Ruminations

J. Summerville, (1)I

J. Summerville,

(1)I discovered the grid programming IP transfers to Gemstar-TVGuide in late 2007, off of a Yack.com news release from 2002/2003 that was on the web.

(2)The transfer of Yack.com IP assets materially and negatively impacted the saleability of Yack.com, hence negatively and materially impacting my settlement agreement.

(3)At one time I was negotiating the sale of Yack.com to eBay in exchange for 1% of eBay's stock; that fell through, but lo and behold Frank Biondi, who was a member of Yack's board, picked up where I left off and sold StubHub, with which he was involved, for the equivalent of 1% of eBay stock. This led me to question whether because of Mr. Biondi's involvement with both entities, StubHub might not also have been the benficiary of Yack.com's IP technology (again without my knowledge and to my detriment.)

(4)Yes, because of a number of similarities with
other sites, and the employment of key Yack figures at other companies (like Sean Malatesta at Google), I have questioned whether other sites might be in possession of Yack.com IP.

(5) I appreciate the fact that as a MVSN shareholder you do not want to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit. For your information, I have spent over 1 year attempting to get Mr. Amoroso and Mr. Campbell (one of MVSN's lawyers), to communicate with me so that this might be resolved amicably. Unfortunately, they have not been very responsive. All they have said is that they cannot verify my claims. In fact, it seems that they have been spending alot of time scurrying to sell most TVGuide.com assets as soon as possible, possibly out of a concern that legal action from me might hold up or impede a sale. As a shareholder, you may wish to call them and ask them why they will not talk to me. I am sure that you can appreciate that the law grants me certain rights too, and that if indeed it is established that these IP transfers occured, and that I was materially damaged by them, I should be compensated for the damage.

eBay, StubHub, Google to add to the list

"Recent news indicates that Pierre Omidyar, founder and chairman of eBay, intends to invest in "participatory media" platforms purportedly to shift power and give greater voice to "the masses." Well, I intend to use this particular "participatory media" forum to ask Pierre Omidyar if eBay's acquisition of StubHub has been honestly paid for. In particular, because of Frank Biondi's involvement in both StubHub.com and in Yack.com, and similarities in aspects of both sites, I am concerned that applications may have "migrated" from Yack.com to StubHub.com without regards for a legal settlement agreement entitling me to compensation in the event of such a transfer. Pierre, would you kindly take a serious look into this matter and assure me that everything is on the "up and up"? "

//iranian.com/main/blog/hbpm1/omidyar-partici...

Google mentioned here:

//iranian.com/main/blog/hbpm1/interesting...

I also find it interesting that in your reply to mvsnee, you said "If you are genuinely seeking the truth, one way for your firm, Macrovision, to establish whether it is in possession of intellectual property assets from Yack.com could be for Fred Amoroso to call and ask the following individuals who were involved with that entity in that time period if they might have some helpful information:....". This clearly implies you do not know whether that is the case and want Macrovision to do the investigative work for you. However, in this 10/2008 comment to an article about Macrovision, you (I presume it is you) categorically stated that Gemstar (the company acquired by Macrovision through which the assets would have been obtained) did obtain those assets:

"Between November 2001 and November 2004, Gemstar-TVGuide co-opted/acquired intellectual property from an online internet program guide called Yack.com/Yack Media Services, without remunerating Mr. Hamid Boroumand, the beneficiary of a legal settlement agreement who was privy to compensation from Yack.com/Yack Media Services, in the event of a transfer of such assets."

//www.multichannel.com/article/talkback/82268...

Also, you stated in both of the above comments that compensation was due on the transfer of the assets, whereas in this blog you stated that compensation was due on the sale of the company.

BTW, I am a Macrovision shareholder and do not want the company's assets whittled away defending frivolous lawsuits, hence my interest in this blog.

Also Ask Jeeves

"I can’t seem to get a straight answer from anyone at IACI as to whether AskJeeves (now Ask.com) acquired technology or applications from a company named Yack Media Services (Yack.com)between 2001-2004, and failed to inform the beneficiary of a legal settlement with Yack.com by the name of H. Boroumand."

//blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2007/11/1...

In my humble opinion, you seem to have no idea of to whom the assets were transferred, if they were at all, and are simply throwing accusations at anyone that may have dealt with Yack.com during that period.

Gemstar or Real Networks?

Either you (if you are poster using the name Hamid Boroumand) or that poster claimed that the IP was transferred to Real Networks and similarly enquired back in 2005 whether they should sue Real Networks, as evidenced by these 2 posts!!!!

"For You Lawyers Out There
Dear editor salam,

How about a challenging legal question for all you Iranian-American lawyers out there:

I helped fund the start-up of a now defunct dot-com called Yack.com in 1997 which seems to have fully disappeared by 2004. Interestingly, a subsequent (famous) financier who also poured capital into Yack.com had also financed the start-up of RealNetworks (RNWK.) Now, much of what constituted the content/make-up of Yack.com can be found on RealNetworks (these were non-existent on that site previous to Yack.com's demise.) Can I fairly assume that all or most of the shareholders of the now defunct Yack.com had the intellectual capital of their investment transferred to RealNetworks without being compensated for it? Does this constitute a surreptitious sale?"

followed by this....

