Litigation Funding Brings Balance to the David Against Goliath World of the Silicon Valley Tech Oligarchs


What are the advantages of litigation funding?:

See: https://www.slideshare.net/Litigation-Fuding/the-advantages-of-third-party-funding-litigation

Also take a look at this article:

Evolving trends in litigation funding


Financier Worldwide Magazine

Third party litigation funding continues to grow and evolve. The basic business model – funding of all legal and other ancillary costs related to a claim in exchange for a share of the damages if the claim is successfully resolved – has withstood the test of time and is highly attractive for both claimants requiring funding as well as investors looking for above-average returns. There follows an overview of the major current trends that underpin the growth of this fast-moving and still relatively young industry.

Increase in volume of claims requiring funding

The industry has experienced a steady increase in the number of claims requiring third party funding. This increase can be attributed to a combination of factors such as the recognition that funding of claims ‘works’ and benefits all those involved (claimants, funders, professional advisers), an established track record of successfully funded claims by institutional funders and better promotion of the industry through marketing efforts by recognised players who are members of the Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales.

Another explanation for the increase in the number of claims being presented for funding resides in the cost reforms introduced in England and Wales as of April 2013, also referred to as the ‘Jackson Reforms’. These reforms have altered the landscape of claimants litigating with the benefit of Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) and After the Event insurance (ATE).

Under a CFA, a solicitor or barrister in England and Wales will work for the claimant client with no payment during the course of the case and on the basis that he will receive nothing at all if the case is lost. The benefit for the lawyer is that he is rewarded for taking the risk of getting nothing by receiving a success fee if the case is won, which can amount to a maximum of 100 percent uplift on his normal hourly charges. Prior to April 2013, the cost of the success fee could be passed on to the defendant if the case was won.

Under the new regime, claimants can no longer recover success fees from defendants but all claimants’ lawyers are permitted to work on a ‘contingency fee’ basis and thus agree with their clients to structure fees as a proportion of damages awarded. These arrangements, also known as ‘damages based agreements’ or ‘DBAs’, were supposed to facilitate the funding of claims for the claimants by their lawyers. What we are finding is that, due to a total lack of clarity in the regulations governing them, lawyers are unwilling to enter into DBAs as they could win a case and then be deprived of their remuneration as a result of non-compliance with incomprehensible regulations. Lawyers prefer to continue to invoice their clients on an ongoing basis and are increasingly recommending third party funding as the ‘go to’ solution to clients instead of entering into CFAs or DBAs.

The new costs regime has also impacted claimants who chose to take up ATE cover and who are now looking to third party funders to cover the cost of such cover.

An ATE policy is a policy of insurance under which a party to litigation insures against the risk of losing his case and having to pay the opponent’s costs. As was the case with CFAs, prior to the Jackson Reforms a claimant could litigate with the benefit of an ATE policy and, if he won the action, pass the cost onto the losing defendant who had to pay the premium on the claimant’s insurance policy, which the claimant chose to take without consulting him. Since April 2013, claimants other than insolvency practitioners who take out an ATE policy must pay the premium out of their own pocket. The whole premium now comes out of the successful claimant’s damages. As of April 2015, insolvency practitioners will lose their special exemption and also have to absorb their ATE premiums. As some funders are prepared to offer claimants an indemnity to cover the defendant’s costs in case the claim is lost, claimants increasingly see the benefit of third party funding to secure such an indemnity as part of the funding package.

We are also noticing an increase in the volume of claims being presented for funding by insolvency practitioners. Third party funding is well known to them. Liquidators are very often in the position of ‘David’ having to face the ‘Goliath’ claimant whose only hope is that David will not be able to find the money to sue him. If the defendant happens to be a former director of the now insolvent company on whose behalf the liquidator is pursuing the claim, he most probably made sure before the liquidation that the company was thoroughly stripped of all cash and assets to leave the liquidator with little or no money to pursue any claim against him. Third party funding then becomes ‘the only game in town’ for any insolvency practitioner who lacks the funds to pursue the claim.

Higher quality of claims presented for funding

Third party funders have become accustomed to ‘bad claims’ being presented for funding. ‘Bad claims’ come in various forms and guises. First, there are always straightforward unmeritorious claims, often presented for funding directly by the claimant without any supporting documentation. Then, there are cases proposed for funding just before trial or when their limitation period is on the point of expiring. Again, these are usually presented by claimants themselves, either because they have run out of money to pay the lawyers or because they have tried to conduct the case on their own without legal representation. There are also cases that could have been fundable but have been destroyed by the claimants doing them ‘on the cheap’ until they realise that they have ruined their chances of success. They then turn to a funder in desperation, in the hope that the funder will finance a decent legal team to rescue the case. In those circumstances, funders can be forgiven for feeling that they are treated more as maritime salvage companies rather than investors. Finally, there are the cases that are supported by opinions from the legal team who have fallen in love with the case and become unable to spot obvious weaknesses.

Reviewing and rejecting bad claims is part and parcel of a funder’s job. What is reassuring and is evidenced by our more recent experience is that claims of a much higher quality are now being presented for funding.

‘Good claims’ in our industry means claims where the professional funder can clearly understand and evaluate duty, breach, causation and the damage suffered by the claimant. These are claims which are conducted by able legal teams who provide the funders with detailed legal analysis supported by a suitable bundle of relevant copy documentation, a realistic estimate of the quantum of the claim and a well-considered budget. These are what funders want and expect to see in order to offer terms.

New challenges and opportunities

The increased awareness of the availability of third party litigation funding creates both challenges and opportunities. We briefly focus on several opportunities available to the industry and on the main challenge flowing from these opportunities.

Claimants are aware that litigation funding is available and gives them the opportunity of avoiding the damage to their cash flow caused by having to pay monthly lawyers’ bills. Lawyers have accepted that they have to respond to that awareness and demand for alternative funding on the part of their clients by assisting them to approach third party funders. This is precisely the expansion of access to justice which the Jackson Reforms were intended to achieve. As a result, the volume of claims referred for funding is increasing rapidly and we expect this trend to continue.

Litigation funding is now an accepted, viable and alternative asset class for investors who wish to diversify their portfolio. The fundamentals of this asset class are compelling: reputable and institutional funders have an established and proven track record of above average returns, demand far outstrips supply and the asset class is not linked to economic cycles. Based on these highly attractive fundamentals, the industry has managed to attract hundreds of millions of dollars from investors, be they quoted funds on the London Stock Exchange, hedge funds, family offices or private individuals. We expect this trend to continue and believe that more money will become available for case funding over time.

With these opportunities comes an important challenge: namely, how to satisfy the demands of claimants and investors alike, while at the same time maintaining the high level of caution and professionalism required to ensure the industry’s continued growth and success.

As investors are attracted by the high returns offered by this asset class, they are prepared to invest more money but will insist on commensurate returns. The seduction of a much larger funding capacity and that of a potentially much higher personal compensation (often in the form of a management fee and a carry) can lead some funders to invest in claims that do not meet stringent due diligence requirements simply in order to deploy available capital. When a funded claim fails because a judge rules it spurious, everybody gets hurt: claimants, investors and the industry as a whole, because it is still too young to afford bad publicity.

It is the responsibility of each professional and reputable funder to ensure that it avoids the temptation of taking on excessively risky cases simply to deploy investors’ capital. The funders who belong to the Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales have acquired a justified reputation for professionalism and probity and it is to be expected that they will hold fast to those standards in order to ensure their own and the industry’s continued success.


Top performing litigation financier Bentham, provides these recommendations:

The Benefits of Using Litigation Funding Over Litigation Insurance

The Benefits of Using Litigation Funding Over Litigation Insurance
By: Allison Chock, Chief Investment Officer US

Litigation funding and litigation insurance are sometimes compared as ways to help litigants reduce their risk when bringing contingency fee-based claims. At first glance, funding and insurance may appear to be similar, however, they are distinct tools with substantially different methods and benefits. Litigation funding occurs when a third party provides non-recourse financing for all or a part of a claimant’s litigation costs while the case is pending in exchange for an agreed-upon share of the recovery. Litigation insurance also covers legal expenses, however, potential payment from the insurance company occurs once a matter has concluded.

While litigation funding and litigation insurance can be used by claimants with any socio-economic background, insurance tends to attract deep-pocketed claimants who can afford to fund expenses through a lengthy litigation process whereas funding appeals to claimants from both sides of the tracks. According to a recent report by The American Lawyer, a standard litigation insurance policy can cover litigation costs between 40 to 70% of attorney fees. Litigation insurance generally works “after the event.” The insurer covers the costs in the event of a loss. Policies also allow the insured to pay premiums when the case is successfully completed.  

Funding, on the other hand, covers costs as they are incurred, maximizes the value of claims, and, for corporate litigants, can improve the bottom line. Here are a few key points on how litigation funding differs from litigation insurance:

• Investment. The fundamental difference between litigation funding and litigation insurance is that funding provides up-front capital to help cover the costs of pursuing a claim. For law firms and companies, the cost of litigation can be prohibitive. Even when there are meritorious claims that could produce substantial returns, claimants are sometimes forced to settle for pennies on the dollar or abandon cases entirely because of the associated legal expense of continuing to a trial. Litigation funding solves this problem by financing cases and generating a return on its investment only if, and when, the matter is successfully resolved.

