Iviewit Rebuttal to Thomas Cahill - New York State Bar - Kenneth Rubenstein Bar Complaint

"REBUTTAL OF IVIEWIT TO THE NEW YORK STATE BAR OF
RESPONSE OF KENNETH RUBENSTEIN AUTHORED BY STEVEN KRANE"


P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
July 2, 2003

Re: Rebuttal of Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Response
to Complaint of Iviewit Holdings, Inc., Docket 2003.0531

Dear Mr. Cahill:
By way of introduction, I am Chief Executive Officer (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc.
and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Company”) with a background of which the Company
invites you to view at http://www.iviewit.com/management.htm , and I write to rebutt all
those material feints, denials, and, therefore, inconsistencies in the response of Kenneth
Rubenstein, Esq. (“Respondent”) to the Company’s New York Bar Complaint of
February 26 (“Complaint”).

Moreover, the facts of the Complaint find Respondent so uncloaked that he resorts to
disingenuously traversing from tall tales of retaliation to some irrelevant litigation, to
stories of a “failed dotcom company looking for someone to blame,” and even to the
personal attacks on the founder and principal inventor of the Company, whose passion for
his inventions confounds the mind of Respondent whose personal, financial, and other
ambitions rise above all, to the detriment of his clients.

Furthermore, Respondent continues this transparent discourse and all the while maintaining “The only thing I did for Iviewit is I referred them to another patent lawyer,”1 which the Company shall incite in the minds of First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee that such a statement by Respondent could not be farther from the truth, as evidenced by Section I to Section XII, infra.

Prior to Section I to Section XII, infra, however, the first feint we need to address, and as
Respondent has chosen to apprise you, is that the Company and Respondent’s employer,
Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), are parties to that certain litigation titled Proskauer
Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al., Case No. CA 01-04671 AB (Circuit Court of the
15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida filed May 2, 2001)
(“Litigation”) that, as Respondent is aware, yet prefaces and attributes the Complaint to
said Litigation, bears not one iota of relevance to the specific allegations contained in the
Company’s Complaint.

Second, another important feint to correct, and wherein Respondent hopes that First
Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee fails to see the forest from the trees, is that the Company is not now nor has ever been a so called “dotcom” company, but rather is a designer and developer of video scaling and imaging technologies where, in combination and among other things, said technologies have the capability of “panning and zooming” on any image or any image within a video without degradation to the quality of that image (where degradation is termed “pixelation” to those skilled in the art).

Additionally, the Company technologies are targeted to device original equipment
manufacturers (“OEMs”) who, when individually, or in combination with other third
party hardware, firmware, and/or software, shall include them in OEM products such as,
but not limited to, cable set top boxes, satellite set top boxes, analog-to-digital converter
boxes, next generation DVD players, digital cameras, personal video recorders, and
personal computers; alternatively the Company has the option of exclusively contributing
said essential technologies to the multimedia patent pools known as MPEG 2 (digital
compression according the digital television standard), MPEG 4 (another compression
standard at a lower bit rate, and wherein interactive objects may be embedded), and DVD
(“digital video disc”) player-drive-codec and the discs themselves.

Third, and most disingenuously, Respondent attempts to point to the two and one half
percent (2.5%) interest in, an interest that Proskauer paid a nominal, par value price for,
and that was supposedly in return for adoption by the MPEG 2 patent pool of the
Company’s essential inventions, the Company’s direct, 92.03% owned, subsidiary,
Iviewit Technologies, Inc., that more specifically translates into a one and ninety nine one
hundredths of a percent (1.99%) fully diluted interest in lower valued Class B Non-
Voting shares of the Company’s direct subsidiary, as a motivation for Proskauer Rose to see
the Company succeed, yet fails to apprise First Judicial Department Departmental
Disciplinary Committee that in Respondent’s stewardship of the MPEG 2 patent pool,
which presently generates royalties in the nine figures, according to industry observers,
and that once digital television and the content there with assumes a penetration rate in
U.S. households akin to analog color television that said royalties from MPEG 2 shall rise
into the trillions of dollars, and much to the benefit of Respondent in his role as counsel,
by his admission2, and to the best of the Company’s knowledge, patent evaluator, and
Proskauer Rose, thereby dwarfing any potential realized gain from the nominally priced equity position in the Company’s direct subsidiary.

Clearly, by this analysis, the Company suggests that Respondent and his author, Steven C. Krane (“Author”), continue to apply their skills sets towards, physics and technology licensing, and legal ethics and dispute resolution, respectively, as their prospects of future careers as financial analysts have diminished as a result of this poorly attempted feint in the response of Respondent.

Fourth, and an equally poorly analyzed feint, is Respondent’s reference to a letter
presented in his deposition to that certain Litigation on November 20, 2002, wherein such
Litigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes,
seemingly attempting to engage Respondent’s services future services, but by viewing an
electronic copy and right clicking the mouse of a IBM compatible personal computer and
selecting “properties” it is clear to Respondent that said letter’s date of creation was April
25, 2002, which was designed as a means for which to allow Respondent to “save his
soul” by reaffirming prior statements to potential licensees, and inapposite to
Respondent’s assumed intention (see Section IX Subsection A and Exhibit O – Statement
of CEO Lamont).

Lastly, Mr. Thomas Cahill, and as Respondent would have you believe, this is NOT the
Complaint of Eliot I. Bernstein, but of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation)
funded in total of approximately Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) by prominent investors and entertainment professionals alike, including, but not limited to: Wayne Huizenga, Wayne Huizenga Jr., Alan Epstein, Esq. and Michele Mulrooney, Esq. of Armstrong
Hirsch Jackoway Tyerman & Wertheimer of Los Angeles. Cal., Kenneth Anderson, CPA,
Donald Kane (formerly Managing Director of Goldman Sachs), James Osterling, James
Armstrong, Ellen DeGenres, Alan Young, Allan Shapiro (Atlas Entertainment), Mitchell
Welsch (Vice President of UBS Paine Webber), and Jeffrey Friedstein (Vice President of
Goldman Sachs), Caroline P. Rogers, Esq. and many others.
p
Full Article - Full Rebuttal to Thomas Cahill. Part of the US Court Smackdown
on the Iviewit Inventors in the Trillion Dollar Patent Heist.
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/rebuttal-of-iviewit-to-new-york-state.html
p