Proskauer Rose - Kenneth Rubenstein, Warner Bros., MPEGLA LLC named in SEC Complaint

Eliot I Bernstein Iviewit Founder and Inventor
Files SEC Complaint - Will you Ever Hear about it?

Proskauer Rose LLP, MPEG LLC, Illegal Patent Bundling, Warner Bros., Jeffrey Bewkew, Kenneth Rubenstein... and More named in SEC Complaint.

pg 38 Advisory Board Iviewit Information

"" Page 38 – ADVISORY BOARD SECTION “ Kenneth Rubenstein Partner, Proskauer Rose LLP. Mr. Rubenstein is a partner at Proskauer Rose LLP law firm and is the patent attorney for iviewit. He is a registered patent attorney before the US. Patent & Trademark Office. Mr. Rubenstein counsels his clients with respect to the validity and infringement of competitors' patents, as well as prosecutes patent applications.

For the past several years he has worked on the formation of a patent pool, for MPEG-2 technology, involving large consumer electronics and entertainment companies. He is also a former member of the legal staff at Bell Laboratories.

Mr. Rubenstein received his law degree, cum laude, from New York Law School and his Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he also graduated with a B.S. Degree.

o The SEC should note here that Rubenstein’s attempt to claim he never heard of Iviewit, including at his deposition, allegedly is due to the massive conflicts of interest that Rubenstein had. If Rubenstein were patent counsel to Iviewit and simultaneously counsel to Warner Bros et al. when he originally opined to Colter, without conflict waivers or disclosure, this obviously would have violated attorney conduct codes and law. Additionally, a false statement in a Private Placement Memorandum violates securities laws.

Additionally, Rubenstein is conflicted with Iviewit his client and the patent pooling scheme and artifice to fraud inventors he has created, MPEGLA LLC, where again he acted as counsel and founder of MPEGLA LLC while also patent counsel to Iviewit, no conflict waivers were gained to protect Iviewit. The conflict here is again obvious where the Iviewit technologies were the single greatest threat to his pools as Iviewit has the dominant technology, which without, the MPEG license would be worthless.

The SEC should note that Rubenstein initially misrepresented himself and Joao as Proskauer Partners to Iviewit, when prior to learning of my inventions they were both with Meltzer. Rubenstein is counsel and sole patent evaluator for MPEGLA LLC now one of the largest infringers of the Iviewit technologies, licensing Warner Bros et al. and thousands of others.

Proskauer Rose, after learning of my technologies value, estimated at a trillion dollars to “priceless” by leading engineers at Real 3D, Inc. and without a patent department at the time in 1998, then rushed to acquire Rubenstein and his Meltzer patent group and control and monetization of the MPEGLA LLC pools.

When the acquisition was complete, Proskauer Rose, my former patent counsel, directly began inuring benefits from the stolen technologies via their new client MPEGLA LLC in their new Intellectual Property department created after learning of my inventions now headed by Rubenstein and other Meltzer partners.

MPEGLA has now tied and bundled my inventions to their pools licensing schemes, converting the royalties from the technologies from Iviewit and through other anticompetitive tactics have kept Iviewit from market in classic RICO and ANTITRUST violations, including violations of Sherman and Clayton, as further defined in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit exhibited already herein.

o The SEC should note here that Warner Bros et al. and many of those involved directly in these matters are also involved in DVD patent pooling schemes, including but not limited to, DVD6C Patent Pool[9]. Whereby, similar to MPEGLA LLC’s illegal use of my technologies, DVD6C has similarly tied and bundled my technologies to their pools licenses, excluding me from royalties and then inuring royalties from others from my technologies directly from their membership position in the pool.

o The SEC should note that the only Meltzer Intellectual Property attorney not to transfer to Proskauer at the time of acquisition was a one Raymond Joao, who initially with Rubenstein was represented as a Proskauer Rose partner and who took initial patent disclosures with Rubenstein. In 1999-2000, based on early evidence surfacing, Joao allegedly was putting patents into his own name while sabotaging the Iviewit patents.

