"Judge Orders Depositions In Proskauer Malpractice Suit
Law360, Los Angeles (July 13, 2011) -- A California state judge ruled Wednesday that in-house attorneys for Ascent Media Group LLC must provide depositions as part of a former executive's malpractice suit against Proskauer Rose LLP over the firm's alleged conflict of interest during two sexual harassment investigations.
William Frazee claims Proskauer had a conflict of interest in representing both him and Ascent in the investigations, both of which were resolved in mediation but later led to a dispute between Frazee and his employer over fees stemming from the proceedings.
While Judge Robert L. Hess granted Frazee's request for depositions, he refused to compel Ascent attorneys William Niles and Niloofar Shepherd to produce documents related to the investigations.
He also denied a motion to depose Jackie Lee, a vice president at Ascent. Frazee's attorney, Samuel J. Smith of SJS Counsel APC, argued that Lee — who allegedly declined to have Frazee investigated for a third sexual harassment claim — could show that Proskauer did not do a thorough job defending Frazee against the allegations. But Judge Hess said Lee's alleged decisions not to have a claim against Frazee investigated had nothing to do with the legal malpractice accusation.
“This argument you're making has no logical force, frankly,” Judge Hess told Smith before delivering his ruling. “I'm thoroughly unimpressed.”
The mixed ruling could shed more light on Proskauer's alleged conflict of interest and comes almost seven months after Frazee sued the firm.
Frazee claims Proskauer failed to inform him of attorneys' fees liabilities during the two sexual harassment arbitration hearings and other legal matters. In doing so, Proskauer put the interests of Ascent ahead of Frazee, the lawsuit alleges.
Former Ascent employee Carrie Zuzenak sued the company and Frazee for sexual harassment in 2006, and that case, which was handled by Proskauer, was settled in mediation and Frazee was given a reprimand by the company, according to the complaint.
Then in March 2010, another employee, Addie Hall, sued Ascent and Frazee for sexual harassment, according to the suit. Both sides in Hall's case agreed to mediation in July 2010, and Frazee was given another reprimand, according to the complaint.
In November, Ascent filed its own arbitration claim against Frazee, claiming the lawsuits and arbitration proceedings were outside the scope of his employment and that he must reimburse the company for $500,000 in attorneys' fees, expenses and settlement payments.
Frazee alleges in his lawsuit against Ascent that Proskauer failed to advise him to seek independent legal counsel and that attorneys failed to obtain a release from Ascent for legal fees. Frazee also claims Proskauer improperly settled two proceedings without his consent.
Proskauer's attorney, Janel Ablon of Littler Mendelson PC, argued that discovery in the malpractice lawsuit should be stayed until after arbitration proceedings between Frazee and Ascent were done, but Judge Hess said he wanted to make sure the lawsuit was not stalled.
Ablon told the judge Niles and Shepherd would be ready for depositions in August.
Frazee is represented Samuel J. Smith of SJS Counsel APC.
Proskauer is represented by Janel Ablon of Littler Mendelson PC.
The case is Frazee v. Proskauer Rose LLP et al., case number BC452417, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles. "
Source of Proskauer Rose LLP - Proskauer Rose Attorney Post
http://www.law360.com/articles/257919/judge-orders-depositions-in-proskauer-malpractice-suit
Proskauer Rose Lawyers are Famous for Getting away with Perjured Depositions, So Watch for This.
Got A Tip on This Case or on Proskauer Malpractice Suit, Proskauer Rose LLP, William Frazee, Ascent Media Group, Judge Robert L. Hess, Niloofar Shepherd, William Niles - email your tip to Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Showing posts with label Proskauer Rose LLP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Proskauer Rose LLP. Show all posts
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Proskauer Rose LLP Gregg M. Mashberg Knows FULL Well that Stephen Lamont has NO Right to Speak on Behalf of iViewit.
Proskauer Rose Law Firm Knows that Stephen Lamont has NO LEGAL Right to Speak on Behalf of iViewit.
So why is the Corrupt Law Firm of Proskauer Rose Responding to an Illegal Filing by Stephen Lamont on Behalf of Iviewit Technologies?
Could it be that Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose is doing this to deliberately fraud the courts, as Stephen Lamont is VERY Connected to Judith Kaye, ex-supreme court judge who was married to Proskauer Rose Partner Stephen Kaye - and Judith Kaye use to Work at IBM and is connected with William Dick who also use to work at IBM and is connected to the Iviewit Patent Suppression and iViewit Invention Theft.
So it seems to me that New York Attorney Gregg M. Mashberg, Proskauer Rose Law Firm is deliberately frauding the courts and the motive seems to me to be to cause further stalling of the Iviewit Technology patent and to further prolong the Federal RICO Lawsuit against Proskauer Rose, the Criminal Complaint and SEC Complaint Against Proskauer Rose and to Protect the Corrupt MPEG LA to keep making Billions a year on a technology that Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose LLP knew he had stolen for MPEG LA over a Decade Ago.
So why is this all going on Right Now?
What is P. Stephen Lamont up to with Gregg M. Mashberg and the Pro Se Party over there at the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm?
Eliot Bernstein did Not initiate this at this Time, P. Stephen Lamont did and P. Stephen Lamont has No Legal Right to Speak for Eliot Bernstein, nor does P. Stephen Lamont have a right to speak for the iViewit Investors or the iViewit Inventors.
