Vocabulary word of the data: Agnotology http://www.qwiki.com/q/#Robert_N._Proctor
Or if you prefer the classical term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism
The $3.5M Sequoia investment wasn't very risky considering Chad, Steve and Jawed had over $20M collectively in 2004. I have a negative net worth (school loans). Who the hell would invest in someone who had no way of paying you back? When I approached firms and individual investors with YouTube as a business concept from 1998-2003, they all declined.
In 1993, with a close friend, Chris Woodward, I write a popular software add-on called Online Creation which worked with text-based multiplayer games (in the days before Ultima Online). It is still a fairly popular software with thousands of users. It has been translated into several languages, and runs on servers all over the world.
My original input to Chris Tchou and his friends at Watson.org (original home of the MOD Archive) was legal advice regarding content ownership. I suggested that MOD/IT/S3M content, because much of it came without a license or was freely distributed with encouragement from the Amiga MOD community, was essentially public domain content because it had be released, without a distribution license, yet was still copyrighted to its original owners.
This sort of legal exploration became the basis for my delvings into other archival artistic endeavors (YouTube). See: Mod Archive
To give you more breadth, visit Amiga Music Preservation (AMP)
The Mod Archive - a collection of mods. This started as a joint project with several friends during my freshman and sophomore years at CMU. It was created because all of the existing MOD collections on the net had no screening process whatsoever, or were woefully small, making music browsing a painful experience.
- Chris Tchou, one of the founders, from his website
In 1997, summer, while watching Jerry Springer, I come up with a new slang term "YouTube" while living in one of those legendary "first apartments" where everything is a wreck and strange people are always sleeping on the couch.
In mid-1999, I notice "PayPal - Donate" buttons showing up on non-profit websites. After investigating the site and its founders, I encourage my boss, Tim Collins, at the STUDIO for Creative Inquiry, to use it to solicit donations, but he says its not necessary or appropriate for our project. He encourages me not to deal with PayPal. By the end of 1999, most of my co-workers are complaining about PayPal, at the same time pushing the little-known search engine site Google.
When I first created the program add-on "Online Creation" in 1993, I wanted to attract a good writer for my own game "The Isles MUD" which had the new add-on installed with some custom features -- I was 15 at the time. Andrea Cavalluzzo (character name: "Kallista") was a little older, and a great writer. She and I talked for years and years. We stopped talking in 2002. She worked for IdeaLab. I felt like I knew someone "in the neighborhood" over in California. We talked a lot, and I studied her company.
Andrea left IdeaLab in 1997 and joined one of their affiliate start-ups WeddingChannel.
Today, Idealab's website offers this as their submission policy:
"Idealab is primarily focused on developing and operating technology companies based on its own internally-generated ideas. Idealab does not invite the submission of business plans, ideas, concepts, inventions or any other material ("Material"). Please do not disclose to Idealab, its employees, representatives or agents any Material that you believe is confidential or proprietary, or for which you expect to receive consideration or compensation in any form. By submitting Material to Idealab, you acknowledge that such Material is neither confidential nor proprietary, and you waive the right to receive compensation of any kind for the Material."
PayPal became one of Idealab's investments sometime around April, 1999. It was like I was on the inside of that, or at least that's the way it felt. I was only 21 at the time.
From the LA Times:
SOUTHLAND FOCUS; Idealab Partners to Invest in PayPal.com [Home Edition] Los Angeles Times - Los Angeles, Calif. Author: Debora Vrana Date: Jan 20, 2000 Start Page: 2 Section: Business; PART- C; Financial Desk Text Word Count: 122
My high school and grade school friend, George Economou, Jr. We stopped talking after he got his Compartmentalized Top Secret clearance. His father worked at Los Alamos building the first atomic bomb. In 1999, Akamai's stock was worth over $300. George worked on their video content distribution network.
