Lawsuit May Open The Gates Of Hell On Google
By Evelyn Reed
Larry Page has been in the news lately regarding his covert surveillance activities at technology parties where he hopes to acquire some neat tech ideas. A New York Times article called: “How Larry Page’s Obsessions Became Google’s Business”, seems to say that Page’s ideas come from others and implies that he doesn’t usually pay the inventors for the intellectual property he uses. Eric Schmidt, his partner at Google, has also been in the news quite a bit with articles about him personally rigging a “no poaching conspiracy” in Silicon Valley, which shamed Palo Alto and made the tech billionaires lose a class-action lawsuit about rigging technologist’s revenue opportunities.
Now along comes a new lawsuit, which in FBI-like detail, is as much a legal paper as it is a chronicle of the worst aspects of Silicon Valley’s blacklists, collusions, anti-trust Frat Boy game-rigging and Machiavellian ways.
The lawsuit charges that others created Google while Page and pals simply copied it, but the lawsuit is not about who created Google, that matter will be taken up in a different case. This litigation holds very specific technical details of an organized attack and theft structure commercialized by Google as a way of doing business. That way of doing business has a name. According to the Plaintiffs, it is called monopolistic anti-trust criminality, cyber-stalking and organized business interference.
In this case, the public will get to see the financial tracking of something that main-streamers think is an innocuous web browser tool that may actually be a cover story for a massive political and economic money-grab, mostly based on manipulating taxpayers, their tax money and their “moods”. Jurors, the public and the media will witness the financial flow charts that run through the money-laundering bank HSBC, through a mish-mash of overseas bank accounts, family trusts and shell companies, through the showrooms of electric car companies, straight through mining companies and into the pockets of famous politicians. The diagrams are not unlike those flow charts produced by the FBI and the SEC when they are giving a front-of-the-room presentation on their latest takedown. In fact, say Plaintiffs, federal law enforcement specialists “were not unhelpful” in sourcing up some of the more intriguing connections.
In researching this article, I was encouraged to type the search phrase: “Google steals ideas” into the search engines: Google, Yahoo, Ask, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Searx.me and others. They all give you very different sets of results but all of them, including even Google, make it very clear that many, many people, big and small, have found Google to be in bed with the burglars. Quite a number of people have found Google to have taken off with their stuff and never paid for the privilege.
Before Larry Page had even met Sergey Brin, or programmed any Google code, a fully functional version of what you know as Google was up and running on the web and nobody from Google had anything to do with creating it.
The “other Google” was programmed by Stanford and Bay Area kids, patent filed, Federally certified, State validated by the Secretary of State, advertised in the papers, shown on network television and did every single thing that Google later announced it was doing. The plaintiffs made this product and it predates Google on every front.
Google’s VC’s asked to look at it under the guise of “maybe we’ll invest”, and then seemed to have just had Larry copy it and change the name. Ouch! Larry seems to carry grudges for lengthy periods and on epic terms.
Larry and Eric Schmidt have spent more time in the White House, dictating policy decisions, and getting their friends appointed to federal agencies, than every Senator combined has spent in the ivory edifice. The Google boys also spent tens of millions of their dollars trying to pay to have the U.S. Patent Office closed off to the very same small inventors who are now coming after Google. (Google’s legal boss now runs the U.S. Patent Office. Ironic, right?) The overt attempts to drastically close off America’s path to innovation, seems to provide strong evidence that Google knew that it had stolen a good chunk of its assets. In fact, American FTC investigators wrote in federal reports that Google was “a threat to domestic innovation.”
This happened to the plaintiff, verbatim, with Google many times over many years. The documentation is quite deep. Google is famous for, if nothing else, the hubris of its owners. Their race to global domination may have taken them over the edge, in this case though.
While it is no secret that Google was funded by spy agencies, the plaintiff had his own buddies in high government places. This later turned out to be helpful.
In the last product launch by the Plaintiffs, Google’s owners crossed the line of the law. In the notorious Department of Energy disaster, known as “The Cleantech Crash” (so-namedbecause of the shocking 60 Minutes expose about the rigging of nearly a trillion dollars of federal taxpayer funds) Google put a multi-million dollar “hit-job” on the Plaintiffs and attempted to terminate them in every sense of the word. This final attack on the Plaintiffs was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Plaintiffs then decided it was GAME ON!