For Proskauer Rose LLP to Continue in this scam, they are blatantly playing games on Judge Shira Scheindlin and making a mockery out of the New York Courts. Gregg M. Mashberg, Proskauer Rose is Doing This Deliberately to confuse the issue and to keep Stephen Lamont involved somehow. All the Motives here are Unclear, and well it is not like YOU can Complain to the New York Bar - as Proskauer Rose LLP controls the New York Bar.
Stephen Lamont is Under Investigation for Fraudulently Representing iViewit and other Suspected Illegal Activities and though Gregg M. Mashberg and Proskauer Rose LLP KNOW this, still Gregg M. Mashberg files this JOKE on the New York Courts, Why?
Gregg M. Mashberg - Proskauer Rose LLP
Just How Corrupt is Gregg M. Mashberg - I mean Come on Stephen Lamont ILLEGALLY Files a "Bernstein Vs. Appellate Division First Department..." and Even though Gregg Mashberg, Proskauer Rose LLP Attorney KNOWS that P. Stephen Lamont has No Right to Do so, Still Gregg M. Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP has a RESPONSE Delivered?
A Hand Delivered Response from Gregg M. Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Proskauer Rose LLP, Attorney Gregg M. Mashberg RESPONDS to P. Stephen Lamont's Fraudulent Court Filings on Behalf of iViewit when Gregg M. Mashberg - Proskauer Rose LLPAttorrney knows that Stephen Lamont has no Right to be filing anything on behalf of iViewit.
Proskauer Rose LLP, Gregg M. Mashberg Attorneys Pro Se for Proskauer Rose LLP
and Attorneys for Kenneth Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane and and the Estate of Steven Rackow Kaye .. and "Respectfully Submitted" - that is BULL - it is Lies and Cover Ups and no Respect Intended..
The Corrupt Proskauer Rose LLP is Still representing themselves in the Iviewit Stolen Technology Case. Odd that 2 of the Above Attorneys have Died, and they are VERY Guilty of Stealing a 13 Trillion Dollar Patent. And yet still Proskauer Ross LLP seems to Run the New York Justice System and Get Their Way.
There is Tons of Proof on Proskauer Rose's Guilt in the Stealing of the Iviewit Technologies Invention and in Proskauer Roses Law Firm using this to Entice Enron, which led to the Collapse of Enron and Billions Lost to Investors. Which is the Same thing that Will Soon happen at Intel Corp. , Time Warner, Warner Bros., SONY, Lockheed Martin, and More..
So what is Gregg M. Mashberg and the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm Really Up to with this, the Latest Stunt in the Decade Old Saga of Proskauer Rose Patent Thieves for MPEG LA.
Click Here for Eliot Bernstein iViewit Technology SEC Complaint Against Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Stephen Kaye, MPEG LA and many others...
Got a Tip on Gregg M. Mashberg or Proskauer Rose LLP ?
eMail me Crystal L. Cox ~ Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
So why is the Corrupt Law Firm of Proskauer Rose Responding to an Illegal Filing by Stephen Lamont on Behalf of Iviewit Technologies?
Could it be that Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose is doing this to deliberately fraud the courts, as Stephen Lamont is VERY Connected to Judith Kaye, ex-supreme court judge who was married to Proskauer Rose Partner Stephen Kaye - and Judith Kaye use to Work at IBM and is connected with William Dick who also use to work at IBM and is connected to the Iviewit Patent Suppression and iViewit Invention Theft.
So it seems to me that New York Attorney Gregg M. Mashberg, Proskauer Rose Law Firm is deliberately frauding the courts and the motive seems to me to be to cause further stalling of the Iviewit Technology patent and to further prolong the Federal RICO Lawsuit against Proskauer Rose, the Criminal Complaint and SEC Complaint Against Proskauer Rose and to Protect the Corrupt MPEG LA to keep making Billions a year on a technology that Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose LLP knew he had stolen for MPEG LA over a Decade Ago.
So why is this all going on Right Now?
What is P. Stephen Lamont up to with Gregg M. Mashberg and the Pro Se Party over there at the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm?
Eliot Bernstein did Not initiate this at this Time, P. Stephen Lamont did and P. Stephen Lamont has No Legal Right to Speak for Eliot Bernstein, nor does P. Stephen Lamont have a right to speak for the iViewit Investors or the iViewit Inventors.
For Proskauer Rose LLP to Continue in this scam, they are blatantly playing games on Judge Shira Scheindlin and making a mockery out of the New York Courts. Gregg M. Mashberg, Proskauer Rose is Doing This Deliberately to confuse the issue and to keep Stephen Lamont involved somehow. All the Motives here are Unclear, and well it is not like YOU can Complain to the New York Bar - as Proskauer Rose LLP controls the New York Bar.
Stephen Lamont is Under Investigation for Fraudulently Representing iViewit and other Suspected Illegal Activities and though Gregg M. Mashberg and Proskauer Rose LLP KNOW this, still Gregg M. Mashberg files this JOKE on the New York Courts, Why?
Gregg M. Mashberg - Proskauer Rose LLP
Just How Corrupt is Gregg M. Mashberg - I mean Come on Stephen Lamont ILLEGALLY Files a "Bernstein Vs. Appellate Division First Department..." and Even though Gregg Mashberg, Proskauer Rose LLP Attorney KNOWS that P. Stephen Lamont has No Right to Do so, Still Gregg M. Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP has a RESPONSE Delivered?