His influence got me thinking about video and content on the internet. By 2003, he was worth several million. I asked him for $10,000 to start YouTube, but at the time his father was gravely ill and I was dealing with some issues of my own. George and I haven't talked much after this: he seems to think we met in high school, but we really met in 4th grade. When questioned briefly by my attorneys, he admitted to knowing me, but could not recall anything about any details from 2002/2003. Of course, Akamai is partnered with Google and has agreements with YouTube. They provided the bandwidth for the YouTube Live! events.
from Mad Merv <email@example.com> to Herb Gilliland <firstname.lastname@example.org> date Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:44 PM subject Fwd: you loser mailed-by gmail.com signed-by gmail.com hide details 5:44 PM (6 minutes ago) ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: George Economou <email@example.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: you loser
To: Mad Merv <firstname.lastname@example.org>
we're all losers, but thanks for reminding me.
I thought you didn't want the gmail account?
it's slow as shit btw.
I just got an email back from some stripper, sweet huh.
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:14:58 -0400, Mad Merv <email@example.com> wrote:
> ok fine
This post's theme song: Aloe Blacc: I need a Dollar
So, I went around to various incubators with just the concept and business plan. I was very protective of the name and I never showed the logo to anyone during this process. Perhaps I should have bought the domain name, but I never did. People have criticized me for this. There are several reasons.
Escape Plan #123
Complete the finest set of post-post-Dadaist art pieces yet seen, and sell them on the market as post-Pop art. Become the Next Warhol.
THE NEXT WARHOLA
The Art Department rumor mill at Carnegie Mellon University is quite good at generating both positive and negative opinions of students based on their comparison to Warhol. Of course, Warhol is the darling of his department, since he is also the most famous artist ever to escape the wrath of CMU. So, with these expectations thrown at them at a very young age, Carnegie Mellon can successfully graduate artists and gallery managers with a severe sense of inferiority.
Escape Plan #324
Steal technology from the Wean CS lounge and sell its secrets to the Chinese.
Of course, this may have already been done.
Escape Plan #325
Start a secret society. (So far we have six members!)
Escape Plan #328
Write the next Google with help from a friendly Computer Science major.
Top 50: Local entrepreneurs give their views on the Pittsburgh scene and what it takes to make it
Tuesday, April 09, 2002
By Stephanie Franken, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
I did a lot for PayPal and got little back.
- I convinced them to sell to eBay
- I revised their anti-fraud system
- I attempted to start a company (YouTube) with help from Peter Thiel
- I attempted to start a company (YouTube) with help from Steve Chen and Chad Hurley
So I show up at the ISC office in Monroeville, PA (though ISC now "InventHelp" is based in downtown Pittsburgh), with the billion-dollar idea YouTube. They explain to me, after I'm done disclosing it, that it doesn't seem worth a patent since there is no patentable stuff. They recommend I trademark it, but they won't provide any funding.
I went to a lot of places in hopes someone could give me some cold, hard cash to start the company: my friends, family, and about a dozen "company incubators" - VC or Angel funders, who are supposedly there to help you start a business, but they're real picky about who they help and how.
The ISC has this policy: after 3 years, they'll destroy any record of your discussion to "protect the idea" - I pointed out (at the time, and also a few months ago when I tried to get the information from them - but the guy who helped me that day is now retired and they won't contact him) - this doesn't actually protect the idea, or the inventor. So why do it? Had they kept a record, this would have protected the idea. Had they provided me with copies of their notes, this would have protected me. They do this, most likely, just to protect themselves.
On a day in November, or perhaps it was December, but no later than probably January 17th, 2005, I call and get connected through to Chad Hurley. Unfortunately, no phone records are provided by Cingular/AT&T, so I'm left with some questions as to the exact date.
MadMerv.com - if you wander through the archive of it linked above - evolved as my personal journal or diary as a graffiti artist and general prankster ("Since 1997") .. it is related to many of the sites it linked to, including Hactivist.com, CarbonDefense.org, the Institute for Applied Autonomy ("IAA"), etc. I was an artist in transition . . . trying to figure out a way to start my dream website, YouTube.
Keep in mind there are thousands of independent musicians who have been wronged by companies since the 90s; companies want to control your creativity, and YouTube, unfortunately, is no different. The litigation against, [see legal commentary] and then Vivendi Universal's purchase of, subsequent sale to CNet, and then dismantling of, MP3.com is a prime example of what companies are interested in: censoring anyone that gets in the way of their "mainstream" . . . the industry absorbed the artistic expressions (the lives and livelihoods) of thousands of independent artists and stuck them in basically an information black hole, then pumped out the next Pop Queen.
