Ronald J. Riley Sued By The Lawyer Who Copyrights Cease-And-Desist Letters
from the who-to-root-for? dept
If you read the comments on this site regularly -- especially concerning posts having to do with patents or the patent system -- you're probably quite familiar with a guy named Ronald J. Riley. He's quite the character. He's also quite the fan of the existing patent system. He's started a bunch of different "organizations" supposedly to protect the patent system, though there are plenty of accusations that Riley's main focus in life is getting unsuspecting inventors to give him money. Someone has even created a site cataloguing Riley's ridiculous statements. It's not clear what Riley has actually done in his life, but he has been effective over the years in using his made up organizations to give himself an air of legitimacy, which often gets him quoted in the press on patent issues, despite showing a consistently poor understanding of the process of innovation, technology and the patent system itself (for example, he believes the purpose is only to protect small inventors, not to promote overall innovation -- and he believes that anyone accused of patent infringement clearly "stole" the idea, even if they came up with it independently).Riley also has a history of being... well... a bit abrasive in comments on various sites all across the internet, including here at Techdirt. He enjoys personally insulting me or lying about me and does so on a regular basis (such as here and here for just a couple of examples). Most hilariously, he continually accuses me of somehow being on the payroll of companies who support the patent reform bill that keeps showing up in Congress every year, despite the fact I have clearly stated that I think the bill will make the situation worse rather than better. Riley is also famous for taking credit every time this same patent reform bill fails to move through Congress, ignoring that it's actually the powerful pharmaceutical industry lobbyists that kill it, not Riley. In the three plus years that he's been commenting here, Riley has never once had anything other than an insult or a lie to say about me.
Given all that, I can't believe that I'm actually about to defend him.
A few people have sent in the news that Ronald J. Riley is being sued by the Dozier Internet Law Firm. From Dozier's press release, the actual charges are not at all clear. The only thing listed in the press release is that "Riley's misconduct includes his attacking bloggers and blog and forum moderators with threats of getting IP addresses of anonymous bloggers and then tracking them down." Given the way Riley acts around here, those accusations don't seem particularly surprising -- but it's not clear what's illegal about them. Perhaps there is more to this lawsuit, and if so, Dozier should be much more forthcoming about it, because based on what's been described, it certainly seems like Dozier is just suing Riley because Riley is a pest. And while Riley may be a pest, may be insulting and may even be misleading, it's hard to see what's illegal about his activities. Despite the fact that he regularly insults me and lies about me, I have no problem with Riley posting his ridiculous messages -- as it just encourages others to show how clueless Riley is.
And, of course, Dozier is something of a piece of work himself. You may recall his name from when he tried to send an online review site a cease-and-desist letter that he claimed they could not post on their own site because it was covered by copyright. He later announced that courts had said cease-and-desist letter copyrights were acceptable, even though that turned out to be quite an exaggeration of what had actually happened.
So, here we have a lawyer who has repeatedly tried to silence critics with questionable use of copyright law, suing a patent system defender who throws around insults and lies like they're going out of fashion. These two were made for each other, so it's really difficult to root for one over the other -- but, based on the facts explained so far, it's difficult to see what Riley has done wrong, other than be an annoying jerk. And, even if that's annoying, it's still not illegal.
Update: In the comments, someone points out that the entire lawsuit filing is available on Dozier's website. Amusingly, it actually quotes one of RJR's comments here on Techdirt (though, the lawsuit doesn't mention where it's from). Basically, I stand by what I said originally. While Dozier does a good job outlining RJR's history and pattern of lies and mistruths, his ability to either make up organizations or surreptitiously recreate defunct organizations that had a good reputation, there's little in there that appears to be illegal. The only actual charges seem to be from highly questionable claims that RJR somehow infringes on Dozier's trademarks.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyrights, john dozier, lawsuits, patents, ronald j. riley
Companies: dozier
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Riley creates a mirror web-site to hide the truth!
Here is the original blogspot: http://ronaldjriley.blogspot.com
It has come to our attention that recently Riley has created a 'mirror' website of this blogspot. Why would Riley do this? To lower our search-engine rankings. Mirror sites cause the original website to suffer in search results. It is quite unbelievable that even Riley would stoop this low.
This action exemplifies Ronald J. Riley's desperation to hide the truth. He has created this mirror-site on his amexsux.com website:
ronaldjriley.blogspot.com/2006/06/few-of-rileys-websites-httpamexsux.html
Riley has a devious mind and he knows how to manipulate Google rankings. He has been reported for abuse to Google and to ICANN. He can't play fair, so he's learned how to cheat and deceive.
Maybe I'll hire Dozier to add copyright infringement onto Riley's long list of indictments and alleged fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Riley creates a mirror web-site to hide the truth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
God, he's practically a neighbor!
http://www.qualityschoolsnow.org/contact/
.... he practically lives in the same town as I do.
