Proskauer Rose Guilty, Iviewit Inventor Eliot I. Bernstein Publishes Draft Motion to US Appeals Court
Showing posts with label MPEG LA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MPEG LA. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
iViewit Technology Theft. MPEG LA, DVD Licensing, Toshiba - Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division
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
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/2485.htm
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 know 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.
http://www.iviewit.tv/
http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/
http://www.deniedpatent.com/
my Original Post to Warn Shareholders, Expose Corruption, Fight for Inventors Rights and demand that the SEC, FBI, DOJ, USPTO and more investigate the crimes in the iViewit case and STOP ignoring the rights of victims in favor of Elite Law Firms such as Proskauer Rose LLP
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/10/mpeg-la-dvd-licensing-toshiba-letter.html
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
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/2485.htm
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 know 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.
http://www.iviewit.tv/
http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/
http://www.deniedpatent.com/
my Original Post to Warn Shareholders, Expose Corruption, Fight for Inventors Rights and demand that the SEC, FBI, DOJ, USPTO and more investigate the crimes in the iViewit case and STOP ignoring the rights of victims in favor of Elite Law Firms such as Proskauer Rose LLP
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/10/mpeg-la-dvd-licensing-toshiba-letter.html
iViewit Technology vs. Proskauer Rose Law Firm. Ex-Supreme Court Judge Judith Kaye is Corrupt and Helped Proskauer Rose Committ Patent Theft and Massive Fraud.
"Check out the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division:
First Department court orders for investigation of the former President of the New York State Bar Association Steven C. Krane by clicking on his picture for the document. This is the price of gluttony and greed and why the almighty one has deemed such a sin.
Steven Krane, Proskauer Rose LLP who is the epitome of ethics has lost his way and acted in conflict of interest and abuse of public office with both the First Department Disciplinary Committee and the New York State Bar Association in representing his partners while maintaining conflicting public office positions in the New York Supreme Courts and NYSBA.
Although his investigation has been temporarily de-railed, it will one day be completed as a formal investigation. Yet, while Krane clerked for Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals, Judith Kaye, who by the by, is married to a Proskauer partner, Stephen Kaye, who is one of the accused Proskauer Rose partners in the Intellectual Property Department (formed after learning of the Iviewit inventions), it looks like such forces are blocking the court ordered investigation through yet another series of conflicts and abuses in the investigating department.
Where it appears that Proskauer Rose LLP has positioned deep within the ethics departments and courts to block due process and stave off the inevitable.
Yet, as you read on, even these further desperate attempts to block prosecution have uncovered further conflicts which have only caused more people to become ensnared in the web of crimes and further complaints to be filed.
Where those complaints in some instances have been refused to file and docket by members of the departments acting to block complaints against themselves inapposite of the laws of those states.
Can you imagine, complaints filed against public officers where such officers than deny the complaints with out formal procedure, sounds like the old communist regime where citizens where unable to complain about their elected officials.
It does not sound like the good old USofA where we have a constitutional right to complain against our elected officials when they are found guilty of abuse of public office and as citizens we have an obligation to our country to file such charges. Yet, the onion is peeling and desperate times call for desperate measures. "
Source and Lots Morehttp://iviewit.tv/about/index.htm
the Above is about 1/4 the way down....
Posted here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger...
Original Post Exposing Corruption in the US Supreme Court that helped Proskauer Rose to keep a lid on the Iviewit Technology scandal that is involved in Massive Shareholder Fraud.
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/10/ex-supreme-court-judge-judith-kaye-is.html
First Department court orders for investigation of the former President of the New York State Bar Association Steven C. Krane by clicking on his picture for the document. This is the price of gluttony and greed and why the almighty one has deemed such a sin.
Steven Krane, Proskauer Rose LLP who is the epitome of ethics has lost his way and acted in conflict of interest and abuse of public office with both the First Department Disciplinary Committee and the New York State Bar Association in representing his partners while maintaining conflicting public office positions in the New York Supreme Courts and NYSBA.
