When Facebook employee Nick Bilton was asked how Mark Zuckerberg feels about privacy, Bilton laughed, “He doesn’t believe in it.” Huffington Post, Jan. 2010.
George Orwell’s novel 1984 introduced the maddening world of doublespeak where the bad were made to sound good. Facebook’s definition of privacy is Orwellian since protecting privacy in Zuck-speak is an impediment to “engagement,” which is a Facebook euphemism for selling your private information to advertisers to generate Facebook’s revenue.
1. Privacy is an “old person’s issue”
In perhaps an unguarded moment among compadres at the annual Davos conference in far off Switzerland, LinkedIn CEO Reid Hoffman (and large Facebook stockholder) said that privacy is “an old people issue.” HUH? Don’t believe me? Click here to watch him say it (at 13:00-13:11)! I don’t know whether to call the police or a psychiatrist. Oh, I forgot, in the former Soviet Union (where Orwell’s 1984 hellish prophesy actually became national policy), the police and psychiatrists had adjoining offices. Ha Ha Ha. Let’s see, healthcare information, financial information, trade secrets, personal thoughts, etc. etc. etc. GEESH!!! George Orwell is surely turning in his grave.
Hoffman is part of the so-called “PayPal” Mafia, holds 28.2% of Facebook B shares, was a prime mover in the murky Zuckerberg late-Harvard years in early to mid-2004 when the infringement of Leader’s invention started. The new story emerging only now in 2012 (first source appears to be Wikipedia) is that Hoffman introduced Zuckerberg to Peter Thiel (another co-founder of PayPal) sometime in late 2003 or early-to-mid 2004. . Curiously, Leader’s patent detailing the “groups functionality” first published for public review on June 24, 2004. Thiel ostensibly invested the first $500,000 in Facebook in the summer of 2004, but now it appears that Hoffman may have been coaching the young Zuck even earlier? (Remember that Accel Partners Chairman James Breyer let slip in a Euro video posted on this site (here, Item 16) that Accel had contact as early as 2003; this is after he said in a 2005 Stanford video also posted on this site (here, Item 16) that he had somehow “missed” the emergence of the Zuck until late 2004 or 2005?) Was LinkedIn Hoffman’s reward from the cabal? The story discrepancies and coincidences are piling up!
2. Digital Peeping Toms?
Mr. Zuckerberg has been in the process of redefining words like “more engagement” in social-speak to mean MORE REVENUE FOR ME AND MY CABAL OF INSIDERS like Reid Hoffman. (Click here for CNET’s Molly Wood’s list of “big winners” aka “The Cabal of Digital Peeping Toms.”) In Zuck’s world protecting privacy is an impediment to “engagement.” Well of course it is. We get it Mr. Zuckerberg. Meep, meep.
Facebook was recently smacked with a 20-year sanction for deceiving consumers about privacy by the Federal Trade Commission. USA Today, Nov. 30, 2011. “Privacy” in our actual English language means “freedom from intrusion.” However, in Zuck-speak privacy is evil because it prevents Facebook from selling front-row seats in your backyard so well-heeled advertisers can view your online activity through your kitchen window.
3. Facebook attorneys carried the Zuck’s Orwellianism into the Leader v. Facebook court room
At the Leader v. Facebook trial Facebook’s attorneys persistently misrepresented a snippet of Michael McKibben’s video-taped deposition. They confused the jury with it, repeated it on no less than 17 pages of their appeal brief, and then stated it yet again in front of the three-judge US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel on Mar. 5, 2012. I was at this hearing and heard it myself.
Here’s Michael McKibben’s actual video-taped testimony:
—Leader v. Facebook, Fri. Jul. 23, 2010, Trial Tr. 10841:6 (PDF p. 104) to 10842:17 (PDF p. 105).
Fig. 1 – Leader v. Facebook Trial Transcript, Fri. Jul. 23, 2010. Leader inventor Michael McKibben’s video taped testimony snippet played twice to the jury, starting at p. 104. Facebook stated at the Federal Circuit Hearing on Mar. 5, 2012 that “we asked Mr. McKibben, “Can you identify any version of Leader2Leader that didn’t practice the patent?” He can’t identify any version.” As one can read here Mr. McKibben said nothing of the kind. Trial Tr. 10841:6 (PDF p. 104) to 10842:17 (PDF p. 105).
