(Jan. 11, 2013)—The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Leader v. Facebook appeal on Monday sent shock waves across the innovation world. The message to inventors is not to go through the time and expense to file for patents—because that work will simply evaporate in a federal court system corrupted by deep-pocket tech robber barons.
Americans For Innovation: Supreme Court ushers in the tech robber baron Age? Attention: This Search indexes this AFI blog, AFI Scribd, Donna Kline Now!, Origins of Facebook's Technology and LeaderDocs. FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 2013 FOLLOW BY EMAIL Submit Supreme Court ushers in the tech robber baron Age? LEADER V. FACEBOOK BACKGROUND Refusal to hear Leader v. Facebook tells inventors not to bother 1. Brief Summary (PDF) filing patents and sharing their inventions with the world 2. Backgrounder (PDF) Contributing Authors | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION | Updated Jan. 14, 3. Facebook Secrets (PDF) 2013 4. Instagram-scam? (PDF) 5. USPTO-gate? (PDF) 6. Zynga-gate? (PDF) (Jan. 11, 2013)—The Supreme 7. Insider Trading (PDF) Court’s acquiescence to the Facebook cabal by their refusal to 8. Disciplinary Complaints (PDF) hear the Leader v. Facebook appeal 9. Federal Circuit Cover-up? (PDF) on Monday sent shock waves across 10. Congressional Briefings the innovation world. The message 11. Prominent Americans Speak Out to inventors is not to bother with the time and expense of filing for 12. Petition for Writ of Certiorari patents—because that work will 13. Two Proposed Judicial Reforms simply evaporate in a federal court 14. S. Crt. for Schemers or Inventors? system corrupted by deep-pocket 15. Attorney Patronage Hijacked DC? tech robber barons. The decision gave the Court's blessing to the Facebook robber barons. Leader proved that Facebook stole their invention on 11 16. Justice Denied | Battle Continues of 11 counts. Instead of paying Facebook is the new tech robber baron 17. FB Robber Barons Affirmed by S. Crt. Leader a suitable royalty, Facebook has paid off the courts to sustain an ill-gotten, tricky judgment made not by laws and POPULAR POSTS facts, but by manipulation of judges, in our opinion. The manipulation seems evident in the court’s decisions which invalidated all of Facebook’s evidence, where the Court concocted A Cocksure Facebook? new evidence in violation of Leader's constitutional rights to due process (Fifth and 14th Amendments), and where judges held undisclosed stock in Facebook during the Leader v. Facebook [Justice] Denied proceedings. Prominent Americans speak out for Leader Technologies Property Theft by "Behind the hoodies and flip-flops lurk Supreme Court ushers in the tech robber Courts baron Age? businesspeople as rapacious as the History teaches us that black-suited and top-hatted Congressional Briefings re. Leader v. Facebook the ultimate robber industrialists of the late-19th century" barons are States that "Boy Kings" Briefing for Rep. Jim Jordan confiscate personal (OH), House Oversight Committee, Nov. property, like the Soviet Union did 27, 2012 after the Bolshevik Revolution. The Leader Technologies files a Petition For Bolshevik courts did the bidding of Writ Of Certiorari at the U.S. Supreme their paymasters also. The Supreme Court on Nov. 16, 2012 Court's conduct in Leader v. http://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2013/01/supreme-court-ushers-in-tech-robber.html[1/14/2013 5:38:31 PM] Americans For Innovation: Supreme Court ushers in the tech robber baron Age? Facebook is every bit as egregious. It Bibliographic Research Resources for Leader v. Facebook is as if they gave blessing to a thief "The Ruthless Overlords of Silicon Valley" driving your car away, or rifling your March 12, 2012 wallet. EDITORIALS Logic says that it is not possible to rule in a party’s favor (Facebook) after all their evidence has been debunked . . . unless that party is paying off or otherwise influencing 1. DC Bar refuses to investigate attorney the judges. Judicial influence corrupts a democracy to its core. misconduct in Leader v. Facebook - Unwillingness of DC attorneys to self- police may explain why Washington is Like the robber barons of the Industrial Age, these new tech robber barons have stolen the broken, Dec. 30, 2012 underlying resources needed to run their system; used the ill-gotten gains to quash competition; bought politicians, government officials, judges and clerks; impoverished 2. Will the U.S. Supreme court support investors by selling stock at inflated