Upon leaving Iviewit, Joao claimed publically that he had 90+ patents in his name and then went to work for Marc S. Dreier, recently prosecuted and convicted by the SEC for an alleged Ponzi scheme, as further evidenced and discussed later herein.

· February 08, 2002 – Lamont letter to John D. Calkins (“Calkins”) ~ Senior Vice President New Media Business Development of Warner Bros., regarding stock issued to Warner Bros. employees Colter and Thagard for Advisory Board roles they accepted and also regarding their about face and breach of contracts.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020208%20Lamont%20to%20Calkins%20Warner%20Bros%20Re%20Colter%20and%20Thagard%20Advisory%20Board%20Stock.pdf

· February 20, 2002 – Calkins Letter to Lamont denying IP infringement and contract violations in utter denial of the facts and evidence, including the Signed License and Service Agreement, Signed NDA’s, letters from Warner Bros. employees citing violations of the NDA’s and more, already presented herein.

The SEC should note that opposite of Calkins’ claims in the letter that Iviewit is creating a false record; it is instead Calkins and Smith attempting to create a false and misleading record of fact in the letter opposite of the facts.

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020220%20Calkins%20Letter%20to%20Lamont%20Warner%20Bros%20Wayne%20Smith.pdf

· February 27, 2002 – Lamont to Calkins about Warner Bros. Breach of Contracts, the SEC should note that while Lamont relies on the NDA, the February 15, 2001 SIGNED LICENSING AGREEMENT, illustrated above, also has strong language about IP rights concerning the Iviewit technologies that also are violated.

Also, take note that at this time in 2002, Warner Bros et al. knew of the breaches and formally were notified by Iviewit at that time of such breaches, therefore they should have begun accounting for and disclosing the IP Liabilities at this time in their accounting reports, if not earlier according to FASB accounting rules.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020227%20Lamont%20to%20Calkins%20Warner%20Bros%20Breach%20more.pdf

· March 05, 2002 – Smith letter to Lamont denying IP infringement and contract violations in utter denial of the facts and evidence, including the Signed License and Service Agreement, Signed NDA’s, letters from Warner Bros. employees citing violations of the NDA’s and more, already presented herein.

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020305%20Wayne%20Smith%20Warner%20Bros%20Letter%20to%20Lamont%20Calkins.pdf

· November 20, 2002 - April 15, 2002 Letter by Lamont to Proskauer Rose, Rubenstein Regarding Conversations with Warner Bros et al. presented to Rubenstein at his November 20, 2002 Deposition as already discussed herein.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Kenneth%20Rubenstein%20Deposition%20with%20Exhibits%20CERT.pdf

Pages 3-9

o Please note that the correspondence exhibited above refers to a notification issued to Warner Bros. at that time, which provided Warner Bros et al. further notice at that time that Cease and Desist letters and threatened litigation would be forthcoming regarding the technology infringements. Warner Bros et al. already was given notice of Breach of Contracts regarding the Intellectual Properties in prior communiqués exhibited and these letters certainly cite specific liabilities Warner was aware of going forward.

Liabilities exist for Warner Bros et al. for their involvement in the alleged criminal RICO and ANTITRUST activities initially discovered from information partially uncovered by Warner Bros et al. in 2001, as they were on the verge of investing $25 Million Dollars of capital to my companies.

When doing their due diligence on a $12 Million Dollar Private Placement with Wachovia Securities, corporate and intellectual property frauds were uncovered, including discoveries by Smith regarding the Proskauer/Rubenstein/Joao filed patents and Calkins discovered initial evidence of corporate and bankruptcy frauds.

