Patent Theft, Background on the Iviewit Stolen Technology.

"A Background of the Iviewit Inventions

By way of introduction, I am P. Stephen Lamont, former Acting CEO of Iviewit (counsel advised all Iviewit executives to resign their posts and work along side Iviewit rather than within Iviewit, as the former Board of Directors, Counsel and Accountants, disbanded without requisite notice to Shareholders in violation of law, thereby leaving massive liability and exposure) and a significant shareholder in Iviewit.

With more than a fifteen year track record as a multimedia technology and consumer electronics licensing executive and holder of a J.D. in Intellectual Property Law from Columbia University, an M.B.A in Finance, and a B.S. in Industrial Engineering, I appallingly write at the cross current, by and between parties described herein, pattern of frauds, deceits, and misrepresentations that run so wide and so deep that it tears at the very fabric of what has become to be know as free commerce in this country, and, in the fact that it pertains to inventors rights, tears at the very fabric of the Constitution of the United States more fully described below.

I write to you with, Eliot I. Bernstein, who was factually present throughout all of these events and so has contributed to assure the veracity of the statements herein and provide credible witness to the events described herein prior to my joining Iviewit.

Mr. Bernstein is the main inventor of the technologies, inventions which he claims to have come from divine origin with a divine purpose.

On or about 1997, Iviewit’s founder, Eliot I. Bernstein and other inventors, came upon inventions pertaining to what industry experts have heretofore described as profound shifts from traditional techniques in video and imaging then overlooked in the annals of digital video and imaging technologies.

Factually, the main video technology is one of capturing a video frame at a, including but not limited to, 320 by 240 frame size (roughly, ¼ of a display device) at a frame rate of one (1) to infinity frames per second (“fps” and at the twenty four (24) to thirty (30) range commonly referred to as “full frame rates” to those skilled in the art).

Moreover, once captured, and in its simplest terms, the scaled frames are then digitized (if necessary), filtered, encoded, and delivered to an agnostic display device and then scaled to a full frame size of, including but not limited to, 1280 by 960 at the full frame rates of 24 to 30 fps. The result is, when combined with other proprietary technologies, high quality video at bandwidths of 56 or more Kbps to 6 Mbps per second, at a surprising seventy five percent (75%!) savings in throughput/bandwidth on any digital delivery system such as digital terrestrial, cable, satellite, multipoint-multichannel delivery system, or the Internet, and a similar 75%! savings in storage on mediums such as digital video discs “DVD’s” and the hard drives of many consumer electronic devices.

Also, these savings result in a 75%! decrease in the necessary processing power to encode the video, making old school concepts of parallel processors obsolete and allowing the process of encoding to occur on even a laptop.

Therefore, the video technology opened new markets therefore in both low bandwidth video as is found on cell phones and the Internet to the other end of the spectrum to high end video such as HDDVD, etc. changing even the way television was created, transmitted and viewed, a change from interlacing to the new Iviewit scaling processes, allowing cable companies to increase channel throughput by 75%!

Moreover, on the imaging side, the Iviewit inventions are used on almost every digital camera and present screen design and other devices that utilize the feature of “digital zoom”, whereby the imaging technology provided a way to zoom almost infinitely on a low resolution file with clarity, solving for pixilation that was inherent in the prior art.

Furthermore, industry observers who benefited from the Iviewit disclosures have gone on to claim "you could have put 10,000 engineers in a room for 10,000 years and they would never have come up with these ideas…”

These engineers similarly claimed, to a broad audience, that the technologies were "priceless", the "Holy Grail" of the digital imaging and video world.

Still further, it should be clear, as it relates to the inventions, that we are not talking about some rudimentary software that will be rendered obsolete as newer versions emerge, but that the Iviewit video scaling and image overlay systems are THE backbone, enabling technologies for the transmission of video and images across all transmission networks and viewable on all display devices, where the inventors went back to square one to create a wholly novel elegant upstream solution (towards the content creator) of reconfiguring video and image frames to unlock former bandwidth constraints, led to new processing and storage capabilities and took the video and imaging worlds to a new dimension.

Moreover, if these inventions become the subject of say a court ordered injunction while investigations are ongoing, it would preclude the use of the technologies while the courts resolve these matters, similar to the recent case almost brought in the RIM/Blackberry matter.

Although dwarfed in comparison, that injunction would have shut Blackberry down to users had the parties not settled the matters, by way of tremendous pressure from the Court, the courts being on of the biggest users of the technology.

The results of an injunction of the Iviewit technologies would be catastrophic to the country in that the product recall alone would be devastating to commerce, shutting down video across the Internet, recalling low bandwidth cell phones, recalling digital camera’s with digital zoom, halting the transmission of 75% of cable channels, recalling medical devices that use scaled zoom, recalling technologies on the Hubble Space Telescope and other government uses, such as flight and space simulators, advanced weapons systems, etc.