prices; and, propped up the stock price with foreign schemers or real American inventors? trades using laundered monies, likely including TARP funds via banks who were bailed out Facebook's case dangles on a by the American taxpayer in 2008, in our opinion. doctored interrogatory. Eighteen (18) areas of question shout for attention, The New Tech Robber Baron Dec. 27, 2012 3. Two Policy Changes That Will Make Abuse of the public trust on a massive scale is not America More Democratic (and less new. The late 1800’s saw similar exploitative contentious), Dec. 21, 2012 practices to amass wealth. The term “robber baron” combines the sense of criminal (“robber”) and illegitimate aristrocray (“baron”). Wikipedia. What is new with these tech robber barons is the ability of OUR MISSION the technologies they've co-opted to corrupt whole American citizens must fight abuse of the governments and countries, to seize personal data, constitutional right for authors and inventors and to institute an unregulated monetary system. to enjoy the fruits of their inventions, as a matter of matter of basic property rights and Must history repeat itself? sound public policy. Otherwise, instead of innovation, creativity, genius, ideas, vision, courage, entrepreneurship, respect, Are we destined to wait until the raping and pillaging damage is all over before we act to property, rejuvenation, morals, ethics, stop it? The U.S. Supreme Court and the federal court system evidently do not care about values, renewal, truth, facts, rights, privacy, intellectual property and patents. That can now be said with certainty. They supported a solutions and judicial faithfulness, Leader v. Facebook decision that had no basis in evidence or law. . . . our society and economy will be dragged down (and eventually destroyed) by They don't care, but do you? If so, what are you copying, infringement, thievery, (and we) going to do about it? counterfeiting, hacking, greed, misinformation, exploitation, abuse, waste, The robber barons have convinced a billion people disrespect, falsity, corruption, bribery, on the planet to become addicted to their coercion, intimidation, doublespeak, formulation of the “social networking” drug. How misconduct, lies, deception, attorney dark do we help these addicts and wrestle control of arts, destruction, confusion, dishonesty, this technology from the criminals? judicial chicanery and lawlessness. If we do not speak up, impeach derelict The robber barons probably think “the masses” judges and imprison corrupt attorneys, we will soon come to accept their thefts as “the new cannot possibly hope to start fixing the normal.”* Let’s prove that assumption fatal. current ills in our society. Without justice and respect for private property, democracy The Soviet Union failed. However, a *** has no sure foundation. Soviet asymmetric warfare tactic called "lawfare" is being used by Footnote: Facebook and its Moscow allies CURRENT EDITORIAL FOCUS * The "new normal" proposition is a favorite tool of against the U.S. federal courts and stock manipulators to try and convince the mass We are an opinion blog that advocates for financial systems. The U.S. strong intellectual property rights. We market that their value proposition should replace Supreme Court just fell victim to welcome commenters and contributors. The the previously accepted one. For example, the lawfare in Leader v. Facebook. Leader v. Facebook patent infringement case public was asked to accept the "dotcom" bubble as first came to our attention after learning "the new normal" for tech valuations. History tells that the trial judge, Leonard P. Stark, U.S. us this proposition was a devious smoke screen to enable crooked telecom and Silicon District Court of Delaware, ignored his jury’s Valley CEOs to cash in their options before the valuation bubble burst. Some of those admission that they had no evidence to executives are in jail today, like Bernie Ebbers (MCI) and Joe Nacchio (Qwest). Others have support their on-sale bar verdict, but the gotten away with their crimes, including some of the "venture capitalists" dictating judge supported it anyway. Facebook's conduct. This "pump-and-dump" strategy is being repeated by the Facebook The judicial misconduct has deteriorated cronies, both in the USA and the former Soviet Union where Facebook appears to be from there, replete with two of the three moving much of its core "Facebook Credits" R&D. judges on the Federal Circuit appeal panel, Judges Alan D. Lourie and Kimberly A. Moore, holding Facebook stock