Music download site MP3.com will go offline today at 8pm GMT as owner Primetones.com revamps the site for its new launch. The closure will see over a million tracks from independent artists lost in the shuffle.
Source: Scarlett Pruitt,
"MP3.com's shutdown: Indie songs may vanish in revamp"
Dec 2, 2003
I am guessing on or about Feb 15, 2005 the domain name was purchased, as per my request, by Steve Chen at Chad's coaxing. I'm not exactly sure who bought it because I wasn't there when it was paid for. The original agreement was that they buy the domain name, signaling agreement to start the company in exchange for 99% of YouTube's proceeds, and then call me back for additional information. I think they waited a bit longer than I requested (I said they should call me back within 30 days). I'm pretty sure they called me in February, March or April 2005, but we will never know for certain.
Claims made by YouTube's founders to a "Valentine's Day Start" to YouTube are debunked by this evidence.
You can see from these screenshots where things were headed between the time I talked to Chad and the time Steve called. Jawed was "taking over" - talking about his video dating website idea. Chad had said on the phone that Jawed was a "problem" and that he "keeps claiming things as his own" - ie: his ego was trying to overpower Chad and Steve. Jawed eventually claimed he invented the entire site, even though Steve has said "Chad made the logo" and from the emails in the Viacom suit, you can tell Jawed is not the top of the totem pole.
Here is a case study I prepared for my attorneys to show where Jawed was steering the site between my first conversation with Chad and the second call from Steve Chen. I compare YouTube 2.5 months after February's domain purchase to various dating sites from around the same time. What you can glean from this is basically that they had copied the singles matching feature from one or more of these websites. It's obvious that YouTube is heading toward "video dating website" not "be your own artist or celebrity" website.
After buying the domain name, Steve was pissed because he had spent a measly couple hundred bucks. I was confident that YouTube would be really big. They had no idea what the company was about - they only knew the domain name - and Jawed, who is a domineering ego, was manipulating them into developing a dating website. I suppose it could have been one. I mean, the logo was "rouge" and his idea wasn't horrible (though it sounded like something you'd hear on Three's Company . . . "video dating" was a fad in the 1970s).
It just wasn't big enough. Video dating is way more focused than a general "social network" that could provide a new platform for people to communicate, artists to be recognized, musicians to publish their work, etc. Also, YouTube was designed to be a platform for video at a time when the Web was really about writing and documents.
In 2004, I purchased my first cellphone from Cingular. Even though this Press Release is dated March 5, 2006, my phone records from AT&T (at the time, Cingular) show what happens when two providers merge. None of my phone records from 2004 up to when I left Cingular/AT&T in 2005 are accurate and I can't view them because of "proprietary business reasons" - to AT&T's credit, after screwing up all of my phone records, they did agree to - under subpoena, which we weren't allowed to pursue - provide us with the actual call records.
Chad Hurley and Steve Chen got the idea for YouTube when, after a dinner party at Steve's San Francisco apartment, they had trouble sharing videos of the event. That's the foundation myth of Youtube, as emblematic as Pierre Omidyar's effort to sell his wife's Pez dispensers, a web project that became eBay. And it's about as bogus. Time gets the founders to admit that the germ for Youtube, which recently sold to Google for $1.65bn, came from another Paypal engineer, now largely written out of the story, Jawed Karim. The original idea: a video version of the Hot Or Not rating-and-dating site. The moral of the story: the original idea is worth nothing; a foundation myth is usually the creation of the company's first publicist; and it gets simpler with every press telling. Chad Hurley is more photogenic; even if Google's publicists insist on both Youtube founders being present for the photo shoots, watch magazine editors push the dorky Taiwanese-American engineer to the edge of the frame.
"On the flip tide sue" - Chad Hurley
"Do you have any vision whatsoever?" - Rep. Ed Markey
Gudagi.com was purchased July 25, 2007
The site is still only partially completed, but it still functions despite sabotage from its former hosting provider, Site5 (they asked me to vacate their servers during my case... g). I'm adding a new collection of movies whenever I can find them. By August, 2010, we should have a pretty nice collection of classic Kung Fu movies (the ones RZA and Wu-Tang Clan sampled).
