Smaller inventors Smackdown - David Kappos, USPTO formerly IBM ....the Whining of Billion Dollar Tech Companies

From the Article Below we see more Evidence of how David Kappos's IBM connections and his appointment to the USPTO was Deliberat to Shut up those Small Inventors as they try and license their Technology.

$$$$$$

"" IBM veteran gets panel OK to run patent office
Kappos helped run massive patent operation; Full vote expected in Sept.

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) - David Kappos, a former IBM Corp. executive who spent years helping Big Blue amass a forbidding warchest of intellectual property, was approved by a Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday to become the next director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

A full vote on Kappos' nomination is expected after the Senate's summer recess.

David Kappos is expected to lend the perspective of large technology firms, while shaking up an embattled institution.

Technology companies have long complained that the patent office isn't sufficiently exacting, and awards too many dubious legal protections. Smaller inventors and patent holding firms, however, rely on winning a wide range of patents originated at the office to elbow their way into markets and win licensing fees.

The patent office "has not been able to keep pace with the avalanche of applications it has received in recent years," David Kappos said in testimony delivered on behalf of IBM to the Senate Judiciary Committee in March. That in turn, Kappos complained, has contributed to "increased speculation" and a surplus of lawsuits.

While that echoed the sentiments of many other large technology companies, IBM has a somewhat unique perspective. It has historically developed and acquired patents at an exhaustive pace, setting a standard aspired to by peers such as Microsoft Corp.

Indeed, Microsoft hired Marshall Phelps, Kappos' former colleague at IBM, to head its intellectual property licensing efforts in 2003. The companies' approach has blurred the lines, some say, between simply protecting business lines and seeking to bulk up on legal claims and licensing.

In 2008, IBM topped the list of U.S. technology companies winning patents for the 16th year in a row, with over 4,000. As Kappos noted in his March testimony, IBM became the first company ever to amass that many patents in a single year.

Microsoft ranked fourth, with 2,030 patents - behind Samsung and Canon, and one notch ahead of Intel Corp. IBM, along with many other large technology companies, has supported proposed patent reform legislation on Capitol Hill. That legislation seeks to improve the quality of patents, and cut down on the numerous lawsuits and significant jury awards regularly faced by large companies. ""

Full Article and Source
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ibm-veteran-gets-panel-ok-to-run-patent-office-2009-08-06
David Kappos, IBM and Kappos,

Web Stats Update ...

Washington, District Of Columbia,
United States
Administrative Office Of The United States Courts
(156.121.62.92)

Well they Have spent Time on this Issue..
so is it to Cover Up or to Dish out Justice?

*****
Ireland Intel Corporation
(192.198.151.36)

Ireland Intel is Interested in all my Sites
on the Iviewit Stolen Patent.

*****

United States
Hewlett - Packard Company (15.246.45.213)
is Very Interested in This information and More
http://www.ethicscomplaint.com/2010/01/mpegla-llc-sony-columbia-university.html

*****

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

INTEL, Real 3d, Inc. (SILICON GRAPHICS, INC., LOCKHEED MARTIN & INTEL) and RYJO

" Gerald Stanley - ("Stanley"); Ryan Huisman - ("Huisman"); RYJO - ("RYJO"); Tim Connolly - ("Connolly"); Steve Cochran; David Bolton; Rosalie Bibona - ("Bibona"); Connie Martin; Richard Gentner; Steven A. Behrens; Matt Johannsen; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO; Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Intel/R3D"). "

RICO Complaint

So What Did John Calkins Do at Warner Bros. Entertainment ?

He joined Warner Bros. as its Vice President of New Media Business Development in 2000.

So what Does this Mean Exactly? What it says to me is the "New Media" meaning any new invention that comes across my desk, I will squash the inventor, steal the technology and take the credit, then I Will get Big Job Offers at New "heavy hitting IT consultant Firms" where I will then get an offer from SONY to be a wig over there...

If you Look at When John Calkins Joined Warner Bros. Entertainment and let's not forget before that he was into Theme Parks and Retail... Right? Ok then at Warner Bros. in a few Short years he created enough Clout to move on to Lieberfarb and Associates and "Consult" heavy hitting IT Companies such as "Intel Corp." - ok then a couple of years later is the Senior VP of Corporate Development at Sony Pictures.

Ok so in 2000 "In strategic planning and business development, leading the newly combined department will be John Calkins and Gary Meisel, who become Senior Vice Presidents, Corporate Business Development & Strategy. " and Well From the Moment he "Overlooked" the Breach of the Iviewit Confidentiality Agreement He Started Zinging up the Corporate Latter...