Although his investigation has been temporarily de-railed, it will one day be completed as a formal investigation. Yet, while Krane clerked for Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals, Judith Kaye, who by the by, is married to a Proskauer partner, Stephen Kaye, who is one of the accused Proskauer Rose partners in the Intellectual Property Department (formed after learning of the Iviewit inventions), it looks like such forces are blocking the court ordered investigation through yet another series of conflicts and abuses in the investigating department.
Where it appears that Proskauer Rose LLP has positioned deep within the ethics departments and courts to block due process and stave off the inevitable.
Yet, as you read on, even these further desperate attempts to block prosecution have uncovered further conflicts which have only caused more people to become ensnared in the web of crimes and further complaints to be filed.
Where those complaints in some instances have been refused to file and docket by members of the departments acting to block complaints against themselves inapposite of the laws of those states.
Can you imagine, complaints filed against public officers where such officers than deny the complaints with out formal procedure, sounds like the old communist regime where citizens where unable to complain about their elected officials.
It does not sound like the good old USofA where we have a constitutional right to complain against our elected officials when they are found guilty of abuse of public office and as citizens we have an obligation to our country to file such charges. Yet, the onion is peeling and desperate times call for desperate measures. "
Source and Lots Morehttp://iviewit.tv/about/index.htm
the Above is about 1/4 the way down....
Posted here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger...
Original Post Exposing Corruption in the US Supreme Court that helped Proskauer Rose to keep a lid on the Iviewit Technology scandal that is involved in Massive Shareholder Fraud.
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/10/ex-supreme-court-judge-judith-kaye-is.html
Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney for MPEG LA - Involves Attorney Raymond Anthony Joao.
Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney for MPEG LA - Involves Attorney Raymond Anthony Joao.
Kenneth Rubenstein 's lackey, attorney Raymond Anthony Joao, who was a patent attorney working DIRECTLY under Proskauer Rose Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein 's direction.
Raymond Joao now claims 90 patents in his own name and Iviewit gives him kudos as the greatest slime ball inventor and patent attorney.
No really, Iviewit considers our former counselors Raymond Joao and Kenneth Rubenstein to be nothing more than co-inventors of a system and method to defraud shareholders and inventors of their inventions and commit fraud upon worldwide patent intellectual property organizations, an invention that should carry some stiff federal sentences.
Click here for a press article on the amazing inventiveness of Joao
Raymond Joao was so non-inventive that many of these patents resemble ideas and concepts lifted straight from the Iviewit business plan and invention disclosures and ideas that he was supposed to be patenting for the inventors and shareholders.
More on Raymond Joao Click Here
Source of Above and LOTS More
http://iviewit.tv/about/index.htm
More on Iviewit Massive Shareholder Fraud
www.JeffreyBewkes.com
http://www.paulotellini.info/
http://intelcorruption.blogspot.com/
www.iviewit.TV
www.DeniedPatent.com
posted here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com "
Kenneth Rubenstein 's lackey, attorney Raymond Anthony Joao, who was a patent attorney working DIRECTLY under Proskauer Rose Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein 's direction.
Raymond Joao now claims 90 patents in his own name and Iviewit gives him kudos as the greatest slime ball inventor and patent attorney.
No really, Iviewit considers our former counselors Raymond Joao and Kenneth Rubenstein to be nothing more than co-inventors of a system and method to defraud shareholders and inventors of their inventions and commit fraud upon worldwide patent intellectual property organizations, an invention that should carry some stiff federal sentences.
Click here for a press article on the amazing inventiveness of Joao
Raymond Joao was so non-inventive that many of these patents resemble ideas and concepts lifted straight from the Iviewit business plan and invention disclosures and ideas that he was supposed to be patenting for the inventors and shareholders.
