Article from the 12/1/17 Issue of World Affairs Brief Available by Subscription only at

As the dark side of the US government ramped up its surveillance of every form of electronic communication in the 1990s, they quickly ran into a data storage and extraction problem­the size and magnitude of coordinating trillions of phone calls and emails with people tracking databases became overwhelming. Social Media had not yet been invented but the exponential growth of the internet itself demanded a totally new paradigm of dealing with massive data interaction. After being hired by AT&T to revamp their growing email system, a small company named Leader Technologies of Columbus, Ohio saw the problem and began to devise a new database management system that would become the backbone of search engines. Leader integrated voice, streaming media and data systems for collaboration and decision making in a unique way that used far less resources than file based database systems, and it became the perfect vehicle for social media networking and, interestingly, NSA spying. Leader Tech spent more than $10 million and 145,000 man-hours to invent this technology and get it patented. Today’s main story is about how the Deep State stole this technology and gave it to Google, Cisco, IBM, Facebook, and the NSA in order to facilitate Orwellian surveillance on a massive scale.

Free access to this software is the primary reason why all major social media companies now act as spies for big government. They got a major leg up on the competition by being given free access to this dynamic stolen technology. When Michael McKibben led Leader Tech’s team to develop this original software they designed it to have a configurable sliding scale on privacy so that companies that purchased it could determine how much privacy they would allow their users to have.

That privacy configuration was set to zero by the Deep State, and as part of their secret sharing deal, all social media like Google, Facebook and Twitter had government back-doors built into the “Leader2Leader” software that allows the NSA full access to all information.

Facebook started the social media revolution using this stolen software. Compare the massive amount of time and money it took Leader Tech to develop complex software (about 3 years) with Mark Zuckerberg’s facile claim that he built the whole Facebook platform in “one to two weeks” while studying for finals. As Michael McKibben said, “Anyone with expertise in software development would know that Zuckerberg could only have done that so quickly with Leader’s source code.”

But how Zuckerberg got the source code is the core of this story. He didn’t steal it himself. He was selected as a government “cut out” to receive the code and integrate it into Facebook so that the social media giant could be used by government to build databases on every Facebook user. And it wasn’t just Zuckerberg. The government fed this software to others in Silicon Valley, like Google, which allowed it to offer its search engine free of charge. This in turn allowed Google to become the most dominant force in the internet and web advertizing world.

In this six part series of interviews by Americans 4 Innovation, CEO Michael McKibben explains how this technology was stolen through the government’s control of the Patent Office and a little known provision that allows government to take control of any patent they consider of importance to “national security.” For those of you who don’t have the time to wade through the 3 hours of interviews (30 minutes each), what follows is my written summary.

I admit that I don’t have the expertise nor access to the source codes in question to verify the degree of software theft or infringement claims, nor Leader’s claims to unique development of a new paradigm in database management. What I write here is based on the claims of those close to the controversy. I happen to believe they are true, but this is mostly based upon what I see as common patterns of Deep State coverup and conspiracy playing out here.

McKibben’s first mistake was to hire the most prominent establishment experts in the field of patents and security and even made them directors of the company. McKibben said,

“We engaged two world renowned patent and security experts as our first two directors. One was Professor James P. Chandler, author of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 and the Federal Trade Secrets Act and a member of President Clinton’s National Infrastructure Assurance Council, and another was Major General James E. Freeze (US Army, ret.), former chief of the US Army Security Agency [and #3 man at the NSA]. Both gentlemen have consulted to Congress and the Judiciary many times. We followed their advice meticulously.”

Chandler’s role in writing deceptive government regulations (allowing for government to spy even while claiming it doesn’t) and Freeze’s role at the NSA should have rung warning bells in McKibben’s head, but he was not yet aware of the Deep State. He should have known better, as the Deep State often controls those who are in high position at universities, the media and attorneys at law. Professor Chandler also happened to be Hillary Clinton’s mentor in the patent law field. McKibben is now all too painfully aware of the dark side of government and the courts.

Part of following Chandler’s “meticulous advice” resulted in Chandler’s participation in Leader Tech’s invention design sessions in Columbus, Ohio where he learned the technical details of Leader’s social networking innovations. During that period between 1998 and 2004, Leader had also retained the legal counsel of Fenwick and West, as well as Chandler’s, on patent law in preparation for filing the patent.

All three of these entities betrayed their client and transferred Leader’s source code to the Deep State, using a unique IBM corporate foundation entitled the Eclipse Foundation, formed in November of 2001, two months after 9/ll. It claims to be a promoter of “open source” software tools, but it leveraged all of these tools on stolen Leader technology. James P. Chandler himself was a founding member of IBM’s Eclipse Foundation. IBM has been working for the CIA for decades and was a logical choice to act as a conduit for the theft of this software. Its other principals read like a who’s who of globalist tech firms, who all enriched themselves by investing in the development of Facebook and its initial public stock offering.

Larry Summers, former globalist economic advisor to President Obama, and President of Harvard University was also a founding member of the Eclipse Foundation. He was deeply involved in promoting Zuckerberg while at Harvard. The Harvard Crimson, under the direction of Harvard President Summers, carried its first article about 19-year old sophomore Mark Zuckerberg titled "Not-so-artificial Intelligence."

Red Hat, Borland, Rational Software were founding members of IBM’s Eclipse (all clients of Chandler and Fenwick and West) as were Morgan Stanley, IBM, Credit Suisse, Oracle, and Google.

Why would “for profit” software companies join a non-profit foundation promoting free open source software that competed directly with them? Only because the open source software Eclipse was giving away to insider corporations had been stolen from Leader Technologies which gave them all access to the core software engine that would allowed them all to advance their own internet and cloud technologies.