My Guess is this is NOT a Well Deserved Concidence but instead a "Who You Know" and "What you Know about them" Sort of a Deal.


Links for Your Research

http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,669285,00.html

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/patentforfraud.htm
John Calkins

Ok Where Did John Calkins Go after President of Warren N. Lieberfarb & Associates (WNLA)?Senior Vice President of Corporate Development for Sony ..

Boy John Calkins sure does get around, John Calkins must be a hot commodity. Sure PAID off to overlook that Confidentiality Agreement with Iviewit, sure opened alot of Doors for John Calkins

John Calkins Go after President of Warren N. Lieberfarb & Associates (WNLA)? Senior Vice President of Corporate Development for Sony ..

So How is Sony Connected to ALL this, and How does Sony Benefit from Hiring a Guy that has No Morals, Has no Respect for Confidentiality Agreement, Ignores information that Brings HUGE liability to the Company He Works for and in Turn to the Shareholders of Warner Bros.

Why would Sony Hire a Guy Like This?

Is Sony Using the Stolen Iviewit Technology?

What Does John Calkins hold over people to get whatever job he wants?

The Article Below Says ".Prior to coming to Sony Pictures, he was President of Warren N. Lieberfarb & Associates (WNLA), charged with day to day responsibility for the company’s operations in its consulting practice and in its exploration and pursuit of opportunities in broadband video distribution, with backing from Microsoft, Intel and others."

Ok now this is in 2007 Right .. the article? yet the announced of John Calkins joining Lieberfarb and Associates bragging on Heavy Hitters in the IT industry Well this Article DiD not Name "Intel" "Intel Corp."

So at what Point Did Tech Consultant Firm Lieberfarb and Associates with their Head Honcho from Warner Bros.

Who had Full Knowledge of Breach of Confidentiality Agreements and of the Iviewit Stolen Patents, at What Point did Intel Corp. Get to be one of these now infamous Heavy Hitter IT Companies that John Calkins Brags about as part of his Resume Every 2 years or so when he Switches Jobs...

What did John Calkins of Warner Bros. - then of Lieberfarb and Associates - then of Sony - have to say to the CEO of Intel in Order to Get their Business.. maybe John Calkins Said, I know what you did... I know that you are using that Stolen Iviewit Technology, Through some heavy hitting IT business my way and I will Forget all about it... Ok, just a Theory, but Still Makes sense to Me...

Article.. Press Release .. from 2007 Below..

"John Calkins is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development for Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE), responsible for driving corporate initiatives in emerging business areas, coordinating corporate and divisional investments and divestitures and overseeing the implementation of the SPE mid range planning process.

Prior to coming to Sony Pictures, he was President of Warren N. Lieberfarb & Associates (WNLA), charged with day to day responsibility for the company’s operations in its consulting practice and in its exploration and pursuit of opportunities in broadband video distribution, with backing from Microsoft, Intel and others. He came to WNLA from Warner Bros, where he ultimately held the post of Senior Vice President of Corporate Business Development and Strategy.

In this role, Mr. Calkins became intimately involved in the Studio’s entry into such technology-driven aspects of the entertainment industry as wireless distribution, multi-player video gaming, and Video-on-Demand. He was instrumental in the creation of Movielink, the five-studio joint venture to distribute theatrically-released motion pictures on the Internet. He joined Warner Bros. as its Vice President of New Media Business Development in 2000.

Prior to joining Warner Bros, Calkins was with McKinsey & Company, as an Associate Principal in its Los Angeles office. During his four years at McKinsey, he developed strategic recommendations for companies in such diverse industries as theme parks, the Internet and retailing. He has also held positions with Trammell Crow Company and Pepsico’s Taco Bell restaurant division, and received his MBA from Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business as a Fuqua Scholar, awarded to the top 5% of the class. He has also been active on a number of private company and charity boards of directors."

Source of Above:
http://www.media-tech.net/sc07/conference/speakers/john-calkins.html

John Calkins

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.

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

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..

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

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

Intel IBM Lockheed SGI in TRILLION DOLLAR FEDERAL RICO/INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT

Posted Wednesday 23rd December 2009 17:50 GMT

In FTC whacks Intel with anticompetition complaint
IBM has a history of WAR CRIMES?

Currently they are being sued in Federal US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin's court for Aparthied related WAR CRIMES. IBM's role, same as their role in WWII, giving machines to tabulate the loot from victims and track their blood lines to hunt and kill their bloodlines.

Little known fact is that IBM had their employees in every single NAZI concentration camp, yes, somebody needs to count the gold fillings and how many were burned, hanged, shot, showered (gased).

