Last Updated: Sept. 19, 2015
January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December
| « 2001 |
2003 »
|
2002
According to Trepp’s later statement to Air Force investigators, Montgomery earned $192,000 from eTreppid in 2002. Search Case, ECF 70-7 at 14.
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, in 2002 Montgomery again offered Trepp his data streaming compression software for $5 million and Trepp again declined. Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(e).
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, in 2002, Montgomery "began to adapt to military applications on behalf of the Department of Defense, the Navy, the Air Force, and the [redacted]" multiple software program derived from the "ODS" [Object Detection System] he had developed between 1994 and Dec. 31, 2002 (i.e., all before he became an eTreppid employee). These programs were "mostly utilized in the war on terror between March 2003 and [2006]. Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(f).
Jan. 24, 2002
Montgomery assigns to eTreppid his
- “invention entitled "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING PATTERNS WITHIN ADJACENT BLOCKS OF DATA'', for which an application for Letters Patent of the United States was filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on October 31, 2001, under Serial No. 09/999,776” (see eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-12 at 90-110 and ECF 644-13 at 1-20); and
- “invention entitled "DATA GATHERING IN GAMES OF CHANCE'', for which an application for Letters Patent of the United States was filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 21, 2001, under Serial No. 09/991,531 (see ECF 644-13 at 44-55);
- invention entitled "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SIZE ADAPTATION AND STORAGE MINIMIZATION, SOURCE NOISE CORRECTION, AND SOURCE WATERMARKING OF DIGITAL DATA FRAMES", for which an application for Letters Patent of the United States was filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 21, 2001, under Serial No. 09/991,528 (see id. at 56-68)
- “invention entitled "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SIZE ADAPTATION AND STORAGE MINIMIZATION, SOURCE NOISE CORRECTION, AND SOURCE WATERMARKING OF DIGITAL DATA FRAMES", for which an application for Letters Patent of the United States was filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 21, 2001, under Serial No. 09/991,528 (see id. at 69-76)
- “invention entitled "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR STORING DIGITAL VIDEO CONTENT PROVIDED FROM A PLURALITY OF CAMERAS'', for which an application for Letters Patent of the United States was filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 21, 2001, under Serial No. 09/991,527” (see id at 77-88);
- “invention entitled "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING ALERT CONDITIONS IN A SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM", for which an application for Letters Patent of the United States was filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 21, 2001, under Serial No. 09/991,490 (see ECF 644-14 at 25-30);
- “invention entitled "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETECTING AND REACTING TO OCCURRENCE OF AN EVENT", for which an application for Letters Patent of the United States was filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 21, 2001, under Serial No. 09/990,868” (see id. at 31-42).
February 2002
Per Montgomery, he visits a government location in Florida for the purpose of demonstrating video compression. He was there four or five days and, while there, he also did a demonstration of object-tracking. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 158-59 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony). Upon his return to eTreppid he told Trepp about the results of both demonstrations. Id. at 159-60.
Mar. 3, 2002
Montgomery assigns to eTreppid his “an invention entitled, "Optical Encoding of Audio Data", for which an application for Letters Patent of the United States was filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on October 31, 2001, under Serial No, 10/033,537” See eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-12 at 82-89.
April
May
June
July
August
September
October-November, 2002
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration,
“Predator Project. USAF - November, 2002. In October - November, 2002, I developed a software program from my data streaming technology, . . . for use on the unmanned aerial vehicle, the "Predator." This program enabled the Predator to stream video at a much lower band width than it then used. The work was done pursuant to Contract # 2095458 originating in a Top Secret area at Eglin Air Force Base. My contacts included Colonel Rhys Macbeth, Thayne Wescoatt, Debora Moffitt, and Chris Crutchfield. . . . The foregoing individuals watched me as I demonstrated the application of the technology in the Predator program.”
Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 18.