• Higher Stakes. To ensure that the claimant receives the lion’s share of a successful resolution, Bentham IMF funds only meritorious, high-stakes cases that are likely to generate substantial settlements or judgments and are supported by a strong legal team. While insurers sometimes offer policies on smaller cases, to be eligible for Bentham’s funding, litigants must request more than $1 million. In addition, the anticipated settlement or judgment must exceed $10 million (exclusive of punitive damages), the defendant must have a clear ability to pay, and the litigation must have strong prospects of success. Bentham also has the flexibility to fund a portfolio of cases, giving litigants the ability to finance a number of cases while spreading their potential risk across multiple claims.

Maximizing Value. With funding, litigants have unique opportunities to evaluate the viability of their claims and to maximize their potential value. Bentham does extensive due diligence into cases that it may fund, and in so doing, provides valuable insight for claimants about the strengths and weaknesses of their claims. If a case is funded, the money can be used to help hire the best possible counsel to effectively combat delay tactics by a well-funded opponent, and to allow the claimant to withstand low-ball settlement offers.

• Accounting Benefits. Litigation (including any associated insurance premiums) appears as an expense—a costly one—on corporate books, and a large piece of ongoing litigation can have a significant, negative impact on a profit and loss statement. On the other hand, litigation cannot be recognized as a potential asset, even in situations where the company may have a strong likelihood of a substantial recovery. The unfavorable accounting rules and the resulting drag on profits can sour companies on the prospect of pursuing litigation, even when it is meritorious and potentially lucrative. When funding is used to finance litigation, however, legal spending is removed from the books. The company’s bottom line brightens and executives may be more likely to pursue legal claims.



We own the exclusive rights for certain high-ticket litigation opportunities

- Litigation funding is litigation finance

- In this option we deploy transactions where the asset value of our litigation claims is used to secure financing from outside investors

- Third-party investors provide funds for our cases on a non-recourse basis. This means that the return of capital is tied to a successful outcome in the litigation via settlement or court award

Litigation finance can be used by one company to sue another, so that the general counsel’s office can become a revenue generator instead of a cost center...” — Above the Law

Commercial litigation funding partnerships solve the following industry problems:

- Mitigating the existing costs of an existing ultra-expensive legal system

- Management problems with the hourly billing model

- Budget uncertainty for investment concerns. Back-up must be provided when the budget runs out

- Legal fee expenses on a corporate balance sheet are problematic

- Litigation for the smaller entity must become less risky

- The market demands a need for risk mitigation and risk/upside sharing

In a typical opportunity the court cost will be $2 to $7M or 2.5 to 4 years for an affirmative and elective litigation with targeted rewards of 4 to 7+ times the $2M to $7M investment.

This opportunity facilitates recovery of lost revenue and provides access to capital for meritorious claims. It provides risk-sharing and reduces budget uncertainty while delivering the resources to retain top tier counsel. In this process company and counsel interests are aligned while changing off-balance sheet legal items into profit centers.

The ways that Funders can invest in our litigation opportunities:

- Directly paying full hourly fees to approved law firms

- Risk Sharing

- Direct legal costs funding

- Working capital accounts and credit cards

- Appeals risk reduction support

- Risk Sharing with lawyers

Option #1 Risk Sharing: 50/50 (Full Contingency)

Invest 50% to 75% of Hourly Fees + discount and recover 20% to 35% of proceeds

Law firm invests discount on hourly fees and gets paid 50% to 75% of normal fee rate plus 10% to 15% success bonus from our cases

Option # 2 – Hybrid

Law firm produces fee budget and investors invest 50% of that fee budget in exchange for 20% recovery.

Law firm invests 50% of fee budget billings in exchange for 20% of recovery

Over 30 other risk sharing finance opportunity structures exist. Let’s discuss!

The investor/financier steps:

1. NDA execution

2. Drafting of a term sheet

3. Due diligence review and approval of law firm

4. Funding agreement production

5. Monitoring of the case

6. Resolution via settlement or court award







Are Silicon Valley Tech Giants Robbing Start-ups Blind?


Silicon Valley Oligarchs pretty much copy and steal anything they want to in Silicon Valley. Are you an entrepreneur who thought the “American Dream” of inventing a great product and becoming rich is still alive? Forget about it!

If you make something great, one of the bosses at Google or Twitter could steal it, copy it and never pay you a dime. The FTC, SEC and Congress have now been asked to take a look:


As tech companies get richer, is it 'game over' for startups?

Young firms struggle to compete as deep-pocketed companies like Facebook and Amazon clone products and consolidate their power

The leading tech companies are making it harder for startups to attract investment. Photograph: Alvarez/Getty Images




Facebook has been breathing down the neck of the group video-chat app Houseparty for over a year. The app, developed by the San Francisco startup Life On Air, has been a hit with teenagers – an audience Facebook is desperate to woo.

After months of sniffing around its tiny competitor and even inviting the team to its headquarters last summer, Facebook launched its own group video chat tool within Messenger in December 2016. In February, it invited teens to its headquarters to quiz them, in return for $275 Amazon cards, on how and why they used video-chat apps. By July, Facebook was demonstrating a Houseparty clone, Bonfire, to employees and by early September the app launched in Denmark.

They see we’re having traction,” Sima Sistani, co-founder of Houseparty, told the Wall Street Journal in August. “That’s why we’re pushing so hard.”

Pushing hard might not be enough when you’re going up against some of the world’s most powerful companies keen to cling to their empires.

Startups drive job creation and innovation, but the number of new business launches is at a 30-year low and some economists, investors and entrepreneurs are pointing their fingers at big tech.

For one thing, the deep pockets and resources of companies like Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple – with a combined value of almost $2.5tn – make it increasingly difficult for startups to compete or attract investment.

People are not getting funded because Amazon might one day compete with them,” said one founder, who wished to remain anonymous. “If it was startup versus startup, it would have been a fair fight, but startup versus Amazon and it’s game over.”

Even multibillion-dollar startups like Snap, Snapchat’s parent company, struggle to compete against these tech titans.

Like Houseparty, Snap was nipping at the heels of Facebook. At first, Facebook played nicely, making an offer to buy Snapchat – a strategy that worked with Instagram and WhatsApp. When that failed, Facebook cloned all of Snapchat’s features, awkwardly at first but relentlessly and with the resources of a $510bn company, until Snap’s potential slice of the advertising market shriveled to a sliver.

While there’s a clear correlation, it’s hard to say for sure whether concentration of money is the cause or effect of the startup decline. On one hand, the existence of fewer new startups makes it easier for incumbent firms to accumulate more power. However, as industries become more concentrated, it also raises the barriers to new entrepreneurship, choking off innovation elsewhere in the marketplace.

They are financing the next generation research at a scale that no one else can afford,” said Tomasz Tunguz, a venture capitalist, citing Google’s experimental projects Loon (balloon-powered internet), Fiber (high-speed internet) and Waymo (self-driving cars). “They are playing in big markets, making big bets. Historically, that’s been the domain of startups.”

As those companies get more powerful and staff salaries get higher, there’s even less of an incentive for workers to leave and set up on their own, which used to be a common pathway for entrepreneurs. If they do leave, the endgame is often to be acquired by their previous employer rather than grow large enough to compete with it.

If your strategy from the outset is to be acquired by Google, that’s just fueling consolidation,” said Ian Hathaway, an economist at the Brookings Institution.

Jonathan Frankel was thrilled when Amazon’s investment arm funneled $5.6m into his startup Nucleus after a year of discussions. He was less thrilled when, a year later, Amazon launched its latest voice-controlled device, the Echo Show: an almost perfect clone of the Nucleus product.

Nucleus was an Alexa-powered tablet computer that focused on video conferencing and communication, with a plan – that Amazon’s investment arm would have seen – to move into other areas. When the Echo Show launched, it too focused on communication, the core of Nucleus’s vision, instead of other key features like e-commerce or connected home elements.

Frankel, who declined to comment for this piece, was furious, telling Recode earlier this year: “Their thesis is what our thesis was: communication is that Trojan horse to get those devices throughout the home and throughout the extended family’s home.

The difference is, they want to sell more detergent; we actually want to help families communicate easier.”

These kinds of tactics have rattled investors, some founders said, making it harder for startups to raise money even if they’re in an adjacent market – particularly those skirting Amazon and Facebook.

A venture capitalist confirms this, describing Amazon’s launch of an almost identical product as a “very, very strange coincidence”.

At the end of the day, Amazon could be theoretically in nearly any consumer business in the world,” he said, adding that he was frequently in meetings where investment decisions are informed by the question: “Can Amazon do that?”

Amazon can do anything,” he noted.

'From heroes to villains': tech industry faces bipartisan backlash in Washington

It’s not just a problem within the tech industry. Since 1980, the share of companies less than a year old has almost halved – from 15% of companies to just 8.1%, according to Census Bureau data. The total number of startups formed in 2015 (the last year surveyed) was 414,000 – a huge drop from the pre-recession figure of 558,000 in 2006.