Now for the scary part, their software is involved I believe with Lockheed to be controlling the US Census data collection. Buyer be beware.

PS - on a final note, IBM Intel Lockheed SGI are also in a 12-count, 12-trillion dollar lawsuit, boy I hope they are accounting for it on their books, relating to their role in stealing technologies from Inventor Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies and others. According to FASB No 5, both liabilities need to be accounted for but they are not.

If you own IBM shares you may have rescissory rights dating back to 1999.

Also may be concerned that the LAWSUIT has been marked legally "RELATED" to an inside Whistleblower lawsuit by Judge Scheindlin.

Intel is also involved as a Defendant in the Lawsuit for more information on Intel’s involvement see SEC Complaint exposing possible financial crimes relating to FASB No 5 accounting rules and more @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090306%20Intel%20Demand%20Letter%20&%20Liability%20Exposure%20%20Signed%203549l.pdf (note Bruce Sewell who letter is addressed to with Paul Otellini, just left longtime Intel job for Apple, wonder if Apple knows of his baggage) and

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=234

08-4873-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket - Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. - TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT
Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY
(07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT
(07cv11196) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division
First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.
(07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.,
(08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York, et al., and,
(08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.
(08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.
Related cases by judge
(08 cv 6368) John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York
Eliot I. Bernstein


Source of Post
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/user/38893/

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.

******

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

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:

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.

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.

Best regards,
P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
URL: www.iviewit.tv

******
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.

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.

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

To: Paul S. Otellini, President and Chief Executive Officer

"From: Eliot I. Bernstein - Iviewit

Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:33 PM

To: Paul S. Otellini, President and Chief Executive Officer @ Intel Corporation
(paul.otellini@intel.com);

D. Bruce Sewell , Senior Vice President - General Counsel @ Intel
Corporation

Steven R. Rodgers, Vice President and Associate General
Counsel Legal and Corporate Affairs, Director Litigation @ Intel Corporation
(steve.r.rodgers@intel.com)


Cc: 'Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire'; 'Michele M. Mulrooney Esq. - Jackoway Tyerman
Wertheimer Austen Mandelbaum & Morris'; 'Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.'; 'Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.'; 'Andrew R. Dietz @ Rock-It Cargo USA Incorporated LA'; 'Barry Becker @ Rock-It Cargo USA, Inc.'; 'krhall007@aol.com'; 'guy@nipllc.com'

Subject: IVIEWIT URGENT - 3 Hour Good Faith Window of Opportunity


Dear Mssrs Paul Otellini, Sewell & Rodgers:

As you are all directly aware, a number of good faith attempts to resolve outstanding
business matters have been made over the years including very recent communications
offering for a limited time to enter into an Agreement to Agree on resolving outstanding
legal liabilities stemming from the ongoing litigation and Intellectual Property
infringements through intelligent, responsible business agreements.

At this time, however, despite being referred by Mr. Paul Otellini's office to key Management
personnel at Intel such as Mr. Stephen Rodgers, Director of Litigation, no return
communication or even phone call has been received. I can only presume at this time
that this means that the present Intel Management is choosing to forego responsible
business agreements while simultaneously disregarding FASB accounting and other SEC
accounting requirements and laws.

I have enclosed my Letter to the SEC that will be transmitted via fax, email and direct
mail at 3 pm EST today unless some action is taken by Intel to resolve these matters
through a business and licensing arrangement.

As you will all note, the SEC letter references all of your names, as well as prior communications with Intel Management, and a host of Intel representatives previously involved in these matters.

If I have not heard from Intel by 3 pm EST time today, this next step in adversarial
actions will be taken instead of the amicable, responsible, sound business path to resolve
these matters as I have offered.

Thank you,
Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.

www.iviewit.tv


From: Eliot I. Bernstein
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 7:07 PM
To: 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: 'krhall007@aol.com';

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'

***********
Subject: FW: URGENT 24 HR Iviewit Demand Letter
for Intellectual Property Infringement &
Lawsuit Liability Exposure
***********

Dear Mr. Paul Otellini and Mr. Rodgers ~ please accept this courtesy copy of an email DEMAND LETTER relating to a liability to Intel of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS for PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND A FEDERAL LAWSUIT YOUR COMPANY IS NAMED IN.

I have sent information regarding this matter to your corporate counsel for delivery to you and had wished that prior to more formal actions on my part you would have called regarding the information in the letter addressed to you in the attached PDF file.

Upon calling your offices today for such confirmation, I was referred back to counsel who has not returned a timely call. If you I do not hear back from your offices by Monday at 3pm EST I will infer that Intel has choose not to discuss these matters other than with Federal authorities.