November 2002
Per Montgomery, “[b]eginning on or about November, on behalf of the U.S. Air Force, Montgomery began work on military application of his technology at Eglin Air Force Base to demonstrate the application of his technologies on the war on terror. Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶ 36.
Per Montgomery, the “U.S. Air Force entered into its first contract with eTreppid in Nov. 2002, Contract No. 2095458, based on Montgomery’s technology. [Redacted], the Air Force, Navy, and other U.S. agencies have tested, approved, and utilized the technology in the war on terror, while knowing that only Montgomery knows the source codes that make the software functional. Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶ 37.
November 2002-March 2003
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration,
"[Predator Project. USAF] Between November 2002 and March, 2003, as a result of my work on the above Predator project, I discussed my object detection system ("ODS') with and/or interacted with numerous Air Force officers, consultants agents and officials, including but not limited to Major Paul Hastert, Capt Robert Lyons, Col. Rhys Macbeth, Peter Wiedemann, Col. Felder, Matt Belmonte, David Whigham and others in connection with testing to detect and/or track objects while streaming compressed unmanned aerial vehicle "Pointer" video for Predator. Warren Trepp also advised these and other officials that I had developed an “ODS” which could fulfill their tests."
Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 19.
"Between November, 2002 and January-February, 2003, Trepp explicitly requested me to use my "ODS," which obviously was then completely developed, {when even Trepp treated me as an independent contractor) to prove to the Air Force that I could detect and track objects inside streaming video. He agreed that if I passed the tests, he would "make a deal" with me either to purchase or license my "ODS" technology. The tests were 90% successful. I adapted my “ODS” system to use compressed streaming video on an unmanned aerial vehicle 'Pointer" to the ground and then to a central location while detecting and tracking objects on the ground. . . ."
Id.
December 2002
Per Montgomery's later testimony under oath, in December 2002 (while he was still an independent contractor), he completes some tests “on aircraft with the video compression. Aspects of these tests involve anomaly detection (and/or pattern recognition). eTreppid was paid approximately $280,000 for these tests. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 161-64 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
Per Montgomery, by the end of 2002, his technology was “complete” - and he (not eTreppid) owned it:
Q. At the end of 2002, when these teats were complete -- and as I understand your testimony, based in part on your anomaly detection and pattern recognition software; is that correct sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you still an independent contractor?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that technology complete?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you own it?
A. Yes.
ECF 644-21 at 164. Montgomery also testified as follows:
Q. And how many lines of code do they -- exist, Mr . Montgomery?
A. Half a million-plus.
* * *
Q. And are those lines -- are the source codes to access those lines of code also in your head?A. Yes.
Q. And are those the same -- is that the same anomaly detection software that you copyrighted back in 1982?
A. Yes.
Id. at 194. Montgomery further testified that he did not make any changes to the software at issue for the government contracts:
Q. . . .So -- and did you -- from time to times as the government was asking you to make additions or deletions or improvements to the -- as you call your source code, did you have to write additional code?
A. To the anomaly detection software?
Q. Yes.
A . No .
ECF 644-22 at 7.
Q. Okay. And then did you, after July, August of '03, write any additional source coder lines of code, to add to that original source code of pattern recognition that you loaded on your office computer in July and August?
A. For the detection?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
* * *
A. What you 're asking is, has the technology that is detecting the pattern or the anomaly been changed since it was at eTreppid? I think -- is that --
Q. Yes.
A. No .
Q. Thank you. So you haven't written any additional code, is that correct, to that?
A. For the actual detection?
Q. That 's correct.
A . No.
Id. at 23.
Q. Are you telling this Court that the contracts that were fulfilled by eTreppid were done -- were fulfilled solely by your pattern recognition and your anomaly detection software?
* * *
THE WITNESS ; You mean ever?
BY MR . PEEK: Yes, solely by your source code for anomaly detection and pattern recognition.
A. Yes.
Id. at 24.
| « 2001 |
2003 »
|
Comments