that they did not disclose to the litigants, and later tried to excuse through a quick motion slipped in Posted by K. Craine at 1:26 PM at the last minute by the Clerk of Court, Jan http://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2013/01/supreme-court-ushers-in-tech-robber.html[1/14/2013 5:38:31 PM] Americans For Innovation: Supreme Court ushers in the tech robber baron Age? Horbaly, and his close friends at The Federal Circuit Bar Association. (The DC Bar subsequently revealed that Mr. Horbaly is not licensed to practice law in Washington D.C.) 5 comments: The judges ignored shocking new evidence that Mark Zuckerberg withheld 28 hard drives of 2003-2004 evidence from Leader K. Craine January 11, 2013 at 2:42 PM Technologies that could prove actual theft Comment by: Stop the bleeding (and therefore claims even more serious than infringement). In addition, Facebook's If one of my construction supervisors is caught taking a bribe from a subcontractor to cut appeal attorney, Thomas G. Hungar of corners, I fire him on the spot. Gibson Dunn LLP, has close personal ties to just about every judicial player in this story. Likewise, we MUST hold our judges accountable. The misconduct appears to reach into the U.S. Patent Office through abuse of the Impeachment is our only tool, so let's get on with the nut cuttin' as they say in my neck reexamination process by Facebook. We will of the woods. It's high time. stay focused on Leader v. Facebook until justice is served, but we also welcome news Reply and analysis of intellectual property abuse in other cases as well. K. Craine January 12, 2013 at 7:02 AM WELCOME TO DONNA KLINE NOW! READERS Comment by: An Inventor AFI has been supporting I will NOT be filing any new patents until this situation is fixed by Congress. (I was Donna and is now picking up waiting to see if the Supreme Court would do the right thing, but sadly this fish is rotting the main Leader v. Facebook from the head.) Just in the last two or three years the Patent Office Examiners have coverage (she will continue started doing very strange and illogical things to stall my applications while the infringers coverage as well). of my earlier patents are making hay with my existing inventions. Some of those infringers are associated with Facebook's law firms, specifically Cooley Godward, White & Anonymous Posts Are Case, Gibson Dunn and Fenwick & West. Fenwick used to be an honorable firm when Bill Welcomed! Blogger has more Fenwick ran it. Shame. posting constraints than Donna's WordPress, but we will continue to Reply welcome anonymous posts. Simply send us an email at email@example.com with your post. Once the moderator verifies that your email address is real, your comment K. Craine January 12, 2013 at 7:29 AM will be posted using your real name or Comment by: binky boo handle, whatever you wish, like John Smith or Tex. Congress can't its own house in order. Half the California delegation is already in Facebook's pocket. Out here donations flow like water in the streets. Invention in America is screwed. Here's my solution: I think inventors should STOP PAYING LAWYERS to BLOG ARCHIVE file for patents until they get their professional house in order. That'll get their attention. Blog Archive Hit them where it hurts... in their bank accounts. Oh wait, they'll just extort it. What was I thinking? ;-) Reply K. Craine January 12, 2013 at 7:37 AM Comment by: Chris Yeh, did you notice how there's "nothing new" at the Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show this year??? These robber barons are depressing innovation in the whole industry by their greed and power-mongering. This CES was the most boring show I have ever attended. There is a reason for patent protection. Without it, innovation stops. There is no "new normal" about it. That's all spin. http://www.techradar.com/us/news/world-of-tech/ces-big-brash-and-a-little-bit-boring- 1123946 Reply K. Craine January 12, 2013 at 7:48 AM Comment by: first timer I follow your blog but this is my first post. We see symptoms of the "too many lawyers" problem everywhere. Fiscal cliffs. Bought judges. Lying and cheating without thought to justice or truth. Maybe that is good lawyering (NOT), but it is certainly no way to run a country. Boot their butts out I say... and before these bad boys pull our whole country down. Reply http://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2013/01/supreme-court-ushers-in-tech-robber.html[1/14/2013 5:38:31 PM] Americans For Innovation: Supreme Court ushers in the tech robber baron Age? Add