Thank you ~ Eliot Bernstein
From: Eliot I. Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 3:48 PM

To: 'Sewell, Bruce' - D.Bruce Sewell

Cc: 'krhall007@aol.com'; 'Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire'; 'Michele M. Mulrooney Esq. -
Jackoway Tyerman Wertheimer Austen Mandelbaum & Morris'; 'Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.'; 'Andy Dietz'; 'Barry Becker'; 'Guy Iantoni'

Subject: RE: URGENT 24 HR Iviewit Demand Letter for Intellectual Property Infringement & Lawsuit Liability Exposure Bruce ~ I appreciate your empathy both personally and on behalf of Intel and look forward to a timely response from the appropriate parties mentioned in my letters. ~

Eliot I. Bernstein

http://iviewit.tv/press/press4.pdf
Starting on Page 10

Eliot I. Bernstein - Intel Corporation - SEC Enforcement - Mary Shapiro - SEC COMPLAINT INTEL CORPORATION

More Web Archives I have Found on "Eliot I. Bernstein - Intel Corporation" "Iviewit and Intel"

"From: Eliot I. Bernstein

Wednesday, March 25, 2009
SEC Chairperson Mary Shapiro
SEC Office of Chief Accountant
SEC Office of International Affairs
SEC Office of International Enforcement Assistance
SEC Division of Enforcement

SEC Office of Internet Enforcement
SEC Division of Corporate Finance

SEC Division of Corporate Finance Chief Accountant's Office ( CF-OCA )
Federal Bureau of Investigation – White Collar Crime Unit

Complaint by Letter:
SEC Complaint Center
100 F Street NE,
Washington, D.C. 20549-0213
Complaint by Telefax: 703-813-6965
Complaint by Email: enforcement@sec.gov
Re: Complaint - Regarding Intel Corporation and Possible Trillion Dollar
Fraud on Intel Shareholders and Others
Intel Corporate Mailing Address
2200 Mission College Blvd.
Santa Clara, CA 95054-1549
Intel Phone Numbers as of March 23, 2009:
(408) 765-8080 MAIN NUMBER (800) 321-
4044 FAX: (408) 765-9904


TO: SEC Chairperson Mary Shapiro;
SEC Office of Chief Accountant; Head of SEC
Office's of International Affairs,
SEC International Enforcement Assistance, SEC
Division of Enforcement, SEC Office of Internet Enforcement, SEC Division of
Corporate Finance, SEC Division of Corporate Finance Office of Chief Accountant, FBI

White Collar Crime Division and Any and All Compliance
Division Heads and Related Offices:

I, Eliot Bernstein, as the Original Owner and Inventor of key "backbone technologies" for video and imaging as further described herein, am filing this formal complaint against Intel Corporation ( Intel ) with United States headquarters located at 2200 Mission College Blvd, Santa Clara, Ca, 95054-1459, and bring to your attention ongoing investigations involving multiple federal offices around the country as well as International investigations pertinent in this matter.

Intel is a primary wrongdoer as a named defendant in a presently pending Trillion
Dollar international RICO conspiracy lawsuit1 involving the theft and fraud of my
Intellectual Property rights as further set out herein. In addition to liabilities claimed in
this lawsuit, are separate direct primary liabilities and obligations from signed agreements
including Non Disclosure’s, Strategic Partner Agreements and Licensing Agreements.

Further, on information and belief Intel corporate management including at least the
President, Paul S. Otellini and corporate counsel Bruce D. Sewell, and Stephen R.
Rodgers are also involved in an ongoing and undisclosed massive international Fraud
against the Intel shareholders and investors.

Upon information and belief, the frauds include but are not limited to the failure
to disclose both the lawsuit and the Intellectual Property infringements in direct violation
of various SEC laws and rules including but not limited to FASB No. 5 requirements for
disclosing liabilities and more.

Merely one claim in this lawsuit involves the attempted Murder upon my family by an Iraqi style car bombing that blew up three vehicles in addition to mine during the early phases of the high stakes corporate theft and fraud of my Intellectual Property rights.

Notably, federal Judge Shira Scheindlin referred to this as a case involving Murder that has also been marked as legally “related” by Scheindlin to an ongoing Federal Whistleblower case2.

summary, dating back to 1998-1999 at the time the inventions were discovered,
I had Signed Non Disclosure Agreements, Strategic Alliance Agreements and Licensing
Arrangements, including Agreements that were at the time in legal review for R3D
relating to the USE of my proprietary rights in inventions which were hailed as the "Holy
Grail" of the internet.