Update: Hostmonster has shut down Gudagi TV. We are looking for investors and moving to a VPS in Canada.
I post a video on YouTube that is reposted in the Washington Post article via Michael Arrington / TechCrunch (almost a year later, after I write a bunch of news outlets). Before I did this, in 2005, 2006 and up to the date of this video, I called many, many law firms, attorneys, news agencies. No one wanted to take the case. Attorneys cited issues with impartiality, conflicts, etc. News agencies didn't write back. One Melbourne, Australia newspaper report wrote back, but then his boss told him not to print it. This sort of media blackout has happened even after the court case . . .
The topic of the video? The truth about YouTube and my role as its inventor / designer.
When we recently heard about the history of YouTube’s growth strategy from CEO Chad Hurley’s point of view, he described it as “hanging onto a rocket.”
- Liz Gannes, GigaOM.com
During this talk in 2008 with Cuong Do (an "early engineer" at YouTube), Cuong makes an "inside joke" to developers that there are "no chefs" at YouTube. This was before I was covered in the Washington Post.
This may be a reference to Steve's video "Making bruschetta" . . . but it also may be a fact that Cuong Do was told by Steve or someone else the truth about YouTube's inventor. I was a cook and then a chef for 13 years while in high school and college. I've studied formally under three chefs: one Polish who cooked Italian, one French and one Thai. Steve and Jawed use the tactic of acting like me to cover their tracks.
My lawyer said this interview was particularly revealing. Specifically, note how Chad kind of "skips" how they came up with the brand and business concept.
Also, the Viacom documents disprove Chad's statement that YouTube wasn't "to make a lot of money" . . .
"Jonathan kicked off the -- kicked off the morning and he made a wonderful pitch in terms of just that. ... And he articulated your vision enormously well."
- Bill Campbell, Chairman of the Board, Intuit
"When people started, in the press, picking up stories and things that were happening on our site-- that, uh -- every day, I guess there isn't really one instance that would stand out where we made it" - Chad Hurley
"We didn't use any money for advertising" - Chad Hurley
There is sufficient evidence that suggest YouTube used $3.5M in its seed capital to buy its initial users by giving away iPods.
"We started talking about ideas in early 2005, so February 2005 is when we actually started working . . ." - Chad Hurley, on YouTube's date of inception
"It happened in January of 2005 . . ." - Steve Chen, on YouTube's date of inception
"For some, a loss of a business model . . ." - Chad Hurley
Herb G. on Dipity.
The Dipity website has some problems with editing things, so some of the dates are off. You try adding a bunch of dates to a Dipity timeline and adjusting them: it's impossible. I don't know how you work, but I usually make a "rough sketch" and then work toward a perfect copy. Unfortunately, on Dipity, you can't change the dates once they are set unless you enter entirely new entries. After mucking around with this website I gave up on trying to fix the timeline I have there, but it gives you a good rough outline of the events in the order they occurred.
I opened this query in the YouTube Help Center in August, 2009, before I had counsel.
He says he's "leaving YouTube next year" (2010) - also says about his new venture that the idea wasn't his, then a few month's later he calls Hlaska "his company"
In a CNN interview, Chad and Steve remark "we didn't realize what we were building"
Test #1 (it says test 2 on the documents, but that's just the polygraph type)
The polygraph results:
Questions relating to Chad Hurley: +5 (500% probability of telling the truth)
Questions relating to Steve Chen: +0 (97% probability of telling the truth)
My attorneys file a motion for discovery:
99% of Google videos are YouTube videos. Uh, ok... Late 2009 figures put YouTube at 40% viewership of total internet video, down from %60 in 2007 . . .