A Hand Delivered Response from Gregg M. Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Proskauer Rose LLP, Attorney Gregg M. Mashberg RESPONDS to P. Stephen Lamont's Fraudulent Court Filings on Behalf of iViewit when Gregg M. Mashberg - Proskauer Rose LLPAttorrney knows that Stephen Lamont has no Right to be filing anything on behalf of iViewit.
Proskauer Rose LLP, Gregg M. Mashberg Attorneys Pro Se for Proskauer Rose LLP
and Attorneys for Kenneth Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane and and the Estate of Steven Rackow Kaye .. and "Respectfully Submitted" - that is BULL - it is Lies and Cover Ups and no Respect Intended..
The Corrupt Proskauer Rose LLP is Still representing themselves in the Iviewit Stolen Technology Case. Odd that 2 of the Above Attorneys have Died, and they are VERY Guilty of Stealing a 13 Trillion Dollar Patent. And yet still Proskauer Ross LLP seems to Run the New York Justice System and Get Their Way.
There is Tons of Proof on Proskauer Rose's Guilt in the Stealing of the Iviewit Technologies Invention and in Proskauer Roses Law Firm using this to Entice Enron, which led to the Collapse of Enron and Billions Lost to Investors. Which is the Same thing that Will Soon happen at Intel Corp. , Time Warner, Warner Bros., SONY, Lockheed Martin, and More..
So what is Gregg M. Mashberg and the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm Really Up to with this, the Latest Stunt in the Decade Old Saga of Proskauer Rose Patent Thieves for MPEG LA.
Click Here for Eliot Bernstein iViewit Technology SEC Complaint Against Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Stephen Kaye, MPEG LA and many others...
Got a Tip on Gregg M. Mashberg or Proskauer Rose LLP ?
eMail me Crystal L. Cox ~ Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Christopher C. Wheeler, Matthew Triggs - Proskauer Rose Frauds the Florida Supreme Court. What is Proskauer Rose man in charge Joseph Leccese Doing About it ?
Christopher Clark Wheeler - Proskauer Rose LLP Corrupt Patent Attorney, Protected by Proskauer Rose Law Firm, the Florida and New York Supreme Court.
" Take a moment to honor the original conspirator, Christopher Clark Wheeler, one of the main suspects and ringleaders of the crime who has subsequently been charged with a Felony Driving Under the Influence Charge with Injury making his credibility as an attorney further mired in crimes.
An arrest warrant was been issued in that matter, click Wheeler's picture on the left for the Delray Beach Police Department report or this link -Wheeler's arrest report or this one for the PD blotter.
So where his more serious crimes, like fraud on a whole bunch of government agencies and foreign nations now landed Iviewit and its shareholders at the United States Supreme Court to present our case forviolations of public office by Chris Wheeler and Matthew Triggs, Wheeler going with this further public nuisance crime upon his head.
Christophe Wheeler, the main protagonist, the first attorney to revel the inventions and be disclosed the processes, is found recklessly endangering lives, now drunk and a true danger to himself and society.
In addition, the Petition filed by Iviewit contained allegations and evidence that linked the President of the Florida Bar and others to conflicts.
The Florida Supreme Court ordered a response to the Petition by the Florida Bar and what was set forth in response was perhaps the most incompetent legal response (Illiterate Florida Bar Response to Petition) ever by the Florida Bar, authored by Eric Turner - Chief Branch Officer, and Eric Turner completed law school.
Authored with a complaint filed against him, which should have precluded his response in conflict, yet Turner so stressed out writes a letter that is legally and intelligibly incoherent, even addressing the Florida Supreme Court improperly and this is a Chief Counsel of The Florida Bar.
For this letter alone Eric Turner should have been sent back to law school.
Turners response fails to address any of the allegations in the Petition as demanded by the SCF order and instead states that the Florida Barreview work was done well.
The problem, the review was done and included responses tendered byMatthew Triggs as attorney for his partner Wheeler, while Matthew Triggs was in a confirmed black-out period at the Florida Bar where he was unable to represent any party due to his public office position with the Florida Bar.
Iviewit filed with the SCF a rebuttal identifying the Florida Bar failure to address the questions in the Petition and asking for a default judgment and also due to Turner's response failing to properly identify parties including the SCF, Rebuttal Response.
Further, the exhibits in the illiterate response done by Eric Turner which contain the Florida Bar reviewers (no investigation was undertaken) assessment of the Wheeler complaint, are all invalid, as Wheeler's responses where all tendered by Matthew Triggs in conflict but what is interesting to note is how each reviewer attempts to claim that they found no wrong doing or that Proskauer Rose was not patent counsel.
Without any investigation, the Florida Bar is not allowed by their own rules to make any opinions in favor of either party and may only decline to undertake investigation.
Yet, the conflicts, unknown and concealed by Christopher Wheeler andMatthew Triggs had worked there magic and influenced the Florida Bar to attempt to write exculpatory language on behalf of Proskauer Rose, one wonders what the cost of buying off justice cost.
The Florida Bar acting more as a defacto attorney protection agency versus a consumer organization, where even after being caught inconflicts and violations of public office - attorneys remain not prosecuted and where citizen complaints to The Florida Bar have been denied being filed quite inapposite the intent of the Florida Constitution in creating a bar and inapposite of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.
When citizens are denied the right to complain about elected officials violating clearly established laws inapposite the rules of procedure, it is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union.