The technologies were deemed the “Holy Grail” by multiple experts under signed NDA’s as it permitted full screen full frame rate video previously thought impossible and zoom and pan imaging technologies which removed pixel distortion.

The stolen technologies are now commonly found on virtually all digital imaging and video hardware and software. These signed agreements were amongst hundreds of signed agreements with many Fortune 1000 Companies.

After signing Agreements with Real 3D, Inc. ( R3D ), a company whose ownership was composed of Lockheed Martin ( 70% ), Intel ( 20% ) and Silicon Graphics Inc. ( 10% ), Intel later took over complete ownership of R3D of Orlando Florida.

In the subsequent months thereafter, a series of critical events occurred including
but not limited to the discovery of fraudulent patent applications and the discovery of
fraudulent corporations, the corporate frauds were discovered by Arthur Andersen during
an audit for the largest investor in the companies Crossbow Ventures of W. Palm Beach
Florida.

Nearly two-thirds of the Crossbow funds were secured through SBIC loans from
the Small Business Administration making the SBA the largest investor in the
technologies and companies.

On information and belief, the SBA Inspector General’s office is conducting an ongoing investigation into these and other matters please refer to the SBA Inspector General’s office to obtain relevant information.

As you will see by the letter and petition to the 44th US President, Barack Hussein
Obama II, found @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090213%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20LETTER%20OBAMA%20TO%20ENJOIN%20US%20ATTORNEY%20FINGERED%20ORIGINAL%20MAIL%20l.pdf

and also sent to US Attorney General Eric Holder, I was then directed by Harry I. Moatz, Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office, Office of Enrollment and
Discipline to file charges with the Commissioner of Patents claiming Fraud Upon the
USPTO, my companies and myself.

This led to the Suspension of certain Intellectual Properties while investigations remain ongoing; please refer to Moatz and the Commissioner of Patents office to obtain relevant information. In addition, Moatz directed me to seek Congressional Legislation to obtain an Act of Congress to correct the falsified Oaths on my Intellectual Properties submitted by my former legal counsel at the law firms of Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Schlissel, Foley & Lardner and Proskauer Rose.

An Act of Congress is necessary to make the changes in inventors, owners and assignees
that are fraudulent, for which we have sought aid from The Honorable Senator Dianne
Feinstein who remains working through her offices regarding such.



These backbone technologies which were stolen in 1998-1999 have since been
used throughout the United States and across the globe throughout the entire value chain
of content creation and distribution of video and images for both software and hardware
in the transmission of Digital Video and Imaging across all spectrums, including, the
Internet, Television, DVD, HD DVD, Micro Processing Chips, as well as, a mass of
applications for Defense, Flight & Space Simulation, including on the Hubble Space
Telescope (providing a deeper view into time) and on virtually all Medical Imaging
Devices, and more. In fact, members of R3D and Intel were some of the earliest
champions of the value of the technologies claiming they were “Priceless” and were
valued in the hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars over the life of the Intellectual
Properties, having transformed the world of digital imaging and video that now are
considered part of daily life.
Intel was one of the earliest players in this scheme and has continued to not only
defraud myself and the other rightful owners of the technologies, including Ellen
DeGeneres and Alanis Morissette, but has simultaneously defrauded the Intel's
shareholders and investors for years by failing to report and disclose the liabilities with
full knowledge of their binding obligations regarding the technologies. These frauds and
failures by the Intel management team have continued despite multiple communications
over several years that have gone directly to the President of Intel, Mr. Paul S. Otellini
and their Corporate Counsel Mr. Bruce D. Sewell and Steven R. Rodgers and continue
despite the knowledge of the signed Agreements.
At this time, however, as noted in my Feb. 2009 letter to the Office of the US
President Barack Hussein Obama II and the US Attorney General Eric Holder, I wish to
bring to your direct attention the identities of several federal offices already involved in
this ongoing national and international Intellectual Properties theft and fraud.
Investigations that will aid and facilitate the SEC with background information for the
proper performance of complete investigations by the SEC allowing for information
sharing with these agencies, some of the key offices are as follows:
1. Glenn A. Fine, Office of Inspector General of the US Department of Justice
2. Harry Moatz, Director, OED of the USPTO
3. H. Marshall Jarrett, Office of Professional Responsibility of the FBI
4. A complete list of Federal, State & International Actions can be found @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/INVESTIGATIONS%20MASTER.htm.
Please note that I provide the SEC and the various Office and Division heads this
background solely as a starting point for full and proper investigations of Intel and related
parties in this matter and that I remain personally available to provide further information
as necessary. It should be noted that a wealth of the history of these matters is available


