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  , 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 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 , 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 ( ). 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 ( ). 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 ( ) 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:/ ) 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 mesh network#cite note-4; see also ). 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 ( ) 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 ( ) 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 ( ) 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 ( ). 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 ( ) 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 ( ) 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 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 ( ) 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 ( ). 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?[...]-systematic-theft-is-anti-competitive/

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.