It’s been a persistent and fairly precipitous decline,” said John Dearie, the founder of the Center for American Entrepreneurship, an organization set up to address the decline. “The reason why this is so troubling is that new businesses account for virtually all new job creation and account disproportionately for disruptive innovations.”

It’s not a coincidence that at a time when the startup rate is in a long-term decline, the economy has not grown at 3% or better,” said Dearie. “We are in a growth emergency.”


It gets worse, read this article >> : Inventors Who Changed the World and Got Screwed in Return 1.2.pdf




Want To Invest In The Future And Make Money When We Make Money?





INFO: New Resume Site Upgrade Underway


An updated version of this resume site is in-process. Check back in a few weeks for tons of new info...



INFO: Robert Half Releases Audit On Technology Staff Compensation Industry Standards


This fine report updates quantified metrics for technology industry compensation per current standards:

CLICK THIS LINK >>: 2018_salary_guide_NA_technology_1.pdf



INFO: NRE Services Contracting


All new custom projects, with a new Scope of Work (SOW), are required to first contract an engineering study in order to determine the specifications, criteria, BOM, NRE determination, and project Gant chart overview for the project.

The deliverables are a written report with those items documented in that report. Estimated time-frame for that document production is 30 days or less.  

Client is required to provide up to one hour per day for feedback communication during that time-frame. The minimum billing for the Initial Engineering Study (IES) is $5000.00

Our Team also accepts "challenge quotes" wherein the customer provides a competing quote and specifications for our Team to counter-offer against. \

Clients hire our Team to calculate the cost of their projects and integrate our technology into a total system in a manner that provides better value and better features than any competitor.

It takes many hours to engineer and calculate all the hundreds of options for all of the thousands of variables for each pro-forma financial projection for a complete system, including amortization allowances (even if it contains guesses about the cost of equipment).

A competitor may back-load the costs and bill you on the back-end but we have always come out at least 30 to 40% lower cost, overall, after a project is completed.

We can get, or build, any equipment needed. If a client decides to produce a specification document on their own,  we would be glad to quote once the client has the specifications engineered.

As with all custom NRE products: ordering a single unit is very expensive, ordering many units makes each unit not very expensive.

Customers are also invited to "invest in the future" and place a high volume order for their marketing groups to re-sell to specialized markets.

To begin the process, please CONTACT US


INFO: We Are a Team of The Best-Of-The-Best Creative Geniuses And Technicians



We are a Team of experts that have worked together, and grown our ranks, since 1976. We are located all over the world. We are engineers, programmers, prototype fabricators, tacticians, operations leads, managers, scientists and all of the kinds of people that get things done.



INFO: Our Famous Past Team-Members

Sometimes it is Who-Was-Here that is as impressive as Who-Is-Here...


Famous Poachings

"You know you have made it when the biggest players on Earth steal your executives" - GM Boss


Scott is a technologist and start-up guy in California. Bill Gates, personally poached a CEO Scott had hired in order to CEO Gates' new spin-off company. Scott said: "Mad? Heck No! I took that one as a compliment and gave him my blessing". Microsoft, the company, took Scott's lead technical writer later on, but they also bought some of his patents, so he did not complain too much on that loss either. Match.com founder/VC Gary Kreman took Scott's CFO in order to launch the largest specialty content site on Earth. Scott is no stranger to the Poach Culture. The Class-action lawsuit, now known as the "Silicon Valley No Poaching Case", nailed some of the largest tech companies in the world for rigging and poaching. The case even uncovered the emails of the head of Google coordinating poach plans. Since then, the repercussions of poaching have increased. While imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it is also the biggest loss of income for technologists. The biggest danger with the Silicon Valley "poaching culture" is intellectual property theft. Technologists must beware of this constant risk and follow Steve Jobs' concept of keeping all executives and hot shots on a need-to-know basis relative to key ideas. With Steve Jobs and others in Silicon Valley, this sometimes includes disinformation leaks to steer potential moles into other directions. Probably the most extreme tactic (and one not recommended) was reported in ValleyWag Magazine: one night Elon Musk stayed up all night to write a different email to each employee. VallyWag claims that he added a different secret word to each email as a trap to try and catch a spy he suspected was an employee. He thought that when he found a leaked email in a Wall Street Journal article, the secret word would tell him who leaked it. We don't know if he caught his suspected spy/mole but his employees caught HIM spying on them and ratted him out to ValleyWag. Sometimes the best laid plans can backfire. In Silicon Valley, hundreds of “special operators” sell their services as industrial spies and short term intelligence gathering moles. They are placed in companies to see what they are up to. Big technology is sometimes a dirty business.


This Won't Protect Your Startup

Last Christmas Eve, a man broke into Adara Networks’ San Jose headquarters, using copies of both physical and electronic keys. He seemed to know exactly what he was looking for. The thief left rows of desks untouched as he cruised toward the lab holding the source code for Adara’s proprietary data-center networking software. Fortunately for Adara, he triggered an alarm on the lab door and fled. “Snatch and grab” crimes, in which crooks enter an office and carts off a few loose laptops, happen occasionally in Silicon Valley. Chief Executive Officer Eric Johnson sensed that his case was more serious, though. Adara’s next-generation networking technology could be attractive to nations hoping to capture more of the global telecommunications market. So Johnson brought in contractors to sweep the offices for bugs, in case a foreign government was listening.
Adara executives sent an e-mail to staff that detailed the break-in and urged vigilance: Everyone at the company was ordered to be on lockdown, say several current and former employees who wouldn’t speak on the record for fear of upsetting the CEO. Through intermediaries, Johnson declined to comment. Silicon Valley has a long history of thievery and espionage. A year before the Adara break-in, a burglar cracked open the door at networking-software company Nicira, an Adara rival, in a matter of seconds. That thief went straight to a top engineer’s desk and stole a computer carrying the source code for some of the most promising software in Silicon Valley. (Nicira was later acquired by software maker VMware (VMW) for $1.2 billion.) Given the target company and the skill of the crime, federal investigators suspected that Russia or China was behind the attack. Blog: The Most Powerful People in Your Organization Are the Software Developers In decades past, KGB spies lurked at bars such as Walker’s Wagon Wheel in Mountain View, Calif., where semiconductor engineers hung out and talked shop. From 1994 to 1998, the FBI maintained a team codenamed Valley Bear, whose mission was to protect computing innovations deemed critical to America’s future, according to Terry Turchie, a former FBI counterintelligence agent.
During that time, he says, Russia, China, India, Israel, and others had spies working in the Valley. The 12 counterintelligence specialists who now staff the FBI’s Palo Alto office mostly focus on China, says a person familiar with its operations who wasn’t authorized to discuss them. The other big change since the days of Valley Bear, says FBI Supervisory Special Agent Kevin Phelan, who heads the Palo Alto unit, is that foreign spies are focusing as much on small startups as on established computing companies. They’ve even set up venture capital firms to scout prospects. Once they identify intellectual property worth stealing, the actual operation is often easy, given that the typical startup faces budget limitations and prioritizes Nerf guns, food deliveries, and all-hours access to the office over robust security. To make it harder for the thieves, some companies are paying for “penetration testing,” hiring security consultants to probe their defenses.
Tests include walking through company premises without a visitor’s badge, leaving malware-laden USB sticks in the parking lot for unsuspecting employees to pop into their computers, even delivering a giant fake FedEx box that contains a person equipped with breathing apparatus and a periscope. (That last one is risky; in one case, the box got locked up in the target’s overheated mailroom.) “We’ve had 12-person companies, right on up to the largest out there, ask for this type of work,” says Steve Stasiukonis, an executive at Secure Network Technologies, a consultancy. “It’s usually the companies with the really good intellectual property that care the most.” Story: Balancing Security and Liberty in the Age of Big Data After the Adara break-in, the building’s cleaning crew was fired and replaced, while the security detail was doubled and asked to carry guns, say the Adara staffers. CEO Johnson hired private investigators to pore over video surveillance footage and talk to neighbors. At a loading dock across the street, workers had told the driver of a suspicious car to move along that night, after taking a photo of its license plate, says Lieutenant Michael Sterner of the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, a state task force that investigates tech-related crimes.
Sterner says the license plate helped tie his suspect to the crime. Police have charged Andrew Madrid, Silicon Valley’s version of a cat burglar, in connection with the Adara break-in. Madrid, a former IT consultant, served two years in prison starting in 2009 for a string of high-tech burglaries in which he hacked corporate computers and stole personal data such as credit card numbers. He proved adept at defeating the security of the Valley’s small corporate office complexes, says Sterner. From August 2012 to April 2013, Madrid broke into more than three dozen businesses throughout the Valley, including Adara, state prosecutors allege. “Everyone needs a hobby. He’s found one he enjoys,” says Tom Flattery, deputy district attorney for the County of Santa Clara. Madrid has been charged with 45 new felony counts, including 31 for commercial burglaries. Like China’s spies, Madrid focused on small proprietors who hadn’t invested much in protecting their stuff, says Sterner. Police estimate he stole $400,000 worth of goods and spent thousands more using stolen credit cards during his last spree. Madrid is being held on $1 million bail while awaiting a pretrial hearing later this month; his lawyer declined to comment. It’s not espionage, but he faces more than 29 years in prison. The FBI’s Phelan continues to warn startups that security should be their first priority.
The bottom line: Weak security can make startups a tempting target for simple burglary as well as foreign espionage. Vance is a technology writer for Bloomberg Businessweek in Palo Alto, Calif.




google hates inventors.jpg

We Win By Focusing On "The Impossible!"

