Title of Invention
System and Method for Patent
Theft, Fraud on the
Private
and confidential attorney client privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please
destroy and return copy to caroline@cprogers.com and call
us to confirm the destruction at 310.265.1730, call collect if necessary.
Exhibits
Constitution of the United States of America – Section 8
Brief summary of the invention
Drawings
Proskauer Rose LLP -
Kenneth Rubenstein, Raymond Joao Patent Crimes
Exhibit 13 – Case of the very fake fax and the fraud on patent 5865-2 begins
Case 15 – What was and what is not
Exhibit 21 – Cleaning up Joao’s mess with Foley
Exhibit
34 – Case of the fax dated 3/10/1900
Exhibit 24 – Case of the lost patent 5865-2
Case 6 – 5865-2 Folder original and contents
Ray’s Fax’s in the Folder
Also in this
folder are the following miscellaneous docs, not sure how they fit in yet.
Proskauer Rose Faxes in this folder
We now move to another folder of Joao folly and a whole new scheme of documents unfolds in this folder of nonsense.
Exhibit 25 – Kenneth Rubenstein
Proskauer Rose LLP - Chris Wheeler Crimes
Exhibit 4 – Utley Resume as submitted by Christopher Wheeler to I View It and Board
Foley & Lardner – Doug Boehm, Steven
Becker Bill Dick + Brain Utley Patent Crimes
Exhibit 1 – Case of inventor fraud perpetrated with I View It Counsel and
Brian Utley
Exhibit 2 – How to claim others ideas as your own
Exhibit 7 – Case of Switching Inventors
Exhibit 9 – More on the Case of Walking Patents out of I View It and to
your home
Exhibit 10 – Case of the Mismatched File Numbers on filed patent
documents aka the cover-up
Exhibit 11 – Case of the changing patent titley
Exhibit 14 – Case of changing fonts again
Exhibit 20 – Cleaning up the mess of Utley Folly’s with Foley
Exhibit 22 – Another case of adding oneself to inventions one did not invent
Exhibit 33 – What happens
to 57103/101
REAL 3D + RYJO
Brian Utley, Michael Reale and Raymond Hersh
Thefts and Miscellaneous Crimes
Exhibit 5 – Stealing Intellectual Property Equipment
Exhibit 6 – Utley/Reale Police
Report
Exhibit 23 – Utley Employment Agreement and Non-Compete Excerpts
Exhibit 31 - Encoding Pornography with Female Teenage Employee
Exhibit 32 – Employee stock grants without compensation committee review
Crossbow Lender Liabilities
Exhibit 17 – Crossbow Disgust letter
Goldstein
& Lewin
Exhibit 26 – Gerald Lewin
response to his client starting to use I View It Technologies
Exhibit 3 – Timeline of
Incidents and allegations, hints and innuendo’s
Exhibit 29 – How not to
create an excel sheet
Exhibit 30 – What
happened on the way to Bankruptcy?
143rd SMPTE Technical
Conference and Exhibition
Hilton New York, November 4-7, 2001
Numerical
Exhibits
Exhibits
Constitution of the United States of America – Section 8
Brief summary of the invention
Exhibit
1 – Case of inventor fraud perpetrated with I View It Counsel and Brian Utley
Exhibit
2 – How to claim others ideas as your own
Exhibit 3 – Timeline of Incidents and allegations, hints and innuendo’s
Exhibit
4 – Utley Resume as submitted by Christopher Wheeler to I View It and Board.
Exhibit
5 – Stealing Intellectual Property Equipment
Exhibit 6 – Utley/Reale Police Report
Exhibit
7 – Case of Switching Inventors
Exhibit 9 – More on the Case of Walking Patents out of I View It and to your home
Exhibit 10 – Case of the Mismatched File Numbers on filed patent
documents aka the cover-up
Exhibit 11 – Case of the
changing patent title
Exhibit 13 – Case of the very fake fax and the fraud on patent 5865-2
begins
Exhibit 14 – Case of changing fonts again
Case 15 – What was and what is not
Exhibit 17 – Crossbow Disgust letter
Exhibit 20 – Cleaning up the mess of Utley Folly’s with Foley
Exhibit 21 – Cleaning up Joao’s mess with Foley
Exhibit 22 – Another case of adding oneself to inventions one did not invent
Exhibit 23 – Utley Employment Agreement and Non-Compete Excerpts
Exhibit 24 – Case of the lost patent 5865-2
Exhibit 25 – Kenneth Rubenstein
Exhibit 26 – Gerald Lewin response to his client starting to use I View It Technologies
Exhibit 29 – How not to create an excel sheet
Exhibit 30 – What happened on the way to Bankruptcy?
Exhibit 31 - Encoding Pornography with Female Teenage Employee
Exhibit 32 – Employee stock grants without compensation committee
review
Exhibit 33 – What happens to 57103/101
143rd SMPTE Technical
Conference and Exhibition
Hilton New York, November 4-7, 2001
Constitution of the
Section 8
The Congress shall have
Power: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries;
Preface:
Three technologies discovered in the pursuit of helping children save the
planet that were created using out-of-the-box thinking and have led to
significant advancements in virtual immersive imaging and video content
creation. They were heralded as “holy
grail” finds by leading experts in the industry, worth billions, and this is the
story of those who became blinded and those that became heroes and the truth of
who really invented what.
System and Method for Patent
Stealing, Fraud on the
Chris Wheeler
Brian G. Utley
Raymond Joao
Kenneth Rubenstein
Douglas Boehm
William Dick
Steven Becker
R3D
Gerald Stanley
Crossbow?
Raymond Hersch
Et.al
None like it, although it will not be the first time that inventors have been frauded by bad promoters and attorneys. It will be a new twist that the patent attorney’s have frauded the USPTO, the Postal Services, the IRS, the Department of Commerce and several others.
The present invention relates to how patents that are estimated to be worth billions are stolen for 5 million. More specifically, how to steal from inventors, investors, the IRS, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) www.uspto.gov . Three inventions with an estimated value in the billions annually, per invention, initially determined by leading engineers from Intel, Lockheed, SGI and many others. These items were called "holy grail" inventions and it now appears to have blinded a few. I still believe that these patents are gifts from G-d that come in dreams that oft speak to inventors.
These inventions were created in the pursuit of helping children fix the world we are breaking. Following is a method for trying to steal a gift from g-d to help children, and if you are capable of that, anything is possible. Following are the steps used in the preferred embodiment although some will have to remain trade secrets a bit longer until a further investigation into these claims arises.
It is known in the field of patent fraud that the proprietors, so called promoters or patent attorney’s, try to take advantage of innocent inventors and the choice of promoter versus attorney is one of crapshoot versus supposed guaranteed success, if you overcome the prior art. It is supposed to be tantamount to trust your patent attorneys and the attorney client privileges should be upheld here to the highest ethical standards, especially when you have picked the best lawyers and paid in triplicate and it’s regarding something our forefathers took special note for. Further, these were not just our attorneys but in some instances shareholders and advisors to the company.
Once a bad promoter or attorney is identified, it is well known that they will attempt to change title out of the inventors name, try to steal patent ideas by filing with others or themselves or just bury the idea and use it. It is also well known that your lawyer Kenneth Rubenstein and Christopher Wheeler would recommend a patent attorney out of NY (Raymond Joao) who we think is part of Proskauer originally. Then we are told Joao is transferring with Rubenstein to Proskauer and then that Rubenstein might not even be with Proskauer. Anyhoots, we would have to put up some big retainer and start flying this guy out from NY and all this was doing was giving Christopher and Raymond time to file around I View It perhaps. Had the inventions been able to be designed around I am sure they would have taken that approach (Zeosync) and when that failed to procure a result, the only option left was to steal.
Why did Proskauer not do the filings? Why do they make us use this expensive guy way away from us who needs upfront cash, etc, we think originally he works under Ken at Proskauer. We are a start-up with very little cash and we are already giving Proskauer a great stock deal to boot, Wheeler lies, I think, and said he does not have a department to handle patent filings at the time. You will see how they keep making us pay up front for Ray’s services trying to delay the filings while Wheeler is billing/gauging us with frivolous legal expenses like corporate restructures of restructures of restructures and trademarks on things like my mother’s maiden name.
All of these initial delays in the filings are caused by Wheeler/Joao delays and while these delays are occurring patents from others, like Joao are being filed.
Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond Joao commit major fraud on US Patent office when they knowingly file patents with missing inventors telling us foreigners could not be listed. They also lose patent file 5865-2 of Joao’s file folders and Joao claims to have destroyed all I View It notes when he is requested by Foley and Larder to procure these items, and further claims to have done this “to protect I View It”? The frauds include; leaving out inventors knowingly, not filing patents timely on the Company’s behalf, then losing priority dates for such inventions and finally filing patents with missing parts. These missing parts later show up in patents filed personally by Raymond Joao. Other missing parts later show up filed personally at Brian Nutley’s home address with himself as sole inventor. This appears felonious, furthermore false information was promulgated to the Board and finally they submitted such frauded documents to the USPTO through the US Mail.
Chris Wheeler and Ken
Rubenstein when questioned regarding the missing patents Joao lost, they
guaranteed that the 3 patents Ray came to
Chris and Jerry Lewin have already begun displaying technology to people under the false impression that we were covered and we freaked. Rubenstein is called to opine, he calms everyone down by saying that the date of invention determines the date of our patents, not the date of filing and everything was therefore ok. Sounds good to us, but we are still confused on 5865-2 and where it went, Chris is holding investigation, some of Proskauer’s employees are confused as to the whereabouts. Turns out this is assessed as potentially very damaging to the Company and its shareholders, as we lose our video and combo patent filing dates by 70+ days.
It is also well known in the prior art of fraud that such proprietors of fraud may have to commit document fraud and file such fraudulent documents with interstate transport through the US Postal systems. Another fraud well known in the art and part of Brian Utley’s past, is to fraud again the USPTO and I View It shareholders, when our own attorneys file patents with Brian Utley as the sole inventor and no assignment to I View It and sent to his home place of residence without signing as an employee of I View It. Now take a moment to digest that, most of us most closely involved need a vomit bag
Again our attorney’s, Foley and Lardner, filed these patent for Mr. Utley personally and billed us, although they were holding off sending the bills to be nice as claimed later by Douglas Boehm, (have you ever heard of such a thing a lawyer ((and I have to have a lawyer joke here)) that does not bill when the receptionist puts you on hold), if it looks like a lawyer. .
More interesting news is that Utley has a past with similar claims against him, which his best friend Mr. Wheeler forgot to disclose when he gave his client I View It Utley’s falsified engineering resume (see attached Exhibit) (by the way Utley did not graduate college). After doing a background check with Mr. Utley’s prior employer Diamond Turf Lawnmower, we find that Mr. Utley similarly filed patents in his own name, causing the owner to fire Brian and take a large loss closing his operations. It’s too bad that since Wheeler did the background check personally on Mr. Utley, whom he sits on the Board of FAU with him (watch for infringement here), as well with his ex-employer.
Other frauds would include filing erroneous patents that lose the initial filing dates and extracting the core components of our inventions, which later end up at Utley’s house. Further they cover up the constant fraud on I View It and the government by showing inventors one set of patents that they work on and make changes on and then submitting a completely worthless set to the USPTO with US mail services (I think this qualifies for fraud on the USPTO and Postal Fraud by both a law firm and Mr. Utley) as they swear under oath, not sure to which but sure that it was the US Gov and World Organizations. Sending falsified documents such as Brian as sole inventor Exhibit 1, should set new heights of corporate and legal malpractice for all involved. .
When Eliot one of the true inventors becomes aware of several of these accounts and confronts Mr. Ugley during a lunch meeting in California and informs him that he will be the CEO as he has been claiming and must in fact retire, Mr. Utley threatens to tear this company down brick by brick with Chris Wheeler and Michael Reale and leave iviewit bankrupt and that I better watch my step when returning to FL (which I never have again even though my mother has been recovering from lung cancer) and I have since feared for my life, rarely allowing the wife and kids to leave as well. Eliot notifies many friends of the threats and allegations and Eliot moves into a hotel and several weeks later with no home, flies wife (who packs house by herself scarred for us) and grabs kids to hotel in CA for safety. She really hates me as I will not even come home for our son’s planned 30 people B-Day party and make her cancel and travel instead. I did not even get to say goodbye to my sick mom, my father, nieces, nephews, friends or employees, this is scarred shitless and with the release of such document I now fear the most for I think they sat rest assured that they had crushed my life to pieces, and yes dear reader, I am obliterated, annihilated, tattered, shattered and battered. My wife and children too and this is when we should be celebrating the birth of such wonderful concepts and the world’s acceptance of them.
People think we are a bit nuts when we tell them what is going on, but now that people see that this is really what is going on here, the constant harassment of my life, my family, my companies, they are concerned for us based on the evidence and the power of the people against lil ole us. They have my company already filed into bankruptcy (the guy’s stealing the patents, perhaps a briefcase of cash, and my attorney his best friend), they are caught at the apex of completing patent theft on a grand scale, they are the only ones filing all this stuff against us, they have fruaded and misrepresented to the United states Patent and Trademark office, I fear but my life is but a bullet away. I have children too and as I mentioned it appears that they are capable of quit a bit.
Another thing is
that since Utley threatened that they would destroy me, they have succeeded, by
filing a fraudulent involuntary bk against the company (Utley Reale RYJO and
Hersh), I could not afford to fight, because at that moment our secured lender
who was running the Company with our management, you guessed it a friend and
introduction of Chris Wheeler, Crossbow Vultures (Hank Powell, Steve Warner,
and Dr. (not sure where this degree comes from) René P. Eichenberger stop
funding the Company after hearing that the technology is on hardware, like
camera’s and dvd’s and that 4-6 patents look good, and that digital downloads
will use etc. Remember I am not sure if
they Crossbow are acting independently or as a good-guy bad-guy tag team with
Proskauer, but they tell me they are putting in place Aidan Foley (Ex-CEO Kodak
Cinesite) and Lawrence Modragon of no particular fame, to meet with the AOLTW
Venture Fund that we have been working with for @2years, and, just as we land
the account and are designing a pre-paid royalty stream with the WB group,
after Hank and Maurice meet with Sony & WB who tell them that I View It’s
technologies will be the backbone of 5 studios digital download project that
Doug Chey of Sony is handling with his ex-employer WB friends; John Calkins,
Chris Cookson, Greg Thagard, Chuck Dages & David Colter, et.al. and then
pull the plug in deceit and have been trying to kill the company and its
relationships ever since. We are signing
deal with WB and moving into licensing negotiations with both Sony, WB, Viacom
and MGM, all under NDA’s, when Crossbow decides to pull the plug on the Company
by stopping funds for two months of funding after they had told all management
it was done, and then they OK’d flying management out to meet with them in Boca
on an all first class ticket for mssrs. Aidan Foley and
This tactic, amongst a host of what appear to be a host of other secured lender violations, such as making (without Board approval) moves that may forever negatively impact our patent pool. Oh, I forgot they made these decisions with I View It’s attorneys who they were working with on the patents and paid them, against the express concerns of management. They in fact paid our attorney’s directly with no transacted documents for the loan of such amounts and against express demands from the company not to interface with our attorney’s. Then they added these fees to our loans and had our attorney bill the Company. I guess you would say that they were arms length in our sphincter.
So now, the plot thickens as you have Chris Wheeler (our advisor, shareholder, lawyer and largest creditor both paid and unpaid, suing all of the I View It Company’s, although his bill is mainly with our operating and servicing Company iviewit.com. He files a few days after his best friend Utley is fired and files his fraudulent BK on the Company. Chris (shareholder and all) who loves our technology, now has all of his clients using our processes freely and it hurts to tell my children this. Further Ken’s MPEG patent pool now uses our processes and finally the revenues have never come from the pre-paid royalties from the patent pool or at least not the companies’ way. Further Wheeler is telling everyone about all this money we will make from his clients if only we can let Utley start an encoding servicing business. Yes this is the same Chris that is the first guy suing all of our company’s with his firm and their clients just keep ripping us off, many under NDA.
Ray Joao and
Chris Wheeler, despite what they told the board and shareholders etc. did not
file the 2 initial patents and nor were all the inventions filed in the first
provisional round, preserving our filing
dates, instead it appears that the date was never changed back on the video and
combo as promised to the Board by Chris, Brian & Rubenstein. Further, it turns out that Ken Rubenstein may
have been giving us bad advice when he told us it is “all based on date of
invention, no need to get upset,” but this may only apply to the
It
is also well known in the prior art that such fraud promoters may have to turn
friends and family against one another to keep any outsiders from peaking
in. So some preliminary examples; fire
Inventors broad array of friends may be where the scheme would never work, inventor starts to put all kind of people like other inventors into mix and demands that the inventors must be listed, he is repeatedly assured that such is done, I believe papers were even drafted by Mr. Joao after he had met with Jude and Zakirulirul. Our attorney’s Rubenstein, Wheeler and Joao get angry at Eliot’s constant pressure to list inventors properly, constantly trying to separate Jude and Zakirulirul from inventions.
. Inventor becomes very suspicious of these crimes but is forced in circumstance to go along, with fear. Inventor is causing too much commotion so they start turning employees against inventor, telling employees not to listen or work on inventor’s clients and projects.
Brief summary of the
invention
Surround company with your people who are doing nothing for enormous salaries, execute such strategy to bk company after you get patents switched out of inventors hands, mount company with unnecessary debt with other friends against all logical advice and much board disapproval. Lie and lose patent dates on video (2-3 months) versus imaging. Wheeler then tries to switch patents with his buddies to his “best friend the engineer from IBM who created the AS400 and trained the elite German Engineers”, perhaps they were in kindergarten at the time.
It is well known that in invention fraud one must keep the inventors out of the loop and what better way then with a guy who looks so honest running the company; Brian, the inventor of the AS400 and floppy drive, the best imaging and video patent "guru" (Chris’ term for Ken Rubenstein) overseeing the patent pool and finally your friends at R3D & WB validating and studying the technologies. Then tell all your clients about this technology and see many of them use it now; see camera’s get digital zoom, see movie downloads begin, see DVD uses, see Internet light up with the video, Ken Rubenstein patent pools utilizing scaling and imaging technologies, probably see them patenting around I View It.
It is well known that ego freaks such as Utley in trying to keep scam hidden can not let CEO candidate ever get placed, single handedly ruins Si’s relationship with Korn Ferry and keeps promising payment for searches and blows them off to the point that this guy at KF get’s pissed and calls Si and I enraged with Utley lies. Also, Armstrong Hirsh is promised again and again to get paid and he lies to Michele which get’s her in trouble with her committee and starts to infringe on our relationship, they are lying to me as well regarding having made payments, finally Alan Epstein and I call Brian and he bumbles through a lot of uh’ing to finally say he never sent the check he sent. Ah, the world of lying, most have us have learned by five that it gets to hard to maintain so we give up, other criminal minds feed off the egoistic sensation of feeling that they have gotten away, until one day as the tangled web of deceit comes crashing down upon them.
Miscellaneous crimes that help fraud promulgators rip off everyone follow.
1. See digital zoom invented by Brian.
2. See Brian fraud investors with cooked books and lies.
3. See suitcases full of cash disappear.
4. See Brian encode Celebrity Sluts with a teenager.
5. See Brian steal equipment and take it to Board member whose loan was made in trust with no documents and not ratified by board.
6. See diversion of funds and corporate strategy (trying to sell shares of I View It for Distance learning company (no board approval).
7. See Brian attempt to bribe employees to steal Ip for $'s in suitcase.
8. See Brian get caught with Grand Theft and we are not even talking about stealing form the US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, when employees would not give him the process information he just stole the encoders with all their proprietary information.
9. See Foley and Lardner switching documents and file numbers and billing IVIEWIT for Utley unassigned patents. This may cost us on camera there is a risk per Coester from Brian's devilish actions.
10. See Ray Joao leave out the word zoom and pan or anything remotely close and no applet out of imaging patents for I View It
11. See Ken Rubenstein patent pools taking advantage of I View It technologies daily
12. See Proskauer clients and Wheeler associates using product
13. See
14. See WB, MGM, Sony, Viacom, etc. using it under NDA’s
15. See hardware and software adapt the processes
16. See I View It not get revenues it was anticipating from Wheeler clients and instead see many of them doing it with other encoding firms using our process
17. See Greg Thagard and Ken Rubenstein buddies from MIT Multimedia labs and DVD patent pool creators theorize about use for DVD and Downloadable Digital Movies. See it come out for DVD’s and see Anschutz new project to download movies for theaters. Should check Ken and Greg’s travel schedules but they are claimed to be traveling quite a bit together.
18. See them all shred their documents
In the field of fraud it is well know by one skilled in the art (and will become apparent even to novices) that fraud involves deceit, the current state of affairs and prior art is Enron. But he we have a more devilish scam here, a scam to perhaps deny the US out if it's inherent royalties on 3 products that are currently in use in almost every form of imaging and video. Revenues and royalties for these beautiful inventions should be being paid to the companies and our country, instead we stand bankrupt and abused.
What is claimed
- Take image
and video technologies to Ken Rubenstein and have them analyzed to see if
they are novel. Ken says they are
“novel”, a huge buzz follows. Go to R3D and hear they are novel from 20
more engineers,
- 2-23-99 process doc. Forwarded to Ken
R.
- 4-28-99 Ken R. meeting re: potential
Pres. and CEO (attachments scrambled) NOTE ALL CHRIS MESSAGES ARE
MYSTERIOUSLY SCRAMBLED, FROM THE SELF PROCLAIMED TECHNO GEEK, actual
insult to geeks)
- 4-28-99 Xing Technologies-
- 5-22-99 Hassan meeting scheduled at
Proskauer
- 5-24-99 Hassan meeting in
- 5-26-99 Hassan states enormous
potential would like to discuss with Kevin Healy
- 5-28-99 Schedule mtg. For Ken R. and
Joao to discuss patents
- 5-30-99 Hassan states impressed with
Ken R. can he call and ask patent questions
- 6-7-99 Hassan and Tech
are coming to review patent
- 6-9-99 Xing mtg.
Confirmed 6-12
- 6-18-99 letter from
- 6-21-99 comments to Hassan letter
- 9-16-99
- 9-25-99 Hassan brings Eric Camriand
from Cinax red flag to watch him
- 9-25-99 links to Cinax, Cinax
products software/hardware now all scale
- Wheeler hears
that techs are "cool" (becomes Wheelers buzz word for
technologies) and “bleeding edge” Chris discovers this when his “friend”
comes to Boca from R3D in
- 4-11-99 Chris Intro to real 3D
- 4-22-99 Gerry Stanely received Conf.
Agrmt. From Wheeler
- 4-30-99 Gerry Stanley meeting with
Wheeler
- 5-4-99 Gerry Stanley and Wheeler
confirm 5-10-99 meeting
- 5-12-99 Tony Palmieri at Silicon
Graphics cancels meeting
- 5-17-99 Meeting in Orlando- Stanley,
Rosalie Bibona
- 5-17-99 Lockheed to be global 3D
Graphics leader by Vaguo Muradian ref: by Jeff
- 5-18-99 Thank you letter to
- 5-25-99 Rosalie Bibona meeting
- 5-26-99 Passwords to Rosalie
- 5-26-99 Phone meeting with Real 3D re:
video process
- 5-27-99 Real 3d mtg. Scheduled at
Proskauer
- 5-31-99 confirmed mtg. For 6-2 or 6-3
- 6-3-99 Real 3D for Video
Disclosure - Roslaie and Techs
- 6-5-99 Rosalie Deal
Structure?
