|  | ||||
|  | On November
           6, 2002 a US Federal District Court jury found Fujitsu guilty of damaging
           LinkCo as a consequence of misappropriating and using LinkCo's valuable
           intellectual property and acting in bad faith. | |||
|  | Mr. Hideki
           Kamijo testifies in a deposition on June 5, 2001 that Fujitsu is not 
           promoting and has no plans to develop products that are the subject of
           this litigation.  Mr. Toru Shibata, testifying in the name of Fujitsu,
           states that there are no revenues for two of the three products being
           litigated and, elsewhere, only a small amount for the third, despite
           a Press Release issued March 3, 1999 which projected 15 Billion Yen
           in revenues over the first three years. | |||
|  | Evasive
        measures were employed to evade detection in America of products'
        availability, features, and promotion.  However, it was important
        have these products visible in Japan, so some clever internet measures
        were employed to inform Japanese and evade Americans. These measures
        included printing English text white on a white background, hiding
        messages in cursor text (which isn't translated), using figures for
        key phrases, and employing Japanese homonyms (such as "disk rose"
        for "disclose") so as to elude search engine detection,
        translation engine translation, and American viewers' viewing. | |||
|  | Contrary
        to sworn testimony, subject products were being aggressively promoted
        before and during the trial in the form of major conferences.  These
        twelve examples of disguising (in images and cursor tags) the event of a
        major lead conference (before the trial) and the promotion of its eleven
        follow-on conferences throughout Japan (one of which occurred during
        the trial the others within 3 months thereafter). | |||
|  | Examples
        of substitution of product names and delegation of execution to obscure
        front organizations.  By doing this, it may have seemed that testifying that
        the products named were not producing revenue (because they had a different
        name) was acceptable.  However, this willful misleading is just as illegal in
        court as outright lying and both are considered perjury. | |||
|  | A
        discussion of a suite of capabilities to counter devious measures used on the internet.
        This could also have important application to economic espionage, the war on terror,
        and national security, generally. | |||
Copyright ©2005 
               LinkCo     
Glencoe, Illinois 60022 USA