I checked with the Michigan State Bar on the off chance he's an attorney, he's not. He never claimed to be one, so I'm not calling him a liar or anything. He's just so passionate about this area of law I had to wonder if he was a patent attorney.
What I can't understand is why he's set up a website to sell quality school snow? And what's different from school snow from any other snow? Mmmm... Many questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: God, he's practically a neighbor!
I guess that practically makes us neighbors as well.
Whoulda thunk it?
On another thought. Considering we get plenty of our own snow here round these parts, why is he trying to sell it? How does that business fair during the summer?
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: God, he's practically a neighbor!
He's probably invented and patented a freeze-ray to accomplish this. Just a guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Life is good.
They are most deserving of one another. I hope the judge throws the book at both of them, as Ronnie J. will undoubtedly countersue for something. Does anyone know who his attorney is or is he standing pro se?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Step 1 of 3
Then we need Riley to try to sue them because of a patent over some part of the process.
Then the circle will be complete!
Muhuhahaha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Step 1 of 3
You need Fish and Rice to make Sushi--Sushi K!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do Unto Others
I too have witnessed him lying about Mike and even extending the insults to Mike's family too. Can't wait to see his comments on this particular article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do Unto Others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
paid entertainment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: paid entertainment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: paid entertainment
I don't know if I want to be THAT big of an asshole though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What cracks me up is the headline from the linked article: "Largest Website for Inventors Sued by Internet Lawfirm", referring to InventorEd. Riley's site hasn't been updated in almost a year, hasn't listed donors for 4 years, and looks like it was designed by a 12 year old using FrontPage. I'm not sure where Riley spends the donation money (since he refuses to disclose), but it certainly isn't his websites.
It would be interesting if the lawsuit required some type of disclosure on Riley's part, if only to show the people he continually solicits donations from where it's being spent. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if he uses it to pay for his defense.
In any case, it looks like the lawsuit, much like Riley's blog posts, are a sad joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron Riley Lies
http://www.dozier-internetlaw.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ron Riley Lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ron Riley Lies
No. Lying in campaign ads isn't illegal either.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/rendell-the-big-lie-strategy/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When sharks run out of food . . .
When sharks run out of things to eat, they eat each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do I know that Guy?
Is this the guy with the 20-line signature where he holds 10 jobs and is the proprietor of Hair Club For Men franchises?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do I know that Guy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good for you mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, Mike, you're mentioned! Plus, Why They're Actually Suing
Riley, without the funds to advertise, undertook several years ago a unique, clandestine "advertising" campaign to gain national attention and recognition... While feigning to be an inventor industry whistle blower, Riley undertakes campaigns to have his many websites show up when competitors are sought out online. These campaigns are executed under a three tactic approach: attacking competitors through the publication of defamatory and outrageous accusations on blogs, forums and social networking sites; launching "sucks" sites against competitors programmed so his websites appear when the company is searched, and often containing trademark infringing uses of the competitor's name; and launching "sucks" websites attacking non-inventor or entrepreneur industry businesses for the purpose of generating attention, which leads to a higher ranking on the search engines, more traffic to Riley's sites, and more "marks" for him to solicit. Remarkably, Riley let slip his motivation, already obvious to experienced bloggers: "So I am not here to convince Mike about anything. The reason I drop in is to take advantage of the fact that his outrageous comments draw potential inventor supporters. So by spending a small amount of time on the sites which are stooging for the Piracy Coalition I attract new solders to our side."
and
J. "The ability to publish anonymously is a proud American tradition. The Federalist Papers were authored anonymously, and carried great weight. Additionally, you have previously shown a tendency to make false accusations against those who question your credentials, so posting anonymously to prevent it is perfectly logical." (Moderator at Techdirt.com)
This was found in a copy of the court documents found on-line at the Dozier Internet Law website, by the way.
Oh yeah and the lawsuit is about the hyperlinks that Ronnie J. posts when talking crap about Dozier Internet Law. Apparently they lead, not to Dozier, but to Dozier's competitors and sometimes Ronnie J's personal websites, leading to actual confusion, including initial interest confusion, and has been likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake and deception as to the source or origin of the goods or services of Dozier Internet Law. They also say that Ronnie J.'s 'diversion of traffic is similar to a department store using the name of a major competitor on its outdoor signage. Once a consumer has been lured to enter the wrong store, the consumer has been confused, and any consumer seeing the sign is likely to be confused by this false and misleading advertising and trademark infringement.
So I guess I can see thier point, but still think this is oh, so, hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hands off Ronald Riley
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hands off Ronald Riley
Ronald Riley has my balls on his desk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hands off Ronald Riley
I will have you eat your balls, little techdirt lemming punk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hands off Ronald Riley
I think my personality may have split!
(Just like my balls left me after that horrible coding accident, where I got fired!)
Shit, am *I* a punk too?
