May 15, 2012 — Hi All, The next post has taken on a life of its own. Thanks for your patience. Lots of fact checking and interviewing experts. Stay tuned. Meep, meep. While you are waiting, you may want to read about JP Morgan here and here. Remember, JP Morgan is leading the Facebook IPO with Goldman Sachs.
These players are all tight with former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers who coincidentally turned up in pre-IPO Silicon Valley as Facebook Director Marc Andreessen’s “special adviser” prior to the $1 billion Instagram deal. See my post Instagram-scam. President Obama says he would like to appoint Summers to be President of the World Bank. Hmmmmmm. (Summers was the World Bank’s Chief Economist in the early 1990′s who had Facebook Sheryl Sandberg as a researcher along with Digital Sky’s Juri Milner then involved with Russian banking). Milner is the fellow who cashed out $2-3 unregulated billion of Facebook insider’s stock using Goldman Sachs and an SEC exemption. Milner is also using his Moscow State University buddies to program Facebook Credits. Is it just me or are all these intertwined 20-year old prior associations just a bit too cozy? BTW. They are practically all Harvard grads. This cabal “relies” upon the legal representations and warranties of Facebook’s counsel Fenwick & West LLP that was Leader Technologies’ attorney back in 2002—the critical period Facebook attacked at the Leader v. Facebook trial; and the time period that the Federal Circuit just massively sloughed over in its legally irresponsible decision, according to patent law experts I have had the privilege to speak with off-the-record. See more about Larry Summers at Comments 44 and 48 below.
Would these interests coerce or tempt members of the judiciary to avoid a potentially market-moving and game-changing judgment? This question haunts everyone with whom I have spoken: “Where was Judge Kimberly Moore in the decision?” Judge Moore’s legal perspectives were suspiciously missing. She had many opinions at the hearing, questions that were targeting precise matters of law in the case, but then had no input into the written opinion? She is entitled to write a dissent if she doesn’t agree. Where was it? This is surprising to me, because I was there, and I heard every word and the tone by which it was delivered. She is very sharp, clearly unwilling to cave to lawyer-like trickery. One attorney in D.C. feels that the manner by which the opinion was written was narrow enough in legal references so as to not elicit a factual appeal. (More on this below.) This source then added that the language would therefor not ‘require’ Moore to write a dissenting opinion. Hmmm. So everyone rolls over in DC these days? This case was listed as ‘precedential,’ which means it “adds significantly to a body of law.” So now I am confused . . . this case is precedential, yet narrowly focused? Facts are facts. If an injustice has been done by attorneys who manipulate the rules and evidence, then they need to be held accountable. Sophisticated-sounding explanations of procedural “narrowness” are off-putting when justice for inventors should be the goal of patent law. I do know that lawyers who argue in front of this court are reluctant to speak any ill will of the judges for fear that they will be treated harshly in their NEXT case. Sad, but true.
Here are the next steps of legal action:
- Leader has 30 days to file a petition to the 3 judges to re-hear the case.
- If needed, Leader can then appeal to the entire court (en banc).
- Last stop, an appeal to the Supreme Court.
I can now confirm that Leader is indeed filing a petition.
This fat lady has yet to sing!! Meep. Meep.
See this news story from today.
Read also these previous posts as a refresher:
- MF Global + JP Morgan + Goldman Sachs + Harvard Grads + Politics = A big mess
- Facebook “Liked” Leader’s source code … before it didn’t
- What Facebook, Accel Partners, Goldman Sachs and Fenwick & West don’t want us “muppets” to know
- Are Facebook insiders mocking the Business Judgment Rule?
The U.S. Federal District Court of Appeals has sided with Facebook in the case of Leader Technologies Inc. v. Facebook Inc., Case No. 2011-1366 (Fed. Cir.).
Please see the Court’s opinion by clicking here.
The timing of this decision is suspicious. The case was decided the very day the Facebook IPO roadshow kicked off in NYC. Also after Facebook had juggled around IPO dates from May to June, then back to May again. What a Coinky-dink as Tex would say.
I am out of town today and cannot put together a complete report at this time.
Please read the above and discuss below.
**Let me just add that it pains me having to post this remotely and not be able to elaborate on the apparent injustices of our judicial system. I can appreciate the frustration felt by many of us muppets. Have faith. Read these reviews of the ‘roadshow’ and you will see where the devil has come to roost. For some of that coverage, click here, here and here.
***I see Leader’s Michael McKibben has issued a press release which you can read by clicking here. I was able to place a quick call to him and he said his attorneys said the opinion is rife with legal error of almost monumental proportions. Stay tuned.
Hello Everyone ~ Thank you for the lively (and even complimentary) commentary. I am currently working on another post that will pick apart the Fed. Dist. Court’s opinion line by line so all muppets will be able to see how obviously lazy and irresponsible the Judges were in their ‘analysis’ of this case. I agree that Moore’s voice was suspiciously absent in this opinion and I hope to discover why. She didn’t strike me as the type to fold easily. Stay tuned and Thank You Again for your support! PS See this video from CNBC this morning: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000089464&play=1 Meep. Meep.