- 6-8-99 Eric Camirand
wants mtg. W/
- 6-21-99 Task request to Rosalie
- 6-22-99 Rosalie Meeting
- 6-25-99 Real 3D deal in Word perfect
- 6-26-99 Real 3D strategic relationship
proposal and strategy meeting to schedule
- 6-27-99 Real 3D letter of intent in text format
- 6-29-99 meeting to discuss letter of
intent Chris in
- 7-6-99 discuss deal
- 7-8-99 Epstein to discuss
term sheet
- 7-10-99 Meeting at Proskauer to discuss
deal
- 7-12-99 Huizenga and Real 3D to discuss
technology
- 7-12-99 Epstein with changes to Real 3d
deal
- 7-13-99 Steve Cochran meeting at
Proskauer
- 7-14-99 meeting to build cd roms for
real 3D
- 7-15-99 meeting at Proskauer to discuss
technology
- 7-29-99 EIB to offer a fair piece of
company
- 8-13-99 Revision of agreement for meeting8-16-99
- 9-7-99 Tim Connolly conf.
To Utley and confirm. Ryjo signed prior to briefing with Richard Getner
- 1-17-00 letter for
- This comes
earlier. Have Ray Joao who comes
disguised as Ken Rubenstein assistant come to get info for image and video
patents. Find out he is with other
firm, Si asks Chris if liability insurance is big, Chris assures Si and
everyone that we would have 2 firms to sue instead of one if anything
happens, since Ken is the “point man” on the patent pool for I View
It. Further tells us that
Rubenstein is moving from Joao's firm and that Proskauer doesn't have
resource to file for us at time, so Joao is fine and will be
transferring. Did Proskauer have
capability, if they did this raises questions.
- 3-9-99 meeting to discuss
legal contract for patents
- 3-12-99 intro to Joao
- 4-14-99 Kevin Healy to discuss trademark
and copyright issues
- 4-21-99 Meeting to showcase technology
Chris to schedule time
- 5-11-99 Joao sends unauthorized copy of
patent letter regular mail vs. mentioned UPS this is the date of the
stamp on envelope
- 5-24-99 Mara and Kevin to discuss legal
jargon for site
- 5-27-99 Joao scheduled mtg. Re: patent
strength
- 6-1-99 confirm mtg. For
6-2 - Ken R. not available 6.2 or 6.3
- 6-2-99 Intellectual
Property issues with Arthur Andersen
- 6-2-099 Ray itinerary 6.10-6.15
- 6-9-99 confirm Joao to
Proskauer 6-10
- 6-10-99 Joao cancels mtg. And dinner
with
- 6-14-99 phone joao re
- 7-1-99 Meeting to discuss
Intellectual Property issues
- 1-6-00 letter to Joao re:
new biz plan for videos need paragraphs on status and scope of our patent
pool
- Ray comes to
get patent info, I start with imaging and Jude & Zakirul are on the
way. Ray does not know Jude and
Zakirul are on the way. Zakirul
arrives and we are complete on both processes, show him all steps, all
software and hardware, he takes diligent and thorough notes and when
Zakirul arrives Ray wants to throw him out, tells me not to have him add
anything, becomes very panicked and says foreigners may not be able to be
inventors and we should not say anything until he opines with
Wheeler. Asks all these questions
about Zakirul and Jude and if they work for us etc, I explain that we are
mainly working on a dinosaur story to warn children of the dangers of
their often greedy parents using all their resources, a recurring dream I
have had since walking out of a coma, a broken neck, shattered face, and
complete internal organ meltdown after hitting a car carrier and have 3
Cadillacs fall upon my head, in which I had some very strange dreams to
say the least. Raymond Joao takes
all patent ideas and splits back to NY in faster than a NY minute. Tells me to leave no copies anywhere and
give Chris everything to hold, I do likewise. I later call Chris to confirm and he
says he is checking on it with Joao and that we may have to get Zakirul
and Jude in country first, he has a guy to get them in, and not to worry
they can fix the filings later.
- 6-8-99 meeting with immigration
specialist
- 6-14-99 meeting with immigration
- 11-10-99 Brian to Ron Storettte re: hiring
Zakirul
- Now 2 patents
should be filed but because of this, the video appears not only not filed
but missing and now they think we will need to have Ray come back (very
expensive) and do it again with Zakirul and Jude, this is because I go to
USPTO site and read that basically if you were a murderer you need to be
listed as an inventor on a patent to make them valid and I start to cause
concern. Board is calmed by Wheeler
that no dates will be lost we begin asking for Joaos filings and we are
now missing 5865-2. Wheeler begins
telling people I am nuts with Brian.
We never find it again, Wheeler is checking into it, I am sure his
report and investigatory notes will be in his "accurate files"
that’s off a great tape.
- Go to Real 3D
with a whole group (Eliot, Si, Lewin, Wheeler, Zakirul (they tell us not
to bring him but I think we do) and Armstrong. On the way there Wheeler is questioned
about patents and assures everyone that Joao has us covered, we try
calling on the drive up 3 hours, but I have not had confirmation and I
think 5865-2 is gone.
- Arrive at R3D
where they take all our cases etc, except our display in big suitcase with
pillows and flat screen, very strange but cool. About 10-20 engineers are brought in the
room from all walks, Lockheed, Intel and SGI. We are asked to present so we start with
imaging and after they see,
- We start
video presentation and we show them.
Then they tell us we must present on their system off our website,
so we set up a "special line" and our computers are put outside,
we go to site and they are blown away.
Again,
- Gerry Stanley
turns to Rosalie Bibona his right hand top engineer and asks what the
market value of the products would be.
She starts with the imaging and we discuss that it would apply to
deals that they are doing with camera manufactures, chips, simulators,
telescopes, microscopes, software and about everything that uses images
and estimates several hundred million dollars a year. She say's that if after she reviews
patents etc. and determines if video is real (although it had just played
from my website in Boca to their site on their stuff, I suspect she knew
and they might have done this test to copy our files etc. didn't think
that until later) that the market would be billions that it would
"revolutionize" video in low
- Finish
meeting we are jumping up and down, rich men. Chris says we must make sure video stuff
is done ASAP and he will confirm with Joao, says we must get someone to do
R&D, thinks he has someone, it hit him the other day that his best
friend is an old IBM engineer responsible no less for things like the
as400 etc and that he thinks he is not working currently and also sits on
FAU board with him, enter Mr. Brian Nutley. Chris will check but he claims this
would be perfect because he has many patents and he could work with Rubenstein
and Joao and the 3D engineers on the testing phase of the concept. He tells us of his stellar community
achievements and sits on the Board of FAU with him and his past employer a
gentleman and scholar Mr. Monte Friedkin.
I think you need to call Monte for the Full Monte on Utley.
- 7-22-99 Brian
Utley Meeting
- Dinner at
Erika Lewin's for her B-Day. Our
house is broken into while we are out and the patent files are missing,
the computers have all been opened, the alarm is on, the patio door is
broken open. We freak. We call Wheeler he tells us he will
notify police he knows chief or something and he can get us PI but it will
cost, and that we should give him everything from now on and he will keep
it safe it in his offices, we deliver volume of stuff to his offices. Sliding glass door remains forever
broken. Candice and I are scarred
shitless.
- We think it
may be Lewin or R3D, we are unsure.
Everybody becomes suspect, you almost want to call it inventor
paranoia but this stuff is all real, maybe they thought no one would ever
believe it. So Joao's patents start
disappearing, he is supposed to send them to us overnight and then about 4
days late after multiple calls to find him, it arrives with missing
patents and opened to our condominium.
This is remarkable, we call Wheeler and he tells me to wrap it in
plastic and bring it in for fingerprinting he expresses great concern,
Joao claims his secretary Nicole had mistakenly sent it USP not UPS, funny
when we called about it she never said anything. Call Ken Rubenstein, he opines, that it
would be best if it was opened by an engineering school because he goes on
to explain that patents are public documents and that we have marked our
place in history upon invention and that now even if gets out we will be
able to monetize all these avenues with our patents. Seems very weird, so Chris says that we
have no worries, all is OK, and not to be "paranoid
anymore". I joke with everyone
that I will be anti-paranoid now that I understand this better and that we
are OK, I can stop eating the patents and not to be "paranoid
anymore". I joke with everyone
that I will be anti-paranoid now that I understand this better and that we
are OK, but I ask Wheeler were 5865-2 in package is and it is gone from
package and replaced with another number.
- Zakirul,
Eliot and Jude (to come later) go to Proskauer to do conference to go over
video information in a taped interview with Joao now he claims he needs to
get the information from the other inventors after “Eliot’s astute catch
at the USPTO (maybe I will get an honorary legal degree with my honorary
math degree for the inventions, no skip the legal). Shocked and allegations are arising that
Joao is not filing when he says he is and that a long gap may have developed
in the video filings. Chris &
Brian to calm board. We tape this
call and this tape is submitted to Gloria Burfield for very safekeeping at
Proskauer, with others. When we
show up at Chris Wheeler's Jerry Lewid is there unexpectedly and he
follows us into conference room and when we call Ray we ask him to leave,
he laughs and asks why and I tell him that he does not need to be in the
meeting. He steps outside and Chris
was not there either I think, but anyway we start talking to Ray and
explaining and suddenly Jerry's coat begins to whisper, Jerry "we
can't hear, we can't hear" and Zakirul and I look all around for the
source of this weird noise and it is in Jerry's coat pocket.
- We run out of
office into the hall very afraid and get Gloria, we decide until Wheeler
deals with this we can't go back in.
So Wheeler or someone else perhaps, Rocky Thompson accosts us in
the hall and asks us what's going on, after telling him he tells us to
wait while he confers with Wheeler about what to do.
- Rocky gets us
a new conference room, not sure how safe, me and Zakirul freaking, tell
Jude later and we are afraid of Lewin and his intents, Joao and his
intents, but Wheeler is investigating it and assures us that any
impropriety will be resolved to the fullest extent of the law.
- Wayne
Huizenga (of Blockbuster, Waste Management, Dolphins, Autonation fame and
friend of Lewin and Wheeler) meetings are happening and Wayne Jr. is blown away they have another internet
company called Webcasts they claim has nothing even close. To boot they have many clients and
companies that could use it and they can get us into Blockbuster (who
later tries a broad
- Wheeler
basically says no Huizenga money without Brian at helm, the Board again
rejects, Brian to stay president, everyone wants CEO except Chris who
wants Brian as CEO and basically threatens me (although prior he had only
recommended him for an engineering study for R3D and Hassan) that if Brian
is not elected Huizenga will pull out and that my father is wild hare that
must be retired from the Company and that I should replace him, they later
demote him to Chairman Emeritus, these kind of things really hurt Si who
is emotional and kind and furthermore the most trustworthy person I know,
I true believer in integrity . Then
Wheeler tells the board against all other advice that we have to put the
patents in IVIEWIT or else Huizenga will not invest. Everyone else had said to leave them in
the inventor's names and license out to company. Chris claims he can maintain through his
corporate "wizardry" and Arthur Anderson, Si, Epstein, Kane,
Lewin are very concerned that patents could be at risk and Si repeatedly
asks Chris for a letter outlining what would happen under his new
structure if bk. Everybody is very
confused and saying we will have to open all kinds of entities and the patents
could be exposed to liabilities. Wheeler tells us he can handle it for
nothing and since we are doing the stock deal with their firm and all, he
will just need to open a separate company anyway for his stock and a few
others, it would be completed without much cost. I feel as if another Cadillac fell out
of the sky on my head. Wheeler
discounts Joao's advice here as well and says Ken Rubenstein and Arthur
Andersen guys agree that he is right and it can be accomplished and
otherwise Huizenga says no go.
- 9-15-99 Don Kane added to advisory board
- 5-9-99 Phone meeting with
Chris Brandon
- 5-21-99 Chris Brandon @ Huizenga
scheduled 5-21-99
- 5-27-99 Jerry Lewin to coordinate
meeting in Ft . Lauderdale
- 6-1-99 letters to
Huizenga
- 6-21-99 Huizenga meeting
- 6-21-99 Utley meeting
- 7-1-99 Huizenga meeting
-
- 7-31-99 meeting set for 8-3-99
- 8-2-99 intro to webcast
- 8-5-99 Presentation
meeting to webcast
- 8-20-99 Scott Klososky at webcast
"hopes to work something out together"
- 8-30-99 Chris and Brian to Huizenga
alone
- 9-19-99 forward Chris Brandon Bond and
Breast cancer links
- 9-23-99 Stephen Filipek attorney for
Huizenga on Patents
- 10-02-99 Simon to Brian not to talk to
Chris Brandon until issues resolved the deal outlined is not acceptable
- We are
scheduled to have meetings with Joao and we are getting notified that
Zakirul and Jude will be on patents as inventors with me. Ray tells us everything is being cleaned
up and filed correctly.
- Need to check
on date but Joao is finally filing video patent. We are all confused as to date being so
much later than other one. Wheeler
consults with Ken and tells us that patents are based on date of invention
so thank god we are safe again.
- Time
fly's we are being introduced to all Wheeler friends,
- 6-21-99 Ubid - proskauer presentation
- 6-22-99
- 8-13-99 MGM interested IVIEWIT encodes James Bond Trailer
- 8-19-99 Showcase demos to MGM and Den after confid.
- 8-26-99 Acronym established ZAPI files 8-29-99 Wheeler to trademark
- 8-26-99 Meetings set with Disney, Chris Pula for 9-8-99
- 8-28-99 Doc Mcgee confidentiality
- 9-10-99 Epstein forwards deal with MGM for Bond
- 9-13-99 MGM needs letter, Disney sending Toy Story 2, Calpac virtual city, Versifiy wants license
- 9-14-99 Valerie Swift at Versify states great technology hopes to include iviewit in versify offering
- 9-15-99 thank you letter to David Neuman at Disney
- 11-11-99 Pixelon Launch Party
- 12-23-99 letter from consultant Danny Sokolof re: Pixelon
- 12-24-99 Epstein states meeting with Microsoft too soon
- 12-29-99 Microsoft meeting officially held off
- 1-16-00 intro to Picture 3D
- 1-19-00 intro to Play Inc. by Jeff F.
- 1-24-00 draft proposal for Nomad - Danny Sokolof
- Visual Data meetings happen and we find out that one of Lewin’s clients HotelView, the first one he introduces us to is using our video on a medical site and we go screaming to Wheeler who watches the video and is also convinced it is our technology that we had disclosed to these guy's in his offices under his NDA and he say's he will start investigation and call Lewin, this is delicate but everyone who see's it feels it is necessary even though he is Si's neighbor. Lewin is asked his involvement he says he hardly knows them, it was someone he knew awhile back that he thought would be interested. Someone then sends evidence of his involvement with these guys up to the level that his firm had prepared audits for them up until they went public. Lewin is re-questioned and he has foggy memory but it clears up when we hand him document in Wheeler office stating he did their books and new them well. Wheeler again is launching investigation and going to have a letter drafted for Jerry and his employees, everybody is really concerned Wheeler again is launching investigation and going to have a letter drafted for Jerry and his employees, everybody is really concerned, Wheeler again clears the air to the board and Jerry assures the Board that no information will flow to Visual Data from them anymore and any use of our video was strictly on a testing new site basis. May be that Proskauer also had involvement with these guys and Chris may have failed to mention this to board and to get his employees to do same if true. Not sure but we should check his involvement with these guys.
- 6-3-99 Lewin becomes Board Member
- 6-19-99 Intro to Boca Research
- 6-21-99 intro to Visual Data
- Not sure but I would look closely at other
Lewin/Wheeler dealers like
- Crossbow
- 8-8-99 Business Plan to Hank Powell
- 8-13-99 Hank Powell , David Salim and Phillips Point meeting
- 9-29-99 Boca office opens all meetings prior conducted at Proskauer
- 9-29-99 iviewit board meeting game plan
- 12-30-99 Utley and Epstein to convert iviewit to corporation
- 1-4-00 private offering consultants love technology one thinks the co. is worth over 500M going to board to discuss possibilities
- A Year has passed almost, and provisional filings expire and Ray Joao is suddenly in the limelight again, as Brian starts claiming he has somehow missed the invention in his filings. He says may be minor but he will replace Joao with Bill Dick the guy who handled the entire Asian patent pool for IBM, he will be able to get us big blue, etc. He is at Foley, we are sick of Joao but with filing date coming soon, we fly him again out to Boca , I think third time we need to confer with his records. He comes out but he gets wind of Foley and he is very weird about the patent and he keeps going into lab and we have people in lab and working on patents outside of conference room and at Wheelers. We get suspicious and Zakirul and I get a copy for a final review and go downstairs, we note many changes and go to Ray with them, he again disappears and tells us all changes have been made, we ask for a copy of everything he has worked on he gets kin of defensive but says he has to go to Wheelers to print doc. Comes back and me and Zakirul go outside to review, all changes have been made, we seal the document in the fed'x and go upstairs. Ray in a snide comment tells me that "documents can be switched” (he had just found out from Brian that he was being canned) and I am like what, did you just say that, he says he was only kidding but with all that has gone on, I decide not to let him fly back to NY to file but that we must hijack the patents and get them to the US Post office ourselves. Erika, Jen and I hijack patents from Ray, cut check from the register and go running for the post office. Erika keeps receipts and notes check in book, (get bill to get the actual check and register entries. By the by, it is interesting that we all start questioning why Brian who had been handling the patents with Ray and Ken was unaware of these flaws earlier. Brain said he was very concerned that Ray might be up to something but says Foley will start investigation, tells everyone, board, not to panic that we must wait for Bill’s Dick evaluation. Well the evaluation is that Joao's work is bad, might have missed the zoom and pan and scaling of video, they are not sure, Ray is sending them incomplete files, possibly missing documents, etc.
- Well now we have great cause for concern, Buchsbaum is freaking out says Crossbow must know, Brian is trying to tell him to hold off until the investigation is over. They come back to tell us that we should and might and may be able to fix all Ray's work, and should not miss any priority dates, they are concerned that it might be to far but they feel comfortable that we do not need to launch full scale congressional investigation that they think they can resurrect everything and make sure all the dates cover us back to priority. They are not happy with the filing date of the video being incorrect and are not sure that Rubenstein's earlier advice about it claiming back to invention date is correct. Part of their due-diligence will be to check it out.
- Foley comes out and meets with Zakirul, Jude Brian and I and several others and we go through whole thing with them and they claim when they finally understand what it is we do that we have invented new math, (similar statement to Bibona of R3D and Huizenga’s guy Robert J. Henninger who tells my father I may get an honorary math degree some day and this statement might have been one of my father’s proudest moments). Further that this math applies to every form of video and imaging etc. They are hiring Chris Taylor to study if 320 is better than 640 and 160, call it the "sweet spot". We go through whole process, show them process in lab etc.
- Brian hands me a bunch of patents to sign and says we only have a few hours to file them. I tell him I can't sign blank forms for things I have not read. He gets very angry and says we don't even have time to photocopy and have me read. We call Foley they say it is due tomorrow, and Jim Armstrong, Jennifer Kluge and I, start copying late in the afternoon. Brian is furious, he has a murderous look to his face and tells me just to sign the blank signature forms and give our review later. Jim Armstrong and I get the patents and head over to a restaurant were we work until closing and then after at my house, correcting all the mistakes we find. It appears that these patents are missing almost everything we told Foely about and have all this new math and it's all wrong. We are perplexed and tell Si, who tells us to call a taped meeting with everyone including Wheeler. We do so. The meeting and all that was said is on most the tapes I sent over. We find them blaming Ray again, he has told Foley that he had destroyed all notes, etc. on his files. We find that the math and wording are all wrong and they have missed all the pertinent verbiage we have discussed. Wheeler tries to defend Joao's work and says that the word zoom did not have to be in, the word enhanced was enough, etc. We start asking why engineers are making math mistakes, why inventors are not being called on long before 1 day and why they are still missing things like we don't need to be on a network, etc. We also hear that their are other things that Brian has in his possession that are not in the company’s possession and we ask Brian what and he and the Foely guy’s mumble about spreadsheets but it is very suspicious, Buchsbaum and I have sidebar and can not believe what we are hearing. It sounded like they were referring to Brian's other patents but we thought we were nuts. So we correct with them for several hours their math and I think we do it over 2 days and then they go to file at midnight they assure everyone corrections have been made. We ask for copies of filings and we get back wrong math again this time filed with swapped signatures and now on file with patent office. Doug says he called for verbal approval, must have been sleep waking, for those of you who know me it must have been the one moment I slept that year. We call everyone together again on this bizarre turn of events could they have knowingly filed wrong math, what would be the intent??? And they try to explain but it is very weak, they assure us minimal risk, small window, only if someone is writing around us could these minor math errors and the likes affect us, they claim some square roots got eaten by hungry computers and that I should have caught it earlier, hard when you never have seen them until now. Somehow be a problem only if some of the correct math is in Utley’s name at his house, that they had prepared for him. We want full explanation from Foley in writing about the potential liability the company could suffer after what we find out, in all these taped conversations, that the next day they filed the wrong application with my signature. Where did they get my signature if Doug in his letter says he got verbal confirmation from Brian and I to file? Sig switchers, I just hate it when that happens. I would never had signed until Jim and I reviewed, he waited by his phone all night too. Again, Wheeler pops in saying it will all be fine and he will begin to have conference and investigation into matter, Brian appears shocked and confused at Foley's incompetence but he also starts sweating profusely. He tells us Bill’s Dick will get this resolved, we will be at no risk, he is not to blame, (although he is too blame for all this nonsense), and they say they have told Brian that his math is wrong. I think there may have been an earlier call with Foley in which they covered up their math mistakes and assured us all that we were going to get everything in order, mistakes would be corrected and all would be fine, doubts dates could have major impact. Assures Si their liability coverage is paid. Si and Chris want letter of what is going on. Boehm they tell us is fired for his incompetence and that he is going back to college to finish up his mathematics! As if this rectifies the situation
- Where
is 120,121,122,122,123 at this time???? What happens to
- At about this time Utley lies in a meeting with no less than Universal/Vivendi and the most knowledgeable Jerry Pierce presses on Brian for where he got his engineering degree, very embarrassing when we find no engineer but instead find Utley the janitor of IBM Germany basically. Epstein leaves meeting saying he will not take IVIEWIT to any more meetings with Brian in the picture, most embarrassing meeting of his life, after meeting he pulls Buchsbaum & I aside from Brian, Buchsbaum is amazed. We decide we need to start to take serious actions to get rid of this fake.
- Maurice notifies Crossbow – again why no actions against those stealing from us? This poses serious questions about intent.
- All studios are notified after Universal, in fact
before leave the Universal lot David Colter is calling saying what
happened Greg just got off a call from Pierce and says Utley is liar and
fool and does not understand our product or basic math. We are all concerned that our engineer
Brian is a fraud as Chris had sold us on his capabilities, as something he
is not and never was. David Colter
told us Greg Thagard explained our technology to Pierce and all was cool
but that we should stay out of studios until we clear Utley matter up and get rid of Utley, in fact
he calls Utley from
- We are to meet referral from Thagard (DES – Digital
Entertainment Studios) were Thagard is on the board of a very large and
prestigious encoding house in LA and
- Utley and I go to lunch, I tell him news that Wachovia, Board and studios all will not vote him CEO. He gets enraged at me and tells me if he cannot be CEO and Aidan Foley is, he claims he will tear the company down brick by brick with Mike and Chris, and bankrupt us if he has his way. He tells me I better watch my step when I return and I don't know who I am messing with, tells me he can kill the company like he built it and me. I try to tell him that it is the whole board's decision and I am not a sole decision maker, I tell him we can make him emeritus president and hang plaque, he went nuts.
- I
freak, he didn’t just say he sprayed it.
I notify just about everybody from here to there that I am threatened
and that this guy means business.
David Colter and I talk at great length he fears for me too and he
offers me to stay at his house for a while while things settle down and
maybe not go back to FL for a few days.
I decide that I am safer in a hotel and never leave, I call my
wife; tell her I am not coming home, very scarred for my life, her life
and the kids lives. Tell her she
may have to pack up whole house by herself (try that one on your wife
one-day and if she doesn’t kill you you have found true and unconditional
love, no more Depach) and come to CA and join me in hotel with kids. She cancels Jake’s 2nd B-day
party and splits with kids and we live in hotel 3 months, thanks to
friends with good rates. Causes
great anger and hurt for parents, remember if I have not told you that I
had moved back to FL from
- It is almost surreal at this moment in time.