Guess I am. Screw you all, cause I can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hands off Ronald Riley
How are you going to accomplish that ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hands off Ronald Riley
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hands off Ronald Riley
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hands off Ronald Riley
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copy of lawsuit against Ronald J. Riley
http://www.dozier-internetlaw.org/ (or click on name above)
Riley's freedom of speech is NOT the issue here. The issue is cyber-bullying (now illegal in many States). Riley is a Cyber-Bully if ever there was one. He could be the poster child. IMO here are the issues that Riley must overcome:
1) commercial disparagement;
2) slander & libel;
3) copyright & trademark infringement;
4) misrepresentation of invention services;
5) offering patent advice without a law license;
6) offering to help inventors market their inventions without complying with State & Federal law.
7) not disclosing all income received;
8) misrepresentation as a non-profit organization;
9) Cyber-Bullying and;
10)misrepresentation of his credentials to Federal & State authorities.
In my opinion, Dozier is not suing Riley because he is a pest. There's so much more information you need to be aware of.
Riley has been accepting 'donations' of sizeable amounts (some believe in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars) for the last 15 years. These 'contributions' come from unsuspecting inventors and others, who truly believe in his expertise as a successful inventor.
Riley has no financial success as an inventor, and no true expertise in the field. He's not a lobbyist and not a graduate of MIT. In other words, anyone could create a website with publicily available patent information, and pretend to be a patent expert (and rake in 'donations').
Why do you think he blogs here - and on countless other high-ranking blogs? To increase his Google rankings! Have you noticed the huge number of links he deposits here regularly? It's all about keeping his websites at the top of Google pages. He has no interest in what you're saying, nor any interest in having an intelligent discussion with you. If you've tried replying to any of his posts, he'll either attack your views, or ramble-on about some other ridiculous subject. He answers you this way, so he can use 'key words' that are picked up by the search-engines. The recent post by "Annonymous Coward" shows that (he) understands Riley's M.O. - and Mike should also.
Here's some "straight-talk": Riley is using high-ranking blogs - like Techdirt- to create additional links that boost the visibilty of his websites. His strategy of creating links, keeps his Google rankings high - and the higher his rankings - the more traffic he brings to his websites. For Riley it's a numbers game - and, the more traffic he brings to his websites - the more money he receives in the form of 'donations'. This is Riley's underlying motive for blogging on HIGH-Ranking Blogs. This is his real motive, and the desired result is to receive the maximum number of 'donations'.
You must understand that Riley is only interested in cashing-in on a Patent system that doesn't work. He has learned how to take advantage of it, and pretends to be an advocate for inventors. He has led many people to believe that he can help them market their inventions. He has probably circumvented the invention marketing laws by mis-categorizing the money he receives as (non-taxable) 'donations' - instead of (taxable) fees. The same Federal agencies that he claims to work with (The FTC and the IRS), should be looking into Riley's methods of operation and accounting practices.
As the Dozier lawsuit states, he was living in a mobile home in 1990, and saw an opportunity to make some money. He has become a master at keeping his 'search engine' rankings high, and drawing people onto his websites. Since Riley is always attacking invention marketing companies, most people are led to believe that Riley is fighting for their side. However, with all his fake credentials and who's-who nonsense, it is easy for Riley to convince people that he is a successful inventor. It would interesting to know what he tells people about his invention marketing abilities.
Now, for the cynics out there - I do not work for Dozier, nor do I care who wins the lawsuit. The important point is that Ronald J. Riley is being unmasked as a nobody who is pretending to be a Patent expert.
If Dozier had not sued Riley, someone would have sued him eventually. He may have fooled most of the people, most of the time - but, fortunately, he will not be fooling anyone any longer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copy of lawsuit against Ronald J. Riley
Sorry, but you're wrong. The issue is trademark infringement, not fraud, so most of your "points to overcome" don't actually need to be addressed. While it would be somewhat gratifying to force Riley to disclose his organizations' finances and fight off fraud charges, that isn't what Drozier is suing over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copy of lawsuit against Ronald J. Riley
The only causes for action in the lawsuit are trademark infringement. So... uh... no.
Riley has been accepting 'donations' of sizeable amounts (some believe in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars) for the last 15 years. These 'contributions' come from unsuspecting inventors and others, who truly believe in his expertise as a successful inventor.
That's not what he's charged with. And it's questionable as to whether or not his soliciting donation is illegal, no matter how obnoxious.
Riley has no financial success as an inventor, and no true expertise in the field. He's not a lobbyist and not a graduate of MIT. In other words, anyone could create a website with publicily available patent information, and pretend to be a patent expert (and rake in 'donations').
To be honest, I'm not sure what financial success as an inventor would qualify him for in this scenario. Why should that matter?
Why do you think he blogs here - and on countless other high-ranking blogs? To increase his Google rankings! Have you noticed the huge number of links he deposits here regularly? It's all about keeping his websites at the top of Google pages
If he does so, it will fail, since all our links are nofollowed.