These matters are of tantamount importance to federal and international commerce in countless ways, making the job of resolving the crimes against Iviewit a matter of national security concern unprecedented in the history of invention and law.

Furthermore, initially, and early in my tenure, rumors began swirling around the company with finger pointing and all from Florida to Los Angeles wherein it caught the jet stream and arrived very soon in New York of alleged breaches of confidentiality pertaining to Iviewit technology, transfers of trade secrets, and, even in certain circumstances, the knowing and willful invention fraud by the outright switching of signature pages of patent filings by early patent counsels.

Additionally, during my tenure, I was in possession of an executed patent application pertaining to Iviewit’s core imaging technology with the inventors of Bernstein and Shirajee, when, out of thin air, and just prior to filing, with no notice or authorization, such patent application witnesses the addition of a one Brian G. Utley as an inventor, and an individual who could not have been farther from the heat of the inventive stage of the imaging technology.

Still further, I submit that at the first disclosures of the inventions, patent counsel, including Kenneth Rubenstein (also sole patent evaluator and legal counsel to MPEG LA), who had spent half a lifetime attempting and failing to procure technologies for the transmission of full screen, full frame rate video across a variety of transmission networks, and who during the Iviewit disclosures had been known to state

“[I] missed that,”

and
“[I] never thought of that,”

and
“[This] changes everything,”

or words to those effects, Kenneth Rubenstein was perhaps so fearful that Iviewit would partner with other proprietary technologies across the video value chain that it could wipe his carefully crafted patent pools off the face of the map, therefore, the Iviewit inventions HAD to be converted to MPEGLA, LLC to preserve those pools and convert his client Iviewit's technologies to his pools, of course blocking Iviewit at the same time from market using typical anti-trust tactics commonly associated with patent pools of the past and the reason the Justice Department has typically broken such pools up, as they are anti-competitive, monopolistic in nature.

That was the first step, with the second step, through the direct and indirect introductions of Iviewit, with executed confidentiality agreements (“NDA’s”), to some five hundred potential licensees by colleagues of counsel, being the proliferation of Iviewit disclosures across a wide array of potential licensees and competitors.

In addition to tying and bundling the technologies into his patent pool licensing scheme, again in violation of most of the anti-trust laws.

Following along, we arrive at the point in the past when Iviewit had thought the Iviewit inventions had been filed at the United States Patent & Trademark Office and the United States Copyright Office and that everyone had begun to use it, when past management in Iviewit and patent counsel were found writing patents in patent counsels name and other non-inventor management names, in addition to the intentional unauthorized changes of inventors, owners and assignees.

Later, as Arthur Andersen conducted an audit on behalf of investor Crossbow Ventures whose funds were 2/3 Small Business Administration loans, evidence emerged of a corporate shell game involving multiple, unauthorized, similarly named corporate formations, unauthorized stock swaps and unauthorized asset transfers that resulted in the core patent applications assigned to entities that may have only one shareholder, perhaps the limited liability partnership of Proskauer Rose or other unauthorized holders, including the alleged perpetrating patent counsel, perhaps, with a view towards resurrecting the backbone technologies at some future point only converted illegally as their own.

Moreover, in a September 2006 letter to Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY 18th) I wrote that in the above series of allegations, Iviewit is confident that your Office will find a reasonable certainty that Messrs.

Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. of Proskauer, Raymond A. Joao, Esq. of Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe and Schlissel and William J. Dick, Esq., Steven Becker, Esq., and Douglas Boehm, Esq. of Foley and Lardner, all Iviewit Patent Counsel and present or former members of the distinguished Bar of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, designed and executed, either for themselves or others similarly situated, the deceptions, improprieties, and, even in certain circumstances, outright misappropriation by the disingenuous redirection of the disclosed Iviewit techniques by:

(i) burying the critical elements of the inventions in patent applications filed on behalf of the true Iviewit Shareholders & Inventors;

(ii) allowing the unauthorized use of Iviewit’s inventions under NDA’s without enforcement of said NDA’s;

(III) filing patent applications of their own or others based on the Iviewit inventions into false inventors names and illegally set up corporations;

(IV) submitting knowingly false statements and falsified documents done with intent to commit fraud on the USPTO (a federal offense), Iviewit’s shareholders, and the Iviewit Inventors.

[It should be noted here that these attorneys and others are now under formal investigation by patent offices worldwide that have been ongoing for several years].