Winning by Focusing on “The Impossible”

Focus on the Impossible”

By Steve Bloom

Many people really misunderstand what it means for something to be impossible. It’s a problem that leads people to impose limitations on the actions they take in life that they shouldn’t. If you think something is impossible to do, you won’t try to do it. Ultimately, this makes you miss out on great life experiences and opportunities. The Impossible Becoming Real Throughout history many things people once thought were impossible turned out to be completely wrong. At one time all Europeans “knew” that swans could only be white. They considered it impossible for them to be any other color. That is, until Willem de Vlamingh, a Dutch explorer, ventured down an Australian river in 1697 and found thousands of black swans. The Wright brothers were discouraged from experimenting with flight because it was considered impossible.

Walking on the moon, running a four minute mile and the rise of personal computing were all once thought impossible too. Even gorillas were at one time considered to be only mythical until their discovery. Of course these are all famous examples of people overcoming others’ disbelief. But what about all the times you shrug off something you want to do as being impossible? For all you know, you could be stopping yourself from doing something truly groundbreaking. Why Focus on the Impossible The things you think are impossible to do often aren’t impossible, simply difficult. When you label something as “impossible” to do, you give up trying to accomplish it. After all, why should you put effort into something that won’t ever happen? The trouble with labeling something as “impossible” is often that it’s just an excuse, not reality.

It’s an easy way for you to give up on something difficult or justify your own self-doubt. Giving up on doing things simply because they are difficult is not a good way to live an extraordinary life. It’s those difficult things that make life worth living. The more things you mark as “impossible” and give up on, the more limits you’re putting on where you can take your life. Why People Believe Some Things are Impossible There are people who really do see something as “impossible” and believe it.

To them, it’s not an excuse, but a fact. And there is a good reason they believe it: they can only believe what actual physical experience tells them and not their imagination. Let’s say that you want to be a stand-up comedian. You watch others do it and they make it look so effortless. You work on some material for several months, practice several times in front of your friends and family and finally decide to try it out on a live audience. You’re confidence and expectations are high. In the end though, you get a lukewarm or even cold response from the audience. What happened? Some people would conclude that they just don’t have what it takes to be a stand-up comedian. Perhaps you just don’t know what’s really funny. And since you don’t know what’s really funny, becoming a stand-up comedian is something that would be impossible for you to accomplish. This is faulty logic for two reasons. You’d be comparing yourself to comedians who have worked on their material for years. They slowly weeded out the bad parts to their routine and introduced better, stronger jokes. It’s not something they put together in a few months. Secondly, jumping to a conclusion early about something you’ve only attempted a few times is premature. It’s like trying to pick out Major League baseball players in a team of eight year olds.

You have to give it time and a lot of attempts before you can really assess yourself. It’s like the old phrase, “I’ll believe it, when I see it”. People only believe what they see. And if they see something as being too hard, they can misinterpret it. People can often be poor judges of their own capabilities or how things work in the real world. Believing in the Impossible Take a look at some of the things you’ve done in your life. If you search long and hard enough, you’ll find things you’ve done that others have blown off as impossible. Some examples include graduating from college, traveling to an exotic country, getting a good job or getting a hot date. If you’ve done one of these, you probably don’t realize how hard it is for others to do them. Other people have discounted these things as “impossible” for them to do. You need to realize that you can fall right into the same mindset as they did. Ignore that mindset and believe in your imagination.

Be aware of the possibility that you’re putting self-imposed limitations on yourself by what you think is impossible to do. Take a chance on yourself and keep going. You’ll probably be surprised about what you’re actually capable of doing. When it comes to thinking about the impossible, I like to use this quote from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. “There is no use trying, said Alice; one can’t believe impossible things. I dare say you haven’t had much practice, said the Queen.

When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

  • It was believed for a long time that if the human body traveled faster than 60 mph their flesh would be ripped from the bone, clearly that’s wrong
  • It was believed that no matter where you are in the universe clocks tick at the same rate, but general relativity proved that wrong
  • It was believed that men started with a set amount of sperm that could never regenerate, and those who “wasted their seed” would become lazy.
  • It was believed that Aristotle knew what he was talking about when it came to science, but almost everything he said was totally wrong.
  • It was believed that the earth was flat, and at the center of the solar system, until Eratosthenes determined the circumference of the earth and Copernicus figured out that the sun was the center of the solar system.
  • Black holes were ‘ridiculous’ when Einstein thought of them, and go figure, they existed!
  • If you went back in time to say, 1900 or before and told someone that we would go to the moon they would surely laugh and say something like “yeah right
  • Look!! Up in the sky!! It’s a big metal tube with wings, and its full of people!! Once jet-liners were the ideas of madmen.
  • An entire encyclopedia on a shiny little disc? “Impossible!”
All those things were once thought impossible and those who proposed them were called names, maltreated and held back. There is a saying in science that goes something like this: “Never say that something is impossible, because you will most likely be wrong” – Steve Bloom




google hates inventors.jpg


In the world of technology, "first-to-market" is prime real estate. Here, we examine the dynamic discussion of "who did it first?" with one of the internet giants. Stay tuned, as this topic of conversation is about to get really interesting:

Have you seen the references to Google (called "Pollyhop") in the TV series HOUSE OF CARDS?


Is Google's Larry Page an “Idea Thief”?

A new lawsuit against Google presents startling evidence that Google stole YouTube, Google Glass, Google VR, Google-Loon, Google's video technology and the very essence of Google itself.

The lawsuit, along with a number of other legal actions, demonstrates a systematic program of intellectual property theft where Google's owners would dangle “possible investment” with Google's massive government-funded bank vault in front of entrepreneurs and inventors. Google's people then use this pretext to defraud inventors into revealing the workings of their ideas. Google then rejects the ideas, runs a global defamation attack against the entrepreneurs to prevent them from competing, and copies the idea and makes billions of dollars. The inventors get nothing but grief. The following article goes into greater detail:

How Google Steals Ideas From Entrepreneurs

By Sarah Dunn and Anthony Harvard

A recent article in The New York Times called: “How Larry Page’s Obsessions Became Google’s Business” describes how Google Boss Larry Page covertly attends technology conferences in order to get ideas from entrepreneurs. He does not seem to ever pay those entrepreneurs, for the technology he takes from them, and makes billions of dollars off of at Google.

Google Boss Eric Schmidt just spent over $1 Billion to try to lobby Congress to change the patent laws in order to make patents for entrepreneurs nearly illegal, and to try to make patents almost entirely unenforceable, so that Google would not have to pay for the technology it steals. Google seems to love killing the American dream.

Google spent millions of dollars to nominate, lobby for, influence and place it's top lawyer in charge of the U.S. Patent Office. Now Google's “inside-man” makes sure that patents, that Google is infringing, are either turned down or, in some cases, have their approvals reversed.

Google's motto seems to be: “Why Compete When You Can Cheat”. This is a far more relevant motto than 'Don't be evil”.

The New York Times article, and hundreds of stories from entrepreneurs, describes how Mr. Page cuddles up to technologists in ordinary street wear, does not identify himself, and Hoover's up their innovations for his company. The article, details the following:

Three years ago, Charles Chase, an engineer who manages Lockheed Martin’s nuclear fusion program, was sitting on a white leather couch at Google’s Solve for X conference when a man he had never met knelt down to talk to him.

They spent 20 minutes discussing how much time, money and technology separated humanity from a sustainable fusion reaction — that is, how to produce clean energy by mimicking the sun’s power — before Mr. Chase thought to ask the man his name.

I’m Larry Page,” the man said. He realized he had been talking to Google’s billionaire co-founder and chief executive.

He didn’t have any sort of pretension like he shouldn’t be talking to me or ‘Don’t you know who you’re talking to?’” Mr. Chase said. “We just talked.”

The article also reveals the show-boating of how Mr. Page likes to “ ignore the main stage and follow the scrum of fans and autograph seekers who mob him in the moments he steps outside closed doors.”

The article goes on to show that.. “ He is a regular at robotics conferences and intellectual gatherings like TED. Scientists say he is a good bet to attend Google’s various academic gatherings, like Solve for X and Sci Foo Camp, where he can be found having casual conversations about technology or giving advice to entrepreneurs. Mr. Page is hardly the first Silicon Valley chief with a case of intellectual wanderlust, but unlike most of his peers, he has invested far beyond his company’s core business and in many ways has made it a reflection of his personal fascinations.”

Further Page has “... said on several occasions that he spends a good deal of time researching new technologies, focusing on what kind of financial or logistic hurdles stand in the way of them being invented or carried out. His presence at technology events, while just a sliver of his time, is indicative of a giant idea-scouting mission that has in some sense been going on for years but is now Mr. Page’s main job.”


Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, wearing Google Glass. Credit Carlo Allegri/Reuters

Then the article grows dark, it says: “Many former Google employees who have worked directly with Mr. Page said his managerial modus operandi was to TAKE new technologies or product ideas and generalize them to as many areas as possible. Why can’t Google Now, Google’s predictive search tool, be used to predict everything about a person’s life? Why create a portal to shop for insurance when you can create a portal to shop for every product in the world?

But corporate success means corporate sprawl, and recently Google has seen a number of engineers and others leave for younger rivals like Facebook and start-ups like Uber. Mr. Page has made personal appeals to some of them, and, at least in a few recent cases, has said he is worried that the company has become a difficult place for entrepreneurs, according to people who have met with him.”

People who have worked with Mr. Page say that he tries to guard his calendar, avoiding back-to-back meetings and leaving time to read, research and see new technologies that interest him.”

The articles details Page's under-cover intelligence gathering: “ People who work with Mr. Page or have spoken with him at conferences say he tries his best to blend in, ..” “ The scope of his curiosity was apparent at Sci Foo Camp, an annual invitation-only conference that is sponsored by Google, O’Reilly Media and Digital Science.

The article goes on to reveal that Google was forced to engage in a break-up, into a front operation called “Alphabet” in order to try to create overt shell companies to build buffers from the Tsunami of legal actions that are coming after it.:

Of course, for every statement Mr. Page makes about Alphabet’s technocorporate benevolence, you can find many competitors and privacy advocates holding their noses in disgust. Technology companies like Yelp have accused the company of acting like a brutal monopolist that is using the dominance of its search engine to steer consumers toward Google services, even if that means giving the customers inferior information.

In fact, the company’s main business issue seems to be that it is doing too well. Google is facing antitrust charges in Europe, along with investigations in Europe and the United States. Those issues are now mostly Mr. Pichai’s to worry about, as Mr. Page is out looking for the next big thing.”

It is hard to imagine how even the most ambitious person could hope to revolutionize so many industries. And Mr. Page, no matter how smart, cannot possibly be an expert in every area Alphabet wants to touch.

His method is not overly technical. Instead, he tends to focus on how to make a sizable business out of whatever problem this or that technology might solve. Leslie Dewan, a nuclear engineer who founded a company that is trying to generate cheap electricity from nuclear waste, also had a brief conversation with Mr. Page at the Solve For X conference.

She said he questioned her on things like modular manufacturing and how to find the right employees.

He doesn’t have a nuclear background, but he knew the right questions to ask,” said Dr. Dewan, chief executive of Transatomic Power. “‘Have you thought about approaching the manufacturing in this way?’ ‘Have you thought about the vertical integration of the company in this way?’ ‘Have you thought about training the work force this way?’ They weren’t nuclear physics questions, but they were extremely thoughtful ways to think about how we could structure the business.”

Dr. Dewan said Mr. Page even gave her an idea for a new market opportunity that she had not thought of. Asked to be more specific, she refused. The idea was too good to share.”

Yet, Dr. Dewan did share, seduced by the understated encouragement of a top intelligence gathering officer: Larry Page.

Below, you will find a small sample of tens of thousands of blog articles and news articles discussing the overt experience of Google's intellectual property theft. When you have a zillion billion dollars and own your own Senators, ethics do not seem to fall within range of your moral compass.

Entrepreneurs have charged that Google has overtly, stolen its video broadcasting technology, virtual reality systems, Internet balloons, search engine system, wireless technology and many other items. We spoke with technologists who showed us United States Government issued patents and communications that showed that they had designed, engineered, built, patent filed and launched a number of the technologies that Google now has filled their bank accounts from. Google's financiers at Kleiner Perkins, Google Ventures and other groups had come to them, looked at the technologies confidentially, under the guise of “maybe we'll invest”, and then sent the technologies over to Google to build 100% clones of.

How hard is it to sue Google for patent infringement? With Google controlling the patent office and 80% of the technology law firms, the hapless entrepreneur is out-gunned.

Google even tried the lamest shell game in history by posting ads on technology blogs asking inventors to just send Google their patents and Google would look at them and offer a low-ball check if Google thought they might get in trouble. That ploy was universally mocked on the web.

Google remains a big, dumb, reckless billionaire's toy with no regard for the individual. As a creator, your idea is Google's to plunder. As a citizen, your privacy is Google's to plunder. As the buyer of elected officials and federal agencies, the law is now Google's bitch.

American FTC investigators wrote, in their report, that “Google is a threat to domestic innovation”. The European Union investigators have found “...Google to be a private out of control corporate government that has more power than the U.S. Government.”

It is time the FBI came in and shut that train down. Google is nothing but bad news for modern society and innovation.

From recent news clippings:

...Google and it's investors organized, paid for and executed multi-million dollar attacks on individuals who competed with it or cooperated with law enforcement authorities against it. Google created and locked character assassination programs into the top spots on the internet that it controlled. Google paid politicians to manipulate black-lists and give it state and federal funds, while cutting off those very same funds for those it was attacking. In one case, Google ran one of the greatest scams in technology against a Bay Area entrepreneur in which Google took his technology, made billions of dollars from it and then used the Google-verse to try to seek to destroy him. In the 2016 cases, Plaintiffs will use leaks, Congressional data, employee testimony and technical information from multiple national investigations to prove, beyond a doubt, that Google, and it's associates engaged in fraud, interference, anti-trust, defamation, bribery and overt intellectual property theft. While The New York Times article entitled: How Larry Page’s Obsessions Became Google’s Businessimplies that Google steals ideas, WIKI's, like www.capitolcrimesquad.com  , explore an even darker set of realities about Google...(READ MORE...)”

Does Google Steal Your Ideas? Through its myriad media mechanisms, Google has access to a worrying amount of our data - but even more than that, it has an ...






Is Google An Idea-Theft Farm?

By Andres Luedig

A recent New York Times article called into question the source of Google's ideas. The article referenced Google's founder's “obsessions” and implied that one of the founders was covertly slinking around entrepreneurial technology clubs in order to acquire technology. Indeed, when you type “google steals ideas” into any non-google search engine, you find quite a number of people saying even stronger things than the New York Times stated.

Google is known to watermark, meta-tag and digitally encode it's web links to ideas it says came from Google. It does this to showcase itself, and hide competitors. In fact, Google's very first patent was on doing that very thing, in a secret way so that internet users would not know they were being spied on. That idea is, admittedly, all Google's. Rigging the internet like that (as the FTC, The EU, The Guardian and others have exposed) is how Google makes it's money from spy agencies, political groups and big brands. Does Google, though, recklessly, and maliciously, ignore the truth, in order to promote itself and it's investors? The U.S. FTC investigators are now discovered to have stated that “Google ruins domestic innovation” in their studies and they have the data to back it up. The State of Utah, and many other states, are now saying that Google rigged the 2013 U.S. Anti-trust investigations and they want a “Re-Do”!

The flood of recent lawsuits against Google, and most actual investigative journalism reports, show a nearly unanimous agreement about the true reason for Google to exist: To attack some, while glorifying others who are Google's partners. This is a violation of fair business practices, anti-trust standards and the law. Google is about to face a Tsunami of intellectual property thievery charges.

In some cases, where inventors keep inventing things that Google was not innovative enough to think up, Google seems to have falsely claimed to have reported a pattern that those inventors allegedly follow to solicit funding for their start-ups from Silicon Valley investors. While, on one hand, the framing, by Google, implies that Silicon Valley investors are too stupid to invest in technology. It is ironic that those very same investors invested in Google. Google tries to have it's cake and eat it too. While the business of being a “serial entrepreneur” may be foreign to those in rural communities, it is considered the peak-of-success in Silicon Valley. Google's main tool for attacking inventive competitors is defamation and character assassination. Google may have invented secretly watching internet users..in fact, it did. They have a patent on it.

Google did not, though, invent other things that it makes billions of dollars off of. It many cases, it just stole those things and never paid the creators a dime.

One of Google's attack tactics, against competing inventors, is based on promoting the falsehood that the inventors will “show up whenever there is a bubble or hot trend in the tech business world that has yet to make it to the marketplace." This is the problem with attacking inventors, though, inventors have been validated by the U.S. Government, the media and industry as the first to create some of those “hot trends”. Inventor's with issued patents have been deeply reviewed and confirmed by the U.S. Government (Before Google recently acquired control of the U.S. Patent Office by putting their staff in all the key positions) as the ones who created the trends. A United States Government federal patent, by definition, describes an invention that is new, not obvious, and is either useful or has industrial application because it never existed before. In Google's case, quite a lot of it's offerings appear to have been designed, engineered and patented by others who Google never paid. Millions of people use the technologies, first created by many inventors, per the U.S. Government, industry, media, clients, and executed non-disclosure documents; but Google seems to have just stolen them.

Given the longevity of posts on the internet, however, it is extremely unlikely that Google could meaningfully remedy the harm it has done to these inventors, even if it is so inclined. In dozens of cases, Google copied technologies at a time when Google had no involvement with said technologies. Later Google marketed those copied technologies, making billions of dollars, without compensating the actual inventors. When the inventors filed formal complaints about the illicit activities by Google, Google launched a Global search engine attack on them and their ventures. Many inventors feel that if small business owners, in America, can no longer count on protection, for their tax dollars, and must be subjected to digital bullying from massive campaign financiers, then we have reached a sad state of affairs for the domestic economy.