Besides, what's illegal about that anyway?
Look, we all agree that he's annoying, a liar and something of a jerk. I'm one of his regular targets, so I'm the last person in the world who would jump to defend him. But I still can't see what he's done here that's illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copy of lawsuit against Ronald J. Riley
Essentially, it seems like what you're saying is that he's a pest for a variety of reasons and you'd like to see him go, hence the suit. Just out of curiousity, are you affiliated with Dozier Internet Law and, if so, how are you affiliated with them?
Don't get me wrong, I think Ronnie J. is an asshat and I agree that he's a pest but I don't see how removing his postings would help anyone, especially the owners of the blogs in question, as it could possibly remove some of their Safe Harbor protections.
Honestly, his sites are all so juvenile and crappy that anyone with good sense would immediately know that he's a fraud so, really, who cares how high his Google ranking are? Not me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copy of lawsuit against Ronald J. Riley
In this case, even though the matter refers to Trademark infringement, you are witnessing the first thread of the Riley machine coming loose. This lawsuit is probably just a first step in the unraveling of Riley's million-dollar scheme/charade. So, even though you may think that Dozier is just defending a Trademark - there may be more serious allegations that will follow.
This issue is NOT about expressing opinions on blogs. That's not what is going on here. The First Ammendment protects everyone who expresses an opinion on a blog.
Think of it this way: Al Capone could only be found gulity of tax evasion.....get it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copy of lawsuit against Ronald J. Riley
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copy of lawsuit against Ronald J. Riley
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DanC - You didn't read the post
"3) copyright & trademark infringement;"
I'm sorry, but you are wrong - this is just the beginning of Riley's undoing - and the other 7 claims will become pertinent very soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DanC - You didn't read the post
I read your whole post. Apparently you didn't read mine correctly. I said:
The issue is trademark infringement, not fraud, so most of your "points to overcome" don't actually need to be addressed.
One half of a single point in a list comprised of 10 items falls under the exception provided by the word "most" in the preceding statement.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong
Nope, sorry. 9.5 of the claims in your list have nothing to do with a trademark dispute.
this is just the beginning of Riley's undoing - and the other 7 claims will become pertinent very soon.
They may become pertinent in another lawsuit perhaps, but we're dealing with the one that has been filed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you say "Narcissistic personality disorder"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If You've Been Harrassed By Riley....
ronaldjriley_complaints@activist.com
All emails will be kept strictly confidential. Not associated with Dozier or this lawsuit. Thanks, Penny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop the shilling!!!
If what you are saying is that the offense should be mitigated where someone comes up with the idea independently, morally I would agree, but that does not make a difference in the eyes of the law. The patent is issued to the first to invent. I would also add that in many cases where the infringing party did develop the idea independently, they most probably will be given the opportunity to stop infringing before legal action ensues. If they choose not to stop, they are inviting a suit.
Regarding your statement that Riley “consistently (shows a) poor understanding of the process of innovation, technology and the patent system itself"; I propose a competition. Let’s have the AIPLA, LES, or some other inventor/licensing/law organization prepare an oral or written exam and see how his knowledge compares to say...you. Would you accept?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
If the idea is independently created by several people, it's most likely an obvious idea and not really patentable, as I understand it. Being the first guy to the office is not really a virtue in the eyes of the law.
Just because a patent is issues does not mean that it is non-obvious or even that there's not extensive prior art. There have been many cases where someone has gotten a patent and then that patent has been overturned when it was shown to be obvious or had too much prior art.
Your whole tone makes me wonder... Are you Ronnie J., the asshat? I'd bet you are...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stop the shilling!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
No, stv, that's not what I said. I said he claims they *STOLE* the idea. Surely you can read what I wrote.
Yes, it may be infringement, but Riley says they stole it, and that's clearly incorrect.
Regarding your statement that Riley “consistently (shows a) poor understanding of the process of innovation, technology and the patent system itself"; I propose a competition. Let’s have the AIPLA, LES, or some other inventor/licensing/law organization prepare an oral or written exam and see how his knowledge compares to say...you. Would you accept?
Sure. I have no problem doing that. But only if he also accepts taking a similar quiz written by an economist like David Levine.
The problem isn't with understanding the specifics of the patent system and how it works -- it's with understanding the actual IMPACT of the patent system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trademark
What is interesting to me is that Riley's writing style - which is not unique to him. Unfortunately I am not sufficiently educated in these matters to put my finger on exactly what it is that makes this type of writing stand out. The common factors seem to be an aggressive writing style where words and concepts are routinely misused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the I-can-hardly-believe-my-eyes-department.