At that time, Warner Bros et al. counsel, including Smith, employees and personnel became aware of frauds relating to both the patents filed with the US Patent Office and additional corporate fraud, additional information regarding similar corporate frauds was also being unearthed at that time in an audit being conducted by Arthur Andersen (“Andersen”) which will be discussed further herein. This information of what Smith and Calkin’s had discovered was relayed to Iviewit by Colter on behalf of both Smith and Calkins as rational for not going forward on the Private Placement investment.

Colter relayed that Warner Bros et al. uncovered fraud, including fraudulent statements made by Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner, former Iviewit counsel, regarding statements made in the Wachovia Private Placement whereby the bankruptcy and lawsuits were not disclosed that were later discovered. The Private Placement Memorandum completed by, billed for and circulated to potential Iviewit investors, including Warner Bros et al., by Proskauer.

The Fraudulent statements by counsel and others contained in the Wachovia Private Placement, distributed for capital investment is cause for further SEC investigations of these criminal and SEC violations. Further questions arise as to Wachovia’s actions once they too were aware of the Fraud.

Per Colter, Warner Bros et al. and Smith uncovered Intellectual Property Frauds involving fraudulent oaths to the US Patent Office and Worldwide Patent Authorities, which has in part led to suspension of my Intellectual Properties by the US Patent Commissioner pending investigations by the US Patent Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

This series of events led to further uncovering Patent Fraud by my former counsel Proskauer, Foley and Meltzer and others that are subject to several state, federal and international ongoing investigations and legal actions.

Investigations now include one by Harry I. Moatz (“Moatz”), Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office – Office of Enrollment and Discipline (“OED”), charged with oversight of the Federal Patent Bar and patent attorney criminal issues. Moatz confirmed that W. Palm Beach FBI Special Agent, Stephen Lucchesi had joined his investigation of FRAUD ON THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE allegedly committed by attorneys registered with the Federal Patent Bar.

Moatz also directed me to file claims of Fraud on the USPTO with the Commissioner of the US Patent Office that resulted in the exhibited herein patent suspensions. Moatz assembled a team of Patent Office Officials to aid me in getting the Intellectual Properties ready for suspension while investigations proceeded, as he removed all prior counsel from access to the IP.

Amazingly, the patent office initial information which led to suspension proved that materially false information on the patents was not only given to the US Patent Office but that similar false information was given by Proskauer, Foley and Meltzer to Wachovia Securities for inclusion into the Private Placement Memorandum.

Per Colter, Calkin’s had found fraud involving a fraudulent billing lawsuit against the Iviewit companies by counsel Proskauer.

Prior to Calkin’s information Iviewit corporate officers, directors and management did not know about such lawsuit, except those now charged with the RICO and ANTITRUST crimes and therefore it was not disclosed by Proskauer or Iviewit Accountants to Wachovia Securities for their due diligence and therefore not reflected in the Private Placement, further false statements in a securities document.

At the time, I retained independent counsel, Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire to investigate the corporate and patent fraud allegations and it was confirmed that there was a bankruptcy filing and lawsuit that were not disclosed to Wachovia or Iviewit’s Board and Management that were not part of the conspiratorial efforts.

It was later learned that the companies sued by Proskauer were companies fraudulently set up by former counsel Proskauer and had stolen Intellectual Properties in them, this was learned from information discovered directly from the US Patent Office OED Investigations.

Whereby, Arthur Andersen on or about this time, while auditing the Iviewit companies for the largest investor Crossbow Ventures of West Palm Beach Florida, whose investment funds were two-thirds SBA SBIC funds, found identical and similarly named companies to the Iviewit companies.

The Fraud involving the stolen Small Business Administration Funds is under ongoing investigation with the SBA Inspector General’s office, the SEC through actions involving the Boca Raton Police Department (“Boca PD”) to be discussed in detail herein and other investigators.

Per Colter, Smith discovered Fraud involving Kenneth Rubenstein, a Proskauer Rose law firm partner and sole patent evaluator for one of the largest infringers and criminal suspects in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and this was the supposed reason he want Rubenstein to re-opine.