at my website www.iviewit.tv including links to the current federal complaint filed in the US
Court of Appeals 2nd Circ., the complaint filed with the US District Court – Southern
District of New York, links to the hundreds of signed NDAs, Strategic Alliance
Agreements, License Agreements and more.
It should be further noted that Intel failed to even Disclose the liabilities, even as a
Footnote, in their Annual Reports signed by Ernst & Young for both calendar years 1999
thru 2007 despite the fact that they had engaged in specific communications and / or
received specific communications from 1999-2009 regarding the outstanding obligations
and liabilities associated with Intel's improper use and infringement of my Intellectual
Property rights. See attached emails of 2006-2009 and Intel Annual Statements of 2006-
2007.
Not only did Intel later acquire in whole the R3D company which was intimately
involved in the early phases of this matter and under signed agreements with my
company, but specific members of Intel/ R3D staff were present during key meetings in
the early phases and otherwise involved in these matters including but not limited to,
Lawrence Palley (Director of Business Development @ Intel), Gerald W. Stanley
(Chairman of the Board, President & Chief Executive Officer @ R3D), David Bolton
(Corporate Counsel @ R3D & Lockheed Martin), Steven A. Behrens (Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer @ R3D), Rosalie Bibona (Program Manager @ R3D), Timothy
P. Connolly (Director, Engineering @ R3D), Richard Gentner (Director of Scalable
Graphics Systems @ R3D), Connie Martin (Director, Software Development @ R3D),
Diane H. Sabol (Director and Corporate Controller Finance & Administration @ R3D),
Rob Kyanko (Intel), Michael Silver (@ ?), Ryan Huisman (@ R3D), Matt Johannsen (@
R3D), Hassan Miah (@ Intel), Dennis Goo (Manager, Digital Home Content for the
Americas @ Intel), Rajeev Kapur (Chief of Staff, Enterprise Product Group @ Intel) and
Kostas Katsohirakis (Business Development Manager @ Intel).
Moreover, as expressly indicated to Intel, the suit presently in litigation in the US
Second Circuit Court of Appeals is but one of many forums where these matters may be
pursued such as other federal courts within the United States and a variety of forums
abroad as well.

As the Intellectual Property crimes are investigated and the IP removed from its current Suspension status3 by the USPTO of course, those claims will be further pursued as Intel is well aware of.

Thus, it is submitted that part of this review and investigation by the SEC should likely involve prior transactions such as the purchase and sale of R3D and related transactions.

Several of the following links will also provide additional background
information:


http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2007/08/justice-dept-widens-patentgate-probe.html


http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/USPTO%20Suspension%20Notices.pdf





Copies of this Was also Sent to


Ernst & Young – Accountancy for Intel
The Honorable John Conyers Jr. ~ Chairman, House Judiciary Committee

The Honorable Glenn Fine ~
Inspector General, United States Department of
Justice
John J. Doll ~ Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office - Deputy Under
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office

The Honorable Harry I. Moatz ~ Director, Office of Enrollment & Discipline,
United States Patent & Trademark Office

Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. ~ Attorney General, United States

The Honorable United States Senator Dianne Feinstein
Andrew Cuomo ~ Attorney General of New York State, State of New York
Office of the Attorney General
Charlie Crist, Governor, State of Florida

CNN; MSNBC; FOX; NY TIMES; Washington Post; LA Times; Miami Herald;



SEC COMPLAINT INTEL CORPORATION

Source of This Post and Full Document
http://iviewit.tv/press/press4.pdf
SEC
So the SEC Knew, Does the Shareholder Know.. even Today do the Intel Shareholder know this Stuff or does Intel CEO Paul S. Otellini plan to keep it a secret until Intel can sock away more of the money?
SEC

Dear D. Bruce Sewell, Esq of Intel Corporation - Intel Shareholders were Warned about this Trillion Dollar Liability Right?

"From: Eliot Bernstein
To: D. Bruce Sewell, Esq.
Senior Vice President - General Counsel
Intel Corporation

March 06, 2009

Regarding: Follow Up of March 3, 2009 Phone Discussion: Responsible Business Judgements; Financial Accounting Standards Board "FASB" Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 Accounting for Contingencies Reporting Requirements; Limited Time Offer.

As a Follow up from our telephone discussion .... I wish to make several observations as part of this 24 hour limited time offer to enter a sound and responsible business negotiations on behalf of the Intel Corporation.

As you will note further herin, there is definate and certain action to be taken at the conclusion of the 24 hour period commencing upon 3PM EST On Friday March 06 th, 2009 ... and ending on Monday, March 9th 2009. Thus, you may wish to pay particular attention herein...