As regards all the allegations that he is trying to profit personally thereby are totally ludicrous, in my opinion, as he has consistently taken significant amounts of money out of His pocket to help other inventors. I don't know specifically how much or why, but having communicated with him over several years, I can assure you that he has probably seen a loss every year for his efforts. For those that don't know, Mr. Riley is a very prolific and successful inventor, which is probably why he is so passionate about it, and why anonymous cowards are so quick to jump all over him.
BTW... The Angry Dude is probably a prominent patent attorney or clever agent that doesn't want to sully his reputation by rolling around in the muck with the clueless bloggers that routinely pat each other or Mike on the back here, which I happen to find somewhat pathetic. Don't any of you guys have a job?
That being said, I applaud Mike for his intelligence and willingness to discuss things in an impartial manner, and to avoid all the emotional dreck that seems to be so common on this blog. Like Ron, he at least gets the juices flowing, even if I don't happen to agree with his premises or conclusions.
Perry Mason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the I-can-hardly-believe-my-eyes-department.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the I-can-hardly-believe-my-eyes-department.
No, the real reason why he gets jumped on is because he never attempts to back up his claims with anything other than "because I said so", has continually lied about Mike and others, uses ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with him, and has shown repeatedly that he has no interest in trying to have a rationale conversation. He also portrays himself as a patent "expert" despite having no legitimate references to support such a claim.
Instead, he posts inaccurate propaganda, and insinuates that anyone who disagrees with him is affiliated with a big corporation. As Riley himself has stated, the only reason he posts on blogs is in an attempt to solicit donations for his multiple organizations.
BTW... The Angry Dude is probably a prominent patent attorney or clever agent that doesn't want to sully his reputation by rolling around in the muck with the clueless bloggers that routinely pat each other or Mike on the back here, which I happen to find somewhat pathetic. Don't any of you guys have a job?
Angry dude is yet another annoyance, not unlike Ron himself, who refuses to discuss the topics, but prefers to resort to lies and pathetic insults. In fact, he tends to use the same tactics Mr. Riley does, which is why he tends to receive similar treatment. Being a blog troll isn't clever.
Like Ron, he at least gets the juices flowing, even if I don't happen to agree with his premises or conclusions.
Unlike Ron, Mike actually backs up his claims with logic, basic economics, studies and reports.
But the Dozier case looks ridiculous, especially since Ron's websites are such a mess to begin with. It appears that Dozier is just trying to get some references to a past SLAPP lawsuit removed from his site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the I-can-hardly-believe-my-eyes-department
No one would utter such nonsense other than Riley himself - good try Ron.
"the fact still remains that he has helped hundreds of inventors see the bigger picture, and drastically improved their odds of being successful inventors."
Who are these inventors Riley has helped - specifically? How has he improved their odds of success? by reading the information on your InventorEd website - which is available on fifty other websites? You're still exaggerating Ron. Maybe you have passion for Patent reform, but why all the fake credentials such as:
1) successful inventor,
2) invention advocate,
3) lobbyist,
4) journalist,
5) engineer and graduate of MIT,
6) President and Executive Director of countless non-functioning and ineffective organizations,
7) prestigious claims of close associations with powerful people you've never met.
How can you (Riley) reform the US Patent system? Nothing - Absolutely Nothing. I may be passionate about changing the Canadian medical system, but I don't pretend to have any influence in government - and I don't collect donations for claiming I can change the system. I also don't create fake organizations and use false credentials to deliberately deceive people into donating money for a cause I'm not qualified to fight for. I also don't try fooling the media, people in government, and those who are genuinely seeking expertise. I don't represent myself as having success when I have none.
"he has consistently taken significant amounts of money out of His pocket to help other inventors."
How do you know? More baloney - good try Ron.
"I can assure you that he has probably seen a loss every year for his efforts."
How do you know? Have you seen his tax returns? Very clever Ron.
"Mr. Riley is a very prolific and successful inventor"
Ha! Nobody but Riley himself would use the word "prolific" while describing his 'stature'. What the heck is prolific about him? And - where, oh where, are his inventions selling?
"The Angry Dude is probably a prominent patent attorney or clever agent that doesn't want to sully his reputation by rolling around in the muck with the clueless bloggers that routinely pat each other or Mike on the back here, which I happen to find somewhat pathetic."
Only Riley would use the word "muck", and only Riley accuses people randomly - like saying Angry Dude is a patent attorney. Notice his phrasology - pure Riley-esque. Riley likes to label his critics with "they are probably this or that" (of course, you're a personal enemy of Ron's if you dare disagree with him).
"Don't any of you guys have a job?"
And that's the kicker - a typical Riley euphemism - gottcha. Ron - you're so obvious - and so good at faking your own defense.
I was waiting for you to show-up here with your usual nonsense, exaggerations, and misleading comments.
Maybe you should ask Mike to track down all the IP addresses on this blog, so you can sue all of us - or report us to Big Brother. Maybe a 'Slapp suit' against everyone on this blog would be appropriate? - or better yet - how about a class action suit?
