it.
r
For More Information go to..
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/skull4.pdf
r
Also Just Google "Skull and Bones" and read other offline information on Secrete Societies. It is no longer conspiracty theory or pie in the sky.. this stuff is very real and is a big part of your life whether you see it or believe it or not..
r
r
For More Information go to..
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/skull4.pdf
r
Also Just Google "Skull and Bones" and read other offline information on Secrete Societies. It is no longer conspiracty theory or pie in the sky.. this stuff is very real and is a big part of your life whether you see it or believe it or not..
r
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Steven C. Krane, Esq. - Proskaur Rose Affiliations, Connections - Judith Kaye
NEW YORK SUPREME COURT FIRST DEPARTMENT COURT ORDER FOR INVESTIGATION OF KRANE
KRANE COMPLAINT TO NEW YORK SUPREME COURT FIRST DEPARTMENT
Steven Krane - the Attorney's Attorney Providing Legal Advice to the Proskaur Rose Law Firm.
Proskaur.com Bio in Part..
"Steven Krane is a Partner in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Dpartment, co-head of the Law Firm Practice Group, concentrating in the field of legal ethics and professional responsibility, and is Proskauer's General Counsel, responsible for providing professional legal advice to the firm.
Steven represents law firms and individual lawyers in a variety of professional matters, including rendering opinions and counseling them on a daily basis on a broad range of professional matters including conflicts of interest, client confidentiality, cross-border legal practice issues, partnership disputes, internal investigations, ancillary businesses and alternative business structures for law firms. In addition, he defends law firms in litigated proceedings involving legal malpractice and other civil claims, represents individual lawyers before grievance and disciplinary committees and assists lawyers in disputes concerning admission to the Bar.
He has served as a litigation consultant and expert witness testifying on a variety of issues such as conflicts of interest, litigation conduct, legal malpractice, billing disputes, and solicitation of clients by lawyers leaving a law firm.
Steven is among the nation’s leaders in developing and interpreting the rules governing the professional conduct of lawyers. He is the immediate past chair of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, on which he served since 2004.
For 14 years, he has led the New York State Bar Association committee that is responsible for formulating the ethical rules governing New York lawyers. In 2007, he was appointed by Chief Judge Kaye to be co-chair of the New York Judicial Institute on Professionalism in the Law. He served as vice-chair of the NYSBA Special Committee on the Law Governing Firm Structure and Operation (the “MacCrate Committee”), chaired the successor to that committee, the Special Committee on Multidisciplinary Practice, and was recently named Vice-Chair of the International Bar Association Committee on Multidisciplinary Practices. "
More Gibberish at Source of Link
http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/steven-krane/
Below From
www.Iviewit.TV
Former New York State Bar President and member of Disciplinary Committees and Ethics boards nationwide. Ordered for investigation of conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department.
The investigation has so far been thwarted, through further conflicts in New York, typical New York crooked politics but being from the Windy City, so named for corrupt politics, this will be New York's Greylord.
It was learned that conflict in New York led all the way to Chief Judge Judith Kaye, you guessed it, married to a Proskauer partner, a partner like Krane, Stephen Kaye, G0d now prancing upon his recently departed soul although he was soulless while living towards the end, a partner who was instantly added to newly formed Proskauer intellectual property department (formed instantly after learning of my inventions), although he had no history in IP law, hmmm.
Judge Judy Kaye is also conflicted up the butt with Krane, as he was her former whipping boy, serving as her lapdog clerk.
Krane attempts to use influence peddling like never before seen in Gotham to earn his Proskauer intellectual property partnership wings by blocking Iviewit never revealing his conflicts, until two years into the complaints when news of his conflicts surfaced.
Steven Krane and Judith Kaye (Judge Judy is now the proud conflicted owner of her dead husband Stephen Kaye's Proskauer shares of Iviewit) then had to bury the New York Supreme Court ordered investigation against them and the Proskauer partners, and in a feat unsurpassed in the annals or anals of New York, he ass kisses or offers it for the taking widely, to evade the investigation without even having to give a statement in his defense.