Now, are you ready for this? Here’s Facebook’s remarkable interpretation of what you just read:
“We asked Mr. McKibben. Can you identify any version of Leader2Leader that didn’t practice the patent. He can’t identify any version.”
—Thomas Hungar, Facebook Attorney, Mar. 5, 2012, Federal Circuit Hearing Transcript 27:3-5.
WHAT???!!! THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID. What he said was that he didn’t remember, but that the Leader developers had that information. Did Facebook ask any of the developers? Curiously, not a one. What was the jury doing during this testimony? It is appearing more and more to me that Facebook’s twisted story had them so confused that they must’ve switched off and said the heck with it, we’ll just give this one to Facebook so we can get out of here. That’s all I can figure, because Facebook’s only other support for this concocted story is Interrogatory No. 9 which the justices weren’t buying either.
In response to Judge Kimberly A. Moore’s challenge of Facebook attorney Mr. Hungar’s interpretation of this snippet of Mr. McKibben’s testimony, Mr. Hungar responded:
“But, but, but.”
—Thomas Hungar, Facebook attorney, Mar. 5, 2012, Federal Circuit Hearing Transcript 28:5.
Fig. 2 – Leader Tech v. Facebook, Case No. 2010-1366 (Fed. Cir.) Hearing Transcript, Mar. 5, 2012. This page 28 (line 5) displays Facebook’s attorney Thomas Hungar’s response to Judge Moore’s challenge of his interpretation of Michael McKibben’s video-tape deposition testimony. Note that Mr. Hungar’s subsequent reference to “Digital Leaderboard” is another novel argument and reference to evidence that was NEVER argued to the jury. Therefore, the jury could not have opined one way or the other on this yet-another freshly-minted post-trial Facebook argument.
4. Hey Facebook. The world has been down this black-is-white path too many times! Isn’t it time to do better?
As the saying goes, when you live by the sword, you die by the sword (or the Kool-Aid)!!! Facebook, are you actually trying to get the venerable second highest court in the United States to buy the idea that the text in red below is “clear and convincing?” Do you have no shame in taking a straightforward statement that a person doesn’t remember and interpreting it as a universal supposed “clear and convincing” admission about Leader2Leader for all time? And that is enough to overturn a validly issued United States patent? Why are you wasting the court’s time with this nonsense? Oh, that’s right, the M-O-N-E-Y.
5. Does Facebook play anything straight up?
6. Facebook/Cooley-Godward-speak (Facebook’s attorneys* in Leader v. Facebook) of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address
* Facebook’s Cooley Godward attorneys include Heidi Keefe, Michael Rhodes, Mark Weinstein, Jeffrey Norberg, Theodore Ullyot (inside counsel for Facebook) and Samuel O’Rourke (inside counsel for Facebook).
Honest Abe’s Actual Words: “Four score and seven years ago” = 87 years
Cooley/Facebook-speak: “Four score and seven years ago” = 87 years
Facebook/Cooley-Godward-speak: “Mr. Lincoln has guilty knowledge! He said that the American Revolution occurred just “seven” years ago and that he gave the speech in “Getty.”
Cooley-speak’s Appeal Brief after Mr. Lincoln appeals this deception: Pg. 1 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 2 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 3 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 4 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 5 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 6 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 7 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 8 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 9 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 10 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 11 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 12 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 13 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 14 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 15 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 16 – Lincoln’s a Liar! Pg. 17 – Lincoln’s a Liar! ( . . . There, we said it 17 times; now its a newly-minted attorney fact. The muppets in the jury and the appeals court will fall for this ’cause we’re attorneys who swore an oath to tell the truth and not mislead the public.)
Facebook called Michael McKibben a liar on 17 pages of its appeal brief in Leader v. Facebook. Click here for an analysis.