In “The Cleantech Crash”, Google’s owners again put their friends and staff in government offices and arranged to have billions of dollars, that had been earmarked for the Plaintiffs, cut off and given to them. The direct linkages, stock transfers, trust fund relays and beneficiary jobs, cash, contracts and exclusive “favored nations” hand-outs to Google, and it’s bosses stealth-ed up stock holdings, is so overt that any CSI-watching consumer can comprehend the crime.
In the course of preparing the forensic litigation investigation, historical circumstances took a turn in some rather bizarre, unexpected and enlightening ways. Snowden happened. The public has not seen all of the results of that matter. The Sony hack happened. The public has not seen all of the results of that matter. Guccifer happened. The public has not seen all of the results of that matter. The raging 14-year-old hackers, along with China and Russia, discovered that they could take everything off of every server and every email folder in Silicon Valley because of poorly locked “back-doors” on the hardware. Apparently the world’s hackers put the Hoover into “full suction mode” and just went on a shopping spree for a number of years to see what they could find.
Now all of that stuff is popping up on the Internet daily. Wikileaks has even built its own public search engine to help keep leaks organized. Plaintiffs have been in communication with the EU and federal investigators who have quite a number of reasons to be looking sideways at Google these days.
Google has hundreds of lawyers and controls most of Silicon Valley’s hungry law firms. When they fight, they fight hard and dirty, but, more and more, Google is losing its cases. The world is fed up with Google’s privacy manipulation programs and its general abuse of the public.
For a number of individuals, Google took their lives away intentionally. Google refused to halt the defamations and character assassinations Google was pummeling them with. A few of these brave souls fought Google as individuals and won. In the case of Plaintiffs, multiple law firms sent Google gobs of letters asking Google to stop the attacks. Not only did Google not stop, they said “FU” and doubled down on the attacks. This is where Google made one of its many fatal mistakes in this case, it left tracks of its crimes in places where no digital eraser can delete them. Google pointed the finger of guilt right back at itself in some unique and powerful ways, which appear to be irrefutable and intensely incriminating.
Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, John Doerr, Sergey Brin and their buddies ran an insider boys club in Silicon Valley. If you were not connected to the “high-bred” fraternity house dynasties, and didn’t look the part, you were out. If, on top of that, you made better products than Larry or Sergey, then they just took what they wanted and put a hit job on you if you complained.
The case evidence against Google is planned to reveal a multi-year technical sting operation, conducted globally, proving that Google was manually rigging its search engine and architecture to attack the Plaintiffs and promote Plaintiffs competitors, each of which was owned in part by Google. Plaintiffs have a raft of issued patents that will come to light, but, more interesting are the federal files associated with those patents, which reveal Google’s owners schemes. Emails, signed confidentiality agreements, surveillance records and even Washington DC building logs and phone records play an interesting part in the evidence. Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial and will seek to subpoena federal records that are known to be quite damning for Google. Plaintiffs feel confident that even more damning Google evidence will show up between now and the trial date. Plaintiffs, in their documents, reveal that they have been called upon to testify for federal investigations, and were and continue to be, fully cooperative with ongoing Google anti-trust and business activities investigations at the federal level.
Plaintiffs are filing the case on their own as a showcase to promote the opportunity for litigation investors to come forward to invest in paying for the Jury Trial portion of the suit. In a case where the Jury could award the Plaintiffs the billions of dollars that Google not only cost the Plaintiffs in damages, but also the billions of dollars that Google made by copying the Plaintiffs; the upside for a litigation investor is substantial. A number of people who are suing Google have been sharing press clippings on a website located at: http://www.googlecases.com
Interested investors can offer to financially support some of those cases, in exchange for a portion of the winnings at that site. The winnings appear to be justified in an amount starting with a “$B”.
Suffice it to say, before all of the hacker weirdness, Plaintiffs felt they had a rock solid case. In the modern Age of Transparency, it is not inconceivable that, at the end of the day, Plaintiffs could end up with a large piece of Google in their pocket.