The SEC should note here that in addition to the US Patent Office OED investigation of Rubenstein, Rubenstein also is under investigation with other attorneys, including Joao, all ordered for investigation by unanimous consent of Five Justices of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department.

Investigations ordered for “Conflicts of Interest and the Appearance of Impropriety” when a Proskauer partner, Steven C. Krane, violated public office rules at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department – Departmental Disciplinary Committee.

Krane caught handling Iviewit/Proskauer complaints, in order to block the complaints against his partner Rubenstein and his firm Proskauer, concealing the massive conflict he had as an Officer of the First Department Disciplinary Committee and other conflicts from other ethical public office positions he maintains in New York, while remaining a Proskauer partner.

After discovery of the alleged Intellectual Property fraudulent filings, Iviewit learned later that Smith, IP counsel for Warner Bros., was now working with Rubenstein who was Iviewit’s former IP counsel, MPEGLA counsel and Warner Bros. counsel.

Whereby, upon Smith’s request for Rubenstein to re-opine, Rubenstein claimed he was conflicted with Warner Bros. et al. and Iviewit and therefore could not opine, including even to reiterate his prior opinion, as already evidenced herein.

Whereby Warner Bros. et al. then breached their contracts and began illegally using and licensing the technologies to others in violation of the Binding Signed Agreements.

The DVD6C, MPEGLA LLC and other patent pooling schemes, where Warner Bros. and Proskauer are major participants[10], for example in the DVD6C pool which are managed and monetized by Warner Bros., Proskauer and Rubenstein.

The pooling schemes are alleged to be merely artifices to STEAL INVENTIONS FROM INVENTORS in violation of multiple Antitrust laws and have illegally precluded me from market in classic RICO and ANTITRUST activities, including death threats and a car bomb.

The Patent Pooling Schemes that Warner Bros. is directly involved in and inuring benefit from are also using the technologies in violation of Signed and Binding Contracts and Licensing Agreements, admittedly.

Yet, since that time Warner Bros. have also excluded Iviewit from market tying and bundling the technologies in their licensing schemes, again in classic RICO and ANTITRUST activities and not only failed to pay Iviewit royalties but have failed to account for the 10 years of knowing infringement and the Massive Liabilities to Shareholders that mounts daily. ""

Click Here for Source of Document and Full SEC Complaint

More on the Viewit Stolen Patent at
www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV

Posted by Crystal L. Cox
Ivestigative Blogger

Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit alleges that MPEGLA’s primary patent reviewer Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer, STOLE their Technology.

Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit technologies alleges that MPEGLA’s primary patent reviewer Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer, along with some others, stole their inventions and patented them in their own names.

"January 18th, 2006 Posted by Sachin Garg
w
Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit technologies alleges that MPEGLA’s primary patent reviewer Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer, along with some others, stole their inventions and patented them in their own names. Eliot Bernstein says that he is an inventor and that his inventions were stolen by the MPEG licensor MPEGLA, and that Iviewit has gone to court forthis. He says that the primary patent reviewer for MPEG, Kenneth Rubenstein, who works for law firm Proskauer Rose LLP, along withProskauer were patent counsel for the Iviewit inventors while they were controlling MPEG and acting as its counsel, they then stole the Iviewit technologies from the inventors the represented.

(For those who don’t know, MPEG contains IP from lots of patents, held by many peoples/companies. MPEGLA is an organization which collaborates with all those who have pooled their IP into MPEG and lets users license allthose patents from a single source) An excerpt: Rubenstein’s former partner Raymond Anthony Joao, Esq., now has applied for ninety patents in his own name, (yes the patent attorney has patented the inventions in his own name, it should not even be possible but…) manystolen directly from the inventions he and Rubenstein were supposed to patent for Iviewit.

He further blamed them and few employees from IBM to have worked together in unison to steal other inventions from Iviewit, another Florida company, Diamond Turf Equipment and other small inventors.