Recently, Google's staff have, effectively, taken control of the U.S. Patent office, via the placement of their staff in the controlling management positions at the U.S. Patent Office, a fact documented by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and major news reporting. Additionally, Google has spent tens of millions of dollars, per http://www.savetheinventor.com , the national press and lobby disclosures, trying to change the U.S. patent law to outlaw small product developers and small inventors. In fact, Google's boss: Eric Schmidt, has spent more time inside the White House, lobbying for Google-favored laws and the hiring of Google staff than the entire United States Congress COMBINED! Three U.S. Senators have referred to Eric Schmidt and Google as the biggest lobbyist in history. Recently, an inventor had their patent approved after they confirmed that they had a product years before Google. A high level U.S. Patent Office official then stepped in and then reversed the decision on that patent issuance. Did Google put a “kill order” on the patent issuance in order to keep from paying the inventor his rightful licensing?

Google seems to have sought to sabotage, log-jam and stone-wall some technologies so that patent deadlines or funding dead-lines would expire so that Google could try to exploit them. Because Google was merely a copy-cat and not an innovator, many inventors are able to stay competitive with better technology improvements. To overcome this, Google chose to cheat rather than compete. While Google had unlimited funds, from public coffers, they had limited imagination and limited innovation skills. Google's employees rarely trusted them enough to provide Google with any thing more than just labor. Google is just a paycheck to the 20-something bro-grammer drones they hire. The H1-B kids are keeping the good ideas for themselves.

In some of the lawsuits against Google, Google is charged with attacking inventors with "Meat Puppet's" or fake reporters, via it's retained shill bloggers. It says that it's competitors technologies are "smoke and mirrors" or that "their technology is not real". There is no question that the outside inventor's technology was real. In each and every case, the Plaintiff's technology worked and can now been seen in the market. It is ludicrous for Google to say that the technologies didn't work because Google is using 100% clone copies of Plaintiffs technologies at this moment. The proof is in the copies.

Recent historically large hacker attacks by China, Anonymous, Russia, Nigera and other large hacking organizations, which fully penetrated NASA, Sony Pictures, The Bohemian Club, The U.S. Department of Energy hundreds of times, every background check in the United States Office of Personnel Management, HSBC political money laundering for campaign financiers and almost every other known major corporation and government agency; has produced document and communications leaks, alongside those of Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and other's, which appear to expose illicit relationships between Google's and public officials. Plaintiffs feel that those political relationships were used to not only damage Plaintiffs, for the benefit of Google, but also to damage the process of fair public process. Due to poorly secured "back-doors" in every major network device, hackers, for the next decade, are expected to be free to come and go from corporate email and file server networks with impunity. In the course of these jury-demanded trials, Plaintiffs plan to subpeona and/or use, legally acquired copies of those documents, to prove such potential illicit activities that were used to harm Plaintiffs.

While it may seem like an extraordinary coincidence that almost all of Plaintiff's companies and technologies were later duplicated by Google, a review of other recent lawsuits and news reports referring to “The Silicon Valley Cartel No-Poaching Lawsuit” and the “AngelGate Collusion Scandal”, as well as the Plaintiff's own experience, presents a clear picture of the Google venture capital collusion, market rigging, valuation-fixing, black-listing organization which operates, under the legal definition of a “Cartel”, to control which start-up's get to exist in Silicon Valley. The FBI, The FTC and the SEC have been asked to investigate these anti-trust actions by Google. The EU and Russia have already, famously, gone a great ways into such investigations.

Google anti-trust actions and monopolistic mercenary program of “cheat rather than compete” flooded out some of the Plaintiff's start-ups with Google controlled media attacks using massive amounts of cash, much of it taxpayer cash, routed though illicit campaign finance conduits; copy cat ventures and black-listing. A brief review of the posted comments makes it clear that Google's malicious attacks and collusive tactics have exposed these Plaintiff's to ridicule and damaged their professional reputation. At a minimum, Google should correct the record, and provide a public apology to the Plaintiff's, along with damages compensation. At a maximum, some of these litigants may end up owning YouTube, or Google!


Fact-based Analysis of the Issues

By Carson Forensics

  Premise: Google spent tens of millions of dollars running defamation, business interference, anti-trust and intellectual property theft operations against Plaintiffs. Google was unable to compete so it chose to cheat. Witness testimony, forensic evidence, law enforcement investigations, surveillance, leaks and international State investigations prove these, and other charges, to be accurate.

The above-mentioned articles raise some interesting questions. OK, so many people have made a case that Google stole ideas and technology, in Scott's case, we can clearly check public records to see who did what.

All of Scott's business ventures were either sold, merged or still exist.

In every case, Plaintiff's companies have been highly documented with public record creation dates, for example:

Limnia, inc., formerly named Fuelsell Technologies, inc., is a Delaware corporation ihat was incorporated on March 5, 2002 ( http://www.morepower.biz ). Limnia's business address is 601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite E3613, San Francisco, CA 94102. This is the location where Plaintiff operates his start-up incubator, Clever Industries LLC, which has been in existence since 1978. Limnia used venture capital funds, Plaintiff's personal funds, and a US. Department of Energy grant (approx. $900,000) to develop a working version of a hydrogen fuel cassette storage and distribution system that can power every vehicle in America entirely from domestic resources. One venture capital investor made a substantial return on its investment when it cashed out in 2006. Limnia's hydrogen cassette prototype has been tested and verified by Sandia Labs, and has been delivered to the market globally and has nearly a hundred emulators in the market. Sandia research documents, industry metrics, billions of dollars of university research, operational units in the field and duplicated products validate Limnia's technologies. Third party reports demonstrates superior performance to traditional energy storage and retrieval devices. Sandia determined that a Limnia hydrogen fuel cartridge, the same size and weight of a Lithium ion battery holds substantially more energy than the Li-ion battery, which Google investor's control. Limnia's technology is based on Plaintiff's exceptional and extensive patent suite including, but not limited to: US. Patents: No. 7,399,325 (Method and apparatus for a hydrogen fuel cassette distribution and recovery system Filed 3/15/02, Issued 7/15/08); No. 7,279,222 (Solid-state hydrogen storage systems; Filed 3/21/04, Issued 10/9/07); No. 7,169,489 (Hydrogen storage, distribution, and recovery systemFiled 12/4/02, Issued 1/30/07); and No. 7,011,768 (Methods for hydrogen storage using doped alanate compositions; Filed 6/16/03, Issued 3/14/06). As the Middle East has fallen to shreds for the West, a plight foreseen by Plaintiffs, per Plaintiffs Iraq War Bill award, off-shore fuels have become a severe threat to domestic security. Lithium ion battery sources have been shown, by federal reports and extensive media coverage, to be self-explosive, toxic, cancer-causing, factory worker killing, liver-damaging, brain-damaging, lung-damaging, fire-causing, war-causing, plane-crashing, chemical systems which deteriorate over time as documented in such sites as ( http://lithium-ion.weebly.com ). The recent cataclysm of “hover-board” lithium ion fires, now recalled in total by Amazon and other distributors, and the Tesla (a Google partner) driver who was killed and burned alive into an “unrecognisable lump of melted plastic and metal”  by his Tesla batteries in Malibu, California, demonstrate that Google's attempt to monopolize the lithium supply chain for these batteries was the wrong decision and that Plaintiff's, Toyota's, KIA's, Honda's, Hyundai's, True Zero's and other major brands approach, was the right one for the nation and for public safety. One does not receive Congressional commendations in national War bills, federally mandated grants, and historical federally confirmed U.S. patent issuances for something “that does not work” or “that does not exist” as Defendants have falsely defamed! So, Google says it didn't happen, and that their exploding lithium ion batteries from Afghanistan are just dandy. Who was first to safely solve the mobile energy problem?