- Oh
by the by, Wheelers emails have been getting returned and corrupted and he
always is proclaiming himself a geek.
Old ones are getting corrupt, we get worried and we ask him to
print them all out when he assures us of his accurate record keeping,
etc,. Sends us pages and pages of
crap. Anyway, money is supposed to be coming into the LA office to help us
get equipment as WB wants us to take over their encoding operation, we
have moved into the Warner Brothers building, they are bringing in tapes,
we are inventing ideas together, things are great on my end. Brian and Ray on the other hand are
telling the world a whole different story and they say they have not
received money yet from Crossbow who came out and agreed to fund the LA
office after meeting the entire WB group and staff and committing the
Company to accept the business and take over their operations. I call Hank and ask were money is for
equip is he is making us look like morons and we have tacky 3rd
generation furniture and crates that Mike Reale said would do fine. Hank says Brian said he sent 100k to me
already and that further I was spending money like a maniac according to
Brian and that he had paid me another 50k or so in expenses to stay at
this 5 star hotel that I was living it up in. The Presidential Floor mind you, and
dear reader, it is oh so the joy of life to have friends who help a friend
in need when one is scarred for ones family, anyway Utley tells Hank it is
where Reagan stay’s for 5k a night, little does he know that it's a
whopping $69 a night. Oh the pain
of getting caught in your lies, remember back to your childhood when this
was the greatest sin, not lying, but getting caught. Brian and Ray and Hank and Maurice all
want copies of bill as if I had lied to them. Brian had a quote for $225 for me at
Beverly Hilton but everyone decided this was cheaper and better for my
family until we found living space here.
I a
- Hank now comes and meets with studios and finds out
our technology will be backbone to MovieFly (5 studio project), on DVD's,
in camera's, etc. Hank and
- Hank assures David, Doug, Epstein et.al. that even in
the face of what’s going down that the company is strong and they are
backing all the way, all will be cool and rest assured they will stand and
fund the company as David and Doug gets ready to take us to AOLTW Venture
fund, Heidi Kraull, Raduchel, Leonsis, etc. We are on our way to Virginia
and have passed all validation markers and are now encoding for WB,
meeting with some of their partners like TeraNex (who are more NDA
infringers intro’d by Wheeler friend), we need new management and to get
rid of operations completely and get prepared for license opportunity and
business model. Talks of J-V with
CVC aspire, etc. Hank and
- Meanwhile Brian is on a rampant plan to bk the company padding bills with his friends and billing our attorney's without authorization, certainly over his 5k board limit, he files for new corporations, etc. Allegations abound and evidence spews of impropriety in almost every transaction Mr. Utley and Why? If you are Brian you must try and hide the cat from getting fully out of the bag, do everything to destroy company and evidence with your friends, and kill the shareholders, and then top it off with trying to steal core elements of the patents to your home, unassigned (why doesn’t Crossbow NOT take aim at him all this time for any of this nonsense?? Or ??????????? As you can imagine and you do not even need really a leap of faith to get there at this point, its getting out of control, Utley must force the company into bk and steal the assets through secured loans with his friends and Wheeler would stand to gain on the BK with his over and over and over and over again inflated billings. Get’s WB to dump us in scandal they don’t want to deal with bk company, Utley starts firing office correspondences in a smear campaign to clients and others without consent or discussion with the board, when asked he stated wheeler advised him to do this but we ask why not send to everyone why wb and select few and none of his friends etc.
- Hank starts requesting that David Colter let him talk with Heidi Kraull privately without him to feel out the deal for us, he knows her from other Crossbow deals with AOLTW. David is against this, says it will move things too quickly, I View It not ready until management etc. Hank presses David who calls me very concerned, Hank now is blowing her off and making a complete fool out him and our company, David feels that we should wait to complete the steps outlined by John Calkins (the best hair and angelic smile) review. Change management, change business model to no service, all license and R&D and get technical white papers completed are his demands, WB starts reviewing our candidates with Crossbow. David fears that Hank will cause trouble by messing up his plan of movement for the company within WB and AOLTW. Hank will not take no and keeps pushing for this meeting with Heidi and him to take place but always finds a way to fail her on promised things and finally embarrass us as we invite the top brass of AOLTW to a Nascar race guests of I View It’s advisor George DeBidart who owns a few teams. We leave because of Crossbow all these people standing in the cold with no tickets or anything promised, this went over very well. Finally, David gives Hank the OK to call Heidi and get her the information. I do not, nor does David, I think, know if this occurs.
- David and Greg Thagard are invited by Crossbow (Hank asks me not to come) to West Palm Beach to meet Zeostink and come back telling me that with some FAU professors (raise flag here) and the leading mathematicians of the world they have discovered a technology that will render IVIEWIT useless. Strange why Hank would do this to I View It. Prior to the meeting I did not know Zeosync and it is strange Hank would bring it to our leading client that would be destroyed by this tech, not that if they had what they claimed they should not be entitled to their royalties. David tells me trip was 70% Zeosync and 30% I View It. Zeosync after I start to investigate with friends, smells like a way to describe scaling using math formulas, no, breaking math laws or ripping them off or frauding them, and I get Jeff and others to investigate. We investigate math guys who are listed on their site including Nobel guys, and suddenly no one is saying that they know these guys. Zeo launches press report a few months later and is hailed as a scam, no mathematicians they said were on their board are, and further they remove all names off their site that were touting their breakthrough. Look to Chris and Brian and FAU is very suspicious here. Suspicious in that how is FAU and Florida State (not sure what name of 2nd school is) are they now doing whole distance learning stuff on their site using scaled video when they met with I View It they had no comparable product and dreamed of it's importance to their DL objectives, medical, blah-you know. FAU according to Chris and Brian was always going to be the first client with all this encoding for the school. I would look in depth at FAU and their growing multimedia department and their use and any patents from any professors in these areas. Zeostink is a pointer to the past.
- About this time Aidan is negotiating his employment
contract with Crossbow directly and I call Steve Warner to assure him that
Aidan is worth the staggering amounts he is requesting, Aidan had asked me
to put in the call from the office.
Steve tells me he already spoke with Aidan and they are near
agreement, they will shore things up in FL that everything looks great and
we will be in
- Aidan works with Thagard and Sony to assess license revenue on the inventions and Thagard later brags on a jet with Epstein and Colter that Aidan should do very well with Crossbow, with the revenue numbers from their studio alone.
- Crossbow appears good guys, working with Aidan and
Larry weekly on strategy and negotiating salaries and such with them,
Aidan, Larry and Crossbow working on the next set of patents, appears
things are going to be resolved with new Counsel Blakely. We are back on track, or so it appears,
on our way to
- Larry calls to tell me I am an idiot, that Crossbow intends to have their own bk, wash away shareholders and debt and re-organize with him and Aidan most likely, they have worked this out with our bk counsel in FL. Has cocky attitude as if this was planned with Crossbow, he informs me that it will probably be something like 65% Crossbow, 25% new management and 10% for creditors like Brian and Wheeler and the remainder to us, if any. I must say I was blown away by this call, which prompts reply to Crossbow. (See Exhibit)
- Get worried, Aidan and Larry have been interfacing against us, wonder what they have done to patent pool. Send a letter reminding them that in no way should they make ip decisions without board approval, they go ahead with Crossbow and make major decisions on pool all without any board actions, all against the direction of management. Wonder why Hank is interfacing on patent decisions that should be made by Company and board. Hank is in a rush, I am not, I call Blakely and tell them no patent decisions or funding without Hank paying his past bill with them which they are harping on me about and they should return any checks that are not sent by the Company other than his payments. I tell Hank until he clears up 2 months of financing, no foreign patents can the Company afford, he pays Blakely without our knowledge. Tell him I want to see him suffer 21 years over lost world revenue and since he is trying to kill us it will be just reward, “since I don’t care too much for money” and you know the rest of that tune, “money can’t buy me love”. We call Tom Coester, Hank and I, and he agrees to pay entire past bill of @12k, plus he is checking on getting the 2 months + of past funding and then pay for certain countries to be decided on by the Company, he goes against what the company thinks is right here and makes his own decision on countries and patents to pursue. I freak on everybody when I hear that we are losing initial priority date and that Brian's camera patent exposes us to risk somehow and that losing initial date may hurt us although Tom thinks it through and thinks it poses no risk. While we are supposed to be checking with board etc. Hank sends check direct to our lawyers and makes final decision himself, no loan agreements are signed or anything. Appears to me that Crossbow has own objectives, maybe we should check Swiss counterparts for patent pools in this arena. We have always been concerned about this. Also considered about instances with Hank’s son (see attached)
- We are stiffed for the 2 months that Crossbow was
late and had promised to everyone, in fact as Aidan was leaving to
- Now obviously if you are attempting to hurt the company, this is perfect. We are forced out of the WB building, we cannot continue to earn revenue, we are being shut off on all fronts, impossible to raise capital with Brian and Chris legal issues, WB very concerned over bk (or so it appears). Hank it appears is making decisions with Aidan and Larry to change course of patent pool.
- Brian, Mike, Hersh, Reale and Wheeler are in charge
of transferring the Company documents to I View It in CA per Board taped
calls and what they send is; Incomplete patent files (Utley’s stuff
missing), Incomplete Corporate Documents, Erased databases, hosed
computers, no records of loans etc, no minutes for most Board meetings, etc. To imagine this was before Enron, it set
precedence. Remember blinded reader
as surely your eyes must be filled with tears, these are your trusted
advisors, your lawyers, your accountants, all working to steal from
you. Violating all ethical consideration,
violating their oath, I guess as I look it the only way to prevent this in
the future, from others not so strong as myself, is off with their f’n
heads. Same concept would have
worked well for
- They must silence this we must counter The National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination
Exhibit 1 – Case of inventor
fraud perpetrated with I View It Counsel and Brian Utley
Utley’s name as an individual
not President of
Excerpt from Blakely
Sokoloff
Document to change Utley patents back to I
View It
Now
as Foley resigns from counsel months later and files to remove themselves from
the patents they still never mention Brian’s patents. Very confusing which ones they chose.
Exhibit 2 – How
to claim others ideas as your own
Attached are inventions done by
the I View It group far prior to Brian even arriving on the scene. These show
more intent of him trying to claim inventorship to our products and perhaps
walk away with it. Were these ever filed as provisional? If so, who
filed? Also, looks a bit like remote control video application that Foley
may have a
Exhibit 3 – Timeline of Incidents and allegations, hints and innuendo’s
Exhibit
4 – Utley Resume as submitted by Christopher Wheeler to I View It and Board
Wherein he is touted as an
Engineer, they also change my resume to who I am not and I get very upset and
in fact joke in many meetings that I hand it out that it must be my alter
ego. See how Brian goes from no degree
to a degree he later claims in biography submitted under oath to Wachovia Bank
for the Investment thing they were doing.
Here, Utley suddenly becomes graduate of San Francisco college in resume
submitted for Wachovia bank
Brian G. Utley, President (67) - For over 30
years, Mr. Utley was responsible for the development and world-wide management
of many of IBM’s most successful products such as the AS400 and the PC. Entering IBM’s executive ranks in the early
1980s, Mr. Utley’s impact was felt in all areas of IBM’s advanced technology
product development, including Biomedical Systems, European Operations, and
most importantly, IBM’s launch of the Personal Computer. Following the introduction of the PC in the
Here
Utley has no school in earlier than Wachovia BP bio
Brian
Utley, President and Chief Operating Officer - Mr. Utley has been
involved in the computer industry since 1955, 37 years of which were with IBM.
He has been in senior management and executive positions since 1965 culminating
in his responsibility as Vice President and General Manager of IBM Boca Raton
with a population of over 6,000 professionals.
During his career he has been responsible for advanced technology
product development on many fronts. In addition he was responsible for a number
of IBM's overseas activities including product development, product management
and market development. The most notable of which was the introduction of the
IBM PC to
oh by the by; he is caught lying in meeting with
Universal studio when he bumbles on basic math to a top engineering dude at
Vivendi Universal who asks where he got degree and Brian admits no degree. Alan Epstein abhorred after the meeting says
his firm AHJTW cannot introduce iviewit to any more clients for our product
until this liar and frauder is thrown out.
SVP of Advance Technologies - Jerry Pierce calls Greg Thagard at WB and
asks if he is nuts and knows if this guy Brian is a fraud. David Colter immediately calls me and I tell
him it was perhaps the most embarrassing moment of any meeting I had ever been
in and WB also makes the position known to Brian himself that he cannot be
CEO. This is when Brian threatens Eliot
with BK and his life and things unravel here on Brian, we find that is writing
patents into his name, may be stealing money from the company and IP and
proprietary equipment.
Exhibit 5 – Stealing
Intellectual Property Equipment
Correspondences regarding theft
and embezzlement of I View It IP to Distance Learning Company owned by I View
It board member and investor Bruce Prolow and Tiedemann/Prolow Investment
Company. This will become more
apparent when combined with the following police report
This will become more apparent when combined
with the following police report
-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot I. Bernstein [mailto:res0bf4a@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 9:21 PM
To: Ross Miller (E-mail); Ross Miller (E-mail 2); William R. Kasser
(E-mail); William R. Kasser (E-mail 2); Simon L. Bernstein (E-mail)
Subject: Missing Boca Equipment
Please read this email from Matt Mink it clearly indicates that Mike and Brian have iviewit equipment.
-----Original Message-----
From: Minkvideo@aol.com [mailto:Minkvideo@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 4:50 AM
To: tyrexden@yahoo.com
Subject: Re:
Tony,
Everything is good. I finally have my computer back and I am editing
again.
I am trying a little marketing right now. I have an ad going into a local
vendors magazine and I have been meeting and contacting other video companies
in my field to let them know that I am available to shoot and edit. I met
with Zakirul one day at his school and everything seems to be going well with
him
too. Mike Reale has contacted me twice too. I guess he has the
bomber and
the computer I worked on and there is an administration password he can't get
by. I couldn't help him there. I guess Tammy won't help him out.
When my computer went down I lost Dreamweaver, Fireworks and my encoders.
I
didn't have any backups for them. I know better this time. I
am backing up
everything.
Take care and I'll talk to you soon.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Minkvideo@aol.com
[mailto:Minkvideo@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01,
2002 5:15 PM
To: t.rex3@verizon.net
Subject: Re: from Tony!
speaking of
have been a few weeks to a
month about passcodes to computers and if I
wanted
to go to
learning because I knew the
iviewit processes. If you mean stuff
like that
let me know
Matthew
5 Continued - More Brave Employee’s Testimony
March 28, 2002.
This is my recollection of
the events last year which took place after the
Shortly after a conference
room meeting with people who Scott Murphy brought in, a video tape is brought
into the lab. It is made clear that the tape belongs to Scott Murphy's
associates, and I am instructed to give the utmost care and attention to
encoding this tape, which is of pornographic nature. The number $7 million is repeatedly mentioned
as possible revenue should
I swear the above to be true
and complete, to the best of my recollection.
Anthony Frenden
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Frenden [mailto:tyrex.den@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 1:39 AM
To: 'Bill Kasser'
Subject: RE: Encoding Machines
Bill,
Both machines were accessed, and used during the time they weren't in our
hands. On the Bomber, i didn't find any streaming media files, but it was
indicated that the encoding software (to create streaming files) had been used
frequently. On the Nitro, i have not yet searched for streaming
files, but i did find many images that pertain to the InternetTrane
product. These images were to appear as pages within InternetTrane's
software. These files were created by someone using the Nitro in early
June.
It was shown that both machines were part of a network environment together, while in our absence. The drives of each computer was 'shared' or accessible to the other computer. Bomber's drive was called 'Production', while the Nitro was named "Video". Furthermore, the Bomber recieved an upgrade of its 'operating system' (from Windows NT to Windows 2000) to facillitate its network environment. I don't believe the Windows 2000 upgrade to be legitimate.
A side note reveals that both computers had pirated software installed on them in June or July, and files resulting from them were created as late as July 11, 2001.
If you require further details, let me know.
Tony Frenden
-----Original
Message-----
From: Bill Kasser [mailto:bill@iviewit.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 8:55 AM
To: Tony Frenden
Subject: Encoding Machines
How are the Bomber & Nitro? Did Brian do any damage? Did he leave a record of what he did?
Bill
Exhibit 6 – Utley/Reale Police Report
Frightening but true, Brian and Mike steal highly proprietary equipment worth a fortune in proprietary software and confidential iviewit processes. After lying about what they were taking and lying to the police they are confronted to return the machines which they have taken to a distance learning part owned by our investor Tiedeman/Prolow’s distance learning company. Bruce Prolow is a board member for iviewit, not sure about Internet Train but he is an investor of some magnitude
Exhibit
7 – Case of Switching Inventors
This I call "the case of the
lost inventor" and the ensuing confusion of inventors and finally Utley
replacing Jude in filed docs. Call me for a walk through. You
can see that Brian drops Jude as an inventor and later files himself as an one
of three applicants. Also, I do not think they fax well but the original
pages contain a white out through most of 57103-111 even on filed docs.
If you would like I will send you scanned color docs which clearly indicate the
marks. Notice the note to Brian on the June 2 fax from Foley and
Lardner which calls attention to the names of inventors and puts it (Eliot
& Zakirul) and you (you referring to Utley). Then Utley signs as one
of the 3 applicants on the submissions that follow. Do we have all filed
patent documents for the breadth of iviewit yet from the patent office (we need
to pick up every stitch, is there anything we have to do?)
I think paired with the Utley
patent in his name as sole inventor and his past behavior at prior job we start
to piece together the larger picture. The act that these documents
were filed and that Rubenstein and Joao are claimed to have missed the
inventions, has already cost the company considerable legal expenses and perhaps
far more to again try and resolve issues. The fact that filing dates have
been missed and are non-correctable is a major disclosure issue. Now that
I have heard this directly from your review and the patent director I am now
aware and must act accordingly. Foley folly’s have cost us dearly and
these issues all must be raised on an ethics level. These frauds have
aided in bk'ing the company, interfering with my constitutional rights as
an inventor and preventing the Company from raising investment from many
of the potential investors who looked at this garbage. Ray filing
patents that are similar in nature to I View It pursuits that he learned from
us is criminal and perhaps already costing us lost revenues that he himself may
be making. I must disclose this stuff to all legal bodies, I am open to
suggestion or feel free to help, and to the current shareholders and
investors. How to cope?
This may help you understand why things were
not getting communicated properly
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian G. Utley
[mailto:brian@iviewit.com]On Behalf Of Brian G.
Utley
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000
1:45 PM
To: 'Becker, Steven C.'
Subject: RE: Patent
Application
Eliot's data is
correct. Will have the Zack andd Jude
data on Tuesday.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Becker, Steven C.
[mailto:SBecker@foleylaw.com]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000
8:48 PM
To: Brian G. Utley (E-mail)
Cc: Boehm, Douglas A.
Subject: Patent Application
Brian:
Please provide a full name
with middle initial, home address, and
citizenship information for
Zach and Jude. Also, please confirm the
following for Eliot:
Citizenship:
Thanks,
Steve
NOTE: The information transmitted in this
correspondence is intended only
for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or
privileged material. Any review,
retransmission,
dissemination or other use
of, or taking any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is
prohibited. If you receive this correspondence in error,
please contact the
sender and delete the
material from any computer.
And then we see
Your message did not reach some or all of the intended
recipients.
Subject: RE: Patent Application
Sent: 5/30/2000 5:55 AM
The following recipient(s) could not
be reached:
SBecker@foleylaw.com on
5/30/2000 5:56 AM
The address specified does not
exist. Please check the address and try
again.
dns;FLINETMAIL.HAL2000.iviewit.com failed 5.1.0
EXHIBIT
8 – The case of the patent attorney who files patents similar to ideas he
learns from his clients
This is also the same
attorney who loses our first patent and many attorney’s have now confirmed that
he has “missed the boat” on our filings, costing the company a fortune to try
and repair and we now find some of it can never be repaired. He loses our video patent in January or so
and he is filing own
After you read Ray’s
original work, look at these excerpts from our Business Plans
BP 1998
Sound a bit like Joao ads patent
Custom
Web page & Advertisement Creation - iviewit's team of ad consultants will make it easy for your
company to have a first-class, top quality virtual reality web page. In
addition, through our "email-to sale one click system, buyers can contact
you directly from your advertisement or product via live web video
teleconference.
20. SERVICE BUSINESS ANALYSIS
The ad business consists of thousands of smaller ad agencies and
individuals, for every one of the few dozen well-known companies.
Advertising participants range from major international name-brand
clientele to millions of individual PC users. One of iviewit's challenges will be establishing
itself as a global advertising virtual community, positioned as a relatively
risk-free, value added, corporate or individual purchase.
Note that this can be
used for political services as well!!
Benefits of iviewit for Personnel
Services - including employment, modeling and casting searches.
o Global screening of qualified candidates from an
increased pool
o Videotaped candidate resumes further aid the selection process
o Live video conferencing of candidates to maximize selection process
Well we can’t
get to the future of this with Joao’s patent around us!!
15. FUTURE SERVICES
In the future, iviewit will broaden its scope of business to Europe,
iviewit's initial core businesses will be:
·
3-D sales & resale's of real-estate
·
3-D sales & resale's of high end luxury items
·
Interactive Employment Services
·
Employer Search
·
Modeling Agency
·
Casting Agency
·
3-D on line booking of hotel and resorts and related travel services
·
Online live dating & personal ads
·
Design, setup, implementation and management of 3-D sites
·
Corporate advertising
·
Banner Advertising
·
Corporate Internet Alliances
PROACTIVE
email marketing packages
iviewit represents a pivotal transition in
global E-commerce. Current E-commerce
occurs across a one-dimensional plane, websites are simply brochures posted to
the web. Products are bought and sold
using flat lifeless pictures and text. iviewit technology is remarkably different
in that the product comes alive, offering the user the capability to inspect
all dimensions of the product being advertised, integrated with full voice
overlay's, and a live videoconference feature whereby buyer and seller can have
live interfacing. iviewit's technology can be applied to an
unlimited number of product lines.
And some stuff from the sites
Ray and Ken were seeing as early as 11/98
|
|
Objective: |
Seeking an opportunity in the television and advertising industry, where I can enhance my modeling and advertisement opportunities.
|
Skills: |
Attended NY Baby Modeling school and became certified at age 6 months.
|
Professional Experience: |
1998 to Present
Kraft Foods Baby Model
· Modeling and advertising for Kraft Cheese & Macaroni TV and Advertisement ads.
· Participated and won BABY of the year contest.
· Attended many shoots for both TV and Advertisements.
·
Professional
training on the job and with independent agents
ID# 000000721
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Seeking a permanent position within a professional organization
Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint, Lotus, ACT, 75 WPM, Fluent in Spanish
·
1987 to Winslow Hall Advertising, Inc. ·
Executive Assistant to President. · Handle company budget, utilizing Excel. Create spreadsheets on Excel for several officers expense reports. · Negotiate all vendor contracts, such as phone, office equipment, etc... · Work with clients as contact person on Presidents behalf. · Work with agents to help promote and market strategies to current and prospective clientele. · Was promoted twice within the organization. · Supervise several administrative staff members ·
Coordinate all appointments, travel arrangements
and hotel accommodations. |
LEXUS
| DASHBOARD | | ENGINE | | Back |
lexus (dash)
| Back |
THE iviewit
VIRTUAL MALL
The virtual
mall offers unlimited possibilities as it is under perpetual construction and
expansion. The mall is designed to accommodate an infinite array of
products. Each floor is dedicated to the
fulfillment of a consumer's needs in a specific industry or product cluster.
Floor 1 is dedicated to Real
Estate. Available on this floor are
storefronts offering residential real estate, commercial real estate,
mortgages, insurance, moving &
shipping services, relocation services, furniture rental, career center, city
guides/local info, credit center, auto center, temporary housing, travel
services, rentals, self storage.