Another excerpt:This is truly the greatest patent story ever told and as American citizens we must, must, prevent this type of legal crime, committed by attorneys, to protect the Constitution. If all this is true, I have to admit it will be one the big patent stories around. More information at http://www.iviewit.tv and http://patentgate.blogspot.com "
e
*****
Where is Sachin Garg? And why has the Greatest Patent Story ever Told been Ignored, Silenced, and Covered up... Seriously isn't There Room in Trillions of Dollars to Share with the Person that is the REASON your able to make this money?
p
Source:
http://patentgate.blogspot.com/2006/01/iviewit-news-story.html
r
More On the IviewIt Scandal...
www.DeniedPatent.com
r

MPEG - as anti-competitive Monopolistic Patent Pooling Scheme - IviewIt Stolen Technology

"Iviewit technologies are currently being utilized by almost every major imaging and video application. These technologies have been at the heart of one of the most fascinating patent stories in the history of the United States and one of the most fascinating crimes ever attempted.
The Iviewit story begins with invention by several inventors working to overcome limitations that were prevalent in early attempts at virtual imaging and low bandwidth video communications.

The true inventors were Eliot I. Bernstein, James F. Armstrong, Jude Rosario, Zakirul Shirajee, Patti Daniels and Matthew Mink. The first spark of invention was in finding a solution for imaging pixelation upon zoom in a low bandwidth environment and utilizing a low resolution file.

In prior art, the user when zooming in virtual images was plagued by pixelation. The iviewit invention in scaled imaging solved for this pixel distortion when zooming in low bandwidth on low resolution, resulting in what is commonly found on digital cameras today and referred to as "digital zoom".

The imaging invention, although discovered in this virtual reality domain has now penetrated every form of digital imaging technology both in hardware and software. The scaled inventions leading to new medical imaging devices, new camera applications, satellite imaging advancements and new zoom television sets as are now offered by Sony.

The second invention for scaled video and often referred to by video technologists and engineers worldwide as a "holy grail" discovery, was the key to unlocking full frame rate, full screen, low bandwidth video as is now found on almost every website worldwide. Scaled video is now embedded in every video player such as the Real Player, QuickTime and Microsoft players. Without this invention video on the Internet, other than postage sized grainy transmissions, would not be possible.

This invention has since transformed the prior art on video content creation and distribution for all forms of video components (i.e. HDTV, Television, DVD, HDDVD) and on almost every digital video/imaging product from videocams, to medical applications, to satellite video and imaging.

The third invention combines scaled video and scaled imaging to form a unique platform of video that can be zoomed into without pixel distortion. The fourth invention was for a remote controlled camera and video applications whereby control of video and imaging inventions from a communication environment could be obtained.Other inventions in digital sound, video and imaging were also discovered around these primary inventions. Patents were filed for the inventions with leading US law firms including Proskauer Rose LLP, Foley and Lardner, Blakely Sokoloff Zafman and Taylor and Meltzer Lippe Goldstein and Schlissel, as well as, leading international law firms around the world.

Or so the shareholders of the companies, Iviewit, thought so.Currently, the United States Patent & Trademark Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the are investigating charges that the law firms herein named have committed fraud against the United States Patent & Trademark Office through a series of fraudulent patent applications with attempt to steal the inventions from the inventors. Similarly, the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) are investigating similar charges of fraud committed by the international legal representatives involved. Multitudes of information regarding the inventions can be found at the iviewit website http://www.iviewit.tv/ that in depth information regarding the investigations and other actions can be found.

The main culprit behind these thefts is the video body, self titled, MPEGLA, LLC and their subsequent license known as MPEG, attempting through a patent pooling scheme, similar to other pooling schemes that have historically been involved in anticompetitive and monopolistic practices. Prior strong arm tactics of patent pools and methods to illegally corner markets and steal inventions have been stopped via the Department of Justice efforts.