Shocking but true, just look up the case and watch it as it now is up for appeal at the United States Supreme Court and there is more corruption following, this time a similar series of conflicts of interest, improprieties and abuses of public office in New York, where court ordered investigations have been derailed and other miscellaneous fodder. "
Source of Above
http://iviewit.tv/about/index.htm
Proskauer Rose LLP - Chris Wheeler Crimes
Exhibit 4 – Utley Resume as submitted by Christopher Wheeler to I View It and Board
Exhibit 19 – How to steal an applet, first act, Brian invention at home is 2nd attempt after this is foiled
******
Wheeler response to The initial small form Florida Bar complaint
Iviewit rebuttal to Wheeler response to The Florida Bar #1
some wheeler perjury to florida bar goes well with dui and somehow evades detection
******
matthew triggs - florida bar complaint - florida bar and florida supreme court refuse to docket formally the complaint although it has affirmed violations of triggs public office as a member of the florida bar and conflicting his representation of wheeler. currently under review at the united states supreme court.
supreme court of florida - iviewit original filing
florida bar response to supreme court order to respond to petition
fails to deal with any substantive issues of the petition and as such stands in default. they claim to have done a good review to the supreme court and where such review contained conflicted responses from triggs, that would have invalidated the prior reviews.
response is unintelligible and addresses parties incorrectly such as (this court) when more appropriately (this Court) and other such defined term problems.
iviewit rebuttal to florida bar non-response - supreme court of florida
florida bar response - another turner classic
Of interest -- inventor Bernstein has since discovery of the inventions told of how the inventions came to be as coming in dreams as gifts from G0D to help your children save the planet. This makes the crimes even more insidious, to read of this fascinating truth of how these inventions came to be visit the inventor.
More on the Corrupt Attorney Christopher C. Wheeler
http://www.christophercwheeler.com/
" Take a moment to honor the original conspirator, Christopher Clark Wheeler, one of the main suspects and ringleaders of the crime who has subsequently been charged with a Felony Driving Under the Influence Charge with Injury making his credibility as an attorney further mired in crimes.
An arrest warrant was been issued in that matter, click Wheeler's picture on the left for the Delray Beach Police Department report or this link -Wheeler's arrest report or this one for the PD blotter.
So where his more serious crimes, like fraud on a whole bunch of government agencies and foreign nations now landed Iviewit and its shareholders at the United States Supreme Court to present our case forviolations of public office by Chris Wheeler and Matthew Triggs, Wheeler going with this further public nuisance crime upon his head.
Christophe Wheeler, the main protagonist, the first attorney to revel the inventions and be disclosed the processes, is found recklessly endangering lives, now drunk and a true danger to himself and society.
In addition, the Petition filed by Iviewit contained allegations and evidence that linked the President of the Florida Bar and others to conflicts.
The Florida Supreme Court ordered a response to the Petition by the Florida Bar and what was set forth in response was perhaps the most incompetent legal response (Illiterate Florida Bar Response to Petition) ever by the Florida Bar, authored by Eric Turner - Chief Branch Officer, and Eric Turner completed law school.
Authored with a complaint filed against him, which should have precluded his response in conflict, yet Turner so stressed out writes a letter that is legally and intelligibly incoherent, even addressing the Florida Supreme Court improperly and this is a Chief Counsel of The Florida Bar.
For this letter alone Eric Turner should have been sent back to law school.
Turners response fails to address any of the allegations in the Petition as demanded by the SCF order and instead states that the Florida Barreview work was done well.
The problem, the review was done and included responses tendered byMatthew Triggs as attorney for his partner Wheeler, while Matthew Triggs was in a confirmed black-out period at the Florida Bar where he was unable to represent any party due to his public office position with the Florida Bar.
Iviewit filed with the SCF a rebuttal identifying the Florida Bar failure to address the questions in the Petition and asking for a default judgment and also due to Turner's response failing to properly identify parties including the SCF, Rebuttal Response.
Further, the exhibits in the illiterate response done by Eric Turner which contain the Florida Bar reviewers (no investigation was undertaken) assessment of the Wheeler complaint, are all invalid, as Wheeler's responses where all tendered by Matthew Triggs in conflict but what is interesting to note is how each reviewer attempts to claim that they found no wrong doing or that Proskauer Rose was not patent counsel.
Without any investigation, the Florida Bar is not allowed by their own rules to make any opinions in favor of either party and may only decline to undertake investigation.
Yet, the conflicts, unknown and concealed by Christopher Wheeler andMatthew Triggs had worked there magic and influenced the Florida Bar to attempt to write exculpatory language on behalf of Proskauer Rose, one wonders what the cost of buying off justice cost.
The Florida Bar acting more as a defacto attorney protection agency versus a consumer organization, where even after being caught inconflicts and violations of public office - attorneys remain not prosecuted and where citizen complaints to The Florida Bar have been denied being filed quite inapposite the intent of the Florida Constitution in creating a bar and inapposite of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.
When citizens are denied the right to complain about elected officials violating clearly established laws inapposite the rules of procedure, it is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union.