To sample iviewit's real estate view
Floor 2 is dedicated to Personnel. Available on this floor are storefronts
offering resume posting, job postings, iviewit assisted placements, modeling, casting, career
center, moving & shipping services, and relocation services.
To sample iviewit's PERSONNEL VIEW
Floor 3 is dedicated to Luxury
Items. Available on this floor are
storefronts offering, boats, yachts, ships, airplanes, helicopters,
automobiles, credit center, insurance, art, antiques and furniture.
To sample iviewit's
LUXURY ITEMS VIEW
Floor 4 is dedicated to Travel and
Travel Related Services. Available on
this floor are storefronts offering, booking services, airlines, hotels, time
share, vacation destinations, rental cars, insurance, limousine services,
restaurants and events.
To sample iviewit's
TRAVEL VIEW
Unique
iviewit
website features and benefits common to all floors:
v
v Virtual world websites versus
current websites designed with static, flat pictures and text
v v Global marketing and database of properties, items and personnel
v v Live onsite interaction between buyer and seller via iviewit's
powerful "click-and-connect" videoconferencing.
v v iviewit allows the user to
control his viewing environment by zooming in and zooming out with up to 1700x
distortion-free magnification in a virtual 360‹ panorama.
v v Users are empowered with the ability to view an unlimited number
of related products resulting in tremendous time and travel savings to
potential buyers and sellers.
Specific
benefits to the Personnel Floor:
v v Global screening of qualified candidates from an increasing pool
v v Videotaped candidate resumes further aid the selection process
v v Live video conferencing of candidates to maximize selection
process
Products
& Services
iviewit's
product is it's Patent Pending process for creating enhanced digital
images.
Existing
website product display technologies have been limited by speed and size causing frustration to the end user and
limiting a website's ability to adequately depict products. iviewit's technology
has been applied in the world's first virtual-reality mall in which all objects
will be seen as close to realism as possible.
iviewit's revolutionary process is a
quantum leap akin to the change from black and white television to color, iviewit HAS RAISED THE BAR!
Management Summary
iviewit has assembled a
collection of talent with outstanding sales, management and technical
backgrounds well networked into target markets.
v
v Simon L. Bernstein - Chairman of the Board
v
v Eliot Bernstein, President
v
v James Osterling, West Coast Regional Co-Director
v
v James Armstrong Northeast Regional Director
v
v Guy
v
v
v
v
v
v Judy Rosario, Head of IT Management & Audio/Video
Production
v
v Zakirul Shirajee, Website Engineer
v v Patricia
Daniels, Head of Photography
The following video files were a
revolution. They were scaled down and
played back in full screen frames from 37Kbps they looked perfect, just like
you see them here when played back full screen, on these just right click on it
and go full screen and it will in fact play better than full screen encodes
which don’t play at all. At this time
Ray and Chris were telling everyone to keep the video hush hush until we had
all the provisional applications done. We had developed this far earlier than
what is originally disclosed to the public on the video. It was a download, captured and encoded with
a different intent than prior art, the art of human psychological perception
and a bit of magic. These and then our
streaming versions fooled the best of the best engineers from all walks, up
until after we taught them what was going on.
Management
Team
Mr.
Bernstein has pioneered the development of proprietary life insurance products
and has formed two companies to facilitate the sales of these products. Mr.
Bernstein, in 1972, founded S.B. Lexington, Inc. to facilitate the sales and
marketing of his unique and copyrighted VEBA 501 (C) (9) trust. In 1983, Mr. Bernstein invented the
Copyrighted Arbitrage Life Payment System, which is a unique leveraged single
premium life insurance product for high net worth individuals. From the ground floor up, Mr. Bernstein
developed for both companies a national sales and marketing network, which now
account for over $800 million in life premium sales.
In order to
bring these products to market, Mr. Bernstein needed to establish relationships
at the client level, as well as the life carrier level. Due to the nature of the Arbitrage program,
and the need to secure premium financing, Mr. Bernstein has also developed
strong relationship with domestic and international lending institutions. These products have led to relationships with
such prominent corporations as; Lincoln Benefit Life/Allstate, First
Transamerica Life, Allianz, ABN-AMRO, Bank of America, Chase, &
Norwest.
Mr.
Bernstein's career in the life insurance industry began in 1965 when he became
the top producer for Aetna Life and Casualty Company. He has remained in the top 5% of life
insurance sales agencies since that time.
Mr. Bernstein is currently a qualifying and life member of the Million
Dollar Round Table. He has appeared
before the
Eliot
Bernstein has owned and operated SB Lexington, SW Insurance Agency since 1983.
The Company was formed while attending
the
Mr.
Bernstein is responsible for the creation and implementation of a computer
based, fully consumer integrated, multi media, website & CD-ROM for sales
and marketing of the Arbitrage Life Payment System (ALPS). In addition, he created the corporate office
computing systems for STP and SB Lexington. These systems include all back
office tracking and database management systems, currently handling over $800
million of accounts. From his experience
developing the
Gerald Lewin
has been a certified public accountant since 1973 and is licensed to practice
in the states of
Mr. Lewin
received a Bachelor of Science degree from
Mr. Lewin is
a member of both the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the
Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
James Osterling is a managing director of the Saybrook
Residential fund. Prior to joining
Saybrook, Mr. Osterling served as the Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice
President for California Pacific Homes (Cal Pac), a major
Mr. Osterling has dedicated his career to
financial management and capital market transactions in the real estate
industry, commencing with his employment at Arthur Andersen & Co. as senior
tax consultant specializing in real estate and tax shelter partnerships. He has over twelve years of experience as
Chief Financial Officer in the real estate industry. As CFO, Mr. Osterling has structured,
negotiated, and administered corporate borrowings in excess of $500,000,000 and
sourced and closed project level debt and equity financing with a combined
transaction value exceeding $400,000,000.
Mr. Osterling has acquired and obtained financing for portfolios of
distressed properties purchased from lenders, regulatory agencies, and from
debtors in possession in bankruptcy court with a transaction value in excess of
$200,000,000.
Mr. Osterling received a BS degree in Business
Administration from
Jim Armstrong has owned and operated The
Armstrong Group, Ltd. since 1982. The Armstrong Group is a financial planning
and insurance consulting and sales firm targeting the corporate executive and
high net-worth markets. Jim has
demonstrated success in virtually all areas of sales, administration, sales
management and business management and is accustomed to delivering results in
all phases of sales growth and expansion.
He has demonstrated success in the development of long-term business
relationships directly with clients and with financial intermediaries and is
accomplished in the use of high-end, sophisticated computers for developing
sales aids, presentations, tracking portfolios and general automation and
efficiency.
While operating The Armstrong Group Jim worked
with Prudential Securities as a specialist in Retirement and Financial planning
serving a ten state region and over 800 securities brokers. He was responsible for the marketing,
promotion and development of Qualified Plan business and Investment Management
Services business (money managers).His success in this regional role led to his
appointment as the National Sales Manager for Prudential Securities' Primary
Client Services division. In this role
he was responsible for directing the sales effort for the firm's retirement
products, financial planning capabilities and central asset account. Jim was then appointed as the National Sales
Manager for the Prudential Securities Life Agency. He was responsible for building the
infrastructure for this start-up venture.
He developed marketing materials, formulated policies and procedures and
recruited and supervised a national network of planning specialists.
Jim is
a graduate of
Jill B.
Mrs.
Mrs.
Mrs.
Guy
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
ANDREW
R. DIETZ
Executive
Vice President, Hotels & Resorts
Mr.
Dietz is currently an executive in a licensed travel agency providing all
travel related services to the entertainment industry (commercial airline
ticketing, hotel and resort reservations and ground transportation). His
clients include: concert touring artists, celebrities, wealthy individuals and
executives. Mr. Dietz has also been a
principal in an aircraft charter brokerage business arranging private aircraft
to individuals and groups within the entertainment industry.
Mr.
Dietz brings to iviewit a high level of
expertise and start-up skills within the travel and entertainment
industries. Since 1980, Mr. Dietz has
been developing and maintaining strong relationships with key target iviewit customers. He will
responsible for coordinating and overseeing the national hotel and resort
division for the company.
Mr.
Dietz was formerly an auditor with Arthur Andersen, and is a graduate, summa
cum laude, of
Andrew Dietz, age 42, has been involved in the transportation industry specializing in the movement of high value, time sensitive equipment primarily focusing on entertainment industry ranging from film and television productions to concert touring productions for 15
years. In addition, Mr. Dietz has been an Principal/Executive in a licensed travel agency since 1980, providing all travel services,(commercial air ticketing, reservations for air, hotel, train and auto services) to concert touring artists, entertainment industry executives, celebrities and other wealthy individuals who require a very high level of service and personal attention. Mr. Dietz has also been a principal in an aircraft charter brokerage business since 1980, a business which arranges private aircraft for charters to individuals or groups in the entertainment industry ranging from Lear jets to 737's.
Mr.
Dietz was formerly an auditor with Arthur Andersen & Co., and is a
graduate, summa cum laude, of
Mr. Rosario
is currently the
Mr. Rosario,
in conjunction with Mr. Shirajee, have developed the technical systems to bring
iviewit
technology to a functional working website.
Mr. Rosariofs information technology experience will be leveraged to
oversee all website technology initiatives.
Mr. Rosario holds a Masters Degree
in Sociology Computer Architecture and Database Management. He holds expertise in Novell Netware
Administration and Microsoft NT Administration.
Mr. Shirajee
currently works as a computer programmer for the
Mr. Shirajee
has been involved with the creation of iviewit web design and infrastructure. He will serve as Chief Website Engineer and
work in conjunction with Jude Rosario to implement and support the iviewit website.
Patty
Daniels is currently one of
Patty will
head iviewit's
photography department bringing several distinct advantages to iviewit photography. Her expertise in the areas of panoramic
interior photography and lighting will
ensure superior quality for iviewit's Internet images. Patty has photographed multi-million dollar
homes for Premiere Estate Properties, a publication of Sothebyfs International
Realty. Ms. Daniels will coordinate both
photography and video responsibilities with web engineering and development
staff.
Capital Requirements
iviewit
will seek to forge strategic alliances and partnerships. Simultaneously, iviewit is seeking a
Venture Capital partner.
Investor Exit Strategy
1. It is the Company's intent, in due time,
to offer the shares to the public market.
2. The Company may entertain offers
from public or private companies for acquisition or merger.
3. It is the Company's
intent to pay profits out of the Company to the investors and principals in
proportion to their respective shares.
The Board of Directors will determine the amount of distribution to it's
investors.
Litigation and
Potential Liability
The Company is
not currently involved in any litigation nor does it have any knowledge or
information regarding any pending litigation or claims that may adversely
affect the Company.
HERE JOAO HAS 50
PATENTS, VERY BUSY SINCE MEETING US
DOING BUSINESS WITH LAW FIRMS -
FROM ELDERLY TO INTERNET: LAW'S NEW DOMAINS - FIVE PEOPLE TO WATCH
Publication: Newsday
Featuring: James M. Wicks
As Society is changing, so is the business of law. On one hand, there is a
growing interest in elder law, because of the “graying” of Long Island, and on
the other, a need to help companies deal with the new world of high-tech.
More and more law firms are adding technology
litigation departments to deal with such things as intellectual property,
patents, Web sites and domain names – involving legal concerns that did not
exist a few years ago.
The
“We’re seeing a lot of more high-tech cases than ever
before involving patents, patent infringment, domain disputes, trademarks and
copyrights. It’s an explosive sector of law right now,” Joao said. Also, the
patent office is amenable to business method patents and software patents. “The
fact that you can improve on pre-existing patents can allow [more people] to
get patents.”
The use of businesses and executives using personal
computers has meant that the volume of cases has increased dramatically in his
field, he added.
It’s an industry that people are trying to get in,” he
said. “If you have a computer, you can do it. This area is explosive.” Joao is
also an electrical engineer and inventor who has been awarded about 10 patents and has about another 40
to 50 patent-pending inventions. He also has an MBA from
HERE JOAO HAS 80 PATENTS
Raymond A. Joao
Raymond
A. Joao joined Dreier & Baritz LLP in 2001 as Of Counsel to the
Mr.
Joao is also currently an intellectual property management consultant for various
start-up software, telecommunication, Internet and e-commerce companies. He
regularly directs new business and intellectual property development efforts;
negotiates contracts; drafts license agreements; performs due diligence in
mergers and acquisitions; assists in the preparation of business plans,
executive summaries and other corporate documents; conducts competitive
analysis studies; aids in the formulation of litigation strategies; and assists
in capital raising efforts.
Notably,
Mr. Joao is the inventor of 10
issued
Prior
to joining Dreier & Baritz, Mr. Joao was head of the Intellectual Property
Department at Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Schlissel, P.C. in
Mr.
Joao obtained a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering in 1982 and a
Master of Science in Electrical Engineering in 1984 from Columbia University
School of Engineering and Applied Science. He received his law degree in 1990
from
Mr.
Joao is admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of
e-mail: rjoao@dreierbaritz.com
EXHIBIT 9 – More on the Case
of Walking Patents out of I View It and to your home
In the attached documents you will
find that Brian submits to Foley and then Foley to USPTO General Appointment of
Agents. On one he signs as he should as
President of I View it, although not sure why he is on these patents, and on
the second he submits himself, with his home address, with no I View It
title. Later Foley folly's end up with patent 122&123 going to his
home, with no signature as officer of I View It, no other inventors and finally
no assignments filed on behalf of I View It. Remember the entrusted
overseer of our patent pool is Brian's friend Bill Dick of Foley & Larders. You make the call.
Exhibit 10 – Case of the Mismatched File Numbers on filed
patent documents aka the cover-up
Note that the filed document has smudges that pick up better
on scan on the application number 57103-111, not so bad in and of itself, it is
just weird how on the bottom it references 57103-114 and US is written above.
Under forensic scan what we have looks bad but we should get this along with
all documents, as filed at the office as a comparison. Scanned originals would
be best for forensic comparison at no less than 600 dpi color. Remember it is
57103-111 that has Jude disappearing to be replaced by Utley.
The files that were
transferred by Brian has smudges and cross outs abundantly throughout his
transition from Jude to him as applicant. This looks very scammy.
Exhibit 11 – Case of the changing patent title
Here we have evidence that on
6/1/2000 a day before filing to the USPTO a copy of what appears to be my hand
notes prior to filing and you again clearly see Jude and Zakirul were the
intended inventors. What else this shows
is that on June 2, 2000 the name of the application changes to Streaming vs.
Providing, a major difference completely against all we had talked about and
perhaps limiting us. Who changes the
title?
Exhibit
12 – Smudges & Fudges on 57013-112 and how to add your name to inventions
that were invented without you
Note the smudges on the filing number 
Exhibit 13 – Case of the
very fake fax and the fraud on patent 5865-2 begins
This is a critical piece of
evidence in showing how we lose 5865-2 and the fax although it looks so
innocent reeks of disaster. First the
header is all cut up on the copy from Ray and look at the font used in 01 and
02. Notice the lack of cover page
information, I threw in a 3rd and 4th page of this exhibit that is
not related but for use as comparison methodology. There is no footer on this cover but there is
an incomplete reference number on the lower right side, which typically is not
on their fax covers. Note that it is
page 1 of a 1 page fax according to the cover, yet the cover asks one to refer
to the attached, which would of course make this a 2 page fax which is why we
have pages 001 and then 002. But
to one skilled in the art the 002 page number at the top is a different
font than 001, in fact it is italic type and thus the 0 stands out vs. 0. Not a copy error a font error. Page 1 and 2 have different reference numbers
156067.1 and 199193.1.
This is a critical fraud error as
it explains the Case of Missing patent 5865-2.
HERE WE HAVE A BIG
PLURAL REGARDING THE APPLICATIONS
HERE WE HAVE A BIG
PLURAL REGARDING THE APPLICATIONS
Comparison Doc
Comparison Doc
Taken from page 1
Taken from page 2
Taken from page 2 of comparison
Those
are perfectly scanned and even
Exhibit
14 – Case of changing fonts again
The type
font from the original copy and the following copy’s typeset is different,
which is quite odd for copies, whose handwriting is this??
These are close-ups on the two supposed copies but copies normally do not have different fonts, nor for that matter do similar documents.
mind you this is supposed to be COPY!
Happens
on other applications in this evidence folder and may indicate 2 separate sets
of documents were in existence for these patents in 2 different type fonts
Case
15 – What was and what is not
Following
is a case study in patent document fraud.
This document was taken from Joao in the midst of him changing the
filings in our back lab and us catching him.
What follows is excerpts on part of we gave him and authorized him to
file and what he actually ended up filing.
What was
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention provides an apparatus and a method for producing digital images which overcomes the shortcomings of the prior art. The apparatus includes a camera, which can be a conventional print film camera, digital camera and/or digital developing device, which can be any device or collection of devices for developing the image taken by the camera, into an enlarged print film image or a digital image, and an enlarging device, for enlarging the image. A digital camera can also be utilized to obtain the image. If the image is taken with a digital camera, a print image may be obtained from the digital image. The image can then be enlarged. The image may be enlarged without the need for a print set.
The apparatus also includes a computer and associated peripheral devices for performing the various processing routines of the method of the present invention. The apparatus also includes a scanning device, for scanning the print film image or photograph in order to obtain a digital image representation of same.
The print or digital film image, which is obtained by the camera, can be developed by the developing device, and enlarged by the enlarger. The image print may then be scanned by the scanner in order to generate a digital file or other high quality image extension file. A plurality of these digital files can then be stitched together thereby creating a panoramic scene or image.
The computer may be utilized in order to perform touch-up operations on the obtained image or image collection in order to make refinements and/or enhancements thereto. The image can then be converted from a high resolution image compression extension file to a low resolution graphic or video image extension file.
The resulting file may then be processed so that the image represented therein can be displayed and/or posted for display to a host computer or other suitable device.
The above process can be repeated using different photo depths for any of the obtained images, or portions thereof, in order to create areas of higher resolution for closer inspections of these areas at different image depths.
Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide an apparatus and a method for providing enhanced digital images from print or digital images.
It is another object of the present invention to provide an apparatus and a method for producing digital images, from images, which have improved and enhanced resolution.
It is still another object of the present invention to provide an apparatus and a method for producing digital images, from print film images, which are suitable for display and/or downloading to a digital computer, a television, a telecommunications environment, and/or any other communications environment.
It is still another object of the present invention to provide an apparatus and a method for providing a digital image which is characterized by effective image compression subsequent to a stitching operation, thereby avoiding any dramatic loss in image quality.
It is another object of the present invention to provide an apparatus and a method for providing a digital image which disperses with the need to compress the image data.
It is yet another object of the present invention to provide an apparatus and a method for producing digital images which are characterized by high definition resolution, and which are suitable for high definition television, Web television and large, full screen, panoramic internet applications, without loss of resolution upon image magnification or reduction.
It is another object of the present invention to provide an apparatus and a method for producing and transmitting digital images in a network environment which dispenses with the need for plug-in software.
It is still another object of the present invention to provide an apparatus and a method for producing digital images which facilitates high speed file transfer in a network environment and/or in a computer environment.
Other objects and advantages of the present invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art upon a review of the Description of the Preferred Embodiment taken in conjunction with the Drawings which follow.
WHAT IS
Exhibit
16 – Case of bad math from an “engineer” and two certified engineers at Foley
and Lardner, this is hours before filing, and the inventors have never seen
these documents
Now after being corrected
on math they file with the USPTO the wrong math again
Now after being corrected on math they file
with the USPTO the wrong math again
…and then the
correspondences
First follows his response for our requesting that investors needed to be notified and that we wanted in writing a risk assessment of any potential liabilities and costs to remedy. But the façade was crumbling, rumors were abounding that these were not the only patents we had but others that these guys might have been writing into a Utley’s home. If you understand the moment, caught with their bad math and with missing claims and claims that they to missed the boat and forgot the image applet like they accused Ray first of doing and the camera. So, when we hire them they tell us none of that is in the patents and then they not only miss the boat, they park it in Brian Utley’s backyard and title it to him, so as you read this smear campaign understand fully the situation he was in.
OK Now My Reply
OK now Jim Armstrong’s
Reply and after this you should listen to the tapes of Foley’s Folly’s.
Jim’s
comments in red.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Jim Armstrong [mailto:jarmstrong1@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 8:44 AM
To: Eliot.bernstein@verizon.net; Caroline@cprogers.com
Subject: Boehm redlined doc
Importance: High
LOS ANGELES
F F OLEY OLEY & L
& LARDNER ARDNER
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
TELEPHONE (414) 271-2400
FACSIMILE (414) 297-4900
EMAIL ADDRESS
daboehm@foleylaw.com VIA E-MAIL
August 9, 2000
WRITER’S DIRECT LINE
(414) 297-5718
E S T A B L I S H E D 1 8 4 2
A member of GlobaLex with member
offices in
001.834676.2
Mr.
Eliot
Founder and CTO
Re: Correspondence and Issues regarding
PCT International Patent Application entitled
“System and Method for Providing an Enhanced Digital Image File”
Filed: August 2, 2000
Inventors: Bernstein, et al.
Our Reference: 57103/120
Dear Eliot:
Pursuant to your e-mail instructions sent Friday, August 4, 2000, I forwarded a
notebook to you containing a copy of all correspondence relating to the above-referenced
patent filing. Furthermore, pursuant to your request during the telephone conference of
Friday morning with Steve Becker, the following describes what occurred during the
preparation of this application, any errors made in the application, how they were made, what
risks are involved, and how the errors can be corrected.
Overview
Before discussing the details, I would like to put things into perspective and
comment on the magnitude of the errors and the extent of their repercussions. I believe that
the errors in the filed specification are of a very minor, technical nature, which can be readily
corrected in the various patent offices in due course, and which will have no negative impact
whatsoever. The errors in the math will not affect our priority claim back to the August 2,
1999, provisional application, because the math examples were not originally in there. As
Steve explained during the Friday teleconference, the worst thing that could happen is that we
could lose the benefit of priority for the mathematical examples for a short period of time,
i.e., from the August 2
nd
filing date to the filing date of a continuation-in-part application
which could be prepared and filed this month, if we decide to do so. In my opinion, the entire
CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED
Foley & Lardner
Mr.
Eliot
August 9, 2000
Page 2
001.834676.2
situation surrounding these errors has been overstated, and your concerns expressed during the
Friday teleconference are unwarranted.
Correspondence
In order to explain exactly what happened, the following paragraphs set forth a
brief description of the enclosed correspondence surrounding the preparation and filling of the
PCT application, and points out where and why the errors occurred. The numbers below
correspond to the tabs in the correspondence notebook.
1. July 21, 2000, Letter from Steve Becker to Brian Utley
This letter encloses the “Zoom and Pan” invention materials on which the
above-referenced PCT application is based.
2. July 24, 2000, 4:44 p.m., E-mail from Steve to You and Brian
This e-mail summarizes the recent conversation regarding the zoom and pan
invention, and sets forth our strategy for preparing and filing the application.
3. July 24, 2000, 5:02 p.m., E-mail from Steve to You
This E-mail attached a copy of the previous letter Steve sent to Brian on
July 21, and asked you for any additional comments you may have.
4. July 25, 2000, 7:35 p.m., E-mail from Steve to You and Me
This e-mail just confirms the time for the next teleconference for discussing the
patent application.
5. July 26, 2000, 3:01 p.m. and 3:06 p.m., Letter from Steve to You and Brian
This letter encloses the first draft of the PCT patent application and the inventor
information sheet. The letter says that Steve will call both you and Brian at 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time that day.
Note that this first draft includes several blank spaces, question marks, and
comments indicating where Steve thought that additional support was needed.
6. July 27, 2000, 11:43 a.m., Fax from Brian to Steve
This
fax, sent from Kinko’s in
encloses the first examples of the mathematical formulas and a single Example that will be
added to the first draft of the application. Note that Brian originally defined the source image
aspect ratio (siar) as the height over the width.