More on Raymond Joao Click Here
Source of Above and LOTS More
http://iviewit.tv/about/index.htm
More on Iviewit Massive Shareholder Fraud
www.JeffreyBewkes.com
http://www.paulotellini.info/
http://intelcorruption.blogspot.com/
www.iviewit.TV
www.DeniedPatent.com
posted here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com "
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Kenneth Rubenstein Corrupt Patent Attorney at Proskauer Rose Law Firm CONSPIRES with MPEG LA to Commit Massive Fraud and Anti-Trust Violations
MPEG-LA hit by antitrust suit over video codecs. Kenneth Rubenstein Corrupt Patent Attorney Proskauer Rose DOES it Again...
MPEG LA has been in the Illegal - Unethical
Patent Pooling Business for Years.
Proskauer Rose Law Firm has made a Living and Lifetime Business of Billion Dollar Corruption Schemes and screwing over investors. And Well Proskauer Rose's Patent Department has a Billion Dollar Patent Pooling Scheme going on with the help of Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein and the Illegal, Secret Patent Pool technology Stealing Schemes of MPEG LA.
Corrupt Law Firm ... Proskauer Rose Corrupt Law Firm...
MPEG-LA hit by antitrust suit over video codecs - MPEG LA is Corrupt, it is my understand that MPEG LA Stole a Trillion Dollar Patent with the Aid of Corrupt Law Firms, Tech Companies, Patent Attorneys and Executives
"MPEG-LA hit by antitrust suit over video codecs
German software maker Nero has filed an antitrust complaint against MPEG-LA, the company that oversees licensing for the H.264 video codec favoured by Microsoft and Apple.
MPEG-LA (MPEG Licensing Authority) controls the licenses for the pools of patents needed to use the MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and AVC/H.264 video standards.
As such, it collects royalties from the sale or distribution of almost every PC, DVD, DVD player, digital TV set, TV set-top box, still camera, video camera, iPhone and BlackBerry in the world.
Nero, best known for its CD burning software, alleges that MPEG-LA abuses its monopoly power in these technology markets.
The company filed its antitrust complaint in California district court in Los Angeles on 14 May, seeking unspecified monetary damages and an injunction to halt the alleged anti-competitive actions.
"Absolute power has corrupted MPEG-LA absolutely,"
Nero maintained in its complaint.
"Once MPEG-LA obtained monopoly power in the relevant technology markets, it used that power to wilfully maintain or extend its monopolies for years beyond their natural expiration... and administer its licences in an unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory manner that stifles competition and innovation, and harms consumers."
MPEG-LA charges licensees different amounts for the same MPEG-2 patent, collects administration fees and royalties multiple times for the same device, and does not communicate its policies adequately to certain licensees, according to Nero.
"By remaining silent on vital aspects of its licensing programs, MPEG-LA has created a system that favours some licensees, such as insiders (ie, licensors), and disfavours others, such as outsiders (ie, non-licensor licensees)," Nero's complaint read.
"As a result, outsiders such as Nero have great difficulty planning technology changes and embarking on programmes to research, develop and implement technological innovations — and are charged supracompetitive royalties on distributions as to which they never agreed to pay royalties — while other licensees, such as insiders, do not face such problems."
According to Nero's complaint, MPEG-LA only obtained monopoly power in the relevant audio and video codec markets after getting assurances in 1997 that the Department of Justice (DoJ) would not launch antitrust proceedings against it.
These assurances were conditional on patent pools not being used to stifle competition, Nero stated. It added that MPEG-LA suggested to the DoJ at the time that the pool for MPEG-2 contained no more than 53 essential patents.
MPEG-LA subsequently added around 800 patents it deemed to be essential to the MPEG-2 pool, so as to extend the duration of the codec's licence, Nero said.
The company did the same thing with the MPEG-4 pool, which now includes more than 1,000 patents, and the AVC/H.264 pool, now with over 1,300 patents, according to the filing.
AVC/H.264 is the video codec of choice for Microsoft, which will support it natively in Internet Explorer 9, and for Apple, which is backing it as a superior alternative to Flash.