Shocking but true, just look up the case and watch it as it now is up for appeal at the United States Supreme Court and there is more corruption following, this time a similar series of conflicts of interest, improprieties and abuses of public office in New York, where court ordered investigations have been derailed and other miscellaneous fodder. "
Source of Above
http://iviewit.tv/about/index.htm
Proskauer Rose LLP - Chris Wheeler Crimes
Exhibit 4 – Utley Resume as submitted by Christopher Wheeler to I View It and Board
Exhibit 19 – How to steal an applet, first act, Brian invention at home is 2nd attempt after this is foiled
******
Wheeler response to The initial small form Florida Bar complaint
Iviewit rebuttal to Wheeler response to The Florida Bar #1
some wheeler perjury to florida bar goes well with dui and somehow evades detection
******
matthew triggs - florida bar complaint - florida bar and florida supreme court refuse to docket formally the complaint although it has affirmed violations of triggs public office as a member of the florida bar and conflicting his representation of wheeler. currently under review at the united states supreme court.
supreme court of florida - iviewit original filing
florida bar response to supreme court order to respond to petition
fails to deal with any substantive issues of the petition and as such stands in default. they claim to have done a good review to the supreme court and where such review contained conflicted responses from triggs, that would have invalidated the prior reviews.
response is unintelligible and addresses parties incorrectly such as (this court) when more appropriately (this Court) and other such defined term problems.
iviewit rebuttal to florida bar non-response - supreme court of florida
florida bar response - another turner classic
Of interest -- inventor Bernstein has since discovery of the inventions told of how the inventions came to be as coming in dreams as gifts from G0D to help your children save the planet. This makes the crimes even more insidious, to read of this fascinating truth of how these inventions came to be visit the inventor.
More on the Corrupt Attorney Christopher C. Wheeler
http://www.christophercwheeler.com/
Proskauer Rose Law Firm involved in Major Video Technology Theft. Is Joseph Leccese, Head of Proskauer Rose doing anything?
"MPEG LA involved in Major Video Technology Theft. MPEG LA LLC stole the Iviewit Video Technology
Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division - Assistant Attorney General.
More Iviewit Proof of Fraud and MPEG LA Involvement. Proskauer Rose LLP Corruption. Patent Fraud ?
June 10, 1999 - Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division - Assistant Attorney General
" Carey R. Ramos, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6064
Dear Mr. Ramos:
This letter is in response to your request on behalf of Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Time Warner Inc., Toshiba Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (collectively, the "Licensors"), for the issuance of a business review letter pursuant to the Department of Justice's Business Review Procedure, 28 C.F.R. § 50.6.
You have requested a statement of the Department of Justice's antitrust enforcement intentions with respect to a proposed arrangement pursuant to which Toshiba will assemble and offer a package license under the Licensors' patents that are "essential," as defined below, to manufacturing products in compliance with the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats and will distribute royalty income to the other Licensors.
I. The DVD-ROM and DVD-Video Formats
The Standard Specifications for the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats describe the physical and technical parameters for DVDs for read-only-memory and video applications, respectively, and "rules, conditions and mechanisms" for player units for the two formats.
(1) In either format, the DVD has more than seven times the storage capacity of a compact disc; a single-layer, single-sided DVD, for example, can store 4.7 billion bytes (4.38 GB) of information including audio, video, text, and data. Employing compression technology, a DVD-Video disc can hold a 135-minute feature film on a single side.
The Licensors, along with a number of other producers of consumer electronics hardware, software, or both,
(2) established the Standard Specifications.
(3) These Standard Specifications appear to implicate the intellectual property rights of numerous firms.
II. The Proposed Arrangement
A memorandum of understanding among the Licensors (the "MOU," attached as Exhibit 1 to your letter) sets forth the central terms of the proposed arrangement, pursuant to which Toshiba will aggregate the Licensors' "essential" patents and disseminate rights under them to makers of Digital Versatile Discs (DVDs), DVD players, and DVD decoders
(4) ("DVD Products"), and distribute royalty income to the other Licensors. The arrangement will be carried out through a group of other agreements, including:
(1) a license that Toshiba will receive from each other Licensor to enable Toshiba to license users of the Standard Specifications under that Licensor's "essential" patents (the "Authorization Agreement," attached as Exhibit 3); (2) Toshiba's sublicense to makers of DVD Products under the Licensors' patents (the "DVD Patent License," attached as Exhibit 2);
(3) an agreement among the Licensors concerning the retention and authority of experts to select and evaluate the patents to be licensed (the "Expert Agreement," attached as Exhibit 4); and
(4) the "Ground Rules for Royalty Allocation" (attached as Exhibit 7), which set forth the formula that will determine how Toshiba will distribute royalties among the Licensors.
(5) A. The patents to be licensed In the MOU, the Licensors commit to license each other and third parties to make, use and sell DVD Products under their present and future patents that are "essential" to doing so.
(6) The Licensors agree to two separate means of carrying out this obligation. First, they agree to grant Toshiba the right to sublicense third parties under their present and future "essential" patents for these purposes, and Toshiba agrees in turn to sublicense those patents, along with its own such patents, in the DVD Patent Licenses.
(7) Second, each Licensor agrees to "offer to license its essential DVD patents on a non-exclusive basis to interested third-party licensees pursuant to separate negotiations on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, whether or not said third-party licensees intend to make, use and sell DVD products that are in conformity with the Specifications."
(8) A Licensor's patent is "essential," and thus subject to the commitments in the MOU, if it is "necessarily infringed," or "there is no realistic alternative" to it, "in implementing the DVD Standard Specifications."
(9) Initially, each Licensor will identify its own "essential" patents in an attachment to its Authorization Agreement with Toshiba.
(10) Toshiba will then incorporate those patents in a list attached to the DVD Patent License.
(11) Shortly, however, an expert individual or panel, with "full and sufficient knowledge and skill in the relevant technology,"
(12) will complete a review the patents each Licensor has designated as "essential" in order to determine whether they satisfy the MOU criteria.
