> From: P. Stephen Lamont
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:10 AM
> To: john.calkins@warnerbros.com
> Cc: Eliot I. Bernstein; Chuck N. Brunelas; david.colter@warnerbros.com; Mpegcto@aol.com;
chuck.dages@warnerbros.com; sbrower@sortlaw.com
> Subject: Your Response of February 20 ‐‐ Final Proposal
> Importance: High
<
> Dear John:
<
> Thank you, finally, for your recent reply to my inquiries. Moreover, I would have hoped
that your read of my email message sent on February 8 at 3:37 PM EST was a little more
diligent than it appears at present, so to refresh your memory, I have stated that Iviewit is
of a different opinion pertaining to unauthorized uses of Iviewit techniques by Warner Bros. and that differing view is evidenced by the numerous and documented executed contracts, memos, emails, meeting notes, and parole evidence currently in the company's possession, all of which I have had the opportunity to review at this point; hopefully, you had the support of your Board before you knowingly filled your response with misinformation, the nature of which can only astound one of comparable mind.
> Factually, any one of a number of present and past Iviewit employees, and any one of a
number of present or former Warner Bros. employees, whether by subpoena or cross examination at trial, would attest, lest they perjure themselves, that since February 2000, the
Iviewit/Warner Bros. dialogues were lessons in:
(i) disclosing patent pending techniques under that certain NDA dated August 14, 2000; (ii) instructing how to make the patent pending techniques disclosed under that NDA;
(i) disclosing patent pending techniques under that certain NDA dated August 14, 2000; (ii) instructing how to make the patent pending techniques disclosed under that NDA;
(iii) instructing how to use the patent pending techniques under that certain NDA; and (iv) that no, I repeat, no such video techniques existed on any Warner Bros. or affiliated sites prior to the dissemination of this information, and not orally with a wink and a nod I lastly remind you, but under NDA, an NDA executed by a Warner Bros. executive.
> Furthermore, presently I am surrounded by draft after draft of subsequently executed
documents, Warner Bros. authored memo after memo, Warner Bros. authored email after email,
meeting note after meeting note authored by both parties, and not the least compelling of
all, parole evidence that is in diametric opposition to your misinformed response of February
20. With this said, John, I ask you, and as we say in NY, "do you think I just fell off the
turnip truck?"
> Now therefore, and on behalf of Iviewit, I attach what amounts to a Final Proposal. Mind
you, Iviewit requires execution of said Final Proposal no later than Wednesday, March 6, 2002
at 5:00 PM EST, and should execution of said Final Proposal not be forthcoming Iviewit must
and shall, regretfully, seek its adequate remedy at law or in equity in protection of its
intellectual property at which time we shall allege that Warner Bros. has, inter alia,
misappropriated said intellectual property, conducted the prior unauthorized use, conducted the present unauthorized use, and plans the future unauthorized use, knowingly and willfully, in material breach of that certain NDA dated August 14, 2000.
> > <>
<
> Best regards,
<
> P. Stephen Lamont
> Chief Executive Officer, Director
> I View It Technologies, Inc."