As you will see, it is Respectfully requested and suggested that you, Mr. Sewell, Senior Vice President - General Counsel of the Intel Corporation, will be making a sound and proper business decision herein by taking this matter and limited time offer to negotiate to your Chairman and CEO within 24-Hours herein.

Please read below to see the definite and certain action that I will be taking in the event you do not properly bring this matter to the Chairman and CEO within 24 hours for their response which will be due 48 hours after the ending of such 24 hour period.

As the original Owner and Inventor of backbone "technologies" and a business person myself, I was alarmed and shocked at your hostile resistance to commence sound, responsible business discussions in this matter and further alarmed at the hostile reaction you exibited when I suggested speaking with the Chairman and the CEO of Intel Corporation in this Matter.

I respectfully suggest that you, Mr. D. Bruce Sewell, Esq. have admitted to failing and may be presently and currently failing in a variety of legal and ethical obligations under law and codes of conduct and as it relates to Intel and the rights of the shareholders and others in Intel and other interested parties who may incur liablilited.

This Failure centers around your admission that "Contingent" liability has not been booked and will not be booked on the records of Intel as it relates to my claims as Original Owner and Inventor of backbone technologies as set out further herein. "

Click Below and Read this Full Document as D. Bruce Sewell of Intel Corporation, Real 3D, Inc. , Tim Connolly, Lawrence Palle, Craig R. Barrett, Brian G. Utley and More are discussed...

Source of Post - Take a Good Look
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090306%20Intel%20Demand%20Letter%20&%20Liability%20Exposure%20%20Signed%203549l.pdf
Intel Scams
More Links on the Evils of the Intel Corporation
as Connected to the Stolen Patent, Stolen Technology
of the Real Iviewit Inventors.
Otellini
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:niq0dTFqd9oJ:iviewit.tv/press/press4.pdf+%22Paul+S.+Otellini%22+iviewit&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Intel
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090325%20SEC%20FAX%20Cover%20Page.pdf
craig barrett

Evil Deeds of Intel

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

Continued Culture of Conflict and Corruption of Ethics Rules and Law - Intel Corporation Trillion Dollar Accounting Fraud

"Continued Culture of Conflict and Corruption of Ethics Rules and Law Appearing in a Sothern District of New York Bankruptcy Court with Major Law Firm Davis Polk Wardell and others This Committee should take Notice of continued conflicts within the operation of Attorneys regulated in New York now appearing in the Southern District of NY Bankruptcy Court here in Manhattan in a recent Ch. 11 proceeding filed by Silicon Graphics Inc (SGI ) on April 1, 2009 where the Davis Polk Wardell firm simultaneously represents 2 of the 3 Equity partners who owned Real3d, representing Lockheed Martin and Debtor in Bankruptcy Silicon Graphics Inc while also representing the KPMG Accountants for Silicon Graphics who prepared the financials in the second Ch. 11 filing for SGI. Davis Polk Wardell also is simultaneously representing CIBC, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Telekom and others under Signed NDA with the Iviewit companies and me.

Real3d Inc, of course, is the company at the center and heart of the Iviewit Technology thefts as related above herein involving Intel, Lockheed Martin and Silicon Graphics owning Real3d where the Technologies were tested and used by Real3d Engineers who deemed them “priceless” while under Non Disclosure Agreements, Licensing Agreements and Strategic Alliance Agreements with Iviewit and me personally initially.

To bring the Conflicts into clear focus, the SGI Ch.11 Bankruptcy was filed just months after coming out of an earlier Ch. 11 protection proceeding and most importantly just 6 DAYS AFTER SGI In House Counsel Evelyn Ramirez was placed on express Notice of a Formal SEC Complaint that I had filed against the Intel Corporation announcing a possible and alleged Multi-Trillion Dollar Accounting Scandal to the SEC for Intel’s failures to report to shareholder in their annual report, Intel
the fact that they are named Defendants in ongoing litigation with certain risks requiring reporting as liability. Further, for their failure to properly account for the misappropriated royalties and costs of knowing infringement whereby reporting those liabilities is also required under FASB No. 5 and related accounting Standards14, also involving Intel and the Sales Transactions of Real3d involving both SGI and Lockheed Martin SEC Complaints were filed.

Thus, not only did SGI file this Ch. 11 protection just 6 days after official notice of involvement in a Multi-Trillion Dollar Lawsuit and accounting scandal thru Real3d Inc, but also the filing comes a few months after SGI had published information in business articles on the web painting a rosy financial picture of the company.