(13).MOU, ¶ 8; Expert Agreement, preamble.
(14) At that time, any patent initially designated by a Licensor for inclusion in the DVD Patent License that the expert determines is not "essential" will be excluded from subsequent DVD Patent Licenses, although current licensees will have the option to retain it in their existing licenses.
(15) The expert will repeat this comprehensive review of all the patents in the DVD Patent License portfolio every four years.
(16) In between the quadrennial reviews, the proposed program also provides a mechanism by which the expert may review individual patents whose essentiality comes into question. If a Licensor comes to a good faith conclusion that a licensed patent is not "essential," and provides a reasonable basis for that belief, the expert will re-examine the patent.
(17) If the expert concludes that the patent is not "essential," the patent will be excluded from the DVD Patent License.
(18) The agreement provides that the expert's determinations are "conclusive and non-appealable," although the expert must submit a report explaining any decision that a patent was not "essential."
(19) Compensation will be at the expert's "standard hourly rates."
(20) Each Licensor will bear the cost of the expert's review of its patents; the Licensors will share costs attributable to all of them, such as time spent reviewing the DVD Standard Specifications.
(21) The expert, although retained by the Licensors and selected by a majority vote among them, will not have an economic affiliation with any individual Licensor.
(22) A majority of the Licensors may remove the expert for failure or inability to perform the duties set forth in the Expert Agreement "in a professional, competent, reliable or timely manner."
(23) Although the proposed licensing program currently includes the patents of only the Licensors, it is open to any owner of an "essential" patent willing to license on the program's terms and conditions.(24)
Full Letter and Source of Post
Save and Print the Above for Your Records.
Note: over the Last year of Writing on iViewt the companies at the top of this post have been all over my Blogs, they Ignore what is happening because the UPSTO, US Judges, Corrupt Law Firms like Foley and Lardner and ALL on my blog at http://www.deniedpatent.com/ seem to be protected by US Billionaires and Politicians. THEY knwo that the Massive Shareholder Liability is Inevitable and Are Protecting themselve from it.
No ONE is Protecting Investors or Inventors.
More on the Massive Shareholder Fraud Coming Soon to a Pocket Book near You.
GOOG, MPEG LA LLC,
Proskauer Rose Involved in Fraud on the US Patent Office? Is Proskauer Rose Joseph Leccese Really Looking into the iViewit Case?
"MPEG - Proskauer Rose LLP Stealing Inventions - A fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Eliot I. Bernstein on Sunday, January 22nd, 2006 @ 09:21PM www.iviewit.tvMy name is Eliot Bernstein and I am one of the inventors of the Iviewit inventions.
Many of the quotes here are from me and the proof for many of these claims can be found at the www.iviewit.tv website. Simply go to left navigation bar and click on the Supreme Court button and then click on either Appendix C or Exhibit Gallery.
Although voluminous in size, the exhibits are chalk full of evidence and information regarding the ongoing investigations. Also, much can be learned at the Iviewit blog at http://patentgate.blogspot.com .
In response to this post, Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer Rose LLPtook invention disclosures from Iviewit inventors and patented those concepts into their management referral, Brian Utley's name. Rubenstein also contracted Raymond Joao at the law firm Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe & Schlissel to file the applications, while Rubenstein and Proskauer handled all of the other intellectual property work, including Rubenstein acting as a board member and opining to many investors on the inventions.
Joao worked at the law firm that Kenneth Rubenstein was at immediately prior to his learning of theIviewit inventions, MLGWS and then after learning of the inventions,Rubenstein instantly jumped to Proskauer, a firm that had no other intellectual property department to speak of and had been a real estate firm since the 1800's.
Proskauer Rose had already been retained and began work for Iviewit prior to Rubenstein leaving Meltzer. In fact, Kenneth Rubenstein and Joao were initially represented as Proskauer attorneys, although they were still at Meltzer. Joao filed patents into his own name while retained by Iviewit to file patents as Rubenstein’s lackey. Joao’s patents contained many of the ideas he and Kenneth Rubenstein learned from the Iviewit inventors, the disclosures and business plans of Iviewit.
It is absurd to think that a patent attorney could file any patents in his name without a thorough conflict waiver from all clients and approval from the patent bar. History has never had a case where the patent attorney ran out and filed a blizzard of patents all crossing into his clients patent applications. Joao was also part of an elaborate scheme to move the patents out ofIviewit and into companies that Proskauer set up that had similar and identical names to the Iviewit companies.
Yet, the shareholder of those companies appears to be Proskauer Rose and others, not the true Iviewit shareholders or inventors.
Iviewit shareholders, including the SBA were totally unaware that these similar companies had been set up and unawarethat that similar patents were being filed into these companies with the false inventor BrianUtley, false owners and assignees.
Joao was discovered patenting ideas into his name and other dubious behavior and he was fired for his actions. Proskauer and Utley referred William Dick of Foley and Lardner to replace Joao, Utley stated that Dick was the IBM Far East patent attorney and his very close personal friend.
The original Proskauer attorney, Christopher Clarke Wheeler, Esq.(recently arrested in Del Ray Beach, FL for DUI with bodily injury) failed to disclose that he, Utley and Dick were involved in intellectual property crimes from Utley's former employ, Diamond Turf Equipment owned by Monte Freidkin of Boca Raton.
Friedkin discovered that patents were walking out the door to Utley's sole (souless) name and fired him. It was not learned until Wheeler andUtley's deposition and Dick's response to the Virginia Bar that the three of them had been involved in the crime.