Section IV attempts to draw conclusions for antitrust enforcement from the history of patent pooling cases and the economic analysis.

The economic analysis suggests that restrictive licensing terms should not necessarily raise competition concerns if patents are not substitutes for each other. However, the cases reveal that many unlawful patent pooling and cross-licensing arrangement were actually cartel agreements thinly disguised as patent licenses. Such shams should not escape antitrust condemnation even if the patents involved in the arrangement are not substitutes.

Section IV notes that the social return from challenges to weak patents is much higher than the private return and ends with a recommendation that antitrust agencies become more proactive in this area."

Later similar concern is also raised;

"Other arrangements have been shams, in which firms agree to abide by restrictive licensing terms as a means to cartelize an industry. In cases such as U.S. Gypsum the patent was incidental to a larger purpose, which was to impose downstream restraints that eliminated competition." http://elsa.berkeley.edu/users/gilbert/wp/patent_pools100302.pdf .

Antitrust for Patent Pools:

A Century of Policy EvolutionRichard J.Gilbert
October 3, 2002
In the Singer sewing US Supreme Court case, similar to the blocking of Iviewit technologies by MPEGLA, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court summarized the central competitive issue as follows:
What is claimed here is that Singer engaged in a series of transactions with Gegauf and Vigorelli for an illegal purpose, i.e., to rid itself and Gegauf, together, perhaps, with Vigorelli, of infringements by their common competitors, the Japanese manufacturers.

The Government claims that in this respect there were an identity of purpose among the parties and actions pursuant thereto that in law amount to a combination or conspiracy violative of the Sherman Act.

In the Iviewit case for example, the MPEG codec at the time before invention was incapable of producing a low bandwidth video that could produce a marketable video at internet speeds. The mathematical limitations at bandwidths from 28k-750k produced a horrific video that was not marketable, thus the search for the "holy grail" began for a method to transmit video in this medium that was full screen, full frame rate.

Now the MPEGLA patent pool at the time before the Iviewit inventions was a very small pool with a very small number of patents in the pool and fewer licensees. The pool was begun by a former MIT student and lawyer, Kenneth Rubenstein, who likens himself to the gatekeeper of the pool with his self proclaimed title of patent evaluator for the pool.

The inventors of the technologies, seeing that they had found the grail invention, rushed to get the ideas patented and hired the law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP. A slimy attorney from the firm, named Christopher Clarke Wheeler (recently arrested and convicted for Drunk Driving with Injury ~ Del Ray Beach, FL PD) said he would check if his firm had patent counsel.

A few weeks later he returned and claimed that Kenneth Rubenstein was with the firm in New York and that he was involved in the MPEG patent pool. Wheeler claimed that with Rubenstein's blessing on the inventions, they would be included in the pools and Iviewit and its shareholders would derive royalties from the pool.

Somewhere though, on the way to the patent office, Rubenstein and his band of thieves, decided on a very complicated artifice to defraud the inventors and shareholders and steal the inventions for themselves.

This blog will attempt to expose what these law firms have done in the attempt to steal the inventions and then to attempt to cover up their crimes through manipulation of the legal system that elevates to the highest court in this land. At the same time, these attorneys are under very real federal and international investigations for their crimes.

The only way to escape prosecution will be to manipulate the justice department, the commerce department and the Supreme Court, if they fail, certain federal prison sentences await them.

This blog will cover the crimes and allow for others to post comments relating to their experiences with what appears a corrupt group of patent law firms that has found a way to steal inventions from inventors, disguised as trusted attorneys from leading law firms. Again, the meat of the story and much evidence can be found at www.iviewit.tv where we welcome your comments and any help you may be able to give in bringing these criminals to justice."
r
Source of Post
http://patentgate.blogspot.com/2005/12/mpeg-as-anticompetitive-monopolistic.html
p
More on this Story at
www.DeniedPatent.com
r
Crystal L. Cox
IndustryWhistleblower.com
r