While Google also supports H.264 in Chrome, it recently open-sourced its own alternative, VP8, in a bid to provide a free alternative to the proprietary and paid-for H.264.
As part of its complaint, Nero said that MPEG-LA used its own patent counsel, Kenneth Rubenstein, as "a so-called 'independent' expert" to evaluate the essentiality of patents.
MPEG-LA had not responded at the time of writing to a request on Tuesday for comment on Nero's allegations. The next stage in the case will be for MPEG-LA to answer Nero's complaint. ""
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2010/05/25/mpeg-la-hit-by-antitrust-suit-over-video-codecs-40089042/
Lets See How German Tech Companies Handle the Corrupt,
UnEthical and Illegal Behavior of MPEG LA....
Ok so a Decade after Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt MPEG LA - Proskauer Rose Law Firm Patent Attorney, helped MPEG LA to steal the Holy Grail of Video / Technology inventions in which we all use every day and have for years upon years, well now this same Corrupt Patent Attorney is involved in more patent theft and illegal patent pool... why is Proskauer Rose standing with Kenneth Rubenstein?
I mean Christopher Wheeler was involved in this stolen patent and he was pushed out.. Kenneth Rubenstein was not even at Proskauer Rose when he first started his patent theft FOR MPEG LA to illegally pool the iviewit technologies in patent pools to hide their existence.. then Corrupt Law Firm Proskauer Rose hired Kenneth Rubenstein after he already lied to the Iviewit Company and said that he was with Proskauer Rose.. so Corrupt Law Firm - Proskauer Rose must be getting billions from MPEG LA dirty dealings or they would not have harbored a CRIMINAL for so long.. also see.. Proskauer ROSE was the reason for the Fall of Enron with this patent .. this technology theft.. and no accountable?
Well that day has come... Unless of Course Corrupt Proskauer Rose also owns judges, ethics committees, supreme courts, and patent officials in Germany as Well as the US?
I will discuss a WHOLE lot more about MPEG LA, Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer ROSE and the Horrible Injustice, Flat Out Fraud, Shareholder Deception, and more that surrounds MPEG LA - Proskauer Rose and Kenneth Rubenstein Corrupt Patent Attorney STEALING a Trillion Dollar Technology and Illegally Pooling this Technology in MPEG patent Pools.. all orchestrated by ONE very Corrupt Patent attorney Kenneth Rubenstein..
PS don't forget.. MPEG and APPLE are seeming quite cozy and Bruce Sewell knew about Iviewit .. while at Intel and when informed went to APPLE.. more on that later..
Collecting Royalties from Stolen Technologies and Illegal Patent Pooling,
What an Incredible Racket... Billions hand over Fist on Someone Else's Invention .. and many of these inventors are harassed, bankrupted, their cars bombed and well just plain ol' SHUT Up..
Here are some Sites for more information in the iViewit Stolen Technology and the Illegal Patent Pooling Tricks and Schemes at MPEG LA with the Help of Proskauer Rose and Kenneth Rubenstein that has created Massive Shareholder Fraud that is now a High Profile SEC Complaint and a Federal RICO Lawsuit .. still undisclosed to unsuspecting shareholders of IBM, Intel Corp, AOL, Time Warner Inc. , Lockheed Martin, Warner Bros. , SGI, and More involved in the Blatant Theft of a Trillion Dollar Technology that We all used Every Day...
www.Iviewit.TV
www.DeniedPatent.com
www.ProskauerSucks.com
www.KennethRubenstein.com
www.BruceSewell.com
www.JeffreyBewkes.com
www.CEOpaulOtellini.com
Proskauer Rose bio Clip on Kenneth Rubenstein"
" Kenneth Rubenstein is co-head of the Patent Law Group and a Partner in the New York office. He also is a registered patent attorney before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and a former member of the legal staff at Bell Laboratories. While there are numerous patent law groups at various firms, Ken and his group distinguish themselves from competitors by being able to deal with very sophisticated technology. "
Source
http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/Detail.aspx?professional=0eae1af8-e822-4a75-9414-d8ee3f87e890&tabId=0
posted by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
more on the MPEG LA stealing and pooling patents
.. at www.iViewit.tv/
and at www.DeniedPatent.com
MPEG LA has been in the Illegal - Unethical
Patent Pooling Business for Years.