7. Facebook’s accusations against McKibben are out-of-character
Ironically, Michael McKibben is friend to numerous moral and spiritual leaders around the world. He has proven himself trustworthy in the midst of highly-charged world events. In the 1970’s he worked extensively with then Cardinal Karol Wojtyła in Communist Poland to promote human rights and spiritual life through a youth movement named Sacrosong, and later in a special audience in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican after Cardinal Wojtyła became Pope John Paul II. He also worked in Poland with Lech Wałęsa and Solidarity during their formative days in 1980. Also in the late ’70′s and early ’80′s, in addition to working with dozens of human rights leaders in the USSR, he worked with Soviet/Russian composer Aleksandra Pakhmutova, who collaborated with his wife Nancy in recording her music, including an English-lyrics version of her famous song “We Can’t Live Without Each Other.” Those lyrics are apropo to this blog topic (truth vs. lies) when this Soviet-American collaboration exhorts “We always speak in lies, it’s our disguise. Oh please, speak truth to me, be strong, be wise.”
This song went on the official 1980 Olympic Gold Medalist film produced by Pakhmutova and her poet husband Nikolai Dobronravov. Over 200,000 copies were distributed in news kiosks across the Soviet Union, and it was performed on Soviet national TV produced by Yevgeny Ginzburg; probably the only Gospel concert of its kind in the history of the former Soviet Union. This occurred eight years before the collapse of Communism in the USSR. McKibben and his groups did this during the years surrounding President Carter’s boycott of the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympics over the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan! If this weren’t enough, also around 1980 he organized Protestant-Catholic concerts in Belfast during the height of “The Troubles,” prompting one member of the House of Lords to describe that effort as perhaps more effective than all the pronouncements of the British House of Lords. In then-apartheid South Africa, McKibben’s band and Andraé Crouch organized the first-ever black-white integrated concert tour.
More recently, McKibben’s Leader Technologies supported life saving and disaster recovery for the entire State of Lousiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina—the only working large-scale collaboration system that remained working for the state and federal agencies as they worked to save people from housetops and recover. He also supplied substantial counter-terror support after 9/11, including to Homeland Security’s first large-scale simulation of an attack on United States schools, hospitals and churches (“soft targets”). He has still not been paid for much of this quiet effort on behalf of our national security and safety.
So you see, Facebook’s Orwellian-speak accusations against Mr. McKibben are totally out-of-character with his history. Click here to read more.
Hmmmmm. Video deposition snippets are dangerous in the hands of unscrupulous attorneys, aren’t they?
Stay tuned! Much more to come.
* * *
Back^ [1l Ried Hoffman. “Hoffman arranged the first meeting between Mark Zuckerberg and Peter Thiel, which led to Thiel’s initial $500,000 angel investment in the company. Hoffman invested alongside Thiel in Facebook’s very first financing round.” Wikipedia. Accessed Apr. 10, 2012.
- George Orwell 1984 Book Cover. Penguin Readers. Accessed Apr. 10, 2012.
- Reid Hoffman Photo. CNN Money. Accessed Apr. 10, 2012.
- Make This Pledge Orwellian Poster. Blogspot. Accessed Apr. 10, 2012.
- Peeping Tom Photo. Cutcaster. Accessed Apr. 10, 2012.
- Scribd documents. Scribd, Public Domain. Accessed Apr. 10, 2012.
- Facebook logo button. Facebook. Accessed Apr. 10, 2012.
- Finster Film Splicers. Frederatorblogs. Accessed Apr. 10, 2012.
- Three-headed Bulldog. Blogspot. Access Apr. 10, 2012.
- Facebook Illuminati Symbol. Gawker. Accessed Apr. 10, 2012.
- Beaker. The Muppet characters are believed to be the property of The Walt Disney Company. Accessed Apr. 11, 2012.
- Cooley Godward attorney photos Michael Rhodes, Mark Weinstein, Heidi Keefe, Jeffrey Norberg. Cooley Godward LLP. Accessed Apr. 11, 2012.
- Theodore Ullyot and Samuel O’Rourke photos. Facebook. Accessed Apr. 11, 2012.
- Abraham Lincoln photo. The White House Museum. Accessed Apr. 11, 2012.