Top 10 Video Content Properties by Videos Viewed
Google Sites continued to rank as the top U.S. video property in December, delivering 13.2 billion videos, with YouTube.com accounting for nearly 99 percent of all videos viewed at the property. Hulu ranked second with more than 1 billion videos viewed, an all-time high for the property, and representing 3.0 percent market share. Microsoft Sites ranked third with 561 million (1.7 percent), followed by Fox Interactive Media with 551 million (1.7 percent) and Yahoo! Sites with 539 million (1.6 percent).
|Top U.S. Online Video Content Properties* by Videos Viewed
Total U.S. – Home/Work/University Locations
Source: comScore Video Metrix
||Share (%) of Videos|
|Total Internet : Total Audience||33,242,835||100.0|
|Fox Interactive Media||550,505||1.7|
*Rankings based on video content sites; excludes video server networks. Online video includes both streaming and progressive download video.
Verizon never sent these despite the authorizations. They gave him the runaround.
My father, between chemotherapy sessions, also requested and agreed to pay for research on his own records. Verizon agreed, told him 2 weeks, then never got back to him.
This post covers everything that I could get, without subpoena, from PayPal.
Here is me digging up whatever I can from PayPal:
I have the original recording, this one is cut up a bit to get rid of the long hold times.
What did this establish? It established that I've been talking to PayPal since before the eBay sale (which I encouraged), and you can read more about what I did during 2002, 2003 and 2004 at PayPal in my book, A Universe of Interactions, which deals with both my scientific efforts and some of my "pro bono" (read as: uncompensated) work at PayPal, Microsoft, and a couple of other companies. It also established that there are some odd notes that appear on my account, made by managers.
"There's a problem with the gift at Christmas" - Manager, 2003, on Dec 26
"There were a lot of calls" - Manager, 2004
There are redacted notes and hidden parts of the record (evidence is left that the record has been altered or obfuscated or redacted by PayPal management).
My account was restricted in January of 2005 for the entirety of the year 2005.
"He's the video website guy" - Manager, 2009
In early 2009, PayPal enacted a new policy which forbid agents from giving the names of agents to agents (they made the records hide the names of agents, previously they provided first names - the reason they gave was that "you cannot tell the sex of agents anymore from their first names" .. this was most likely added because I kept calling and asking about a certain female account manager who witnessed the entire Chad Hurley call series, who I told the idea of YouTube to before Chad, and who I had hoped would show up in court at some point after we subpoenaed the information or otherwise tracked him/her down).
Just so you know, T-Mobile has a "don't record us policy", but they'll record you.
One of the anticipated defense moves was that they would deny that Chad could be contacted through PayPal "because he wasn't an employee there anymore" - so we wanted to prove that it was possible for me to have been transferred.
So, to set the scene, just a few minutes before I had called and asked this representative about the transfer policy for internal call transfers from Omaha, NE to San Jose, CA. She said that it was possible to transfer calls if you climbed up the chain to a manager.
Here's that original call:
The call recording, available below, begins the moment she called me back (like 5 minutes later). She had been informed, in the first call, that I was recording her. I have edited the audio below to remove the long hold times. The original is 60 minutes, this one is cut down to 28 minutes (just the parts where I talk to the people, not the long hold times or music / PayPal propaganda). I used this opportunity to dig as far into PayPal records about me as possible.
If you would like to just hear the part where Josh, a 5 year veteran of PayPal, basically dispels all doublespeak by previous managers, just listen to this short snippet of the last 7 minutes of the "PayPal Extraction":
PayPal Transfer Policy (short form version)
Chad wins completely new award "Streamy" ("2nd annual")
So, in the midst of all this, they create this awards show and Chad has a couple interviews. In this one, he's arrogant and egotistical, in the other he is forced to respond to the question "How did you come up with that?" and talks about "everyone's asking that question tonight", of how he came up with the idea - which he dances around with his standard "I just wanted to focus on the basics" and "made it simple" ... it means more work for me - I have lots of micro-expressions to catalog from these two (one HD) interviews.
My favorite interview at the 2010 Streamys with Chad is one early interview that evening. Keep in mind that Chad has video depositions scheduled with us for May 6, 2010 at this point. He sort of mentions "we'll see how these things end up - see how these videos end up online ... see how many views they get" probably because they expected us to leak our depositions.