Foley & Lardner
Mr.
Eliot
August 9, 2000
Page 3
001.834676.2
7. July 27, 2000, 2:07-3:45 p.m., Fax from Steve to You and Brian
This fax includes only the nine pages of the application that were revised,
including the background section and claims.
8. July 28, 2000, 4:56 p.m., Letter from Steve to You
This letter encloses the second draft of the patent application, which includes
additional disclosure received from Brian. Since Brian was still on vacation, Steve asked you
to make a copy of this letter and draft for Brian’s review.
Note that in this second draft, that Steve’s comment on page 13 points to an
inconsistency between the math formulas and examples provided in this draft versus Brian’s
macro Excel spreadsheet output.
9. July 31, 2000, 8:43 a.m., 9:27 a.m., and 1:45 p.m., E-mails from Brian to
Steve
Here, Brian sent Steve three different versions of the imaging math formulas
and examples. Note that the aspect ratio is still being defined as height over width.
10. July 31, 2000, 3:58 p.m., E-mail from Steve to Brian and You
This e-mail acknowledges receipt of Brian’s three versions of the imaging math
formulas and asks whether the latest e-mail is inclusive of all prior changes. Steve states that
he will now amend the specification of the PCT application based on this latest mathematical
formulas and examples.
11. July 31, 2000, 7:09 p.m., Fax from Steve to You and Brian
Steve faxed you the third draft of the patent application. Steve asked for
comments as soon as possible, but in no event later than 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, August 2,
which is the day that the application had to be filed.
12. August 1, 2000, 7:38 a.m., E-mail from Brian to Steve
This e-mail confirms that the last e-mail included all the changes to the imaging
mathematics.
13. August 1, 2000, 7:42 a.m., E-mail from Brian to Doug
In this e-mail, Brian forwarded the July 31 e-mail to me, including the latest
imaging mathematics.
Foley & Lardner
Mr.
Eliot
August 9, 2000
Page 4
001.834676.2
14. August 1, 2000, 8:30 a.m., Copy of Brian’s Comments
This document shows Brian’s comments on the second draft of the application.
Brian gave this marked-up version to me when I was at your offices that morning.
15. August 2, 2000, 9:06 a.m., Fax from You to Steve and Me
This document sets forth the changes made to the third draft of the application
by
the
basis of our telephone conference from 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. that day. Note that this is the
first time Jim provided his comments to us. Also note the extent of the comments, which, at
this late stage in the process when the application had to be filed that same day, caused me
some concern. During our teleconference, it became clear that we were revisiting old topics
and decisions we previously made with you and Brian in the previous drafts of the application.
Particularly note the extent of the mark-ups on the imaging mathematics beginning at page 11.
A significant amount of time was spent discussing the particulars of the math formulas
between Brian and Jim, and we all agreed that Brian would modify the math and examples and
send them to me. Note that when the call ended, the source image aspect ratio was still being
defined as height over width (see page 11).
16. August 2, 2000, 5:49 p.m., E-mail from Brian to Me
This e-mail attached the latest modifications to the mathematics and examples
that Brian said he would send me. Note that this is the first time the aspect ratio is defined as
width over height, since, in response to my pointing out the inconsistency between
photography versus computer display aspect ratio conventions, Brian determined that it would
be more consistent to express the math in the patent application in accordance with the
computer display convention. This version of the imaging mathematics is what I used as the
basis for the final draft of the patent application that was filed that night.
17. August 2, 2000, 9:39 p.m., E-mail from Me to Brian (at home) and You
This e-mail contained two versions of the same document, which represent
where I was in the editing process at that time. The first document was in Word version
6.0/95 for Brian to be able to read at home. The second version was in Word 97 as usual.
Note that my e-mail told you and Brian that you could send a copy to Jim if you want.
As you can see, I was fighting the clock since the application had to be on file
before midnight that night, and I had to allow sufficient time to drive to the airport post office
to obtain the filing date. Note that, beginning on page 13 (of the second version), and through
to page 18, the imaging process mathematics and examples are set forth substantially in
accordance with Brian’s latest revisions. However, the digital example, beginning on page 22,
had not yet been edited to pick up the change in aspect ratio convention. Also note in this
Foley & Lardner
Mr.
Eliot
August 9, 2000
Page 5
001.834676.2
draft that independent claim 1 has not yet been changed to make the user interface element a
dependent claim.
After additional discussions with both you and Brian that night, you both gave
me the verbal “okay” to file the application. We obviously did not have time to let all three of
you review it again before it was filed. At that time, it was all I could do to finish making the
changes you requested throughout the day. I did that. I then briefly checked over the final
documents, worked with my foreign filing coordinator to prepare the formal filing papers, and
drove
to the airport post office. The PCT and corresponding
properly filed that night.
18. August 3, 2000, 11:55 a.m., E-mail from Me to Brian, You, and Steve
This e-mail simply confirms that the applications were filed last night, and that
copies would be forthcoming.
19. August 3, 2000, 1:35 p.m., E-mail from Brian to Me
This e-mail from Brian, thanking me for the “supreme effort to get the job
done,” was appreciated.
20. August 3, 2000, 2:47 p.m., E-mail from Me to You and Brian
After being informed that you wanted a copy of the application right away, I
sent this e-mail attaching the Word document for the PCT application as filed. The e-mail
clearly says that the drawings didn’t change, which meant that you already had copies of the
drawings from the previous drafts. I could not e-mail the drawings, and I thought since you
already had a fax copy, this would suffice. I also said I would send full copies next week.
This Word document does exactly represent what was filed in the PCT that night.
21. August 4, 2000, 11:34 a.m., Fax from Jim Armstrong to Me, copying You and
Steve
This facsimile contains eight pages from the filed PCT application, which have
been marked up to show what Jim believes are either typographical errors or improper formula
expression. This fax was apparently the basis of the telephone call between you, Brian, Sy,
Jim, and Steve on Friday. Each one of these purported “errors” will be discussed in detail
below.
Friday
Teleconference
In your extended teleconference with Steve Becker on Friday, of which I was
not a participant, you made several inaccurate statements, accusations, and remarks regarding
the errors in the application and, in general, the proficiency of Foley & Lardner’s services.
Foley & Lardner
Mr.
Eliot
August 9, 2000
Page 6
001.834676.2
Now that I have had the opportunity to review the tapes of the Friday teleconference, the
patent application, and the application correspondence set forth above, I would like to explain
exactly what errors were made, how they were made, why they were not caught, and what
issues they raise. Although Steve did a masterful job of trying to educate you on the
fundamentals of patent law in an attempt to put the errors in perspective, Steve was not
involved in the preparation of the final draft of the application and so could not be expected to
know how these errors arose.
Discussion
of Changes
Please refer to the August 4, 2000, 11:34 a.m., facsimile from Jim Armstrong,
which can be found at tab 21 of the correspondence notebook.
(1) Page 12, line 27
Although this is not an error, and Jim did not mark it as such, I want to point
out that the formula “tiw=squareroot (tia*sir)” uses the word “squareroot” instead of the
square root symbol. Either way, this formula is correct, and provides sufficient basis, in my
opinion, to correct subsequent errors in this formula, particularly where they don’t make
sense.
I do recall Brian mentioning, late Wednesday night, that a square root symbol
was missing. I understood his comment to mean that I used the word “squareroot” instead of
the square root symbol in this line of the application. I might have told Brian I would fix this
in the final draft, but I probably ran out of time. Nevertheless, this is not an error. In fact, I
am thankful that I did not remove the word “squareroot” intending to insert a square root
symbol which may have been forgotten in the rush.
(2) Page 13, line 7
The minimum scan density (msd) is defined here as “msd = tih/sih” (target
image height over source image height). This is mathematically equivalent to “tiw/siw”
(target image width over source image width), which is apparently what Jim and Brian want it
to be for consistency with the last-minute change in aspect ratio convention. I agree. This
formula can easily be changed to read “msd = tiw/siw = tih/sih,” particularly because of the
equivalency. It is my opinion that this is a very minor technical change, it should not be
considered an error in any sense of the word, and I don’t believe we will encounter any
problems changing it in both the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the
World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) where the PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty)
International applications are filed, searched, and, optionally, examined. Recall that the same
patent
application was filed as both a PCT and
Note
that this is the first time anybody pointed out a problem with this equation. (note: This equation
was expressed correctly in the draft that was reviewed because the aspect ratio
was expressed at height over width. This
equation became erroneous when the aspect ratio convention changed and a
corresponding change to this equation was not also made)
The same equation appears in the previous drafts which you reviewed, and no reference to
Foley & Lardner
Mr.
Eliot
August 9, 2000
Page 7
001.834676.2
correcting this equation appears in Brian’s latest imaging process mathematical spreadsheet.
Therefore, your accusation that Brian made this change with me, and it’s still wrong in the
patent, is, itself, wrong.
The best-case scenario, which I predict will occur, is that the USPTO and
WIPO will permit me to make a preliminary amendment to the specification to make this
change. In the worst-case scenario, the USPTO or WIPO will consider the change to be
impermissible new matter, and the equation will have to remain as it was filed. In that case,
there is an extremely remote chance that someone, someday, could argue that the
inconsistency could cause the patent to be invalid for lack of enablement, i.e., that the
specification does not “contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and
process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any
person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or which it is most nearly connected, to make and
use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out
his invention.” (35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.) However, I highly doubt that such a minor
inconsistency could warrant such a drastic effect, especially since the mathematics itself isn’t
claimed.
(3) Page 13, line 19
For consistency’s sake, “viw=vwh*1.25” should be changed to
“viw=vih*1.25”, even though the previous line states that “vih” and “vwh” are equal to each
other. Again, I would consider this a minor technical modification to a mathematical example
that is not necessary for validity of the patent. Nevertheless, I think that we will be able to
make this minor correction in both the USPTO and WIPO without any problem or
repercussions. Not only is it simply a more preferred way of stating the same mathematical
value, it is supported in the terminology of Examples 2 and 3. It is also an obvious
inconsistency which would be known to those skilled in the art.
Note that this inconsistency appears in the latest version of Brian’s mathematical
formula spreadsheet under Example 1, which was essentially cut and pasted from his
spreadsheet into the patent application shortly before it was filed. I did not have time that
night to double-check all of the mathematical formulas.
(4) Page 13, line 23
The square root symbol is missing over the expression “2,560,000/0.8”. This
is an oversight on my part. The square root symbol does appear in Brian’s Excel spreadsheet.
I simply cut and pasted the text from Brian’s Excel spreadsheet into a Microsoft Word
document. Apparently, when this occurs, the square root symbol disappears. I simply did not
have sufficient time to double-check all of the math.
Foley & Lardner
Mr.
Eliot
August 9, 2000
Page 8
001.834676.2
As mentioned above, I do recall Brian mentioning, late Wednesday night, that a
square root symbol was missing. However, I thought he was referring to the word
“squareroot” on Page 12, line 27, and not here.
I now see that Jim also discovered this error on page 14 of his marked-up third
draft. I did not see it at the time, because I did not go through, line-by-line, all of Jim’s
changes to the math since Brian was going to revise it anyway. Furthermore, I could not rely
on
all of Jim’s mark-ups as the basis of the changes, since they appeared to
me to essentially
be the mathematical scratchpad he used in trying to understand the invention. It would have
made no sense to follow all of his changes. (Note: There should have been no need to decipher my notes since all changes were thoroughly reviewed during our 5 hour conference call. To say that you did not go through everything line by line completely ignores the fact that a complete review of the mathematically omissions was performed during our conference call.) Furthermore, Jim missed other changes that Brian
and I
caught later that night. (Note: This is a cheap shot. Everyone on the conference call agreed that
the changes that I made should be made – in fact, Doug even praised me by
saying “Good Catch” when referring to some of the corrections to the improperly
expressed math. Any changes that I “missed”
were no doubt attributable to the last minute change in the way aspect ratio is
defined. It is disturbing to me that a
fundamental change in the way our mathematical implementation of our invention
is expressed is made in the 11th hour – why?)
Once again, I do not believe that this “missing square root symbol” error is of a
major concern. I believe that it would be considered a typographical error in the math, which
can easily be corrected in the USPTO and WIPO by a preliminary amendment. Support for
such a preliminary amendment is found at page 12, line 27, where the same formula appears
correctly stated using the word “squareroot.” Furthermore, any person skilled in the art
would realize that 2,560,000 divided by 0.8 does not equal 1789 as set forth in the description,
but that the square root of such a quantity would make the equation correct.
Again, let me discuss a worst-case scenario. If, on the remote chance that the
USPTO or WIPO determines that the addition of a square root symbol is not a simple
typographical error but instead constitutes new subject matter that cannot be added to the
specification, we would have to determine at that time the proper course of action. First, such
a determination can be appealed if we believe it is warranted. Second, the entire Example 1
can be stricken from the application if we feel that the remainder of the specification provides
sufficient enablement for the claimed invention, and that leaving Example 1 in the
specification without the square root symbol somehow takes away from enablement. Third,
we can file another patent application in both the USPTO and WIPO, with the corrected
formula. This would ensure that we would only lose priority from August 2 to the date of the
filing of the corrected application. Since this mathematical example isn’t in the original
priority documents, it cannot be said that we would lose any benefit of priority from the
original provisional applications.
I do not agree with Jim’s argument that the missing square root symbol makes
the entire patent application so difficult to understand that correction would be needed to apply
the math to create the image. (Note: The comment that the omission of the squareroot symbol made the patent difficult to understand was made in reference to the digital image process where the formula on p.18, L.28 does not include reference to a squareroot. P.18 is a discussion of the digital image process; the formula on P.12, which includes the squareroot, refers to the analog process. Since there are definite differences in the overall math between digital and analog, it cannot be assumed that the formula on P.12 can be substituted. As a first time reader of this patent, I thought that the absense of the squareroot in the formula on P.18 was a fundamental difference in the approach – this confused me until I was able to identify the omission as an error in the formula, not an intentional deviation from the analog process.)Steve’s counter-argument is directly on point: if correct math
was required to create the image, then the August 2, 1999, provisional filing would be
essentially worthless for lack of enablement, because it has no math. I simply do not believe
that perfectly correct math is required for enablement.
It is my opinion that there is no need to file a corrected application as a
continuation-in-part to remedy the situation. I plan to file a preliminary amendment in the
Foley & Lardner
Mr.
Eliot
August 9, 2000
Page 9
001.834676.2
USPTO and WIPO to correct the formula, which I believe will be accepted without an
argument. I have successfully made changes of similar scope by preliminary amendment in
both the USPTO and WIPO without encountering any problems. If I am proved wrong, and
we decide not to appeal, I still think there is little downside risk in leaving the application as it
is. In fact, I believe that there is more risk involved in filing a continuation-in-part application
to correct such minor errors, since it could be argued that such a new filing constitutes an
admission against us that the addition of the square root symbol is new subject matter.
(5) Page 13, lines 23-25
Since the aspect ratio convention was changed at the last minute, these three
formulas should have been changed to precisely correspond to that convention. However,
with the addition of the square root symbol in the formula in line 23, the three lines are
actually correct as set forth in the patent application, but somewhat inconsistent with the new
convention. (in other words, these formulas were wrong and inconsistent since the squareroot symbol was omitted) Moreover, the final number result is identical to that which would be obtained by
reversing the formulas as now requested. Once again, I believe that both the USPTO and
WIPO will permit us to change these formulas to make them consistent and easier to read.
Note that, with the exception of the square root symbol disappearing as
discussed above, these formulas were cut and pasted from Brian’s latest Excel spreadsheet (so the absence of the squareroot symbol was Doug’s oversight and the inconsistency in the formulas was Brian’s mistake),
and appeared as set forth here in the 9:39 p.m. application draft sent to you and Brian.
(6) Page 13, line 29
The viewing window stated as “320 x 240 pixels” should read “480 x 320
pixels” as set forth on line 14 of the same page. This was simply an oversight by all of us.
Neither you nor Brian caught the mistake in the second draft sent July 28th (at page 13) or the
third draft sent July 31st (at page 14), and Jim also missed it in his August 2nd mark-up. I
missed
it also during my final edits. (Nevertheless, Jim was
still the only one who caught this error – why isn’t anyone else reviewing
every line of the patent with the same critical eye?)
Once again, I believe that this would be considered a minor typographical or
technical error, which can readily be corrected in both patent offices with a preliminary
amendment. It is clearly supported at lines 14 and 15 on the same page of the patent
application. The reader would know that this is an obvious typographical error, and
correcting it does not constitute new matter. On the other hand, if somehow it does not get
corrected, I do not believe that this error would render the patent invalid for lack of
enablement.
(7) Page 14, line 6
I agree with Jim’s suggestion that the width and height be stated here, as was
done in Examples 1 and 3. Again, I do not believe this is a major concern, and I think we will
be able to add the width and height labels with a preliminary amendment. It is clearly
supported elsewhere in the specification. Note that this oversight could have been caught by
Foley & Lardner
Mr.
Eliot
August 9, 2000
Page 10
001.834676.2
you
or Brian (or Doug) before filing, since it
appears the same way on page 16 of the 9:39 p.m. draft. (Note that this was caught by Jim as evidenced by his notes on the
draft – it was also mentioned during the conference call – yet still not
changed in the final submisson.)
Nevertheless, this is a very minor point, which will have no affect whatsoever.
(8) Page 14, line 17
Again, the square root symbol is missing, but this time the formula itself does
not need to be changed other than adding the square root symbol. See my previous comments
regarding addition of the square root symbol.
(9) Page 14, line 27
Here,
“400w by 360w” should read “400w by 360h”. This is an extremely
minor typographical error,(why are errors tolerable at all?) which can readily be corrected by preliminary amendment. This
particular error should have been caught by all of us a long time before the filing date, since it
also
appears in the third draft.(IT WAS! Jim caught it in his review of the 3rd
draft and it was discussed on the conference call!)
(10) Page 15, line 6
Once again, the square root symbol is missing, but the underlying equation is
otherwise correct. Refer to my previous comments regarding addition of the square root
symbol.
(11) Page 18, line 28
Again, the square root symbol is missing. This example provides even a
stronger argument that omission of the square root symbol is a typographical error, since the
exact same formula is stated correctly on page 12 at line 27 using the word “squareroot”.
Again,
refer to my previous comments regarding the omission of the square root symbol.(Again, one cannot assume that the process of handling a
digital file is the same as for an analog file especially in light of the fact
that there are distinct differences in the process and the math. These differences are evidenced by L.30, P.18
where the result of the formulas on lines 28 and 29 can be overridden.)
(12) Page 19, lines 2, 3, and 23
According to the Friday discussion between Jim and Brian, the question arose
whether the minimum scan density should be stricken from these lines (since it doesn’t add
anything and could possibly confuse the reader), or whether it should be left in there, but with
the addition of a new sentence that states that minimum scan density is not required since we
are dealing with a digital image. Brian and Jim agreed on the latter.
This time, however, I don’t agree and I recommend that we do not make such a
change by adding a sentence. There is much higher likelihood that the addition of such a
sentence would trigger a new matter rejection. Furthermore, it may contravene any argument
we have that all of the changes to the specification are simply typographical errors in very
technical formulas and do not constitute new matter. The addition of such a sentence in this
example could be a red flag. The only way I would recommend adding such a statement
would be if you could show me that it was clearly supported elsewhere in the specification.
Foley & Lardner
Mr.
Eliot
August 9, 2000
Page 11
001.834676.2
Otherwise, I think that the statement “minimum scan density equals N/A” on line 23 says the
same thing, and is actually an important part of the teaching of this example to instruct the
reader that scan density is not a concern with a digital image.
If you don’t agree that leaving the language in is the appropriate thing to do,
then I would be willing to try to amend the specification by striking the minimum scan density
language in this example. At least there is a harder argument that the patent offices would
have to make if they were to hold that removal of this text represents new matter or renders
the specification non-enabling.
No matter what we decide to do on this point, it is also minor concern.
(13) Page 19, line 10
Changing “0.75=0.75” to “1.33=1.33” (where did this error originate? Was this cut and pasted from Brian’s final math document?) should not be a problem, since it is
fully supported in the previous lines of that example. The mistake is obvious, and we would
not be adding new matter to make the change. I believe that this can also be done by a
preliminary amendment in the USPTO and WIPO.
(14) Page 19, line 15
Again, the square root symbol is missing, but the equation is otherwise correct.
Refer to my previous comments regarding the square root symbol.
Summary
As you can now appreciate, the application as filed was not “completely wrong”
as you first thought. True, Brian and I changed the math at the last moment to improve the
readability, which I believe was successfully accomplished. Even if I had time, I could not
have
entered all of Jim’s last-minute comments and corrections myself, because
they were also
wrong.(I don’t appreciate being made the defacto scapegoat with this statement. None of my changes were wrong. Quite the opposite – all of my changes corrected previously incorrect items in the filing which up until that point had been either authored or reviewed by Doug, Eliot or Brian. Any one of these people may be wrong, but my changes were not wrong!) We mutually agreed to let Brian take another pass and correct the math. He did. I
took his work and pasted it into the specification. Unfortunately, the computer “ate” the
square root symbol, and I didn’t catch it. You had an opportunity to review it, and you didn’t
catch it. Brian had an opportunity to review it, and, if he did catch it and mention it to me,
then I must have misunderstood him. Both you and Brian gave me the verbal OK to file it.
Looking back, I think Brian did an outstanding job of changing the aspect ratio conventions at
the last minute. I think we ended up with a much-improved patent application than we had
with the third draft.
No matter how these “errors” arose, I believe that they are all of a minor
technical and typographical nature, and that corrections can readily be made by preliminary
amendment in both the USPTO and WIPO. Regarding the timing for making the preliminary
amendments, I do not believe there is any rush. Even if there was, we would have a problem
Foley & Lardner
Mr.
Eliot
August 9, 2000
Page 12
001.834676.2
in making such amendments now without filing an entirely new patent application in both the
USPTO and WIPO.
In the USPTO, for example, it is not standard practice to file any amendments
before we have received the filing receipt and application number. Otherwise, there is a very
good chance the amendment will be lost in the Patent Office. Furthermore, there is essentially
no rush to file the amendment, so long as it does not include new matter. We can also wait
until
after the first office action. Furthermore, we will not know whether our
preliminary
amendment
will be accepted until the Examiner reviews the amendment during examination,
which
may not occur until a year from now.
Similarly, in WIPO, the PCT rules do not even allow us to file a preliminary
amendment to amend the specification until the PCT Chapter 2 demand is filed at the
19-month point (seven months from now). Again, even then, we won’t know whether the
PCT Examiner accepts the amendment until months after that.
Conclusion
As I stated above, I believe that the “errors” are of a very minor, technical
nature, that they can be readily corrected in the various patent offices in due course, and that
they will have no negative repercussions whatsoever. I think there is very little risk in waiting
a few
weeks to file (How do we file an amendment in a
“few weeks” if a preliminary amendment in WIPO is not permitted until “seven
months from now”. Furthermore, the fact
that “we will not know whether our preliminary
amendment will be accepted until the Examiner reviews the amendment during examination,
which may not occur until a year from now”
is precisely the reason why we are upset that there is a need for an amendment
at all!)
a preliminary amendment, and very little advantage in filing all new
applications to make these corrections. Since the math was not in the original provisional
patent applications filed by Ray Joao, there can be no loss of priority claim for that subject
matter.
I hope you can now appreciate why I think that your fears about these “errors”
are exaggerated, your accusations that we didn’t follow your directions (directions given during the 5 hour conference call were not followed in their entirety) are unfounded, and
your
criticism of Foley & Lardner work product is unwarranted.(Perhaps the approach Eliot took was harsh, but the fact
remains that there were errors and as such, our criticism of your work is
warranted)
Of course, if you have any questions or comments on any of the above, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Douglas A. Boehm
cc: Brian G. Utley
Simon L. Bernstein
William J. Dick
Steven C. Becker
After this letter Brian moved to fire Jim
Armstrong and they had to try and destroy the company in order to cover this
foul play up and they have not given up since.