Ron - if there was anything about you that was legit, true or real - most people would be on your side. But, you're the worst kind of imposter - you constantly threaten others and accuse people of misrepresenting themselves - when you -are the biggest fake of all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the I-can-hardly-believe-my-eyes-department
Riley has two patents on a useless consumer technology for exercise tredmills (5820525, 5707319). Both of these patents were obsolete before they were published. But of greater importance, there is no need for these insignificant improvements which only increase costs. Any treadmill manufacturer in their right mind would never consider this - which is exactly what happened. He couldn't take the rejection and began his corporate hate campaign.
Mr Riley has 5 patents pertaining to rail transportation (4892980, 4919057, 4924164, 48984521, 553260) four of which were assigned to J. N. Fauver Company in Michigan. This is the only deal Riley ever had and it was scrapped by the company. This is also where his hatred for corporations began. Riley believed that he cornered the market for highspeed rail technology.
The truth is that this frist-semister, jr. college drop-out couldn't engineer a highspeed rail improvement if it was a divine gift.
Obviously these patents were never produced and they were never brought to market. Riley has no experience, no success and no credentials. He is an incompetent loser that could not live with his failure so he lashes-out at everything. He is an angry little man who finds revenge bullying while he hides behind his keyboard.
Legislation needs to be enacted against Nut-cases like Riley. His neurosis has no place in IP, invention or the business environment.
Good luck to Dozier, may Ron Riley Rest in Torment (more then he is in now).
Sincerely,
Truth-Is-Out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ronald J. Riley & Bob Lougher
So, the question must be asked, does Bob Lougher's organization UIAUSA.com take money from inventor's in the same way that Riley's organizations appear to? The Attorney General of Michigan (Riley's State) and Attorney General of New York (Lougher's State) should launch an inquiry into the questionable activities of PIAUSA. org (Riley's group) and UIAUSA.com (Lougher's group).
The FTC should investigate this new (and very clever) practice of invention organizations accepting huge "donations" from inventors and others. What the heck are all these donations being used for? and, is the money being reported to the IRS?
It is interesting to note, that on the Lougher UIAUSA.com website - his name is nowhere to be found. Cleverly, he has made his wife the front-woman for him. Why are you hiding Bob? Why don't you list all your impressive "credentials"? Are you afraid that someone will find out who you really are? How does it feel to be exposed like Riley?
Someone should also investigate the "history" of UIAUSA.com, because it smells just as awful as Riley's scheme. I would guess that Bob Lougher has done what Riley did: taking the name of a formerly reputable organization, and using its prior reputation as credibility to front as a new legitimate entity (but, with very different intentions). By hiding behind the name of a defunct - once reputable organization - the new administrators (usually high-pressure salesman) can prey upon the innocent inventor and extract thousands of dollars from him.
How is this possible? Let's look at the type of "donations" Lougher wants you give to him for "supporting" UIAUSA:
Corporate Sponsor Gold: More than $10,000.00
Silver: $10,000.00
Bronze: $ 5,000.00 - $9,000.00
Sponsorship: $5,000.00
Patron: $2,000.00 per YEAR
Banner ads: $500.00 every (3) months or $1500.00 per year.
And this is just the beginning. UIAUSA offers patent searches, marketing evaluations, and all kinds of invention marketing services - just like the invention-scam artists they are denouncing! So much for taking the moral high-ground, and warning inventors about all the scams out there!
They are also trying to circumvent the invention development laws by claiming a non-profit status. Meanwhile, PIAUSA and UIAUSA are NOT exempt from State & Federal regulations, and should be pursued by the FTC. One day Lougher and his "Board of Directors" will suffer the consequences for trying to out-maneuver the government. It's no wonder Bob Lougher keeps his name off he UIAUSA webiste!
UIAUSA claims to have (5) success stories about successful inventions that no one has heard of. The FTC should investigate whether any of these people ever made a dime as a result of buying UIAUSA's services.
UIAUSA is selling patent searches for $550 with the disclaimer that they can renegotiate this price if they want to. Usually non-profit organizations do not sell patent searches to the public - and if they do, they are not allowed to split fees with patent attornys performing the patent search. If UIAUSA is "fee-splitting" with patent lawyers;, the US Patent and Trademark office (Dept. OED) should be notified immediately.
For $312 they will sell you a marketing evaluation which tells you about your possible chances of commercializing your invention. However, instead of calling your payment - 'a fee'; they call it "an investment". This investment buys you worthless written material and some guesswork about your possibility of success(in percentages!).
Considering the fact that 98% of all patents fail (that's 2% out of approx. 6M) - your chances of success are not very good. In fact, your chances of success are much better if you try to market your invention yourself. Just hire a legitimate patent lawyer and a find company to build a prototype. Next, identify companies that could manufacture your product, and contact them to see if they'll set-up a meeting with you (most large companies have strict policies about NOT accepting outside inventions). If you're fortunate enough to find a company who will meet with you, ask them to sign a confidentiality (non-disclosure) agreement (which your patent attorney will provide for you)After the company signs this non-disclosure form - you can meet with the company (along with your attorney) and disclose the details of your invention (bring your working prototype with you). If the company is interested, let your patent attorney negotiate with the company (you always have the right to accept or reject any deal). But, don't be greedy, and listen to your attorney's advice.