Wheeler set up the company, Dick wrote the patents from Utley's employer secretly into Utley's name at home and Utley got in and stole the inventions from his employer.
This is the same type of scam that they instituted on Iviewit and again appear to be failing achieving their ends. Dick was Joao's replacement and since it was never disclosed by any of them, the fact of their prior past patent theft attempt, Iviewit was dumbfounded to find this prior history out after learning they were stealing Iviewit inventions.
Moreover, Wheeler and Proskauer submitted a resume on Utley that claimed that Diamond Turf went on to be a huge success do to Utley's inventions, when the truth was that the company was instantly closed by Friedkin after he found Utley stealing from his company while acting as the President of Friedkin’s company.
Utley failed to disclose this, Wheeler and Proskauer never disclosed this when Iviewit retained them and Dick and Foley failed to inform us of Dick's past with this group.
This is a criminal organization of patent thieves, they have a history and they are a danger to inventors, good lawyers everywhere and the United States and foreign countries patent systems.
I am not against patent attorneys filing patents as long as there is a hefty review by the patent department or the USTPO OED, to investigate if those attorney inventions lay claim on any client inventions they may have represented or as in our case misrepresented.
It is very dangerous for patent attorneys to be patenting inventions for themselves while representing client interests, and the obvious collusion amongst patent attorneys to work together to steal each others clients inventions remains a gaping hole.
Yet these guys filed false oaths on applications in others names for inventions they learned while retained by the Iviewit inventors,no excuse can be had for this, this is plain theft, fraud on the patent office, fraud on the Iviewit inventors, the Iviewit shareholders and all the EPO foreign offices and the history of the world and invention.
This is not even close to a patent attorney having a novel idea (although that seems far fetched as attorneys are not typically inventive) and then patenting it in his name with no client involved. Joao has stated that some of his inventions were prior to ours and that Iviewit was in fact infringing on his inventions (he claimed this to the New York Supreme CourtAppellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee), yet Joao failed to seek waivers or disclose this in writing or verbally to anyone seems absurd.
I find it further disgusting that MPEG patent inclusion is controlled by a single person, Kenneth Rubenstein, where the temptation is all to obvious.
Patent pooling schemes have been killed historically by the Justice Department for the very reasons that Iviewit complains of, anti-competitive monopolistic practices that violate Sherman and Clayton and almost every antitrust practice. Patent pooling schemes created by lawyers to make money as middlemen also seems to violate ethics.
For instance, how canProskauer and Rubenstein profit from MPEG as counsel for MPEG (as Rubenstein discloses in his deposition at the Iviewit Exhibit gallery) and at the same time take invention disclosure as inventors counsel under Proskauer for review when the patent concepts could completely render MPEG useless, as the Iviewit inventions do, destroying Rubenstein and now PRoskauers pooling schemes?
How can Rubenstein review Iviewit patents for MPEG and at the same time give Iviewit unbiased advice on their patents or control their fate by inclusion or exclusion, while Proskauer and Rubenstein are direct benefactors of the MPEGLA pool profits?
The conflict is as wide as the Grand Canyon, no China Wall, in fact an open door for crime to occur, crimes that violate Article 1, Section 8,Clause 8 inventor protections by those entrusted to protect those rights as part of the patent bar. The obvious is happening here, MPEG andProskauer have found a way to review patents as patent counsel and then steal them as patent poolers looking to profit from others inventions.
The first complaint that was filed at the patent office was in an invention format as a joke, not a joke to laugh at, it was appropriately titled, "System and Method for Committing Fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office and the Iviewit Inventors". I wonder if the patent department will approve it? lol... This is the only thing that Joao,Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Dick, Foley and Lardner, Brian Utley and others accused, ever invented.
Please feel free to contact me for further information or an interview.
wEliot I. BernsteinInventorIviewit Technologies, Inc.
iviewit@iviewit.tv
www.iviewit.tv
http://patentgate.blogspot.com "
r
Source of Post
http://patentgate.blogspot.com/
Posted Here By
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Many of the quotes here are from me and the proof for many of these claims can be found at the www.iviewit.tv website. Simply go to left navigation bar and click on the Supreme Court button and then click on either Appendix C or Exhibit Gallery.
Although voluminous in size, the exhibits are chalk full of evidence and information regarding the ongoing investigations. Also, much can be learned at the Iviewit blog at http://patentgate.blogspot.com .
In response to this post, Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer Rose LLPtook invention disclosures from Iviewit inventors and patented those concepts into their management referral, Brian Utley's name. Rubenstein also contracted Raymond Joao at the law firm Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe & Schlissel to file the applications, while Rubenstein and Proskauer handled all of the other intellectual property work, including Rubenstein acting as a board member and opining to many investors on the inventions.
Joao worked at the law firm that Kenneth Rubenstein was at immediately prior to his learning of theIviewit inventions, MLGWS and then after learning of the inventions,Rubenstein instantly jumped to Proskauer, a firm that had no other intellectual property department to speak of and had been a real estate firm since the 1800's.
Proskauer Rose had already been retained and began work for Iviewit prior to Rubenstein leaving Meltzer. In fact, Kenneth Rubenstein and Joao were initially represented as Proskauer attorneys, although they were still at Meltzer. Joao filed patents into his own name while retained by Iviewit to file patents as Rubenstein’s lackey. Joao’s patents contained many of the ideas he and Kenneth Rubenstein learned from the Iviewit inventors, the disclosures and business plans of Iviewit.