Including Doug’s smear campaign, Brian launches a destruction play he
tells me Chris and Mike will help him with and this is in fact the nature of
every single act since.
Exhibit 17 – Crossbow Disgust
letter
Sat 10/20/2001 4:21 PM
Bruce T. Prolow (E-mail); 'Donald
G. Kane II (E-mail)'; 'Eliot Bernstein (E-mail)'; 'Gerald R. Lewin (E-mail)'; '
Croobow Investments
Gentlemen,
I am very confused by the recent
turn of events for I View It. I am
unclear of why you have you pulled the plug on the company you had promised to
finance throughout this re-organization and move into licensing agreements with
AOLTW, Sony and others. You have
been made aware by Aidan that through his discussions with Greg Thagard of
AOLTW, that royalties could be paid in advance and that AOLTW was willing to
look at making an investment in I View It's technologies. The revenue streams projected by Aidan from
his discussions with the studios becoming enormous in just a few weeks, when we
get the patents approved. This seems a
strange time to pull the plug, any explanations?
It appears that after you received
Zafman's opinion letter regarding the patents strengths, knew you had a Fortune
100 Management team in place for the AOLTW, Sony meetings, had AOLTW as an
account, had technical validation of the patents from the AOLTW advanced
technical team that you met with in W. Palm, you saw the light at the end of
the tunnel and through a BK or whatever you are forcing us into, have stacked
your cards with Securitized notes with friends of yours like Ross & Maurice
who were running the company for you. It
appears you are trying to heist the jewels.
You have led both me and the folks
at AOLTW to believe that you were going to get the company positioned for these
licensing and investment meetings.
Instead, I find from the new guy Larry Mondragon that you brought on,
that it looks like instead of this pre-packed, half baked BK, that you guys
concocted to wipe out the shareholders, you in fact would come out stealing the
company from all those who built it.
After speaking with Larry Thursday, he informed me that he really did
not represent me, that he represented Crossbow since they "ran and
controlled the company and made the decisions for the company." He said that his plan he developed with you
and presented to you in
I was dumbfounded and still cannot
believe that you, my trusted investors would have conspired in this
fashion. But it appears to look true and
since Aidan and Larry have been working exclusively with you and your team to
develop this business plan, I was horrified and stunned last week when I saw
the fruits of your efforts, a BK with you and cohorts on top. Force the company into BK and steal the
assets, that's what you had management prepare.
I trusted you when we restructured your holdings a few months ago
so that you would have a big percent, but you promised me I did not have to go
out and seek more investment since you would finance the operation from that
point, put in new management, raise any additional funds, and that we would be
OK through the AOLTW, Sony, Movie Fly negotiations and the patent approval
process.
Well your true colors showed when
you promised the employees and your new management team that the money was in
the mail for our payrolls, insurance, etc. and then cancelled out the
financing, leaving everything in a drastic state of 2 months behind on your
payments, employees unpaid, insurance cancelled on people at the hospital
without notice. You told Aidan to fly
out to West Palm and
This seems criminal to say the
least, and then Larry told me Thursday, that it was a "perfect plan"
for Crossbow since you had securitized your loans it would be like stealing
candy from a baby. He also informed me
that the only people who would come out ok in the new company were you and your
friends; Chris Wheeler my attorney and your old friend who introduced us (and
is now the largest single creditor), Brian Utley who Chris brought in as
trusted management, Mike Reale Brian's IBM friend, Foley and Lardner Brian's
friend, Maurice Buchsbaum your ex-employee, Ray Hersh Maurice's best friend,
Aidan and Larry. It appears that all my
advisors, who I believe have fiduciary responsibility, are the ones that are
trying to force us into bankruptcy to come out with the assets on the other
side. All the people who built this
would be wiped out. I am not a lawyer
but all this smells funny, especially running the company and management into
the ground with this surprise at the end.
I am unsure of our recourse at
this point as shareholders since your management team is no longer employed
because you have refused to pay them and finance the company at this
point. I am confused why you do not
return a call as to your position with respect to the AOLTW meeting yesterday
and what Crossbow would be willing to do to induce investment. I sure hope this was not the only
business plan you have been working with Aidan, Larry and Ross on. What happened to the business model of going
to AOLTW with a restructured plan that offered the shareholders something?
I went to AOLTW on behalf of the
company yesterday to appeal for some help from them. I did not have any answer from either Hank or
Steve as to what I could represent from your side. They have offered to have an investment
decision in 4-6 weeks understanding the current strain you are placing the
company in. I also, was unable to
respond to our ability to maintain our accounts with them, but did inform them
that the company run by your new management, had not paid rent in over two
months, which was promised by your management to the building management as
being paid and checks were cut. I
believe that we have our accounts with Aidan who you have been depositing money
into his new account but I have no powers over this so I am unclear as to
balances and bouncing checks, etc. I
also told them the patent work we did that they may invest in was
now at risk due to the failure of Crossbow to provide the promised capital
and several decisions they (the Crossbow management team) have made
with Crossbow.
AOLTW and Sony have made you aware
on several occasions (your trips here and theirs to you) that the technology is
good and in use and that it would have great potential in many markets. I think they too feel that you have led us
all down a road one way and in this disgusting move to leave the company high
and dry and pull your loans as we default on the interest, that this looks and
smells like a rat and you are trying to steal away the assets.
I am unsure why you would pull
this at this moment other than to fail to pay the interest on your secured
notes, force the company into BK and steal the assets with the creditors, your
friends, to come out ok on the other end.
Seems strange that you have securitized the notes, and switched fence on
secured credit from unsecured and right now only a few weeks away from patent
approval and validated revenue streams which could amount over 20 years to
billions, you are strangling the company with your friends and ex-employees.
Best regards,
Eliot
Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Vice Chairman
eliot@iviewit.com
I-View-It Technologies, Inc.
505 North Brand Boulevard
Suite 1420
Glendale, CA 91203-2308
Voice:
818.545.1444
Fax:
818.545.1440
Cell:
310.600.4645
Home\Work:
310.265.1730
www.iviewit.com
Blessed are the geek:
for they shall inherit the earth! Gatthew 5:5
NOTE: This e-mail
transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages
attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the
information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED and not very polite. If you have received this transmission in
error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail or by telephone at (818)
545-1444 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without
reading or saving in any manner or just format your hard drive.
Workin for the
five-day weekend!
Powered by www.thoughtjournal.com
Where every thought counts.
Upgrade Your Brain!
Exhibit 18 – How to have your son claim someone else’s
son’s ideas when you are an investor in that Company, and by the by, is I View
It confidential information Hank’s normal diner critter chatter under strict
NDA
Note that the kid is very clever in designing the name of
his viewer the VIEWIT viewer.
and more to boot with this
little son of a son of a *(*&^*&#*^&
and more to boot with this little son of a son
of a *(*&^*&#*^&
Zak, please call me when you have a moment to discuss these issues 310.265.1730 or 310.600.4645.
Eliot
-----Original
Message-----
From: Zachary Powell [mailto:sapro@assimilation.org]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:00 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Imaging technology
The link I enclosed was related to the SightSound (http://www.mp3.com/news/162.html, sorry I had the wrong link). From the press I have seen, they don't appear to be making much headway ...
In regard to the gentleman who invented stickits, the difference that may arise is whether the invention is nonobvious or not. This is a rather subjective stage of the patent process which is very hard to evaluate. I would of course call the stickit nonobvious (even though it is now a household item for a good number of years), but given that I've been zooming in and out of images with graphics programs for a little over half my life I would not call an this image viewing technique nonobvious. The trouble is, I am not the average computer user (strange as I doubt the Adobe engineers are either).
I agree that overscaling images may not have been previously used on websites, but my interest in the previous message was how this related to print material. As I said, if one were to open a 150-300dpi acrobat document that was embedded into a webpage then much the same result would be created: an oversize image that may be viewed at multiple zoom levels. The only difference I can see here, is that the original intention was not to trick the viewer but to provide a document that would print out and full resolution. The zoom is merely a additional feature that is useful for viewing the document on screen before you print. As your patent is intended to be applied across software/hardware platforms, were I to add a print feature to the imageviewer I showed you earlier I would essentially have a different concept. It's primary intention would be an imageprinter that shows a preview image on screen which happens to have a zoom feature (to make sure you had opened the right document). It would still be possible for the "french drop" to occur at this stage, the only reason one could not conceive of it happening with acrobat is that it is not packaged as a trick (one expects the resolution as it is for print material).
So hypothetically, were a real estate company to offer high resolution pictures of rooms to print that had a zoom feature, would it be violating the patent?
Also, could you explain the proprietary nature of your video encoding process. Again, as far as I can see it is no different from the way I've been encoding to Realmedia formats since they related either encoder so it is hard to see how it is independent from the way others are encoding. When it was first explained to me last year I was under the impression that included some form of pre-filtering similar to the way redundant data in mpeg2 is removed for dvd, but I can see no sign of this in the patents which merely outline a basic method of Play, Capture, Edit, Encode, and Post (allowing for all possible combinations of hardware, software, and settings). Doesn't this put a patent on encoding video full stop, and if so, how would it be nonobvious given that all of the technology used is designed (at least partially) for that specific purpose. Also, if this is in fact what has been patented, how does it produce better quality video than all of those other encoding companies that are violating the patent.
Sorry for taking up so much of your time with these minor points, but Hank places a lot of faith in my judgement and I don't want to constantly be the source of the negative view point if I am merely missing part of the process.
Zach.
----- Original Message -----
From: Eliot I. Bernstein To: 'Zachary Powell' Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:48 AM Subject: RE: Imaging technology
Zachary,
The idea could have been implemented years ago, the plain fact seems that no-one ever thought of this idea. Simple it is once you learn what is happening, but without that knowledge it appears that no-one had ever thought of this combination of elements to achieve this result for 2D images projected on any screen i.e. camera's, TV's or computer screens. Parts that we did not claim to invent were zooming, applets or scanning, but it the order and combination of the elements to achieve the desired result that we patented, not the individual parts, this is the fundamentals behind a process patent. If it was inevitable why had it never occurred? The reason I believe it never occurred was that fundamentally the critical path for embedding images into frames was to size and create the virtual image at an equal size to the viewing window, I believe this practice would have gone on for infinitum had I not blown up an image to oversize. I was unable to follow the link you enclosed, but I can reference that downloading a file is probably patented by one or more groups, but if you download it using our scaling technique, I do not think anyone had ever thought of that and again that is what we have patented.
Again, on intellectual property issues the argument is similar to sticky pads. You would assume that the gentleman who invented these had no rights to his idea. He did not invent paper, he did not invent glue and he certainly did not invent stacking. Yet when you combine those elements, you get a result that if copied pay royalties to the one who thought of combining the elements to create a process that yields a result. We are not claiming to have invented the zoom element embodied in programs of the past, and I nor any of the hundreds of engineers who were shown this process, had ever seen anything like it on a screen before, all of them had been working in imaging programs such as adobe for 20-30 years and were fascinated by the invention, including guys like your father who had been looking in computer screens for years. It's like a magic trick, you are fooled until you know the answer than you are never fooled again, and the "French drop" becomes obvious, for the whole affect is changed because you understand the elements that compose the trick and the process to get the result.
Another example is the InterVu patents. Simply the concept of redistributing files to the closest server. Again, here we have a guy who invented nothing other than a process for moving files around to servers closer to the user. This patent was awarded and Akamai paid 2.7 billion on day two. Another example SightsSound which simply has the patent on downloading movies for pay across a communication environment. Take a look at the deals they are collecting on and who their partners are fast becoming. Let me ask a final question, if it was so easy, and everybody like adobe had already had it, why was nobody using it to achieve this result in their virtual touring software, adobe software packages or any other imaging program??
As for licensing of the processes we have developed it appears that all hardware and software applications that utilize imaging or video may have applications.
Eliot
-----Original
Message-----
From: Zachary Powell [mailto:sapro@assimilation.org]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 6:03 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Imaging technology
So it is the concept of the oversized image that is the primary factor, showing an image high resolution in a low resolution environment to create the effect of higher quality. How does this differ from print material? There are many sites such as JStor.org that offer highresolution scans of periodicals in acrobat format that allow digital zooming - basically digital microfiche archives. They are set up in much the same was as this because acrobat opens the document to fit the screen by default and so one has to zoom into the image to read the text. In some sense this is of course happening in reverse, they had a high resolution image and zooming was a necessary by product of that due to screen resolution, but it seems that in a transition from print to digital culture this is an inevitable development.
I mention this because I am reminded of the case a year or two ago of the company that patented "selling downloadable media" (http://search.mp3.com/bin/search/?hpcgi2) and tried to get royalties from a number of sites that were doing this (as well as some, like mp3.com that weren't). I believe the company still exists, but I doubt it will ever be able to enforce the patent (which many people believe merely exists due to the patent office's inability to keep up with the times). What is your argument to enforcing intellectual property rights on this technique, if people make a case around similar highresolution viewing programs such as Acrobat that have been enlarging images since the early 1990s.
Zach.
----- Original Message ----- From: Eliot I. Bernstein To: 'Zachary Powell' Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 9:39 PM Subject: RE: Imaging technology
It appears on first inspection that in fact you have found that the same oversized image in the viewer will result in "digital zoom" no matter the program or viewer, be it a camera or TV or computer screen. The concept may be the exact same, the program or the applet utilized may be different. I am unclear as to what to compare?
Eliot
-----Original
Message-----
From: Zachary Powell [mailto:sapro@assimilation.org]
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 3:57 PM
To: eliot@iviewit.com
Subject: Imaging technology
Eliot,
Hank and I were discussing your imaging technology this afternoon and he showed me some examples on this page http://www.iviewit.com/TechnologyShowcase/DigitalImaging/hotels.asp which are very similar to a image viewer I made last spring using Macromedia Flash (http://www.saprophyte.org/zoom). From what I can see they utilize the same principle, though mine lacks a few features that I never got around to implementing. Could you explain the advantages of your system? From what I can see they produce comparable results (though trying to compare different images is obviously highly subjective).
Thanks, Zach.
Exhibit 19 – How to steal an applet, first act, Brian
invention at home is 2nd attempt after this is foiled
Proskauer, Brian, Mike and
.
Now the document provided by
Proskauer to Foley, mysteriously with no heading on the stationary, when this
was presented to me I flipped, it appeared to say that we somehow had joint
ownership of the applet. This appeared
to be stealing by a subcontractor using our own attorney??
More frightening is that Ryjo, a subcontractor
under Real3D/Intel/SGI/Lockheed has already trademarked the applett under his
own name as if he owned it.
Exhibit 20 – Cleaning
up the mess of Utley Folly’s with Foley
Billing Company for applications
to Brian and to his home as sole inventor, what were the dates we end up
throwing away because we write them into other applications with Blakely. Have to pay Blakely to redo what Foley did,
which should have been in company’s patents from Joao, fails to make it in
(applet and camera app) to Foley apps, end up in Brian’s name billed late to
Company.
Exhibit 21 – Cleaning up
Joao’s mess with Foley
One year after knowing us Brian is
criticizing the work on patents he has done with Ray, Ray after this still
misses the boat on applet and zoom and pan in filing. Fails to say what happens after posting to
website. How do we know work is
incompetent? We end up filing 5865-1
still missing boat and then 5865-10 is filed wrong. And finally Blakely recommends further a
NOT SURE WHERE THIS GOES, CAN YOU TELL FROM THE DATE
This next bill from Meltzer is notable in that these are for legal services
previously rendered but not billed. Ray
is trying to lose his billing records as he later destroys his notes. Not sure other than Foley about these firms
that forget billings or just don’t bill because they are doing us a favor. We had to call Lewin who was calling Joao
because all the billings suddenly were missing and Jerry claimed not to have
them, this is what he got.
Exhibit 22 –
Another case of adding oneself to inventions one did not invent
From this you can see the clear intent of inventorship
should have been Eliot & Jeff, I argued many times that Zakirul and Jude
should be on since it encompasses using our other process of scaled video
combined with remote control user interface great for medical and monitoring of
patients in similar Joao patents. But
most surprising is how Brian ends up in the filing as an inventor.
Exhibit 23 – Utley
Employment Agreement and Non-Compete Excerpts
For a good laugh 
Excerpts – Full doc available
UTLEY IS NOT, WAS NEVER CEO THIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT APPEARS A FAKE, THE SIGNATURE PAGE OF THIS DOCUMENT APPEARS FAKE AS THERE IS NO DATE AND THIS DOCUMENT WAS PROCURED FOR A PRICE FROM MR. WHEELER!
What follows here is a very suspicious signature page with Brian in all caps, Eliot in lowers and no dates, witnesses, etc. Note no title either. Even refers to date above but it is missing. Since no corporate documents were transferred to the Company with completed signatures, and since Chris Wheeler persists on not forwarding us any of our missing documents, until his nitrous inflated bill is paid, for documents on fundings and things we don’t have copies of, all because of his fine management choice his friend Brian Utley, has destroyed all corporate transactions.
EXCERPT’S FROM UTLEY NON-COMPETE, HERE WE HAVE ANOTHER
PROSKAUER DOCUMENT FOR BRIAN AND NOTE THE DIFFERENCE AT SIGNATURE TIME, THIS IS
WHY WE ARE TRYING TO GET THE PROSKAUER SET OF DOCUMENTS THAT THEY REFUSE AGAIN
AND AGAIN TO TURN OVER
GUYS SIGNATURE LINE LOOKS VERY STRANGE HERE,
NOTE THE DIFFERENCE IN SIGNATURE PAGES FOR THIS AND HIS EMP AGREEMENT
Exhibit 24 – Case of the lost
patent 5865-2 and how this becomes a general file, remember Ray must lose a
patent regarding video dated much earlier when he is filing patents similar,
and now this is what he creates in his infinite wisdom to put in the
folder. Other references reference 5865
as the general folder earlier and then say it was not opened until June 3, when
5865-1 was already created. This starts
a synchronization error that carries forward in his spreadsheets that can’t
count for our patent portfolio.
The excerpts that follow mainly come from the folder that was supposed to be 5865-2 from Ray, I will let you judge the contents 1 by 1. Not sure how the company ever got his original files??
Case 1 - In the next example you see how Ray completely loses his fax etiquette as this piece is a masterpiece in insanity. Look carefully and you will see 1/99 on the date with no other fax information other than the number 561.999.8810 which cannot exist in January of 99 because we have not moved in to that office with that number. So he will want you to think this date was supposed to be 1/2000. The difference is major and this document tries to deny that their were patents pending prior to 6/99 when we finally get a video patent. The difference in his fax cover to other fax covers is so vast that I am not sure what he will claim. He loses his bills for this period and then there is barely a whisper of communication left before he magically files on 3/99. This fax would tie him to multiple patents prior and so this appears to be a document he threw in with wrong dates, etc. to sell his story. On the fax header you will see 1/13 as in 1/13/00 and the fax is 1/12/1999, maybe the fax and computer were having a y2k problem???
Case 2 - Here Jill Zamas and I are both
confused here, so is
Case 3 - THIS ILLUSTRATES THAT THEIR GENERAL FILE WAS 5865 (NOT 5865-2)
Case 4 - Now call me strange but this next Fed’x letter makes no sense. It is supposed to be a Fed’x of all the provisional applications. Now it would stand out that on this correspondence Ray claims to have dictated but not reviewed the attached letter. Normally, we would find the letter to Gayle starting on page 1, not page 2. Further to be picky, Ray claims that the Fed’x is RE: Provisional Patent Applications.
Now in page 2, in the letter to Gayle, he states “transmitted herewith”, which is fax lingo versus “enclosed” which is fed’x lingo but the letter addresses the assignments not the applications. Under encl: at the end of the document we find that instead of referencing the enclosures, which would be the patents and the assignments, we have, and I quote “dictated but not reviewed.” Seems like a logical enclosure.
I believe we should dig deep deep here for more, this document and the many that will follow all show that the documents look altered, it looks like they are trying to erase knowing me in the 11-98 through 3/24/99 period and they are doctoring the documents.
Case 5 - ..and then finally a year later
5865-2 shows up as an assignment folder for assignments that are numbered per
patent as part of those folders.
Case 6 = Here is a sampling of the fax covers
or fax cover-ups of the documents in 5865-2 folder in chronological order, what
you will note is that the cover page format is in a constant state of matching
the fax or is filled with new transmission report headers and that the
numbering of the faxs and these will be dated in order, are not chronological
or logical. None of it makes sense other
than as a cover-up file.
Fax 1 – Note that the transmission
header from Eliot is on 2 of the 3 pages, page 1 of Ray’s fax is missing, yet
it has part of his header under my supposed header. My header is normally only on the first page,
and the time is blotted out but it says that I have received it at ?:20PM, yet
it is being transmitted at 12:51pm, that would indicate that a 3 page fax took
29 minutes at the least to transmit? , my fax header clearly indicates that the
transmission only took 1min11sec?
Fax 2 – This is a fax that is supposed to
be on 6/7/99 regarding a retainer Agreement that is supposed to be the
following 2 page letter and then the retainer agreement of 4 pages. Page 4 starts with a new document than the
cover page indicates and an Engagement Agreement is printed at top and then the
letter references a provisional application in the RE spot for 5865-4.
The fax transmission has 2 transmission report headers. The top transmission is clocked at 16:34, the
middle tx report box states 16:33, not major but watch for how the times will
slowly grow vary apart. It does not add on pages transmitted either 05/05 (which seems odd too)
7 are transmitted and no other pages have fax header info.
Fax 3 – This fax is unbelievable as well, transmitted to Lewin on the same day. Here we gain some real confusion with time
stamps. The top time stamp is 14:14, the
middle header states 14:12 and the document was printed on the same day
2:48pm. Somehow that time frame does not
work with the document being transmitted before it is conceived. Now to add some folly (not Foley) the top tx
report states 05/05 pages and the header letter states 7 on the same page. The remote station that this is transmitted
too is my home fax number, yet the fax is headed to Gerry Lewin at Lewin &
Rubenstein (note this is not the name of his firm Goldstein Lewin LLP is) and
maybe this was a fax to his bud Rubenstein.
7 or 5 pages should be attached, we have 2.
Fax 3 Part 2 – Now stuffed into another folder we found the following fax which appears
to be the fax you just saw with all the pages.
But once again nothing adds up.
Note no transmission TX report.
Page 1
Top TX Time = 14:12 and a new header that has a
blank from line, a transmission stamp of 608 and this time, for the first time we find page numbers on all the
transmitted pages, something you will not see again in his faxes.
Note the differences in the fax TX header here and in the
last example, these should be carbon copies but what you note is that they are
not!!!!
Note how
he cuts and pastes pieces of the header on the 2 documents including the
account number.
Cover
Note that the TX
states 01/05 pages, we will not see this again, normally 05/05 even on page 1,
YET the cover page says 7 pages including cover. The transmission completes with page 05/05
and then two unidentified pages are attached that have no stamp to try and make
it look like 7.
Note that the bill
attached to this part versus part 1 is
complete.
Note how on this next
page the reference number is 5865-10 which is not even created until 2000 according
to Ray and has a patent in it. 6/7/99
5865-10 could not be existing since that is the PCT filing of 5865-1. This 5865-10 folder is very suspicious
here!!!
Note no letterhead on the item
Fax 4 - Now this fax tx is brand new from the prior and a different machine and
account altogether. So the header states
a time of transmission at 15:27 on 7/1 and the cover letter states that it was
printed at 3:35pm on 7/1, again we have transmission prior to conception by 7
minutes, wait it get’s worse. The tx
states 5 pages sent ok and the cover document indicates 5 pages including
cover. Yet 6 pages are attached, either
the tx report can not count or the cover page can’t. We will see in the following docs, lots of
this wrong numbering.
Fax 5 - On this next 7/1/99 fax to Stuart Kapp we have the new TX header
is timed at 15:29 and the document is printed in the future at 3:37, 2 pages
are attached.