Proskauer Rose Law Firm has made a Living and Lifetime Business of Billion Dollar Corruption Schemes and screwing over investors. And Well Proskauer Rose's Patent Department has a Billion Dollar Patent Pooling Scheme going on with the help of Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein and the Illegal, Secret Patent Pool technology Stealing Schemes of MPEG LA.
Corrupt Law Firm ... Proskauer Rose Corrupt Law Firm...
MPEG-LA hit by antitrust suit over video codecs - MPEG LA is Corrupt, it is my understand that MPEG LA Stole a Trillion Dollar Patent with the Aid of Corrupt Law Firms, Tech Companies, Patent Attorneys and Executives
"MPEG-LA hit by antitrust suit over video codecs
German software maker Nero has filed an antitrust complaint against MPEG-LA, the company that oversees licensing for the H.264 video codec favoured by Microsoft and Apple.
MPEG-LA (MPEG Licensing Authority) controls the licenses for the pools of patents needed to use the MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and AVC/H.264 video standards.
As such, it collects royalties from the sale or distribution of almost every PC, DVD, DVD player, digital TV set, TV set-top box, still camera, video camera, iPhone and BlackBerry in the world.
Nero, best known for its CD burning software, alleges that MPEG-LA abuses its monopoly power in these technology markets.
The company filed its antitrust complaint in California district court in Los Angeles on 14 May, seeking unspecified monetary damages and an injunction to halt the alleged anti-competitive actions.
"Absolute power has corrupted MPEG-LA absolutely,"
Nero maintained in its complaint.
"Once MPEG-LA obtained monopoly power in the relevant technology markets, it used that power to wilfully maintain or extend its monopolies for years beyond their natural expiration... and administer its licences in an unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory manner that stifles competition and innovation, and harms consumers."
MPEG-LA charges licensees different amounts for the same MPEG-2 patent, collects administration fees and royalties multiple times for the same device, and does not communicate its policies adequately to certain licensees, according to Nero.
"By remaining silent on vital aspects of its licensing programs, MPEG-LA has created a system that favours some licensees, such as insiders (ie, licensors), and disfavours others, such as outsiders (ie, non-licensor licensees)," Nero's complaint read.
"As a result, outsiders such as Nero have great difficulty planning technology changes and embarking on programmes to research, develop and implement technological innovations — and are charged supracompetitive royalties on distributions as to which they never agreed to pay royalties — while other licensees, such as insiders, do not face such problems."
According to Nero's complaint, MPEG-LA only obtained monopoly power in the relevant audio and video codec markets after getting assurances in 1997 that the Department of Justice (DoJ) would not launch antitrust proceedings against it.
These assurances were conditional on patent pools not being used to stifle competition, Nero stated. It added that MPEG-LA suggested to the DoJ at the time that the pool for MPEG-2 contained no more than 53 essential patents.
MPEG-LA subsequently added around 800 patents it deemed to be essential to the MPEG-2 pool, so as to extend the duration of the codec's licence, Nero said.
The company did the same thing with the MPEG-4 pool, which now includes more than 1,000 patents, and the AVC/H.264 pool, now with over 1,300 patents, according to the filing.
AVC/H.264 is the video codec of choice for Microsoft, which will support it natively in Internet Explorer 9, and for Apple, which is backing it as a superior alternative to Flash.
While Google also supports H.264 in Chrome, it recently open-sourced its own alternative, VP8, in a bid to provide a free alternative to the proprietary and paid-for H.264.
As part of its complaint, Nero said that MPEG-LA used its own patent counsel, Kenneth Rubenstein, as "a so-called 'independent' expert" to evaluate the essentiality of patents.