Peep Wireless Telephony Company was a Delaware corporation in good standing that was incorporated on November 5, 2010.  Peep Wireless was located at 555 California Street, San Francisco, CA 94104. Peep was put on hold during the Google attack. This telephone-based application ( http://tel-app.weebly.com ) was initially funded by Plaintiff personally. It is an early stage company developing and delivering software that offers billions of dollars in savings by replacing the current system of server racks and cell towers employed by wireless network carriers. Peep's technology is based on the technology described in Plaintiff's application to the USPTO, for "Mesh Based Network Architecture". Earlier versions of the technology approach have been proven by multiple companies, including the Swedish company TerraNet. According to a September 11, 2007, BBC News Report, in 2007 TerraNet launched demonstration projects in Tanzania and Ecuador and obtained 33 million in financing from the mobile phone manufacturer Ericsson to develop its wireless mesh technology. (See  http:/Znews.bbc.co.uk/Z/hi/technology/6987784.stm ) TerraNet has reportedly since been acquired by Nokia. A search of the term “wireless mesh” yields many hits, including a Wikipedia page that includes references to US. military use of the technology (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless mesh network#cite note-4; see also http://wwwmeshdynamics.com/militag-meshu2014networkshtml ). Peep solved the problems that have prevented other wireless mesh companies from achieving commercial success. Google controls and sponsors a duplicate effort called “Serval” AKA: “Commotion” (and other names). Google business agents at IN-Q-Tel “confidentially” reviewed Plaintiff's technology, at their request and then copied it, according to a New York Times Article entitled: “U.S. Underwrites Detour around Internet Censors”. Plaintiff released a set of the technology, with the help of Steve Jobs at Apple, before his death, as an emergency communications tool for the Japanese Tsunami. Apple distributed it on the Apple App and emailed the Plaintiff that it was the fastest App-to-market cycle in Apple history, at the time, due to the life-saving potential of the App. Concurrent with the release of that App, the country of Tunisia was having a democracy uprising and began using the App for it's critical-needs social effort. Egypt followed in the use of the App and the App was renamed DEMOCRI-C (TM) and had become the first peer-to-peer mesh network emergency communicability App in the world. Ironically, many thousands of news reports quote Google staff claiming that they caused the concurrent events known as “The Arab Spring". Why Google had such a strong desire to be involved in Egyptian and Afghanistan activities seems to be explained by the Afghan and Middle East supply chain exclusives Google sought to acquire from those efforts. This P2P technology is now embedded in Qualcomm chips, carried in 80% of mobile devices, and per ( http://p2p-internet.weebly.com ) is the basis for the new global internet. Plaintiff has been photographed with the Secretary of State, who funded the effort described in the New York Times article. This technology was copied by Google investor IN-Q-Tel and Google's Eric Schmidt's New America Foundation as the products “Serval” and “Commotion” and subsequently deployed by Google. Plaintiff's version had no "back-doors" built into it. It was provided free to groups associated with the International Red Cross, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and United Nations related organizations. A later version is now in distribution on all three of the major App stores, globally.

PFS Aerospace ( http://pfs-aerospace.weebly.com ) is an Aerospace company. PFS was founded in February of 2000. PFS received U.S. Patent No. 7,182,295 and file U.S. Patent applications including No. 20040089763 on the technology known as the “microthruster”. This propulsion technology uses electronic ion-streams to push objects along their path of travel as a transportation propulsion engine. Microthrusters are now in use on multiple NASA, DoD and Telco space-craft in outer space and on numerous devices on Earth. Plaintiff overcame NASA patent prior art on the same technology when he demonstrated for the U.S. Patent Office, a steerable 4 foot diameter, entirely electronic, ion-propulsion craft flying for U.S. Patent Office reviewers and validated in front of Intel's lead patent officers. Plaintiff's have launched their crafts to the edge of space and back. Plaintiffs technology allows something as simple as a weather balloon with a layered pop-proof polymer skin and internal filament tension cords, to go beyond the buoyancy point, where other balloons simply “stop or pop” and enter outer space to carry a micro satellite. Google and it's owned assets, was given free NASA jet fuel for their private jets. Google was given taxpayer financed NASA landing strips for their private jets, along with a portion of NASA itself, and NASA contracts, in exchange for campaign financing. Plaintiff specialized in lighter-than-air launch vehicles, particularly for global communications enhancement. This technology appears to have been copied by the Google Loon product.

RPI Advanced Technology Group (RPI) developed, manufactured, and sold a variety of virtual reality devices, including what at the time was the smallest wearable computer display, delivered as a pair of glasses, and the first 360 degree personal computer-based gyroscopic flight simulator. These devices were sold to Spectrum Holobyte, Battele, U.S. Navy, Edison Brothers, FOX Network, MCI, and other major entities, and are used globally in defense and entertainment applications. These devices were based on several of Plaintiff's US. Patents: No. 5,759,044 (Method and apparatus for generating and processing absolute real time remote environments -Filed 7/6/95, Issued 6/2/98); No. 5,513,130 (Method and apparatus for generating and processing absolute real time remote environments Filed 10/18/93, Issued 4/30/96);and No. 5,255,211 (Method and apparatus for generating and processing absolute real time remote environments Filed 2/22/90, Issued 10/19/93). In 1996, Plaintiff sold RPI to a European investment company. Plaintiff has continued his work in VR ( https://virtualrealitydesigns.wordpress.com ) up to today, as a consultant and product designer and filed U.S. Patent App # confirmation 61269822063009 and 17119 USPTO 063009 Clip-on appliance suite for PDA or cellphone” on the first use of a smart phone as a VR headset and marketed by America Invents. Google now offers the identical product. Google has now launched multiple competing virtual reality glasses and VR systems offerings. Their products appear to be using the same technology offered by Plaintiff as reported in thousands of press clippings on Google's own search engine. Plaintiff is featured on a special segment of E! Entertainment News Network, broadcast globally, describing his consulting work for Oliver Stone's virtual reality video series: “Wild Palms”. The glasses described in Plaintiffs issued patents, sold by Plaintiff and later copied by Google as Google Glass and Google VR, years before Google even hired a single VR engineer nor budgeted, internally, for a single VR project. This one is easy, clearly Scott was first.

Clever Homes LLC was an active California limited liability company that was registered December 1, 2003. Clever Homes business address was 665 3rd St., San Francisco, CA 94107-1968 ( https://scottalbum.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/homes/ ). Clever Homes is a designer and builder of environmentally responsible, energy efficient, prefabricated homes. Dwell Magazine co-sponsored the national launch of the company. Plaintiff founded the company and was the initial investor. Plaintiff hired all other members of the company. The company website shows more than 20 homes have been designed, with the majority currently in residential use. Better Homes and Gardens featured Plaintiff in their Discovery Channel educational television series called: "Building America's Home". In 2005, Plaintiff sold his interest in Clever Homes-TM to the current owners. The designs and methods currently in use by Clever Homes' are based on Plaintiff's inventions. A well-known green demonstration home produced and created by Plaintiff, dubbed “The NowHouse”, was unveiled by Clever Homes-TM at the San Francisco Giant's SBC Park in October 2004. Plaintiff developed ways to use debris wood for the Japanese Tsunami recovery, as shown on network television. The NowHouse was subsequently donated to the City and County of San Francisco, and is currently in use as the Bay view Hunters Point Alice Griffith Community Center. FabModern was an on-line design portfolio of Plaintiffs green home designs and personal building site. Google recently announced wired Smart Homes.

Unifree was created by Plaintiffs in San Francisco as an expansion of their work on virtual reality networks in 1990. Work has continued and patents have continued to issue up to today. UNIFREE was launched on the web and operated as an on-line search engine. Previously filed patents and federal records prove pre-existence of the technology, company and website by Plaintiffs prior to the existence of Google. As the name implies, it was a collection of UNIVERSALLY FREE on-line services such as mail, video, search, social networking, messaging, VOIP, etc., UNIVERSALLY available for the world population integrated across a common front end. Unifree was a website which, exactly like the later “Google”, offered all of the free on-line services that Google offers today, with a particular emphasis on on-line media. The United States Patent Office Trademark filings and records describe the free online services center in a manner which many observers feel describes the LATER creation of Google. The State of California confirms that UNIFREE LLC existed with a California Entity Number as of 11/12/1997 at Plaintiffs incubator address of 601 Van Ness Ave, San Francisco, CA 94102. The public interest ranking algorithm that Plaintiffs created to automatically determine which links to services would be ranked above others on the home page was called “mombot” (tm) . It was a robotic formula which acted as the internet mom for your web experiences, just as Google does today. Unifree was fully operational on the world wide web far longer than Google has existed. On February 4, 1998 Plaintiff executed a Non-Disclosure Business Partnership development agreement with Yahoo, inc. for Unifree, and engaged in numerous time-stamped email communications with funding inquiries and fishing expedition inquiries from Google venture capital investors. Plaintiff was featured on a nationally broadcast hour long TV show discussing the technology. The name Google was formally incorporated on September 4, 1998 at girlfriend Susan Wojcicki's apartment in Menlo Park, California. The first patent filed under the name "Google Inc." was filed on August 31, 1999. This patent, filed by Siu-Leong Iu, Malcom Davis, Hui Luo, Yun-Ting Lin, Guillaume Mercier, and Kobad Bugwadia, is titled "Watermarking System and Methodology for Digital Multimedia Content" and is the earliest patent filing under the assignee name "Google Inc."[12][13]. Rajeev Motwani worked with early Google staff on this watermarking technology which was a way to track users activities without their knowledge. The social media aspect of Plaintiff's internet engine was deployed as the TECHMATE (tm) social network ( http://techmatesocial.wordpress.com ) long before the Google founders had even met each other. Techmate was advertised in Bay Area newspaper display advertising and certified by the State of California in filed public records with the Secretary of State on March 1, 1987. Did Plaintiff invent Google? Did the founders of Google simply copy something from Plaintiff and add a weird name to it?