After five Supreme Court Justices unanimously voted for an INVESTIGATION, Stephen Krane, Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond Anthony Joao, did not even have to provide a response to that court, nor provide one to the department charged with the investigations.
Instead those disciplinary departments wrote little old me how they were going to dismiss it without investigation based on that he was a nice guy basically. It was as if the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, was actually doing his defense, as they tendered all letters on his behalf, he did not answer a single question or put forth a statement in his defense. You guessed it, the First Department and the Second Department are controlled by Proskauer attorneys, those charged with investigating the conflicts, upon a little scratch of the surface were also found in conflict with the matters, Krane and Kaye, and yet they continued handling the complaints against Proskauer and its partners. So assured that top down control of the courts could never be penetrated with Judith Kaye and Stephen Krane controlling them that they acted as if they were above the law.
Perhaps they are above the law, in crime festered New York but they are not above the law of G0d.
Of course I did not order the investigation, a bunch of judges did.
So it begs one to ask why they confronted me to try and evade the investigations and not the court that ordered it. The answer, they could not answer the court with the results of the investigation, as no investigation was ever done and they tried to claim dismissing the case on review was equal to an investigation.
No witnesses were called, no evidence submitted tested, these guys did not even have to tender a response.
How much payola do you think that it costs to buy off three court ordered investigations? With the help of Judge Judy Kaye and some very large illegal gains from the stolen technologies to make people obfuscate their public office duties, they have succeeded but for the moment at evading charges.
Steven Krane stands as the most despicable man in the history of legal ethics, currently found trying to amend laws to protect him and others from prosecution. Perhaps Ken Lay hired him to write some laws to prevent loss of his estate from death or the Bush group has him rewriting war codes to justify torture and protect from prosecution.
Either way, there may soon be a lot of Proskauer and other corrupted lawyers cited herein, wishing for an artery to pop to the brain, with Krane's obese gluttony, he will be first. (I was wrong here, Judy's husband Stephen Krane, G0d unrest his soul, was the first to leave this earthly world for hell for his actions.)
Krane Complaint First Department Exposing Conflicts and Violations of Public Office. Krane then goes on to really fuck himself when he writes his own defense of his bar complaint, failing to disclose his conflicting positions at the disciplinary department and further concealing them in an effort to deny he was caught, this little lie cost him orders for investigation.
Krane Suicide Letter
Steven Krane was busted immediately following that letter, after Clerk of the Court, Catherine O’Hagan Wolf identified that Steven Krane was in fact a member of the disciplinary committee that his letter denied, in fact she sat on several committee’s with Steven Krane and was stunned that he would be handling a complaint against himself or his partners, she suggested Iviewit file the Motion with the Court that led to the unanimous ruling for investigation.
OK breaking news in November 2007 comes in the form of Krane's buddy at the First Department, Thomas Cahill, former Chief Counsel of the Supreme Court of New York First Department, DDC. Thomas Cahill is busted for burying and whitewashing complaints against attorneys that he is charged with investigating.
Oh, shit gets really bad as the informant is an insider, a 62 yr old black female attorney, who is victimized, physically assaulted and terminated for her bravery to stand up to wrongdoings at the Department. In a $100M Federal Lawsuit, she names Iviewit in P. 97 of the complaint, as a cause of termination.
Oh shit, Thomas Cahill and Steven Krane and their scam exposed from the inside, Holy Cow Batman, Gotham Uppy Ups are going down, The New York Law Journal writes a story exposing Cahill and others for derailing complaints against attorneys, exactly what Iviewit is claiming to the Feds.
Holy Big Shit Batman, The New York Times follows with an even more devastating article and now New York is on fire, Kerik, the whole criminal political crime family composed of scumbag lawyers, judges and politicians is flaming downward, hell awaits, my smiling face to greet them.
All this shit started by an investigative reporter at Expose Corrupt Courts, a one ballsy Frank Brady, in a time of journalistic lack of integrity and complacency with the corruptions read by propaganda readers like Blitzer (whose his daddy), Sanchez (where did this guy get his journalistic wings) and other script readers, Brady emerges as something of a Ben Bradlee, a Woodward, a Bernstein.