MPEG-LA had not responded at the time of writing to a request on Tuesday for comment on Nero's allegations. The next stage in the case will be for MPEG-LA to answer Nero's complaint. ""
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2010/05/25/mpeg-la-hit-by-antitrust-suit-over-video-codecs-40089042/
Lets See How German Tech Companies Handle the Corrupt,
UnEthical and Illegal Behavior of MPEG LA....
Ok so a Decade after Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt MPEG LA - Proskauer Rose Law Firm Patent Attorney, helped MPEG LA to steal the Holy Grail of Video / Technology inventions in which we all use every day and have for years upon years, well now this same Corrupt Patent Attorney is involved in more patent theft and illegal patent pool... why is Proskauer Rose standing with Kenneth Rubenstein?
I mean Christopher Wheeler was involved in this stolen patent and he was pushed out.. Kenneth Rubenstein was not even at Proskauer Rose when he first started his patent theft FOR MPEG LA to illegally pool the iviewit technologies in patent pools to hide their existence.. then Corrupt Law Firm Proskauer Rose hired Kenneth Rubenstein after he already lied to the Iviewit Company and said that he was with Proskauer Rose.. so Corrupt Law Firm - Proskauer Rose must be getting billions from MPEG LA dirty dealings or they would not have harbored a CRIMINAL for so long.. also see.. Proskauer ROSE was the reason for the Fall of Enron with this patent .. this technology theft.. and no accountable?
Well that day has come... Unless of Course Corrupt Proskauer Rose also owns judges, ethics committees, supreme courts, and patent officials in Germany as Well as the US?
I will discuss a WHOLE lot more about MPEG LA, Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer ROSE and the Horrible Injustice, Flat Out Fraud, Shareholder Deception, and more that surrounds MPEG LA - Proskauer Rose and Kenneth Rubenstein Corrupt Patent Attorney STEALING a Trillion Dollar Technology and Illegally Pooling this Technology in MPEG patent Pools.. all orchestrated by ONE very Corrupt Patent attorney Kenneth Rubenstein..
PS don't forget.. MPEG and APPLE are seeming quite cozy and Bruce Sewell knew about Iviewit .. while at Intel and when informed went to APPLE.. more on that later..
Collecting Royalties from Stolen Technologies and Illegal Patent Pooling,
What an Incredible Racket... Billions hand over Fist on Someone Else's Invention .. and many of these inventors are harassed, bankrupted, their cars bombed and well just plain ol' SHUT Up..
Here are some Sites for more information in the iViewit Stolen Technology and the Illegal Patent Pooling Tricks and Schemes at MPEG LA with the Help of Proskauer Rose and Kenneth Rubenstein that has created Massive Shareholder Fraud that is now a High Profile SEC Complaint and a Federal RICO Lawsuit .. still undisclosed to unsuspecting shareholders of IBM, Intel Corp, AOL, Time Warner Inc. , Lockheed Martin, Warner Bros. , SGI, and More involved in the Blatant Theft of a Trillion Dollar Technology that We all used Every Day...
www.Iviewit.TV
www.DeniedPatent.com
www.ProskauerSucks.com
www.KennethRubenstein.com
www.BruceSewell.com
www.JeffreyBewkes.com
www.CEOpaulOtellini.com
Proskauer Rose bio Clip on Kenneth Rubenstein"
" Kenneth Rubenstein is co-head of the Patent Law Group and a Partner in the New York office. He also is a registered patent attorney before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and a former member of the legal staff at Bell Laboratories. While there are numerous patent law groups at various firms, Ken and his group distinguish themselves from competitors by being able to deal with very sophisticated technology. "
Source
http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/Detail.aspx?professional=0eae1af8-e822-4a75-9414-d8ee3f87e890&tabId=0
posted by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
more on the MPEG LA stealing and pooling patents
.. at www.iViewit.tv/
and at www.DeniedPatent.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)