CLICKMOVIE.COM ( http://clickmovie1.wordpress.com ) ClickMovie.com existed years before YouTube was even formed. It's patents pre-date even the formation of YouTube by many years. YouTube appears to be a 100% copy of Clickmovie.com as any viewer can determine for themselves in the half hour broadcast television show on the TV series Silicon Valley Business Report and the vast number of articles, CES presentations and letters documenting Clickmovie: The world's first public full-screen video store, online media channel and self-media distribution outlet. Google appears to continue to copy Plaintiffs ( http://networktechnologies.weebly.com ) to this day. It is fair to say that Plaintiff's idea of delivering all media over the internet has been verified as a workable idea by every company that touches the internet including Akamai, Netflix, Bittorrent, Vudu, Hulu, and tens of thousands of others. As hundreds of documents prove: Sony Pictures engaged in extensive contracts, public announcements, meetings, deployments, letters, emails, airplane flights, board and corporate meetings with Plaintiff's (even mentioning Plaintiff's by name, as their source of inspiration, in Sony's federal patent filings, which were sold to Dish Network by Sony) to have it's first internet video-on-demand hardware and software developed by Plaintiff. "Clickmovie" and the movie trailer site "Trailer Park" and dozens of App's produced by Plaintiff were the first of their kind in the market. Did Plaintiff invent YouTube?

There are additional examples, with evidence.

Scott's successful projects are well-documented in scores of industry magazines, on-line, newspaper and television. Additional tech projects that Scott has successfully developed on a contract basis for many well-known consumer product manufacturers are shown on his website at ( http://www.scottredmond.com ). Many of these contracts were performed on a confidential basis for market-testing purposes for major clients who wished to test market opportunities without exposing their master brand. In any event, the examples described above make the point: Scott has a successful track record of inventing and commercializing a wide range of companies, services, and products.

So what do YOU think? Who was first?


The Evidence Google's Systematic Theft is Anti-Competitive

Scott Cleland , Internet competition and threats to tech capitalism Image representing Google as depicted in Crunc... Image via CrunchBase Systematic theft may be the most anti-competitive and monopolistic practice in which a company can engage. Systematic theft generates an unbeatable cost advantage by avoiding the standard cost of propertied goods for which law-abiding competitors must pay. It creates an unfair, jump-the-gun, time-to-market advantage, by ignoring the rule of law standard of securing permission from property owners before use in the marketplace, a business practice that law-abiding competitors must respect. It spawns and maintains a matchless online index/inventory advantage that no honest competitor could hope to assemble. It anti-competitively undermines property-based business models which compete with Google’s free content model. Lastly, systematic theft is the ultimate predatory practice in that it unlawfully destroys the value of any innovation or creative advantage a competitor may have. Almost by definition, theft is a quintessential deceptive and unfair business practice under the FTC’s Section 5 antitrust authority. The open question is whether or not the FTC first can recognize, and second prosecute a heretofore unprecedented pattern of predatory behavior – systematic theft for anti-competitive gain. Last month, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt told the French Newspaper Liberation, “We do not steal,” a reprise of his June claim to the British Daily Mail that “We are a law-abiding company.” It is telling that Google feels compelled to assert what should be a given and never questioned about a major corporation. The reason is that scores of competitors consistently over several years have charged Google with the same illegal practice: theft for anti-competitive advantage. More specifically, Google has repeatedly been sued for repeatedly stealing most every form of property: trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, contact lists, and private information. Top Patterns of Google Theft 1. Admitted Pattern of Promoting Online Piracy: A) Last August, the DOJ assessed a near-record $500m criminal penalty on Google for systematic and willful aiding and abetting of piracy of non-prescription drugs over a period of several years. The U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case said Google CEO “Larry Page knew what was going on.” B) SIGTARP, the U.S Treasury Department entity responsible for policing TARP fraud continues to investigate Google after Google “suspended advertising relationships with more than 500 Internet advertisers and agents associated with 85 alleged online mortgage fraud schemes and related deceptive advertising.” C) A BBC investigation recently exposed that Google was advertising illegal Olympic Ticket ads for the 2012 London Summer Olympics.

Recommended by Forbes

2. Anti-Competitive Pattern of Book Theft: In rejecting Google’s proposed book settlement as a violation of copyright, antitrust and class action law, Federal Judge Chin said Google’s proposed settlement “would give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission.” Google continues to systematically copy books without permission from the copyright owner – over fifteen million to date — which fosters an anti-competitively comprehensive search index that no property-respecting search competitor can match. 3. Willful Pattern of Promoting YouTube Video Theft: In the Viacom vs. Google-YouTube $1b copyright infringement case pending appeal, involving the alleged willful facilitation of hundreds of thousands illegally downloaded videos, Federal Judge Stanton said: “…a jury could find that the defendants [Google-YouTube] not only were generally aware of, but welcomed copyright-infringing material being placed on their website.” The appeal will likely hinge on whether the Appeals Court rules that Google engaged in willful blindness, which would abrogate its DMCA safe harbor claim under the Supreme Court MGM vs. Grokster precedent. 4. Willful Pattern of Android Property Infringement: In the Steve Jobs biography, the late Steve Jobs called Android “a stolen product” for stealing the signature pinch and swipe innovations of the iPhone. Oracle sued sued Google for billions of dollars for “knowingly, directly and repeatedly infringed Oracle’s Java-related property;” an incriminating Google email shows Google’s leadership knew they needed to license JAVA but implicitly decided to steal it. 5. Anti-Competitive Pattern of Stealing Competitors’ Signature Patented-Innovations: A) Google stole the idea and auction method for keyword advertising, the wellspring of its search advertising monopoly, from the keyword advertising inventor and patent holder, Overture, given that Google settled a patent lawsuit with Overture-Yahoo for ~$250 million in order to clear the way for Google’s 2004 IPO.  B) Skyhook Wireless sued Google for infringing several WiFi location patents that collectively enable most location-driven mobile applications. Incriminating emails indicate willful infringement by Google’s leadership. C) Last fall, Yelp complained that Google stole Yelp’s restaurant reviews without compensation in order to leapfrog Yelp with Google Places. D) PayPal recently sued Google for theft of their mobile payment trade secrets in a lawsuit against Google Wallet. E) The most recent example of this Google pattern of stealing competitors’ most valuable property is BuySafe’s patent lawsuit against Google’s Trusted Stores program. 6. Extensive Pattern of Content Theft: It is no coincidence that Google has been sued for copyright infringement by most all types of content: wire servicesnewspapersbroadcastersmovie studiosauthors, publishersvisual artistssoftware providersphotographersartistsgraphic designersillustrators, and filmmakers. 7. Extensive Pattern of Trademark Theft: Many brands have sued Google for infringing on their trademarks by selling their trademarked brands to competitors as search keyword advertising, i.e. adwords: Rosetta Stone (whose appeal is supported by friend-of-the-court briefs by: Viacom, Ford Motor Company, Carfax, Blue Destiny Records, The Media Institute, ConvaTec, Guru Denim, Monster Cable, PetMed Express and 1-800 Contacts), American Airlines, and Geico. The theft is Google effectively extorts a brand owner to buy their trademarked key word at top price in order to keep it from being used by competitors to steal business leads from trademarked brand names that consumers trust. 8. Pattern of Stealing Contact Lists: A) This week, Google admitted to being caught systematically stealing business contacts from a Kenyan business directory. B) Last year, Google admitted to stealing people’s private email lists in the FTC Google-Buzz privacy settlement where Google admitted that taking people’s private gMail contact list and incorporating them into Google Buzz without their permission was a deceptive and unfair business practice.  C) Google StreetView admitted it systematically took WiFi signals of tens of millions of household’s emails and passwords around the world, without their permission, over a period of three years, prompting investigations in 13 countries: U.S.Canada,  Germany,   France,   Switzerland,  Netherlands,  Spain,  Belgium, Czech Republic,  South KoreaJapan,  Australia,  and  Hong Kong. In sum, it is sad that the evidence indicates systematic theft is an integral element of Google’s competitive business strategy. The evidence also indicates Google owes much of its success and rapidly spreading market dominance to the ill-gotten unbeatable competitive advantage of systematic theft of others property (trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, contact lists, private information) via at least eight distinct patterns of theft perpetrated over several years time — that collectively indicate that Google’s anti-competitive behavior is systematic, willful and strategic. The much underappreciated key to Google’s strategy here is to deny legal discovery of incriminating information on awareness and intent behind Google’s theft, and when such information is discovered, to cover it up publicly via an aggressive pattern of urging courts to seal incriminating documents from public view. The cover-up prevents complainants and law enforcement the ability to connect-the-dots of evidence necessary to prove in court that Google’s systematic theft has been, and remains willful and strategic. The non-profit Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has documented Google’s cover-up pattern in a report called “Uncivil Secrecy.” The sad irony here is that the company in the world which advocates most loudly for Internet openness and whose mission is to make the world’s information universally accessible, systematically seeks to deny public access to vast amounts of court documents that normally would be in the public domain, but for Google’s “closedness” efforts. The exceptional public hypocrisy here strongly suggests Google has much to hide. At bottom, no law-abiding competitor can compete with a company which serially flouts property law and systematically engages in deceptive and unfair business practices. Google’s systematic theft provides Google with an unbeatable, ill-gotten, and anti-competitive cost, time-to-market, inventory, and innovation advantage.

Recommended by Forbes

Experience to date has taught Google that crime does pay. The overwhelming evidence above of Google’s systematic theft strongly indicates Google is the 21st Century’s Robber Baron. Scott Cleland is President of Precursor LLC, a consultancy serving Fortune 500 clients, some of which are Google competitors; he is also author ofSearch & Destroy: Why You Can’t Trust Google Inc.