YouTube rolls out new PR, eliminating a video of Chad with Michael Lui (?) where Chad refers to people at his company as "minions" (who do his work for him because he's "just so busy"). In fact, he alludes to being "busy" in the HD Streamy interview: so busy in fact that we've had to delay repeatedly our court case out of what I can only describe as professional generosity.
I remember, when my attorney called me with yet another "delay" request by Google, which he had already agreed to (thus: I had agreed to it), I responded: "You have to learn to start saying 'No' to these people. This is definitely a tactic, and I'm not very happy that you've let them get away with this [yet another request for more time]. Tell them 'No', Britton."
Here's Kramer's letter, where he threatens Rule 11 and says I have no evidence to support my claim, that I'm obsessed with Google, and that we should dismiss the case.
Keep in mind, their previous attorney who was based in Pittsburgh (who Britt, my attorney, referred to as the "low man on the totem pole") seemed to believe my claims. We were very cordial and provided them with several months of extra time because they said they were "busy" or whatever.
This is where the reason of the law breaks down. How can you investigate if you're not permitted to unless you have investigated?
My friend and colleague, Dr. Vasco Pedro, who recently got his doctorate, owns and operates Bueda.com, a semantic-matching advertising platform. We connected on the fact that we had both talked to Sergey Brin once. Here's his testimony:
Dr. Pedro's corroboration * - note: the first 20 seconds are silent, so be patient...
Here's the letter my attorney sent Mr. Kramer.
Herb, If you have any questions about No Lie MRI, call. Joel Huizenga, CEO, No Lie MRI, California (858) 459-1211
The above line is from an email received 4/22/2010 - we tried this as a creative solution:
David H. Kramer
Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Re: Herbert Elwood Gilliland III vs. Chad Hurley and Steve Chen; Case No. 2:09-cv-01621-RCM
Dear Mr. Kramer:
In your letter of April 13, 2010 you make clear your opinion that my client is delusional and that the conversations and agreement on which he is suing your clients never occurred. In other words, you have suggested that your clients are truthful and mine is untruthful. Neither your opinions nor mine are of any value because we were not involved in the conception and founding of YouTube. Only Mssrs. Gilliland, Chen and Hurley know the truth about what really happened at the inception of the YouTube venture.
To test your assertion of what really happened (as well as mine on behalf of my client) I have a proposition. I propose that your clients and mine agree to undergo deception testing using the latest technology available, which relies on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combined with advanced brain mapping software utilizing specialized algorithms. The premier company offering this service, No Lie MRI, Inc, is located in San Diego. In the alternative, if you prefer, my client will agree to undergo a traditional polygraph examination along with Mr. Hurley and Mr. Chen. Regardless of the testing method used, both sides may submit a preset number of questions to the other side using a mutually agreeable neutral to ensure that the testing conditions and questions follow normal protocol. The results will be available to both sides after all three examinations are completed.
So, while we were preparing for the depositions to take place on May 6, 2010, Kramer was building up his legal blockade. I have to explain some things that were happening between April 4 and April 23. My attorney wanted to see whatever videos I had on YouTube. I attempted to use "private sharing" (a special hash-code is used to display the videos only to those with the unique hashed URL). My attorney, Mr. Monts, called and requested these hashed videos. I sent him the hashes. Keep in mind, YouTube was a buggy mess because they were rolling out their new design that few like.
Google's lawyers delayed us with claims of being busy. We agreed to extensions for them. It was all a ruse.
Then, Google threatened us with Rule 11 sanctions. My attorney had $3000 worth of airfare and hotel accommodations already purchased which were non-refundable. He was prepared to spend $15000 on the depositions, and we were going to leak them on YouTube. Lawyers from 3 different states were poised to descend on Palo Alto, CA. Then, Kramer called and accused them of ludicrous things, snagged my private YouTube videos and mailed them to the Judge, along with claims that I was delusional, dangerous and somehow out to hurt (physically) Chad and Steve.
The judge stayed the depositions and basically gave Google special privileges - he granted them a way to file a Rule 11 motion even though one couldn't be filed until several weeks after the depositions were to take place. I guess appearing in your bathrobe on your NASA memory foam couch in a YouTube video claiming to have invented YouTube appears "delusional" or "dangerous" . . . my attorneys, initially, were certain they would beat the Rule 11 filing, but the road ahead seemed tough. It still does. I deserve my little 1%.