Fax 6 – We are faxing the same document as the last 3 documents but this time to
Simon Bernstein, the consistency appears (and be cautious here) in the message
of the similar faxes in the spelling mistake donot instead of do not. But the TX header is now going to change
again, again we get 3 time stamps.
Top TX – 15:05
Document printed at 3:36pm, again this raises ?’s. 05/05 pages are listed as transmitted, 2 are
attached.
Fax 7 - Next in this folder is a fax with 3 times stamps
Top TX stamp 12:05
Letter is time stamped 12:36, how does this occur that you print it at
12:36 and transmit at 12:05, we are now 31 minutes apart.
The TX report states 05/05 pages and the cover page indicates 5
including cover, yet 6 are transmitted.
The Engagement agreement that is attached has no Meltzer Lippe
letterhead on it as the others have????
Now what is really bizarre is that the fax is dated 8/2/99 and yet the
spelling mistake donot carries over in the message on the cover page, and yet
again on the 8/4/99 fax. A month has
gone by and he either consistently can’t spell or he will say that it was a
mistake in a template and that will not work for other reasons to one skilled
in the art.
Fax 8 - OK this next one is another masterpiece. Sent 8/4/99. We have a completely
new TX style at the top which indicates a date, time, and page number 001. This is 2 days after the last fax from Ray to
Stuart.
Top TX – 16:42
Cover page time 4:53, again this seems problematic.
On page 3 of the fax we get some more headers and footers at the top and
bottom
top it states a day 8/10/99 (strange how this could be transmitted on
8/4/99 at 05:02p with my name and number and page 3
2nd new top is Proskauer stamp of 8/10/99, again in the
future and page 04/07
on the bottom of 3 we have a new footer dated 8/4/99 at 16:55 page 02
Finally on page 5 it appears that no-less a new header is covered over
under Proskauers
Note none of the page numbers for any of these match up or make any
sense or end or start on the right numbers.
Most strikingly we have a tx on both the TX page and Cover page that
claim 5 pages attached and this time we have 5 not 6 pages attached.
My signature is attached to the fax as well and dated the 10th.
Again, the donot spelling mistake stays with us.
Fax 8 part 2 - has
behind it the engagement agreement which could explain if switch the cover
pages of the last with the agreement a more logical connection but the headers
and number of pages again will make no sense.
But you now have 6 pages transmitted and not 5.
Fax 9 – We have a fax from Ray to Lewin that is very interesting to note in
that it is 4 pages that is supposed to be attached, what is attached is two of
the missing pages from Fax 8 but not the signed pages which are supposed to be
attached per the cover page.
Top TX time stamp = 11:31 and has page 001 stamped on it
Cover Page 12:41, very difficult to explain still
4 pages are attached and duly noted on both the TX and Cover page but no
sig page
On page 3 we pick up a header from 8/10/99 at 5:02p pg1
On page 4 we pick up a top stamp of mine pg2
And a new Proskauer stamp dated 8.10.99 16:40 pg 02/07
And a bottom footer with 8/5/99 11:13am
Fax 9 Part 2 – So to get the fax to have the correct paging and the signature page
the cover refers to, you have to go back in time to 8/4/99 and grab the pieces
in fax 8 part 1 that make no sense and add them here. But if you proceed with this logical step,
the TX report and cover page will be markedly different. Then 7 pages would be transmitted instead as
follows. Remember it is not together
like this in the file.
Also, on page 3 you will see what appears to be my
(Eliot) cover page, with this cover page we see what should be a pg 1 of 1 fax,
also it has a stamp of my header at the top that shows it was sent to me by me
on 8/10 at 5:02, even though the time on the cover is 5:01:47. Also there is some faint message to Nicole on
it. Now what’s amazing is that there is
not only a next page but 4 more all numbered as if it were sent to myself from
myself.
On page 4 we have a 8/5/99 letter from Stuart Kapp at
Proskauer and we pick up a new time stamp from Proskauer at the top and bottom
Top 8/10/99 16:40
pg 02/07 and at the bottom we have 8/5/99 11:13am
Page 5 we have a 8/4/99 letter from Ray to Stuart and
now the Proskauer stamp skips a page and is labeled 04/07. Also we pick up a new time stamp
Bottom new stamp is 8/4/99 16:55 with Page 02 listed
Page 6 - Also, if you go to the signature page I have
signed it 8/10/99 but failed to fill in the date above, which seems weird why
two dates. Also, it is being sent to
Jerry by Ray as signed, yet he has not signed it and I have.?
Proskauer now at pages 05/07
Page 7 – Has a blacked out time stamp under
Proskauers, you can see part. Proskauer
is now on pg 06/07 and we are at the end of this fax.
EMAIL - The next item is not a fax but a very strange email printout with
no dates or email headers, highly unlikely.
Also, my name is indented here which means I am replying inside the body
of another message. But there is no way
this could occur without revealing the other message. This message occurs way before regarding the
3CCD chip but he is obviously trying to say this happened later to match when
he might have added it to a patent.
Fax 10 – This fax dated 12/20/99 is a whole new twist on
cover pages, etc.
Top Header – 10:02 page 001
Middle Header – 12/20 at 16:02
Cover Page – 12/20/99 MISSING TIME STAMP
Also the Meltzer letterhead is missing disclosure, time stamp, message
box, totally different. Ok 3 pages
including the cover but 2 pages are not following the cover???
Fax 11 – Here we have what follows fax 10 and is two days later but there
is no cover page for this date or anything and we have only page 02 and 10
Yet we have on the first page a new header for Joao from yet another fax
machine with his name on it this time and from a new number (we should check
records for this number 914-969-2992).
Remember the first page letter to Gayle Coleman I think this is used
elsewhere at the time of 5865-2 fed’x letter that makes no sense.
The second page 10 is an assignment form for 5865-8 (60/169,559)
Fed’x Letter - Now the letter to Gayle that was page 02
of 10? of the last fax with no cover, appears on the next letter that goes
fed’x but it is a letter regarding the provisional patents not the assignments
and the provisional applications are not enclosed as the letter indicates but
the assignments are which are part of the fax from two days earlier??
There is also a new stamp on the letter from Meltzer 4191 2955 0915, never
have seen this?
Fax 12 - Next what follows is a masterpiece of concoction. It a message to Martha of 2 pages regarding
see attached.
PAGE 1
The top TX is MISSING
The middle TX is 10:12
Cover page, is at 10:03
What you could note and it will become more prominent
is that we have added a new line under the box that says Comments/Instructions,
that is left blank? In the
Comments/Instructions box it says “See Attached” but the only thing attached is
the cover page?
Also the time stamp returns and the disclaimer.
Page 2
The
cover page, there is a reference number that does not exist with a matching
document. This number, 156068.1 is on the cover sheet, WHY don’t all cover
sheets have this reference number on them????
Page 3
What is interesting to note here is that on 12/30/99 we
have supposedly the assignments transferred to Martha, Brain’s secretary, and
they are complete. Yet in the very fake
fax to Brian on 1/13/00, the letter states that once we know who the assignments
will be too, he will draft 8 assignments.
Note that on the 12/22/99 fax he has also sent them to someone and on
12/22/99 they were already sent to Gayle Coleman. Why on 1/13/00 then would he be drafting them?????? This is where he is trying to move the
timeline to act like he did not know us in 99.
Also, on this page that is supposed to deal with
assignments it never references general file 5865-2, instead the assignments
are each assigned to their respective folder numbers, not lumped as he tries to
claim in 5865-2. This document has a
MLGS # of 197726.1
33
Fax 13 - NOW THIS IS A DATE 1/13/00 or 1/12/99 IN INFAMY AND THE FAXES THAT
FOLLOW WILL LEAVE YOU WONDERING IF YOU REALLY ARE IN THIS WORLD.
The first fax which follows, is from Ray to Eliot but this
wins in frauded docs (other than Utley to his house) in that we have a TX
report dated 1/13/00 and a letter dated 1/12/99. At first glance this appears innocent maybe
he got all screwed up on dates and missed by a year and a day.
On the following fax we have a whole new creative design for a
cover page, no Meltzer letterhead or anything.
Top TX report is 1/13/00 at 10:37 page 001
Cover page – MISSING TIME AND DATE AND LETTERHEAD!!!!
No disclaimers!
Says 4 pages are transmitted and only 1 is here.
Fax 14 – Now comes a bit of the culmination of all this nonsense
as he tries to justify on January 13 2000 what happened to the patents he lost
in January 12, 1999.
So from the top,
Top TX = 1/13/00 14:33 page 001
Cover page = 1/13/00 2:21 # of pages including cover = 1 (
Very difficult to imagine 3 total pages will be sent here.
Now on Page 1 we have a blank COMMENTS/INSTRUCTION section
And the new line added below the COMMENTS/INSTRUCTIONS that
was added in the last fax to Martha, previously never there, now has “See
Attached” in it, to Martha in the last fax it was in the comments section “See
Attached” and why would see attached be on a cover sheer that claims 1 page
including cover.
Note that the Disclaimer and everything is missing at the
bottom of the TX. It will be also
missing on the following cover sheet which will make it impossible to argue
that it was not scanned on the TX report page.
VERY STRANGE INDEED.
Page 2 – IS the cover page to this 1 page fax that is supposed
to be 1 0f 1 pages.
Note no
disclaimer on the page and a number at the bottom 156067.1
Page 3 – OF a two page fax according to the TX and 1 page
according to cover sheet. This is a
letter claiming that it is in reference to 5865-2 IVIEWIT PATENT APPLICATION
ASSIGNMENTS and for the first time 5865-2 has a reference other than as a
claimed general folder.
The
letter claims to be waiting to find out who the assignee’s will be before
preparing and forwarding them to us.
WHAT IS WEIRD IS THAT ON 12/22 HE TRIES TO CLAIM THAT HE HAS ALREADY
SENT THEM TO GAYLE COLEMAN VIA FAX AND FED’X
On this
page it is stamped 199.193.1 on the bottom
Fax 15 – Another winner in confusion. We have a fax from Ray to Erika Lewin.
Page 1
Top TX = 11:07 page 001
Cover Page Time = MISSING
Cover Page PAGES is hand written to be 3
Disclaimer and bottom of TX cut off
Page 2
We find a
new fax number (and records should be got from here) of 516.747.0653. Differs from Martha fax where it is
516.747-9363 and different from the 954 one???
This page
has a number on the bottom ref of 200476.1
Page 3
A letter
to Erika Lewin with a ref # 5865????????
The
letter states that a bill is enclosed for services rendered to date so
presumably from 3-99(according to Ray records) to 1/26/00 and what follows is 1
page with a bill from 3/99 to 4/99 on page 4 of the 3 page fax.
This
document has two meltzer numbers at the middle and bottom
Middle
= p\public\patent\bernstei\5865.1.cl2
Bottom
= o\public\patent\bernstei\5865.1.CL2
Yet again another marvel in cover page design with no Time and
no boxes.
You make the call here?
By the way, in this folder you will see that he claims to have
received the CD on March 8 but he does not get around to looking at it until a
month later.
Note that the last page states that enclosed, which it is not,
is the Provisional Patent Filing receipt???]
Also in this folder are
the following miscellaneous docs, not sure how they fit in yet.
3/8/99 – CD Letter I believe this stuff is all dummied up. For all of you who know I View It from it’s beginning, this CD contained; imaging and video demonstrations. The business plan was interactive and had guys like Lewin in 320*240 converted to full-screen when you clicked on his picture bio in the Board section. This CD was given to Ray, Chris Rubenstein, Lewin in November or December 98, perhaps a bit earlier and thus Ray was in possession of video technology way early and so was Ken at time that we lose video patent for months. Loss of priority date. Major! Of course it fits with him having to lose these records relating to us as he is out filing patents for himself at the time.
Folder
Creation Document – Not sure why it’s here or how we got original documents of Rays since
they transferred directly to Foley and Lardner and then to Blakely, unless
Brian was getting them and altering them with Ray??? Weird that we have some of this original
stuff.
Next in this Folder are several faxes from Proskauer I will insert them 1 by 1,
not sure of meaning , if any on the rest of this stuff in this folder, but
maybe you can spot why it is thrown in.
It seems that 5865-2 went from a patent which enters the garbage to a
general folder that tries to show evidence that he does not know us.
Fax 1 – Proskauer – 5 page R3D letter.
Fax 2- Proskauer – Only 3 pages of 7
Fax 3 – Proskauer Rose heading Ray’s weird fax of 8/18/00
that we saw earlier
Raymond Hand Notes in folder 5865-2 very weird,
like he is trying to build story around the truth to match his story, very
clever inventor Mr. Joao is.
Now we are complete on Folder 5865-2 Ray Originals, how we got this needs to be
explained. We now move to another folder
of Joao folly and a whole new scheme of documents unfolds in this folder of
nonsense.
In chronological order are the following
folder documents
Fax 1 – a 2 of 2 page fax from Ray, note that
the header for this fax is on all pages, compare with 5865-2 faxes which we
donot find it.
Top
Header = A header from
2nd
Header = From: Blank 3/24/99 at 13:04 fax
#697 p 02/02
Page
1 = MISSING
Fax 2 – Letter from Ray on 6/2/99 labeled disclosure for
video technology
Page 1 Header
Top TX = From: ____ 6/2/99 at
14:36 fax #487 p.01/02
Cover Page = Missing
Page 2 Header
Top TX = From:_____ 6/3/99 at
13:06 fax #624 p. 02/02
Cover Page = Missing
Page 1 – Note that this
letter has page 1 and 2 listed with headers but the dates and numbers and
everything are different???
Page 1 references an attached
disclosure and what is attached is a small entity status with different headers
etc.
Page 2 – other than it cannot
be page 2 of this fax I am not sure what it represents yet.
Fax 3 – Yet another masterpiece in deception follows
Page 1 - Header
Top TX = From: _____ 6/7/99 12:43 #581 p.01/01
Cover page = 2:15pm and
states 3 pages not 1
Page 2 – Header
Top TX - From: 6/7/99
13:00 #584 p.01/02
Cover Page – 6/7/99 2:15pm
Page 1
New cover page format again
Box is missing line under
comments – cover page has no number at bottom
Please deliver to: Blank
here, not normally in this cover sheet
Page 2
Page 2 Cover page
is supposed to be copy of previous page yet numbers are handwritten and crossed
out and things are hand written in????
References 3 pages in cover which is crossed out and fax says p/01/02 of
different fax # than 1st page??????
Fax 4 –
Yet another masterpiece fax
It appears that this fax is a
copy of the last fax
Top
TX = New header yet again 08/07/99 13:18 page 001?? Why
is the date 8/7
Cover
Page = 2:15pm 07/07/99
No
pages attached this is a solo doc
Fax 5 – Yet again a shift in policy on this fax and the
transmission has no cover or
Top TX = From: _____ 6/7/99 16:33 #593 p.01/05
All pages transmit fine without cover or TX
and each is stamped accordingly
Top Header is from Proskauer 6/29/99 p.09/09
Bottom Header is Proskauer 6/18/99 10:26a page
8
No other docs are with it here either.
Just has my signature for Sole
Incorporator? Proskauer should have.
Fax 7 - Next comes
the bill we had earlier in 5865-2 folder evidence #37.13 on our spread, I won’t
reinsert, in fact insert hyperlink once inserted.
Top TX – 6/28/99 17:10 page 002, date on the
signature page is 6/29/99
Cover Page Missing
Page 1 – 6/29/99 signature of eib on 4.1
Page 2 – fax page 003 stamped on header
3rd page missing from folder
Top
TX – New From; Eliot Bernstein to Eliot Bernstein at 417.4472 8/17/99
9:59:36am, compare how accurate my times are though there are differences over
previous faxes Page 3 of 29
Page
1 – signed 8/19/99 Power of Attorney
Page
2 – verified statement of small claims
No
cover or TX pages, not full set of documents
Fax 10 –
Fax from ray to me that
nothing in the cover letter is attached.
Top Header
= cut up look like 8/19/99 13:11 page 001
Cover page
8/19/99 2:24p
Bottom of
page is strangely numbered 1 –2 – 3 for the 1st time anywhere
Number of
pages on cover page is scratched out the computer generated on and 3 is neatly
handwritten in.
No
disclaimer – no ref number on cover page
Page 2 –
Claims to have all these things attached and after page 3 the fax is complete,
what happened to these. He’s got donot
right as do not on this one and I think it should be wrong about this time in
the last folder 5865-2 at this time period
Page 1 Header = From:___ 9/22/99 13:42
#466 p.02/03
No Cover
Page 2 not remarkable
and now Foley claims Ray
missed boat and we go to get his files and …
-----Original Message-----
From: Boehm, Douglas A.
[mailto:daboehm@foleylaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09,
2000 4:33 PM
To: 'Brian Utley (
Cc: Becker, Steven C.
Subject: FW:
FYI ...
(Dawn Laffin is the office administrator person
at Meltzer, Lippe.)
-----Original
Message-----
From: Boehm, Douglas A.
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 5:28 PM
To: 'dlaffin@mlg.com'
Subject:
Dawn --
As I
mentioned on the telephone this afternoon, I received your Federal Express
package this morning containing the Meltzer, Lippe files for
During
our phone conversation, you agreed to review your docket and files for 5865-8,
5865-10, and any other 5865 matters for
Thanks
for your assistance.
--Doug
Douglas A. Boehm
Foley & Lardner
Tel: (414)297-5718
Fax:(414)297-4900
Email: daboehm@foleylaw.com
NOTE:
The information transmitted in and/or attached to this message is
intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material.
Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking
any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than
the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you received this information in error, please contact the sender and delete
the material from any computer.
Here we have Ken’s blessing to obviously move forward and it exhibits he and subsequently Joao knew of the site, was aware of the technologies as Ray was being sold as an employee of Ken’s in NY
From: Eliot Bernstein [alps@netline.net] on behalf of
webmaster@cyberfyds.com
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 4:08 PM
To: 'krubenstein@proskauer.com'
Subject: FW: Crime Watch
**********************************
iviewit Confidentiality Agreement
The undersigned reader acknowledges that the information
provided by iviewit and Simon & Eliot Bernstein in this business plan and
at the specified iviewit website is confidential; therefore, reader agrees not
to disclose it without the express written permission of Simon L. Bernstein.
This memorandum does not constitute an offer to sell, or a
solicitation of an offer to purchase, securities. This business plan has been
submitted on a confidential basis solely for the benefit of selected, highly
qualified investors and is not for use by any other persons. Neither may it be
reproduced, stored, or copied in any form. By accepting delivery of this plan,
the recipient acknowledges and agrees that: i) in the event the recipient does
not wish to pursue this matter, the recipient will return this copy to iviewit,
at the address listed below immediately; ii) the recipient will not copy, fax,
reproduce, or distribute this Confidential Business Plan or iviewit web
address, in whole or in part, without written permission; iii) all of the
information contained herein will be treated as confidential material. Agreement
executed by the recipient prior to, or contemporaneously with, its receipt of
this Confidential Business Plan
Name: Ken
rubenstein E-mail: krubenstein@ proskauer.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Bernstein [mailto:alps@netline.net]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 12:05 PM
To: 'cwheeler@proskauer.com'
Subject: Patent pending issue for iviewit corp.
Chris,
Have you heard from Ken Rubenstein regarding our next step on getting a patent pending?
Eliot
Sent: Friday,
June 04, 1999 4:55 PM
To: Alan Epstein (E-mail)
Subject: FW: iviewit, inc.
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 1999
1:19 PM
To: 'eib'
Subject: RE: iviewit, inc.
Not yet. I will work out a meeting time over the next
couple of days. I
was looking at the profile
of Ken Rubinstein at Proskauer, very impressive!
Is he the person that
reviewed your patent application? Ken
appears to be
the person behind setting up
the MPEG patent pool. Xing is a licensee
under
this. Do you mind if I e-mail Ken questions about
the nature of the patent?
Also, I have not heard from
Goldman.
This project is very
exciting to me. I keep thinking about
the
possibilities. Hopefully you, Kevin and I can meet over the
next couple of
weeks so we can accelerate
our activities. How are you doing
setting up the
demo to view over the
Internet? My home number is 805-594-0292
if you want
to talk.
Hassan
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: eib [SMTP:alps@netline.net]
> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 1999 8:24 PM
> To: hmiah@xingtech.com
> Subject: iviewit, inc.
>
> <?XML:NAMESPACE
PREFIX = O />
>
> Hassan,
>
> Have you heard any news
from Kevin? Hope all is going well.
>
> Eliot
Next email
-----Original Message-----
From: David.Colter@warnerbros.com [mailto:David.Colter@warnerbros.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 10:28 PM
To: HeidiKrauel@aol.com
Cc: HPowell@cb-ventures.com; Eliot@iviewit.com
Subject: Re: Today -- iviewit
Heidi,
Here is the info for Hank Powell from Crossbow Ventures. I have copied him
above to make the introduction.
iviewit has undergone a restructuring of their business from an encoding
focused business to a technology licensing business focus over the past 4-5
months. They are in the process of establishing a new executive team to
handle this 'new' direction and have been working on the new business plan.
They have indicated that we should have the revised plan next week.
They currently are finalizing a contract with WB Online to provide encoding
services as a hold over from our original collaboration, and as a showcase
for the technologies and patents.
Their site www.iviewit.com contains good demonstrations of the zooming and
video encoding technologies. I have also copied the inventor/founder Eliot
Bernstein, who I will ask to provide some specific links on the site to see
the best representation of their work and technical capabilities.
Their patents are pending, but have received favorable opinions from people
such as Ken Rubenstein on the merit of the patents, as well as thorough
review by Greg Thagard and myself.
Let's talk further after you see the business plan and connect with Hank.
Thanx,
David
Hank Powell
Managing Director
CrossBow Ventures
One North Clematis Street
Suite 510
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5523
T +1(561) 838-9005 (office)
T +1(561) 279-0556 (home)
T +1(561)310-9171 (cellphone)
F +1(561) 838-4105
HPowell@cb-ventures.com
www.cb-ventures.com
In a message dated 07/26/2001 8:01:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, HeidiKrauel
writes:
Subj:Re:
Today
Date:07/26/2001 8:01:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:HeidiKrauel
To:David.Colter@warnerbros.com
(DColter0264)
Sent on: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531
In a message dated 7/26/01 10:47:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
David.Colter@warnerbros.com (DColter0264) writes:
Any times
good for you before 10 am PST?
stepping into meeting now until 2:30pm EST. I can do tomorrow too...
Associate
AOL Time Warner Ventures
22000 AOL Way
Dulles, VA 20166
Phone - 703 265 1134
Fax - 703 265 3925
Email - heidikrauel@aol.com
-----Original
Message-----
From: PSLamont39@aol.com [mailto:PSLamont39@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 11:01 AM
To: eliot.bernstein@verizon.net
Subject: For Your Records
Subj: I
View It Technologies -- Patents Pending
Date: 12/20/01
To: krubenstein@proskauer.com
Ken,
By way of introduction, and as of December 3, I am the new CEO of I View It
Technologies. Presently, working out of NYC, we are in receipt of a
patent review letter from Wayne Smith, Patent Counsel of Warner Brothers.
While the letter speaks positively regarding our pending applications, we feel
I have left a similar type message on your NYC office voice mail, and I would
look forward to briefly speaking with you at your earliest convenience. I
can be reached at 914-217-0038. Lastly, I am in the
Best regards,
P. Stephen Lamont
CEO
I View It Technologies, Inc.
David Colter
is a bit unclear how it could be a conflict if we both agree in advance of call
that he will be in no conflict.
-----Original Message-----
From: PSLamont39@aol.com [mailto:PSLamont39@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 3:24 AM
To: eliot.bernstein@verizon.net
Subject: Re: Ken Rubenstein
In a message dated 1/2/02 10:53:13 PM Eastern
Standard Time, eliot.bernstein@verizon.net writes:
Is
he willing to speak to Time Warner?