What the SGI Bankruptcy Filings in the Southern District of New York show is that Davis Polk Wardell lawyers are intimately at the Heart of SGI during all of the initial years of the Theft of my Technologies while at Real3d during 1998 while simultaneously DPW is representing Lockheed Martin, 2 of the 3 Equity partners in Real3d Inc where ALL of the Sales transactions are now in question.

To further complicate matters and add another layer of conflict, DPW represents the very Accountants KPMG that SGI is using in the sudden second Ch. 11 bankruptcy filing when one of the very issues at hand is that an Accounting fraud has occurred thus placing Accountants for SGI in Conflict with SGI and Lockheed YET DPW attorneys have remained to Shield and Block due process against all in blatant violation of Attorney Disciplinary Standards for representation of multiple interests and being Witnesses in litigation since officers inside SGI and Lockheed would have to discuss what was informed to the Accountants KPMG and what KPMG knows and more.

Thus, the hearing of any of these Contested Factual issues in the Southern District Bankruptcy Court or any tribunal, commission, authority or agency or other court necessarily forces the Conflicts to be addressed as multiple interests can not be represented by the same law firm yet such Culture of Ethics corruption in New York has allowed these conflicts to continue creating a wall of Title 18 Obstruction of Justice that prevents fair and due process in multiple proceedings since DPW has been permitted to represent 2 Equity partners simultaneously and accountants for an Equity partner where the various parties could otherwise proffer separate and independent statements, evidence, etc. but for the conflicts being permitted to continue.

Shockingly, despite having filed a Formal SEC Complaint against the third Equity partner of Real3d , the Intel Corporation and requesting an investigation of the Sales Transactions involving Real3d, SGI, Lockheed and Intel and alleging a possible Multi-Count, Multi-Trillion Dollar Accounting Fraud for infringement of my technologies and FASB No. 5 and other FASB violations, DPW continues on simultaneously representing multiple interests simultaneously before SDNY Judge Martin Glenn who has deliberately refused to even mention the Conflicts in Bankruptcy proceedings despite multiple oral and written requests to resolve such conflicts leading to a formal request for mandatory disqualification of SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn and oversight of the Bankruptcy judge and investigation for Title 18 obstruction and related charges.

I note for this Committee that according to published sources, the law firm Davis Polk Wardell recruited Linda Chatman Thomsen back to the firm on April 13, 2009 who was the former SEC Head of Enforcement who was ousted at the SEC over the $65 Billion Madoff Ponzi scheme failures.

I also point out to this Committee that April 13, 2009 was only 4 days after I filed an Emergency Motion in the SDNY Bankruptcy Court in the Silicon Graphics Matters on April 9 2009 referencing my Twelve Trillion Dollar alleged Accounting Fraud to the SEC against Intel.

More notably, the SGI Ch. 11 filing came on April 1, 2009 just 6 days after SGI received actual notice of my SEC Complaint against Intel involving Real3d and In House General Counsel Ramirez at SGI had notice of this complaint in the days before the sudden filing by SGI after just emerging from Ch. 11 bankruptcy protection months before and after previously disseminating a rosy financial picture for SGI until my SEC Complaint was filed.

What should be remarkable to this Committee and should have been addressed by SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Glenn upon the filing of my Emergency Motion on April 9, 2009 is that SGI paid out huge sums of monies, in the millions, to former Equity partner in Real3d Inc Intel, to Davis Polk Wardell, to a law firm called Ropes & Gray who represents SGI in the SDNY Bankruptcy along with DPW and who interestingly has Video and Digital related Patents in their names and have refused to officially affirm or disaffirm conflicts in the proceedings, and other large payments to the law firm Sullivan and Cromwell who is currently Joined as Co-Counsel with Proskauer in another SDNY District Court case involving the MPEG Patent Pool, creating an incestuous circle of intertwined conflict.

I note that my Technologies were under Signed NDA with hundreds of companies including Fortune 1000 companies and major industry players such as Credit Suisse, Deutsche Telekom, Comcast, Warner Brothers, AOL – Time Warner, Sony Digital Pictures, Kodak, Wachovia, AT&T and a host of others and that major wall street interests are impacted by these matters thus rendering the work of any future Task Force of this Committee and the work of the Committee monumental for both its impacts upon the financial markets and fundamental to maintain fair and impartial due process and the fair administration of justice within the NYS Courts and NY Bar.

Source of Post
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ktIVkVh6K68J:www.iviewit.tv/20091005%2520NY%2520Judiciary%2520Committee%2520Prepared%2520Statement.doc+site://www.iviewit.tv+question&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Bankruptcy Corruption - Fraud

www.DeniedPatent.com

iviewit stolen patent