According to The Eclipse Foundations meeting minutes, they released version 1.0 of the Eclipse “open source” software on Mar. 06, 2002­the same moment that Leader Technologies placed its source code in Professor Chandler’s and Fenwick & West LLP’s custody, ostensibly as a part of their Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) project escrow.

The Eclipse board's lawyer had to later devise language to explain why nobody at Eclipse knows where the source code came from. Sure....that’s because they couldn’t admit it was stolen. How does a large foundation not know where hundreds of pages of source code come from, from which they base their entire purpose and existence?

Chandler had deep contacts within IBM and the US Patent Office and he used this relationship to get IBM’s vice president and assistant general counsel on intellectual property law, David J. Kappos named as head of the Patent Office. This was essential to the plan for Facebook’s defense at trial during this same time frame which would contest Leader’s patent, finally granted in November of 2006. The system is rigged. McKibben said,

“Had I known all this, I never would have filed for a patent---just like Coke, who has kept its formula a secret rather than patent it. The patent office has become a feeder process to get the best military and spy ideas into the military-industrial complex without paying. Any patent can be denied on National Security grounds and the inventor enjoined from using it or marketing it.”

In fact, it was Professor James Chandler that wrote several acts of Congress that provided for these breaches of patent protection. In October, 1996 attorney professor James Chandler wrote the Economic Espionage Act and the Federal Trade Secrets Act and the False Statements Accountability Act (which prohibits lying to congress or any federal agency. But section B of the act exempts lawyers when testifying on national security issues before the courts.

Facebook has been the subject of many lawsuits by persons involved in the initial idea of Facebook, which Mark Zuckerberg has settled out of court. But lawyers for Facebook went all out to keep from having to pay Leader Tech as the actual source of Facebook code. When Leader finally filed suit against Facebook for patent infringement, McKibben and his team got a real education in how the Deep State controls the courts.

With a new legal firm, Kramer Levin, Leader Tech won a partial verdict against Facebook for patent infringement. During the trial many legal irregularities were documented, including the refusal of the judge to allow Leader to obtain testimony from Professor Chandler and General Freeze. The court was protecting these two insiders from having to perjure themselves on the stand for facilitating the theft of Leader source code.

During the discovery process Facebook claimed that the 28 original hard drives that contained their source code couldn’t be found. Those hard drives would have proven that Leader’s source code was on them. But those same 28 hard drives later appeared for another trial against Facebook, though they were never searched. According to investigative journalist Donna Klein,

Facebook dragged its feet on discovery throughout the first six months of 2009. For example, Facebook would say they would not provide a document, but when Leader filed a motion to compel the document, Facebook would then provide the document in their opposition to the motion ­the very document that they had just said they would not provide. Leader had provided two-and-a-half times more documents to Facebook than Facebook provided to Leader.

She also noted that in a Facebook countersuit against,

Two things are notable about the countersuit. (1) Facebook uses two of its questionable patents as the foundation of its countersuit, and (2) they are using the same Cooley Godward LLC attorneys that pulled all the shenanigans in Leader v. Facebook

The issue Klein is referring to is that in Facebook’s patent, the company failed to mention “prior art” which are other patents that precede your patent that must be distinguished from your application–such as Leader’s patent. The fact that the Patent Office let Facebook get a patent without even mentioning Leader’s prior patent covering the same material indicates Patent office corruption or control. Normally failure to recognize “prior art” results in an automatic rejection from the Patent Office.

The second point has to do with the unethical conduct of the Cooley law firm that betrayed Leader Tech before Leader fired them. Democrat Donald K. Stern, partner at Cooley Godward LLP, was appointed to the Obama justice transition team. He eventually recommended the appointment of Judge Leonard P. Stark to be inserted into the trial of Leader v. Facebook despite his conflict of interest in working for the Cooley-Godward law firm. There was a quick “recess appointment” to avoid confirmation hearings.

When Stark took over the case, he allowed the new but completely false Facebook on-sale bar claim to deny Leader discovery and failed to disclose his serious conflict of interest. During the Leader v. Facebook pre-trial discovery process, Facebook was asked to provide technical, financial and marketing information from Facebook’s formative days at Harvard in 2003-2004 forward. This would have shown infringement. However, despite four motions to compel, Facebook denied access to all of this information, and judge Stark would not compel them.

Despite all of this bias, in July of 2010, the Jury handed down a split verdict mostly in favor of Leader, confirming that Facebook infringed on 11 out of 11 patent issues brought before the court. On appeal, all of that infringement was nullified on a technicality which held that Leader held its software for sale for more than one year before filing for patent protection, which invalidates a patent. However, this ruling was based on a complete misreading of Leader’s deposition when they were asked by Facebook’s lawyer whether there was any sale pending of Leader2leader software. Leader answered in the affirmative, naming the company.

Facebook then used that statement as a basis for claiming that Leader had committed to a sale BEFORE applying for the patent, which by Patent rule bars the granting of a patent. In fact, this sale had been committed to after the patent was applied for, but the Facebook lawyer had never inquired as to the date. He simply claimed that since Leader had contracted a sale, it invalidated the patent. Incredibly the court accepted that argument. One of the judges stated in oral arguments that it was Facebook’s responsibility to specifically inquire as to the date of past issues, but that comment was never mentioned in the final ruling in favor of Facebook.

The entire timeline and details are found at the website Facebook Coverup.

Sadly, despite all these actionable legal irregularities, the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case on final appeal, confirming to McKibben that the entire system is rigged. Indeed it is.

Leader, out of futility, is now trying to induce the government to mandate shared royalties for Leader and all other users like cellphone apps, Facebook, Google and Twitter, with a percentage going to the government to reduce the deficit. I don’t think it will work. The Deep State is too evil to give in.