comment CODE OF CONDUCT FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES "CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES" GALLERY OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT? Comment as: Publish Preview Judge Leonard P. Stark, U.S. District Court of Delaware, trial judge in Leader Techs, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 770 F. Supp. 2d 686 (D.Del. 2011). Judge Stark heard his jury foreman admit that the jury made the on-sale bar decision without any evidence other than speculation, and yet he supported that verdict anyway. Just months before trial, Judge Home Older Post Stark allowed Facebook to add the on-sale bar claim Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) after the close of all fact discovery and blocked Leader from preparing its defenses to this new claim. Judge Stark allowed the claims despite Leader's prophetic argument that the action would confuse the jury and prejudice Leader. (Read Leader's May 20, 2010 motion here.) He also permitted the jury to ignore the Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. test for on-sale bar, even after instructing the jury to use it. (See that Jury Instruction No. 4.7 here.) He also contradicted his own instruction to Leader to answer Interrogatory No. 9 in the present tense (2009), then permitted the jury to interpret it as a 2002 admission as well. See his Sep. 14, 2009 Order. Facebook's entire on- sale bar case is based upon this http://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2013/01/supreme-court-ushers-in-tech-robber.html[1/14/2013 5:38:31 PM] Americans For Innovation: Supreme Court ushers in the tech robber baron Age? interrogatory. (Editorial: Hardly sufficient to meet the "heavy burden" of the clear and convincing evidence standard.) Judge Alan D. Lourie, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, panel judge in Leader Techs v. Facebook, Inc., 678 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Judge Lourie stood to benefit financially from undisclosed holdings in Facebook. See analysis of Judge Lourie's T. Rowe Price holdings re. the Facebook IPO. Judge Lourie also failed to apply his own law- test in Group One v. Hallmark Cards to the evidence. After debunking all of Facebook's evidence on appeal, Judge Lourie created new argument in the secrecy of chambers to support Facebook and prevent the on-sale bar verdict from being overturned—a clear breach of constitutional due process. Judge Kimberly A. Moore, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, panel judge in Leader Techs v. Facebook, Inc., 678 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Judge Moore stood to benefit financially from undisclosed holdings in Facebook. See disclosure of substantial holdings in Facebook and Facebook-related stocks. Judge Moore failed to follow the long- held precedent for testing on-sale bar evidence in Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.—an evident and intentional omission coming from a former patent law professor. After debunking all of Facebook's evidence on appeal, Judge Moore created new argument in the secrecy of chambers to support Facebook and prevent the on-sale bar verdict from being overturned—a clear breach of constitutional due process. http://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2013/01/supreme-court-ushers-in-tech-robber.html[1/14/2013 5:38:31 PM] Americans For Innovation: Supreme Court ushers in the tech robber baron Age? Judge Evan J. Wallach, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, member of the three- judge panel in Leader Techs v. Facebook, Inc., 678 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Judge Wallach is not a patent attorney. This begs the question as to why a judge with no knowledge of patent law was assigned to the case. Would anyone ask a dentist to perform brain surgery? The Federal Circuit was specially formed to appoint patent-knowledgeable judges to patent cases. There is no evidence so far in the judicial disclosures that Judge Wallach holds stock in Facebook, although when he was asked on a motion to disclose potential Facebook holdings and other conflicts of interest, he refused along with the other judges. See Motion to Disclose Conflicts of Interest. Judge Wallach continued in silence even after Clerk of Court Horbaly failed to provide him with Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam’s motions (according to his Federal Circuit staffer Valeri White), and yet the Clerk signed an order regarding that motion on Judge Wallach’s behalf. See a