My kudos also go to Dan Wise of the New York Law Journal and Paul Vitello of the New York Times for having the balls to expose corruption New York's Heart of Darkness."
Source:
http://www.iviewit.tv/
Eliot Bernstein Site on the Iviewit Stolent Patent
R
KRANE COMPLAINT TO NEW YORK SUPREME COURT FIRST DEPARTMENT
Steven Krane - the Attorney's Attorney Providing Legal Advice to the Proskaur Rose Law Firm.
Proskaur.com Bio in Part..
"Steven Krane is a Partner in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Dpartment, co-head of the Law Firm Practice Group, concentrating in the field of legal ethics and professional responsibility, and is Proskauer's General Counsel, responsible for providing professional legal advice to the firm.
Steven represents law firms and individual lawyers in a variety of professional matters, including rendering opinions and counseling them on a daily basis on a broad range of professional matters including conflicts of interest, client confidentiality, cross-border legal practice issues, partnership disputes, internal investigations, ancillary businesses and alternative business structures for law firms. In addition, he defends law firms in litigated proceedings involving legal malpractice and other civil claims, represents individual lawyers before grievance and disciplinary committees and assists lawyers in disputes concerning admission to the Bar.
He has served as a litigation consultant and expert witness testifying on a variety of issues such as conflicts of interest, litigation conduct, legal malpractice, billing disputes, and solicitation of clients by lawyers leaving a law firm.
Steven is among the nation’s leaders in developing and interpreting the rules governing the professional conduct of lawyers. He is the immediate past chair of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, on which he served since 2004.
For 14 years, he has led the New York State Bar Association committee that is responsible for formulating the ethical rules governing New York lawyers. In 2007, he was appointed by Chief Judge Kaye to be co-chair of the New York Judicial Institute on Professionalism in the Law. He served as vice-chair of the NYSBA Special Committee on the Law Governing Firm Structure and Operation (the “MacCrate Committee”), chaired the successor to that committee, the Special Committee on Multidisciplinary Practice, and was recently named Vice-Chair of the International Bar Association Committee on Multidisciplinary Practices. "
More Gibberish at Source of Link
http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/steven-krane/
Below From
www.Iviewit.TV
Former New York State Bar President and member of Disciplinary Committees and Ethics boards nationwide. Ordered for investigation of conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department.
The investigation has so far been thwarted, through further conflicts in New York, typical New York crooked politics but being from the Windy City, so named for corrupt politics, this will be New York's Greylord.
It was learned that conflict in New York led all the way to Chief Judge Judith Kaye, you guessed it, married to a Proskauer partner, a partner like Krane, Stephen Kaye, G0d now prancing upon his recently departed soul although he was soulless while living towards the end, a partner who was instantly added to newly formed Proskauer intellectual property department (formed instantly after learning of my inventions), although he had no history in IP law, hmmm.
Judge Judy Kaye is also conflicted up the butt with Krane, as he was her former whipping boy, serving as her lapdog clerk.
Krane attempts to use influence peddling like never before seen in Gotham to earn his Proskauer intellectual property partnership wings by blocking Iviewit never revealing his conflicts, until two years into the complaints when news of his conflicts surfaced.
Steven Krane and Judith Kaye (Judge Judy is now the proud conflicted owner of her dead husband Stephen Kaye's Proskauer shares of Iviewit) then had to bury the New York Supreme Court ordered investigation against them and the Proskauer partners, and in a feat unsurpassed in the annals or anals of New York, he ass kisses or offers it for the taking widely, to evade the investigation without even having to give a statement in his defense.
After five Supreme Court Justices unanimously voted for an INVESTIGATION, Stephen Krane, Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond Anthony Joao, did not even have to provide a response to that court, nor provide one to the department charged with the investigations.