Well, here are the stipulations of dismissal in all their glory.
The basic deal was:
They got: Let Chad assert he wasn't there one last time in a sworn declaration.
We got: Get out of the case, avoid paying for their court costs and exit cleanly. I paid about $600 and spent countless hours over 7 months (November 13, 2009 to May 13, 2009) digging through my files, debating with my legal team over minute details of what happened, 2 polygraph tests which showed I wasn't lying (or, rather, "believed" my own story), harassing former roommates for phone records and arguing with companies. Poor Attorney Monts spent half a million dollars and was prepared to spend even more. I never appeared in court, no jury will ever hear my testimony, no money will be awarded, and no official record will be made of any of the evidence I wanted to bring to light.
I wanted the case to continue. Attorney Monts wanted the case to continue. Attorney Monts, even after the case was dismissed, said he believed me and that he knew I was the guy who invented YouTube, the core business model and brand - and started the revolution that YouTube enabled. The other lawyers, Steve, Dave, and two colleagues of Monts, all voted for "withdraw as counsel" . . . I had little choice but to agree. To contest it would have cost more money than I had ($0 legal fund, what most Americans have), to continue without them the case would have cost considerably more than my net worth ($100,000 to depose a few people myself, plus subpoena costs, assuming the pressure of million dollar sanctions didn't drive me to suicide - Attorney Monts, 'Britt' at this point, strongly advised me not to continue pro se in a Federal lawsuit).
For the hopes that only you will believe me, further, I might pay for the fMRI deception detection test (on myself only, obviously, since they refuse to submit) regarding this matter, but it has become a moot point. I'll never receive dime 1 of the 1% from Chad, Steve, Jawed, Google or anyone else who isn't feeling charitable, even if it is the right thing for them to do.
Paraphrased by this video: Hiding a Zombie Bite
Ironic coincidence: Tribune Cancels Little Orphan Annie After 86 Years
I didn't lose the case, I merely backed out and on the way out the "stipulation" required by Google was to allow Chad to sign a sworn declaration. If I didn't drop out by May 17, 2010, Google would have moved to impose sanctions (fines) on my attorneys. My attorneys were attempting to withdraw as counsel, so that would have left only one attorney - myself - to absorb whatever costs. Without counsel and $100000 to complete discovery, I could not proceed. While some of my legal team wanted to continue forward, I was dealing with so much noise in my life that it made focusing on the case almost impossible given the circumstances. Google should have sought the truth, but their legal team was just there to bully us.
"I'm not being paid for this? [sic] It's not like you can make money on the Internet . . . it's just for some nerd you've never met in Palo Alto to make money . . ." - Conan
SAN FRANCISCO - YouTube has said that the number of videos watched daily at the website has broken the two-billion mark as the service begins celebrating its fifth birthday.
"Thanks to you, our site has crossed another milestone and now exceeds over two billion views a day," YouTube team members said in a blog post.
Google is flamboyant in its theft, and your local media is now owned by an international conglomerate
So in 2004, with Processing (Processing.org) I took the Processing object "DotsNotPipe" and converted it to color and released "DotsNotGoogle" ... it went viral in 2005-2006 until my website disappeared; today it showed up as the . No, they didn't ask permission or credit me and I didn't make the one that shows up on their page. I suppose, though, those "skeptics" will tell me I'm just doing this for the money and the fame - that it's only similar and thus not the same and therefore "logic" suggests it was Google's idea all along. I suppose those same skeptics won't believe that Google Instant stems from a 2007 conversation with . Months before Google Instant launched, Ron Bobonis of Hearst.com and I talked and he knows that I was able to leak Google Instant in advance, but he has refused to do a story on it before the announcement. He said something to the effect of "Yay, I get to be one of the people who refuses to help you" - he did have me send him this email the day of the "Google balls" event:
Yet another snag from my portfolio. I know you'll say I'm delusional, but I also know they did extensive investigation into all of my contact with Google and I'm sure they have recently reviewed a copy of this.