Unveiling Fujitsu

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