Now - THAT's HOW YOU DO IT. Anyone - who tells you otherwise, is either a fool, or is trying to rip you off!!!!
So, you certainly don't need UIAUSA to take your hard-earned money. All you'll be buying is the old invention-development model that is preying on your hopes and dreams. It's the oldest trick in the 'invention-marketing scam' book!
Now - what the heck is UIAUSA doing with all these donations of $10,000, 5,000, 2,000 per annum? and what about all these other "investments" that they are lining their pockets with?
Does it cost 'hundreds of thousands' of dollars to run a non-profit website? No, it costs about $20 a month for web-hosting these days. WHERE IS THE REST OF THE MONEY GOING? Maybe it's going directly into the pockets of the invisible Bob Lougher and associates? Sounds right - "The simplest answer is usually the correct one" (Occam's Razor).
And finally, the public needs to understand that this age-old invention marketing scam has taken a new form. Now, the game (for former invention-marketing salesmen) is to form a non-profit organization, work with a retired oddball patent lawyer, and offer the same old one-two punch: $300 for a boilerplate invention evaluation, and then $3,000 - $30,000 for a marketing program (leading to a guaranteed failure).
Now listen: these invention marketing programs do not work -they have never worked - and they will never work.
And now - unfortuantely - a new, sad day has dawned in the invention-development world. These huxsters have figured-out a way to gain the inventor's trust and collect huge donations from the unsuspecting inventor. And, so here are the state-of-the-art deceptions: PIAUSA.org (Ronald J. Riley) and UIAUSA.com (Bob Lougher).
This is only my opinion - you decide for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ronald J. Riley & Bob Lougher
Most of your obvious lies are not worth responding to. If you had done any kind of research (even a simple google search) you would have discovered that Stephen Gnass of Pasadena, CA was the person behind "The Invention Convention." I would be happy to take the credit for this function but it would be unfair to Mr. Gnass.
Since you know so very little about the legitimate side of the invention community, I can only assume that you are from the other side. Your extreme ignorance was my first clue. Are your initials "BW"? We know it is not Alice B. or Anita F.
Under normal circumstances, I would have ignored such dribble and continued my well-earned retirement. In this case, I am making you and this Website the exception. Your statement "It is interesting to note, that on the Lougher UIAUSA.com Website - his name is nowhere to be found. Cleverly, he has made his wife the front-woman for him." demonstrates your total lack of integrity. This deliberate act of slander will not go unpunished. I have contacted my attorneys and instructed them to go forward with legal actions. Freedom of speech is not a freedom to slander.
One last note for the record. For my retirement, I am retired from the US Air Force with nearly 30 years of service and I am a disabled Vietnam veteran. My wife is also retired from the US Air Force and we both receive Social Security. I have never had a need or desire to steal from anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ronald J. Riley & Bob Lougher
Enjoyed your article.
Through all this stuff,InventorED,without reference to anything else,has provided extensive information for possible scams for apprentice inventors.That's a big deal.
At a time when there hasn't been anything else as accessible.
This is big mitigation,and is being overlooked.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Regards
Adam Clifford[would be inventor]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction to above post: uiausa.ORG - NOT uiausa.COM
http://uiausa.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on that point about Riley and Lougher
http://www.inventionconvention.com/successtimonials/robertlougher.html
"Lougher, an inventor himself, was involved in a devastating fraud and he thereby started the Inventors Awareness Group, Inc. (IAG)".
Most inventors do not realize it, but when they display their inventions without first filing a patent; they can lose their patent rights. When proprietary information is readily available to the public, it is no longer proprietary. There are serious dangers when disclosing the details of an invention in a public forum. Lougher knows about this, but he is charging big fees to sell booths, and this is all he cares about.
Any corporate attendee at "The Invention Convention" can copy or steal an inventor's idea and not pay them a dime. In fact, there is absolutely no benefit for an unpatented invention to be showcased in public. Bob Lougher has "invented" a convention that benefits no one but himself. By exposing unpatented inventions in public, inventors are paying Lougher a fee for the privilege of jeopardizing their patent rights.
Lougher's experience as an invention marketing salesman has come in very handy. To pump-up the inventors egos at his convention, he offers 1st, 2nd and 3rd place awards for the "best" inventions. He has even convinced the media that he is an expert on invention promotion. This is what happens when a novice creates a believable image. The image, of course, is an illusion.