"Should I File A Lawsuit Against RealNetworks?
Dear editor salam,

Should I file a lawsuit against RealNetworks (RNWK) for what I perceive to be fraud and a violation of a settlement agreement I had with Yack.com? After all, if it LOOKS like a duck, WALKS like a duck, and QUACKS like a duck there is a strong likelihood that it IS a duck (I am referring what might be termed a surreptitious sale of Yack.com- or its intellectual capital- to RealNetworks as evidenced by RealNetwork's RealGuide and Helix features, and their distinct similarity to what was either developed or under development at Yack.com prior to that company's demise.)"

//iranian.com/Opinion/2005/May/Boroumand/

These posts were from May 2005, yet you stated on this topic a few posts back that you only discovered the transfer in 2007!

MVSNEE If you are genuinely

MVSNEE

If you are genuinely seeking the truth, one way for your firm, Macrovision, to establish whether it is in possession of intellectual property assets from Yack.com could be for Fred Amoroso to call and ask the following individuals who were involved with that entity in that time period if they might have some helpful information: Derek Reisfeld (of Sportsline.com fame, and one time Chairman of Yack.com); Frank Biondi (of Viacom and StubHub.com fame, and one time board member of Yack.com); Jasbir Singh (owner of the successor entity to Yack.com, and CEO of Pronto Networks); Steven Fredricks (the company's last CEO); or Martin Dodd of the Futterman Dupree law firm (and an attorney for Yack.com.)

J. Summerville, The IP

J. Summerville,

The IP transfer pre-empted the outright sale of Yack.com. As the settlement beneficiary, I only benefited from an event-driven act such as the sale of Yack.com, not any IP transfers.

DW Duke How can I contact

DW Duke

How can I contact you?

Sorry, AI. For some reason

Sorry, AI. For some reason I got the dates mixed up in this post. The settlement agreement spanned the 2001-2004 time period (not 1991-1994.) I discovered the IP transfer in late 2007, off of a press release posting on the web from Yack.com dated either 2002 or 2003.

What is the name of your

What is the name of your firm?

I apologize for the error

I apologize for the error regarding the date. I actually discovered this in late 2007, from a press release that Yack.com had issued in the 1991-1994 time period and which was on the web.

Me In

So you're suing my CEO, fine! I'm game.

What the poster isn't saying

What the poster isn't telling you is that Gemstar cannot verify that any of the assets that supposedly went from the first entity to the second entity and then to the third somehow finally ended up at Gemstar, much less that Gemstar did something wrong.  As the poster admitted in an email to Macrovision on this (Macrovision acquired Gemstar in 2008): "I suspect (but cannot prove) that a number of well-known internet companies are in possession of these applications, for which I have not been compensated (more likely than not because the recipient companies involved were never made aware of the existence of the settlement)..."  One can understand the poster's frustration that he lost something, or that he thought he would be more richly compensated by whoever "took" the/his property, but whether he has a valid legal claim against anyone, much less Macrovision, is another matter.

Are you implying colusion between the parties?

"Yack.com had proceeded to transfer valuable intellectual property assets pertaining to "grid" programming to Gemstar-TVGuide."

How have you, the settlement beneficiary, been "detrimentally and materially affected" by the transfer to Gemstar of the IP assets? If the transfer was at arm's length and the assets were sold for what was determined to be their market value, then Yack.com has not being materially affected by the transfer, as the value of the compensation received equals the value of the assets transferred.

If, on the other hand, you are claiming that Yack.com intentionally sold the assets for less than their realisable market value, what would be their purpose of doing that? It would only make sense if they were somehow coluding with Gemstar to defraud you, but you haven't indicated that that is the case.

More facts are needed

Discovery rule may not apply since its sounds like he discovered it in 1997 but the continuing breach and the tort argument may be a way out of the statute.

Is there a governing law clause in your settlement agreement? Which state was it signed in and which state are the corporations involved  incorporated in? 

Continuing Breach

Several years ago I represented a publishing company in a lawsuit brought by a disgruntled author who had signed a contract with the publisher and alleged that it was breached 15 years earlier.  The court ruled that the statute of limitations had not run because everytime the publisher republished the book it was a continuation of the alleged breach.  That may be similar to what is happening here.  I don't know yet. 

but there are times that statute is overturned

In case of Continuation of the defendent usage of services rendered . another case is under the discovery rule, an action begins to be enforcable when the plaintif within reasonable time knew or discovered the negligent action . as well , the case of concealing or hiding the fraudulent action is a case for reversing the statute .

Hi Yachov

You maybe right. Maybe a tortious interference with a contractual relationship or something like that but the time line bothers me.

Hi AI

Not necessarily.  It depends upon what is happening.  If it is a continuing tort the statute of limitations may not have even started to run or the cause of action may not have accrued.  That is why I need more information. 

Dear DW What about the Statute of Limitations?

He says he learned of it in 1997. That is 11 year ago. I don't understand why he is calculating from 2001. Also, even from 2001, the Statute of limitations has probably ran out since it has been eight years and in most states breach of contract is 6 years. I think this is going to be the killer of his case.

It sounds like you may have a case

The reservation of most attorneys would be the likelihood of a tremendous amount of work with no certainty of a payoff.  It sounds as though this might be a federal court case that could be filed anywhere in the US but I need more information.  It looks like fraudulent conveyance meaning that in an effort to get around the settlement agreement (which is not only a binding contract but often an actual judgment) they secretly transferred assets to a third party.  I will talk to you if you like. Even if it isn't something that I would take I might know someone who would though I might be interested myself.  You can find my firm via google.  :)