It is absurd to think that a patent attorney could file any patents in his name without a thorough conflict waiver from all clients and approval from the patent bar. History has never had a case where the patent attorney ran out and filed a blizzard of patents all crossing into his clients patent applications. Joao was also part of an elaborate scheme to move the patents out ofIviewit and into companies that Proskauer set up that had similar and identical names to the Iviewit companies.
Yet, the shareholder of those companies appears to be Proskauer Rose and others, not the true Iviewit shareholders or inventors.
Iviewit shareholders, including the SBA were totally unaware that these similar companies had been set up and unawarethat that similar patents were being filed into these companies with the false inventor BrianUtley, false owners and assignees.
Joao was discovered patenting ideas into his name and other dubious behavior and he was fired for his actions. Proskauer and Utley referred William Dick of Foley and Lardner to replace Joao, Utley stated that Dick was the IBM Far East patent attorney and his very close personal friend.
The original Proskauer attorney, Christopher Clarke Wheeler, Esq.(recently arrested in Del Ray Beach, FL for DUI with bodily injury) failed to disclose that he, Utley and Dick were involved in intellectual property crimes from Utley's former employ, Diamond Turf Equipment owned by Monte Freidkin of Boca Raton.
Friedkin discovered that patents were walking out the door to Utley's sole (souless) name and fired him. It was not learned until Wheeler andUtley's deposition and Dick's response to the Virginia Bar that the three of them had been involved in the crime.
Wheeler set up the company, Dick wrote the patents from Utley's employer secretly into Utley's name at home and Utley got in and stole the inventions from his employer.
This is the same type of scam that they instituted on Iviewit and again appear to be failing achieving their ends. Dick was Joao's replacement and since it was never disclosed by any of them, the fact of their prior past patent theft attempt, Iviewit was dumbfounded to find this prior history out after learning they were stealing Iviewit inventions.
Moreover, Wheeler and Proskauer submitted a resume on Utley that claimed that Diamond Turf went on to be a huge success do to Utley's inventions, when the truth was that the company was instantly closed by Friedkin after he found Utley stealing from his company while acting as the President of Friedkin’s company.
Utley failed to disclose this, Wheeler and Proskauer never disclosed this when Iviewit retained them and Dick and Foley failed to inform us of Dick's past with this group.
This is a criminal organization of patent thieves, they have a history and they are a danger to inventors, good lawyers everywhere and the United States and foreign countries patent systems.
I am not against patent attorneys filing patents as long as there is a hefty review by the patent department or the USTPO OED, to investigate if those attorney inventions lay claim on any client inventions they may have represented or as in our case misrepresented.
It is very dangerous for patent attorneys to be patenting inventions for themselves while representing client interests, and the obvious collusion amongst patent attorneys to work together to steal each others clients inventions remains a gaping hole.
Yet these guys filed false oaths on applications in others names for inventions they learned while retained by the Iviewit inventors,no excuse can be had for this, this is plain theft, fraud on the patent office, fraud on the Iviewit inventors, the Iviewit shareholders and all the EPO foreign offices and the history of the world and invention.
This is not even close to a patent attorney having a novel idea (although that seems far fetched as attorneys are not typically inventive) and then patenting it in his name with no client involved. Joao has stated that some of his inventions were prior to ours and that Iviewit was in fact infringing on his inventions (he claimed this to the New York Supreme CourtAppellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee), yet Joao failed to seek waivers or disclose this in writing or verbally to anyone seems absurd.
I find it further disgusting that MPEG patent inclusion is controlled by a single person, Kenneth Rubenstein, where the temptation is all to obvious.
Patent pooling schemes have been killed historically by the Justice Department for the very reasons that Iviewit complains of, anti-competitive monopolistic practices that violate Sherman and Clayton and almost every antitrust practice. Patent pooling schemes created by lawyers to make money as middlemen also seems to violate ethics.
For instance, how canProskauer and Rubenstein profit from MPEG as counsel for MPEG (as Rubenstein discloses in his deposition at the Iviewit Exhibit gallery) and at the same time take invention disclosure as inventors counsel under Proskauer for review when the patent concepts could completely render MPEG useless, as the Iviewit inventions do, destroying Rubenstein and now PRoskauers pooling schemes?
How can Rubenstein review Iviewit patents for MPEG and at the same time give Iviewit unbiased advice on their patents or control their fate by inclusion or exclusion, while Proskauer and Rubenstein are direct benefactors of the MPEGLA pool profits?
The conflict is as wide as the Grand Canyon, no China Wall, in fact an open door for crime to occur, crimes that violate Article 1, Section 8,Clause 8 inventor protections by those entrusted to protect those rights as part of the patent bar. The obvious is happening here, MPEG andProskauer have found a way to review patents as patent counsel and then steal them as patent poolers looking to profit from others inventions.
The first complaint that was filed at the patent office was in an invention format as a joke, not a joke to laugh at, it was appropriately titled, "System and Method for Committing Fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office and the Iviewit Inventors". I wonder if the patent department will approve it? lol... This is the only thing that Joao,Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Dick, Foley and Lardner, Brian Utley and others accused, ever invented.
Please feel free to contact me for further information or an interview.
wEliot I. BernsteinInventorIviewit Technologies, Inc.
iviewit@iviewit.tv
www.iviewit.tv
http://patentgate.blogspot.com "
r
Source of Post
http://patentgate.blogspot.com/
Posted Here By
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)