Instead those disciplinary departments wrote little old me how they were going to dismiss it without investigation based on that he was a nice guy basically. It was as if the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, was actually doing his defense, as they tendered all letters on his behalf, he did not answer a single question or put forth a statement in his defense. You guessed it, the First Department and the Second Department are controlled by Proskauer attorneys, those charged with investigating the conflicts, upon a little scratch of the surface were also found in conflict with the matters, Krane and Kaye, and yet they continued handling the complaints against Proskauer and its partners. So assured that top down control of the courts could never be penetrated with Judith Kaye and Stephen Krane controlling them that they acted as if they were above the law.
Perhaps they are above the law, in crime festered New York but they are not above the law of G0d.
Of course I did not order the investigation, a bunch of judges did.
So it begs one to ask why they confronted me to try and evade the investigations and not the court that ordered it. The answer, they could not answer the court with the results of the investigation, as no investigation was ever done and they tried to claim dismissing the case on review was equal to an investigation.
No witnesses were called, no evidence submitted tested, these guys did not even have to tender a response.
How much payola do you think that it costs to buy off three court ordered investigations? With the help of Judge Judy Kaye and some very large illegal gains from the stolen technologies to make people obfuscate their public office duties, they have succeeded but for the moment at evading charges.
Steven Krane stands as the most despicable man in the history of legal ethics, currently found trying to amend laws to protect him and others from prosecution. Perhaps Ken Lay hired him to write some laws to prevent loss of his estate from death or the Bush group has him rewriting war codes to justify torture and protect from prosecution.
Either way, there may soon be a lot of Proskauer and other corrupted lawyers cited herein, wishing for an artery to pop to the brain, with Krane's obese gluttony, he will be first. (I was wrong here, Judy's husband Stephen Krane, G0d unrest his soul, was the first to leave this earthly world for hell for his actions.)
Krane Complaint First Department Exposing Conflicts and Violations of Public Office. Krane then goes on to really fuck himself when he writes his own defense of his bar complaint, failing to disclose his conflicting positions at the disciplinary department and further concealing them in an effort to deny he was caught, this little lie cost him orders for investigation.
Krane Suicide Letter
Steven Krane was busted immediately following that letter, after Clerk of the Court, Catherine O’Hagan Wolf identified that Steven Krane was in fact a member of the disciplinary committee that his letter denied, in fact she sat on several committee’s with Steven Krane and was stunned that he would be handling a complaint against himself or his partners, she suggested Iviewit file the Motion with the Court that led to the unanimous ruling for investigation.
OK breaking news in November 2007 comes in the form of Krane's buddy at the First Department, Thomas Cahill, former Chief Counsel of the Supreme Court of New York First Department, DDC. Thomas Cahill is busted for burying and whitewashing complaints against attorneys that he is charged with investigating.
Oh, shit gets really bad as the informant is an insider, a 62 yr old black female attorney, who is victimized, physically assaulted and terminated for her bravery to stand up to wrongdoings at the Department. In a $100M Federal Lawsuit, she names Iviewit in P. 97 of the complaint, as a cause of termination.
Oh shit, Thomas Cahill and Steven Krane and their scam exposed from the inside, Holy Cow Batman, Gotham Uppy Ups are going down, The New York Law Journal writes a story exposing Cahill and others for derailing complaints against attorneys, exactly what Iviewit is claiming to the Feds.
Holy Big Shit Batman, The New York Times follows with an even more devastating article and now New York is on fire, Kerik, the whole criminal political crime family composed of scumbag lawyers, judges and politicians is flaming downward, hell awaits, my smiling face to greet them.
All this shit started by an investigative reporter at Expose Corrupt Courts, a one ballsy Frank Brady, in a time of journalistic lack of integrity and complacency with the corruptions read by propaganda readers like Blitzer (whose his daddy), Sanchez (where did this guy get his journalistic wings) and other script readers, Brady emerges as something of a Ben Bradlee, a Woodward, a Bernstein.
My kudos also go to Dan Wise of the New York Law Journal and Paul Vitello of the New York Times for having the balls to expose corruption New York's Heart of Darkness."
Source:
http://www.iviewit.tv/
Eliot Bernstein Site on the Iviewit Stolent Patent
R
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)