No, he is unwilling to speak to Time Warner. He states that it would be a
conflict of interest for him, as they are a major client in his
PSL
P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer,
Director
I View It Technologies, Inc.
10 Mela
Tel: 914-217-0038
Email: psl@iviewit;
URL: www.iviewit.com
-----Original
Message-----
From: Eliot I. Bernstein [mailto:eliot@iviewit.com]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 2:20 PM
To: P. Stephen Lamont
Subject: RE: Ken Rubenstein
Importance: High
must be confused with iviewit? when you hang up send me a mail and i will call re; this and my call with coester just now.
-----Original
Message-----
From: P. Stephen Lamont
Sent:
Friday, January 18, 2002 11:03
AM
To:
Eliot I. Bernstein
Cc:
david.colter@warnerbros.com
Subject:
Ken Rubenstein
I just spoke with Ken Rubenstein, and he reiterated that he does a lot of work for Warner Brothers and is unable to pick the phone up and discuss the matter on our behalf. Moreover, he is not too pleased that I have asked him to do same in what amounts to the third time.
Lastly, he would welcome a call from Wayne Smith directly and would discuss with him the fact that "he is not to familiar with what [I View It] has," but would not be "negative or positive " in any potential discussion.
Best regards,
P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer,
Director
I View It Technologies, Inc.
10 Mela
Tel: 914-217-0038
Email: psl@iviewit;
URL: www.iviewit.com
IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
DRAFT LETTER – NOT SENT YET
P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Direct Dial: 914-217-0038
By Electronic Mail and Facsimile
October 20, 2006
Kenneth Rubenstein
Partner
Proskauer Rose LLP
1585 Broadway
Re:
Dear Ken:
Last
we spoke, Wayne Smith of Warner Bros. requested a conversation with you
pertaining to
In any event, I am writing for another reason as I
came across a piece of perplexing information earlier today. I stumbled upon some documentation that named
you as an Advisory Board member of the company somewhere between the fall of
1999 and the spring of 2000.
Moreover, recalling your own words, as I sat in your
office earlier in the year, of your present unfamiliarity with the
Further, and I should not be relaying this to you,
but there are rumors swirling around the company with finger pointing and all
from Florida to Los Angeles wherein it catches the jet stream and arrives very
soon in New York of alleged breaches of confidentiality pertaining to
Kenneth Rubenbstein
October 20, 2006
Page 2
pages of patent filings by some earlier patent
counsels appointed by the company, including, but not limited to one Mr. Ray
Joao, formerly, it is my understanding, of Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein &
Schlissel, P.C., (your former firm) and an individual that, it is also my
understanding, you have worked closely with in the past pertaining to
At this juncture in my tenure as
Furthermore, I have been told of your past
involvement with the
Still further, I think back to the comments I have
heard of your initial reaction to the
As such, I would like to enlist your assistance, if
available, to review the conclusions of past and present patent counsel, and to
further assist
Kenneth Rubenbstein
October 20, 2006
Page 3
Lastly, as I mentioned above, I have ordered a full
legal and accounting audit of the company many weeks ago, and I expect the
completion of same shortly, and I would appreciate a response at your earliest
convenience.
Best regards,
P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
IVIEWIT BUSINESS PLAN
ADVISORY BOARD AS OF 2000
Advisory Board
·
Don G. Kane - Don Kane is President of
GDI, a privately held holding company that controls 4 business-to-business
Internet companies. Prior to joining
GDI, Don was a Managing Director in the Investment Banking Division of Goldman
Sachs & Co. During his fourteen-year
career at Goldman Sachs, Don created the firm's Midwest Financial Institutions
practice and founded a Global Financial Institutions Technology Group. Don is a Board member and Vice Chairman of
Sagence Systems, Inc., a GDI company and is a member of the Board of Versifi,
Inc. and Erogo Systems. Don is an
advisor to Signcast, Inc., Gryphon Holdings and Capita Technologies. He is a member of the Kellogg Graduate School
of Management Advisory Board at
·
Alan Epstein – Alan Epstein is a shareholder of the entertainment law
firm Armstrong Hirsch Jackoway Tyerman & Wertheimer, P.C., which is based
in
·
Chris C. Wheeler – Chris Wheeler, a member
of Proskauer Rose LLP’s Corporate Department and a partner in the
·
Kenneth Rubenstein – Ken is a partner at
Proskauer Rose LLP law firm and is the patent attorney for iviewit.com. He
is a registered patent attorney before the U.S. Patent & Trademark
Office. Ken counsels his clients with
respect to the validity and infringement of competitors' patents, as well as
prosecutes patent applications. For the
past several years Ken has worked on the formation of a patent pool, for MPEG-2
technology, involving large consumer electronics and entertainment companies.
Ken is also a former member of the legal staff at Bell Laboratories. Ken
received his law degree, cum laude, from
·
Ray Joao – Ray heads Meltzer,
Lippe’s Intellectual Property Rights, Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks
Group. He specializes in intellectual
property law, including patents, trademarks and copyrights, as well as
technology transfers. He has extensive
experience in patent prosecution, licensing and litigation in the fields of
computer software and hardware, communication networks, electronics, the
Internet, financial modeling and mechanical devices. Ray is adept at dealing with high technology
companies and other companies looking to patent not only their physical
inventions but new business methods as well.
Legal Counsel
·
Armstrong Hirsch Jackoway Tyerman & Wertheimer
Armstrong Hirsch
Jackoway Tyerman & Wertheimer, P.C. is one of the nation's leading
entertainment law firms. Based in Los
Angeles , California
·
Proskauer Rose –
Proskauer Rose LLP
is one of the nation's largest law firms, providing a wide variety of legal
services to major corporations and other clients through the United States
- Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel, P.C.
The firm’s focus is providing legal and business-related services to high-technology companies. These services include public offerings, venture financing, mergers and acquisitions, executive compensation strategies, tax structuring, intellectual property audits, patents, patent licensing and corporate and intellectual property litigation services. Meltzer Lippe practices in more than 20 legal disciplines and acts as General Counsel to the Long Island Venture Fund, Newlight Associates, L.P., and LISTnet, where they are also a Founder. The firm served as outside General Counsel to Cheyenne Software, Inc. until it merged with Computer Associates International Ltd.
Consultants
·
Danny Socolof – Mr. Socolof is the founder
and CEO of the Marketing Entertainment Group of America, Inc., an entertainment
production and marketing company. Mr. Socolof
has created national branding events and campaigns for the world’s largest and
most important intellectual property owners including MTV, Pepsi, Nintendo,
Proctor and Gamble, SC Johnson, Anheuser-Busch, Apple Computers, Philips
Electronics and many other top tier entertainment and global consumer products
organizations.
·
Mike McGinley – Mr. McGinley is the founder of SRO
Consultants, a
Exhibit 26 – Gerald Lewin
response to his client starting to use I View It Technologies
The reason for this investigation and subsequent letter was
simple. Lewin had introduced us to
HotelView telling us he barely new them but they may be interested in our
techs. We meet under NDA and next thing
you know they are opening new sites with our stuff. I go to Wheeler’s office, he is stunned we
meet with Gerry and he again states he hardly knows these guys. Just about that time a Jeff Friedstein at
Goldman Sachs sends over a stock report on VD and guess who was the Accountant
for them until they went public? Gerry’s
memory comes back after being presented by Chris (who acts surprised etc.) and
drafts letter to make sure I View It info is not being transferred to VD. Funny and we find out later that Wheeler and
Proskauer Boca also handled this account, funny Wheeler never mentions nor does
he have his employees mention.
This section must start at the beginning
- Kenneth Rubenstein’s patent pools
- Raymond Joao’s patents
- Gerald Lewin clients
- Chris Wheeler’s clients
- Brain Utley – not sure if stealing qualifies for infringement but why not
- Warner Brothers – Under NDA
- Sony – Under NDA
- MGM – Under NDA
- Visual Data
- Camera Manufacturers
- Intel through acquisition of R3D
- Webcast (Huizenga company that after learning our technique sold to Ibeam)
- Akamai – Friend of Brian, George Conrades
- RYJO may we remove his trademark and ability to sell our concept?
- Teranex – Under NDA
-----Original
Message-----
From: David.Colter@warnerbros.com [mailto:David.Colter@warnerbros.com]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 9:51 PM
To: John.calkins@warnerbros.com
Cc: CHuck.dages@warnerbros.com; Alan.Bell@warnerbros.com
Subject: iviewit
John,
In all the review we have done with ivieiwit it seems to boil down to the
status of the patents and their inherent value. At that point it is a
risk-reward evaluation -- without awarded patents it is difficult to completely
assess the value. I would suggest that we consider one other perspective...
Prior to ivieiwit (approx Feb 2000) the video we (WB Online) delivered on the
web was QCIF (160x120) or smaller and was below full frame rate. At the time of
our first meeting we also identified On2 along with ivieiwit as two solid players
who could deliver full screen full frame rate web video. All who saw it were
impressed. Greg and I visited ivieiwit in August and reported back that they
had filed patents on scaling techniques that hinged upon a visual 'trick' which
allowed the human eye to accept 320x240 video scaled to 640x480 at 30 fps as
close to VHS quality. We checked with Ken Rubenstein and others who provided
some solid support for ivieiwit, and Chris Cookson asked Greg and I to continue
to work with ivieiwit in an R&D capacity.
In the fall of 2000 iviewit also met with a number of folks at WB Online (in
September and October) and demonstrated their process and techniques to Sam
Smith, Houston,
When I sat down with Morgan and Houston in March 2001 to see what technology
they were using to encode video, it was clear that they were using some of the
techniques that would overlap with iviewit's filed process patents (still
pending), but it is not clear that these were all learned from iviewit -- we
may wish to explore this a little. This meeting was to determine what equipment
we would get for our lab at 611 Brand. This same information was also provided
to ivieiwit by Morgan as they were establishing the company as an outsourcing
facility for encoding our content.
I am aware of several meeting held between ivieiwit and WB Online to share
information of techniques and process, and was invited to a few of them.
We all signed ivieiwit's confidentiality agreement. So to the other
perspective....
We have an opportunity to establish a license with ivieiwit for a modest fee at
this time, and establish a MFN. In good faith we signed the confidentiality
agreement, iviewit revealed their processes and techniques, and we now use
those techniques in encoding. As we have discussed on a few occasions, these
techniques now appear in the public domain to some extent in documentation for
Real Producer, WMP Developer Guides, Media Cleaner Pro, etc, but they were not
available in 2000. I would not suggest we learned the techniques completely
from iviewit (I actually do not know the answer), but a modest licensing fee
may be appropriate and honorable considering our good faith relationship in
signing the confidentiality doc.
If we choose to pass at this time the risk is primarily from iviewit's main
investor, Crossbow Ventures, gaining control of the IP and approaching WB later
for a license -- I do not believe they will be as friendly considering their
dealings with ivieiwit and it's employees since Feb of 2001. It is estimated
that the patents will be completed in 8-12 months.
As you are all aware I have a personal relationship with Eliot Bernstein, the
founder of iviewit, and as a result, I left the evaluations and decisions to
Greg, and others, and only assisted iviewit to get to the correct people in WB
and AOLTW. I wanted to add this perspective as we consider if there is an
option to pursue with iviewit -- they are facing continued financial pressure
right now. There are many other threads to our interaction with iviewit and I
would be happy to discuss.
Thanx,
David
-----Original Message-----
From: EIB
[mailto:alps1@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 1999
4:55 PM
To: Alan Epstein (E-mail)
Subject: FW: See you in
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, May 26,
1999 1:34 PM
To: 'iviewit, inc. (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: See you in
Hi Eliot,
I really enjoyed my visit on
Monday and see and enormous potential for the
technology. Later today I will be meeting with Kevin to
discuss the
opportunity.
How did your meeting go with
Real 3D? Also, will you have your site
up
tomorrow for me to view from
here?
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: iviewit, inc. (E-mail)
[SMTP:viewmaster@iviewit.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 2:48 AM
> To:
> Cc: Richard Rosman (E-mail)
> Subject: See you in
>
> << File: clip_image002.jpg >>
>
> Dear Hassan,
> Thank you for taking
the time to come see the iviewit technology. It was
> a pleasure getting to
know you and I look forward to a growing
> relationship. I
should be coming to
> begin putting the
puzzle together then.
>
> In the interim, if you
need any additional information, please feel free
> to give me a call.
>
> Eliot
next email
Doug Chey SPDE (Sony)
-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot I. Bernstein [mailto:eliot.bernstein@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 9:50 AM
To: 'Chey, Doug'
Subject: RE: iviewit
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Private
Doug,
I will get you a package for the advisory board, I need to run it through my board, we go to dinner and it should be done. What night are you available next week?
Eliot
-----Original Message-----
From: Chey, Doug [mailto:dchey@sonypictures.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 8:34 AM
To: 'eliot.bernstein@verizon.net'
Subject: RE: iviewit
Sensitivity: Private
No
problem Eliot. As you know I am definitely a proponent of the technology. One
quick question, how does one become a technical advisory board member?
-----Original
Message-----
From: Eliot I. Bernstein [mailto:eliot.bernstein@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 7:01 AM
To: Chey, Doug
Subject: iviewit
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Private
Dear Doug,
Thanks a million for the referrals to both Geoffrey Springer and Satoshi
Tanimoto! We had a great meeting with them and will be moving forward
with a license agreement for Sony's usage of the zoom image technology and the
iviewit video process. We talked about utilizing both technologies on two
upcoming Sony blockbusters (Ali & Spiderman). Hope all is going well
and I was wondering if you and Christen would like to go to the upcoming
Madonna shows with a group of us?
Again, I can't thank you enough for all of your continued help and
support.
Best regards,
Founder & Vice Chairman
Blessed are the
geek: for they shall inherit the earth! Gatthew 5:5
Exhibit 29 – How to not create an excel
sheet that makes no sense Act 1 & 2.
OK lets count and while counting imagine that we are building a patent
portfolio spreadsheet. Normal counting
and spreadsheet data do not get put together with missing numbers etc. But this was what was represented to I View
It as Foley’s spreadsheets.
Now we look at what the next law firm
discovered in their discovery, which is, quite surprising that we find 2 Utley
applications in his own name that are never disclosed. Crossbow wants study and Blakely is hired to
try and decipher what’s up and we find all kinds of discrepancies
To further confuse you dear reader this was
stuffed in behind the portfolios, which neglect to mention 120 even exists.
To further further confuse
you this letter dated 4/27/01 in reference to 57103/118 is truly a masterpiece
in that the 5 page letter is regarding a response due on a patent 57103/110 and
118 has disappeared. Even they seem
confused. What is really scary here is
that you can see that Ross Miller the replacement for Brian Utley is told by
counsel misleading information and Brian is told the truth but we never see or
hear this letter from Foley. Something
very fishy. So we think we have 5 days
to respond to some issue that Foley and Brian claim they just found out
about. It costs us much confusion and
embarrassment with WB. Also, costs us in
Irell bill and Blakely and probably Foley.
And now this letter from Utley acting like he has just become aware of this deadline
as President and guy working with the great Bill Dick who handled the IBM
patent pool.
Exhibit 30 - The Bankruptcy and what happened on the way
Exhibit 31 – Encoding Pornography with teenage female
employee and playing such video’s to others.
Exhibit 32 - Employee stock grants without compensation
committee review 
Exhibit 33 – What happens to Foleys 57103/
Here we a fax that relates to client matter #57103/0
Exhibit 34 – Case of the fax dated 3/10/1900
This is on the day I say they switched a Jan filing with a
3/99 filing and lost 5865 and replaced w/ 5865-1. Look carefully at the top fax header and note
that there is no way he could have sent it at 3/10/1900
Now this is very strange indeed because we are going to say that this was 1999 and the document TX cannot be dated to a year without the top header to identify. So he was trying to change the dates to match here and he really screwed up. How many law firms have fax machines that date wrong in the middle year??????
His argument will be that he was there in 1900 and he has an
electricity patent that outdates
This is why patent attorneys should be barred from writing patents.
This starts everything awry when we see this first in the
list 3/10/1900.
Exhibit Final
By the time you get to this exhibit you will hopefully have
a clearer picture of my state of mind at the time I wrote the following poem
and the reasons and rational behind it.
It mistakenly was presented to Mr. David Colter at Warner Brothers when
he was falsely accused of plotting to conspire to bankrupt the company and wash
away the shareholders. This was Mr.
Aidan Bin Foley of Kodak fame that had implied this. When the truth is all told though this was
another most devilish ploy to further steal from the shareholders of I View It
and Mr.; Colter gets cleared completely and in the end the poem gets forwarded
to the proper parties; Messer’s Foley, Mondragon, Crossbow, Wheeler, Ugly, and
all the other’s involved who should know their names by now. Mr. Colter is my hero, as he represents
truth, although it appears he is jobless for it.
By the time you get to this exhibit you will hopefully have a clearer picture of my state of mind at the time I wrote the following poem and the reasons and rational behind it. It mistakenly was presented to Mr. David Colter at Warner Brothers when he was falsely accused of plotting to conspire to bankrupt the company and wash away the shareholders. This was Mr. Aidan Bin Foley of Kodak fame that had implied this. When the truth is all told though this was another most devilish ploy to further steal from the shareholders of I View It and Mr.; Colter gets cleared completely and in the end the poem gets forwarded to the proper parties; Messer’s Foley, Mondragon, Crossbow, Wheeler, Ugly, and all the other’s involved who should know their names by now. Mr. Colter is my hero, as he represents truth, although it appears he is jobless for it.
What Is and What Is Not
Insipid little cockroaches of minimal brain,
Those who relish for gain and things like acid rain,
I speak to you from a voice you no longer hear,
To the devil you’ve sold your children,
I fear! I fear!
A gift from God you were given,
Sold your soul when you said you believe,
Now I have no pity for your blasphemy,
I will cherish your souls in hell for eternity.
These words I cry as a servant of God,
For I know the fate now of your flock.
I can see your greed is all you have left,
Faith will not save you!
You will go to hell and take his whole creation,
For acting as God is a delusion of grandeur,
You are evil to the bones,
The children so innocent,
The reason I came back on this mission.
I made a deal and sold my soul,
To come back and offer some hope,
God looked upon me as if I were insane,
I think he gave up when you polluted his brain,
Or maybe from the abuse to the animal kingdom.
My message was clear as I mentioned up front,
I was here to give your children the tools to change,
Even those were taken in vain.
And now I fear that God will not come back,
Turning his head on our magnificent ROT,
You want my faith in you,
I have not,
For you have forgotten what is and what is not.
At least for me,
I can see,
Your children burning for eternity.
I told you upfront that I hear their cries,
You promised me that you would all try.
Try for a second until you got,
Then once you held his jewel,
You forgot.
Beg not for forgiveness on your final moment,
Deaf ears cannot hear.
The jewels you steal are but a token gift,
Compared to the jewels you daily rape of his,
He laughs for this was for the kids.
He will smite your soul forever,
He will relish in your pain,
You can’t hide by going insane.
You will always be upheld,
As your hearts burn thin,
To watch for eternity you’re children burning again and again.
I pity you all,
In your hatred and greed you could not see,
That your children were beginning to burn,
You created this destiny.
And when given the tools,
You forgot to change,
And used them for greed.
And used his name in vain.
You can separate out what is and what is not,
For you are no longer beholden to him or his flocks,
Remember
I have a hard time finding men like him,
And when I do I think I will tell them to run,
And never look back again.
As the children cry and burn from the sun.
For such a horrible impression on the brain,
Forever remains!
You know your names.
On a more positive note, I was invited to speak at the most prestigious SMPTE and address a group of engineers on my inventions, I was invited by Chuck Dages a Senior Technologist for WB. What happened on the way to the forum is a story for another day.
Synopsis Form
143rd SMPTE Technical Conference and
Exhibition
Hilton
Please compete all personal information so that we can contact you.
Title of Paper Enabling Children to See a Better World with
Multimedia Tools
Author(s)
Company iviewit Technologies, Inc.
Address
City
Tel: 818-545-1444 Fax: 818-545-1440 E-Mail: eliot@iviewit.com
Are you a SMPTE Member? [ ] Yes [ X ] No
In the space below, or stapled to
this form, please submit a 500-word synopsis explaining what your paper is
about. Be as detailed as possible. The
synopsis will be used to determine the suitability of the paper for presentation
at this conference. SMPTE prides itself
on professional conference presentations and proceedings. Please make sure that your synopsis and
subsequent paper are technical in nature.
Purely commercial offerings or "sales pitches" are to be
avoided and will not be accepted. We
also request a 50 word abstract outlining your proposal. Should your
paper be selected for the program this will be used in the program booklet. It
is important that this is included. (Kindly include a short bio)
Thank you for your submission.
Synopsis:
The state of affairs for virtual imaging in the mid 90’s was anything but a virtual tour, unless you were a fish. The views were often developed using fishbowl lens technology, which caused severe distortion and upon magnification offered a pixilated and blurry result. This was not virtual reality this was virtual distortion and denigration to the art. Although the tools there at the time were cool and offered a new perspective to imaging, the distortion factors made the tools limited in their scope. The challenge was to find a way to correct these problems and in the box answers provided a dead end. In order for these tools to progress out of the realtor home tour the quality of the images would have to be preserved. My personal quest was to use these tools to help children analyze worlds such as the rainforests that are being destroyed but with an accurate and clear perspective.
The answer came in a dream a simple change in the way to organize a picture within the frame. The idea was to take a normal image and blow it up optically using an enlarger and then scan into the computer a much larger image and then place it into the small frame. A critical path was discovered that allowed a user to have a smooth zoom on an image to the Xth degree, no longer was zoom pixilated it was clear and retained tremendous resolution and the user feels a true sense of entering the virtual world. The user now has the ability to design an image with a zoom magnification factor in mind and have the corresponding parameters to create the effect. The files are typically heavily compressed to obtain high-resolution zoom on small image file sizes, making it ideal for Internet usage. A unique differentiation over other zoom technologies of the time is that this process needs only a single file to complete its task and thus is not dependent on a server to raster more information and is thus free to enter non-communication environments.
This invention has changed the scope of imaging and there are many applications of the image scaling such as; digital camera screens, TV screens, medical imaging devices, digital picture frames and books, simulators (aerospace, space and vehicle), and zoomable user controlled video that will incorporate this technique.
Once the immersive imaging
technique had been developed we applied scaling methodology to video and
discovered another process whereby full-screen, full frame rate VHS quality
video could be transmitted across
Capturing and encoding in a 320*240 frame size yielded several efficiencies;
- A consistent and equal capture/encode frame size yields much less processing for the encoder, yielding a superior result
- Less processing power required for full screen data by ¾ without losing significant quality
- File size for full screen representation reduced by ¾
making high impact full screen video available at extremely low
- Smaller encoding windows (160*120) yield too little reference data for motion estimation etc. yielding a low frame rate
- Smaller encoding windows cannot be scaled to full screen due to too great of a multiple of scaling required (16 times) and to little reference data
- Enables stereo audio with full lip synchronization of audio/video
This advancement in video
processing has led to numerous VOD models being created for the Internet that
may be able to monetize video at this quality level and the technology is being
explored in Broadcast environments, DVD creation and other video systems. The combination of the two products is also
being explored to create zoomable video for TV and other communications
environments. Wouldn’t it be cool take a
video of the rainforest and then to further analyze say a particular floral,
the user will be able to zoom within the scene without having to travel back to
the Amazon. Both the image and video
processes require no plug-ins and are browser agnostic, making them ideal for
the average user.
Abstract:
Two
technologies discovered in the pursuit of helping children save the planet that
were created using out-of-the-box thinking and have led to significant
advancements in virtual immersive imaging and video content creation.
Biography:
The National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council Annual Report 2000
Submitted
to The President of the
Last Modified: 01/23/2001 11:41:23
Goldstein Lewin Gerald Lewin CPA Board Member I View It
Flow Chart of Thieves
REAL3D RYJO R3D Subcontract Tries to steal applet
with Utley Wheeler & Reale, 1st attempt