Furthermore, in that same Rep. Lowey letter, that as a result of the series of allegations enclosed, and although it is clear to Iviewit that the role of Congress is to make law not to enforce law, Iviewit finds it reasonable that your Office:

(i) shall find the requisite merit to initiate Congressional investigations;

(ii) shall pass these allegations to a Congressional staff attorney in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, or other appropriate committee, for further investigation;

(iii) shall instruct said staff attorney to institute a formal Congressional investigation, including questioning, requests for records, and other information from all parties involved;

(iv) shall refer said attorney’s findings back to you as a Representative in the Congress of the United States;

(v) shall present such findings to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, or other appropriate committee, for determinative review; and finally

(vi) shall witness said Congressional committee to urge disciplinary action against the alleged offending attorneys by the U.S. Attorney’s Office or other organization, agency, or court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Lastly, Iviewit often asks itself, among other things, “Why did the Hon. Jorge LaBarga of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, Florida deny Iviewit’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Assert Counterclaim for Damages (concerning the aforementioned allegations)” and “Why did the Supreme Court of Florida - The Florida Bar (‘TFB’) dismiss the complaint against Christopher C. Wheeler, Esq. (‘Wheeler’ and, a non-patent attorney, a main protagonist of the above referenced allegations) despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary” and “Why did the Supreme Court of Florida deny Iviewit’s Petition to begin the immediate investigation of the Christopher Wheeler complaint (when The Florida Bar admitted in writing that the answer to the Wheeler complaint was authored by an attorney, Matthew Triggs of Proskauer Rose, in flagrant violation of his public office obligations)” and

“Why did the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department - Departmental Disciplinary Committee stall Iviewit’s complaint against Rubenstein and Joao despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary” and

“Why, despite the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department’s Court Order (unanimously voted on by five Justices) to begin the immediate investigation of Kenneth Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane (former NYSBA President & Proskauer partner who handled complaints against Raymond Joao and Kenneth Rubenstein while maintaining undisclosed roles at the First Department) and Raymond Joao, for conflicts and violations of New York Supreme Court public offices, did the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department - Departmental Disciplinary Committee charged with conducting an immediate investigation dismiss on review the Rubenstein and Joao complaints and stating that they were ‘not under the jurisdiction’ of the First Department Court” [thus no witnesses were contacted, no evidence was tested and the attorneys did not even have to respond formally or informally to the charges against them]

and "When conflicts were discovered at the Second Department with Krane why were complaints refused by the Second Department to be formally docketed against their members caught in conflict, those members denying complaints against themselves???"

and “Why did the Virginia Bar Association dismiss the William Dick complaint despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the fact that the United States Patent Office had suspended the Iviewit patents based on a Foley and Lardner intellectual property docket submitted to the VBA that had factually false and misleading information regarding patent inventors, owners and assignees” and

“Why did the Supreme Court of the United States decline to hear Iviewit’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court to overturn the Florida Court’s decision, which acted to block Iviewit from filing complaints against Florida Supreme Court officers caught in conflicts of interest and violations of public offices”

and “why did John Doll & Jon Dudas, Commissioners' of Patents at the USPTO, fail to correct the inventors, and refuse to take or return Iviewit’s call or respond to formal office filings, including a petition filed more than three years ago by Iviewit and its lead investor Crossbow Ventures/SBA, which led to the suspending of patent applications pending ongoing investigations” and Iviewit finds itself answering

“THAT IT IS ALL PART AND PARCEL OF THE TOTAL DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN THE PATTERN OF FRAUDS, DECEITS, AND MISREPRESENTATIONS THAT RUN SO WIDE AND SO DEEP THAT IT TEARS AT THE VERY FABRIC OF WHAT HAS BECOME TO BE KNOW AS FREE COMMERCE IN THIS COUNTRY, AND, IN THE FACT THAT IT PERTAINS TO INVENTORS RIGHTS, TEARS AT THE VERY FABRIC OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.”

Lastly, take to heart this following series of events that, from Tokyo to Munich and all places in between, has been commonly described as THE GREATEST PATENT STORY EVER TOLD while at the same time becoming one of the most bungled crimes in history, perhaps the largest crime ever perpetrated in the history of crime itself;

crimes constituting further a treasonous series of actions to rob the United States Commerce Department, the country's greatest jewel, the United States Patent & Trademark Offices, usurping Free Commerce as we know it in America in the process!

The cover-up, well to say the least, constitutes violation after violation of sworn oaths by government officials entrusted to uphold justice, elevating perhaps throughout the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial branches, creating a government of criminal activity, a "Culture of Corruption" (paralleling the reality you now live in) all to deny due process and procedure, evade prosecution of the complaints filed against them and stave off the inevitable federal prison time for their actions, as further described herein.

Source:
www.Iviewit.TV
video tech news