full analysis of these events at Donna Kline Now! Judge Wallach also failed to police his court’s violation of Leader’s Fifth and 14th Amendment constitutional right to due process when he participated in the fabrication of new arguments and evidence for Facebook in the secrecy of judge's chambers after he had just invalidated Facebook’s sole remaining item of evidence (using disbelieved testimony as ostensible evidence of an opposite). Judge Wallach also failed to police his court when he failed to apply the Supreme Court's Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. test for on-sale bar evidence, which included even the Federal Circuit’s own Group One v. Hallmark Cards, Inc. test— a test which Judge Lourie should have advised Judge Wallach to follow since Judge Lourie helped write that opinion. Group One test omission analysis. http://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2013/01/supreme-court-ushers-in-tech-robber.html[1/14/2013 5:38:31 PM] Americans For Innovation: Supreme Court ushers in the tech robber baron Age? Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, clerk who signed all the opinions in Leader Techs v. Facebook, Inc., 678 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Clerk Horbaly and his staff obfuscated when the court's ruling was challenged by an amicus curiae brief revealing clear mistakes of law and new evidence. See analysis of the misconduct and misrepresentations within the Federal Circuit Clerk of Court in Leader v. Facebook. Mr. Horbaly failed to disclose his conflicts of interest and close associations with numerous Facebook attorneys and law firms, as well as his close association with one of Facebook's largest shareholders, Microsoft, who is a Director of The Federal Circuit Bar Association where Mr. Horbaly is an ex officio officer. Additionally, the DC Bar revealed in a written statement that Clerk Horbaly is not licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia. [Editorial: What does that make the Federal Circuit with its location within in a stone's throw of the White House? A self-governing state?] Judge Randall R. Rader, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, chief judge responsible for the (mis)conduct of his judges and Clerk of Court in Leader Techs v. Facebook, Inc., 678 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Judge Rader failed to manage his court resulting in a likely situation where his judges never even received briefs that they allegedly ruled on in favor of Facebook. Judge Rader also failed to disclose his conflicting relationships with a Leader principle with whom he may have had deep professional differences during his time at the Senate Judiciary Committee—his former professor of law at George Washington University Law Center, former Leader director Professor James P. Chandler. See analysis of Judge Rader's undisclosed conflicts http://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2013/01/supreme-court-ushers-in-tech-robber.html[1/14/2013 5:38:31 PM] Americans For Innovation: Supreme Court ushers in the tech robber baron Age? of interest in Leader v. Facebook. Judge Rader also did not stop his judges from creating new arguments and evidence for Facebook in the secrecy of chambers—after they had debunked all of Facebook's evidence on appeal, which is a clear breach of constitutional due process. Click here to view a Federal Circuit Leader v. Facebook Conflicts of Interest Map. See "Cover-up In Process At The Federal Circuit?" Donna Kline Now! Sep. 17, 2012. Leader v. Facebook Legal Research Links OPINION This is an opinion blog. Any information contained or linked herein should be independently verified and should be considered the sole opinion of the writer. Free Speech and Freedom of the Press are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and other local, state, national and international laws. Therefore, as with all opinion, such opinion should not be relied upon without independent verification. AFI LOGO (WITH TEXT) AFI LOGO (NO TEXT) http://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2013/01/supreme-court-ushers-in-tech-robber.html[1/14/2013 5:38:31 PM] Americans For Innovation: Supreme Court ushers in the tech robber baron Age? Author and Site attribution is sufficient. Simple template. Powered by Blogger. http://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2013/01/supreme-court-ushers-in-tech-robber.html[1/14/2013 5:38:31 PM]
Pages to are hidden for
"Supreme Court ushers in the tech robber baron Age?"Please download to view full document