If inventors want to pay big fees for entertaining themselves and showing-off their pet projects, then the Invention Convention will fulfill their needs. But, if inventors are serious about licensing inventions, they are wasting their money by giving it to Lougher. The whole concept of an Invention Convention makes no sense, and every patent lawyer knows it. As an analogy, it would be like the government having a "Top Secret" convention, so all the other countries could steal our most advanced future technologies.
But, there goes Bob Lougher - he's laughing all the way to the bank with big fees he has collected from the naive' inventor!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Penny Ballou is next
Together they generate insufficient income to file taxes and have been unwilling to disclose the use of donated funds. We have never found Riley claims to be true and no source political or otherwise claim to have received funds from Riley for the purpose of furthering any inventor cause.
Based upon their income levels it is now suspected that both Riley and Bellou use funds for personal bills in hopes of perpetuating the scam and finding a wealthy unsuspecting inventor who will donate large sums."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Penny Ballou is next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Penny Ballou is next
I'm a would be inventor and discovered the value of internet forums for inventors,and other online information resources for inventors.
I would check things out with InventorEd-never felt obligated or manipulated in any way,and Penny Ballou would appear on some of the forums,warn people there about some dubious outfits,and give some useful advice/information,and is appreciated,as has been InventorED.
She never promoted anything.
That's exactly how it's been,so I'm gobsmacked by what's going on here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dozier v Ron Riley
There is no reason to believe that American Express would permit Ron Riley to use their trademark in a print ad in the New York Times for the intention of driving traffic to his business. And there is no reason to believe that Riley, or anyone, can infringe trademarks in Meta Tags to profit from a corporate owned trademark. Some apparently confuse this infringement with free speech. Meta Tag use of trademarks or copyrights are not free speech. In fact, Riley has a lot of valuable trademarks in Meta Tags: American Express, Dell, Skippy, Northwest, Comp USA, Leap Frog, among others.
This is only the start because a Meta Tag is a core trademark issue that violates the rights a trademark provides. And it allows Riley to profit from the use of trademarks that are owned by others. In this case I would expect (and hope) this to be a much greater problem (and expense) for Riley. I am certain that if American Express, Dell, Skippy, Northwest, Comp USA, Leap Frog, among others, knew Riley was capitalizing on their Trademarks they would take the same action. The question is do they know?
If you don't think trademark infringement is serious then violate Mattel's Barbie trademark with a Meta Tag, but only if Mattel knows of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dozier v Ron Riley
Why is that surprising? I'm guessing you're new around here and have not read my views on trademark law. But rather than be surprised, you might want to try looking around at what I've written.
If Riley used a Meta Tag for American Express or Skippy he would be shut down in a flash, that is if American Express or Skippy learned of it. A Meta Tag is like using a flashing billboard to attract American Express and Skippy traffic to Ron Riley web sites. That would not be tolerated in print, advertising or any media or even the phone book. However since many trademark and copyright infringement issues have not been tested with respect to Internet use, the case law is not absolutely defined, though trademark law appears to be very clear on this issue.
There's so much wrong with that I don't know where to start. First, meta tags are now meaningless. No search engine still uses them. They do nothing. They're not a flashing billboard for anything. Second, they're not trademark infringements in any way, as they do nothing to confuse the consumer into being mislead.
There is no reason to believe that American Express would permit Ron Riley to use their trademark in a print ad in the New York Times for the intention of driving traffic to his business.
As long as it was used in a way that does not cause confusion, there would be no trademark infringement to speak of. You are allowed to compare yourself to American Express without trademark infringement, for example.
Honestly, your comment is about 5 years out of date.
Meta tags are meaningless.
Go read Eric Goldman (a real expert on this field) to understand how pointless meta tags are as an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lawyers and truth
--Glenn
8}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob Lougher
"The Invention Convention should be a national prototype for all invention shows to follow. It had all the elements that makes a show successful. What was especially dear to our hearts were the independent inventors that did successfully obtain licensing agreements with manufacturers.
Sincerely,
Robert Lougher, President"
FOLLOWED BY:
"Lougher, an inventor himself, was involved in a DEVASTATING FRAUD and he thereby started the Inventors Awareness Group, Inc. (IAG)...."
http://www.inventionconvention.com/successtimonials/robertlougher.html
By the way, what 'ideas' were licensed by individuals at this convention (that were so dear to your heart?) How many 'ideas' were displayed that were unpatented? You are obviously aware that any 'inventors' displaying their 'ideas' without patent protection have lost their patent rights by exhibiting these 'ideas' in the public domain. Why do you endorse this practice?
What was "the devastating fraud you were involved in?" How much money did you take from inventors before pretending to be a good guy?
As for your lame legal threats - talk to your good friend Ronald J. Riley about the First Ammendment - he's an expert on the subject as you undoubtedly know.
As for UIAUSA - please understand that we would love to take a look at its documentation in a 'discovery' process - then we'll see who goes unpunished. Here are some questions that have been prepared by our attorneys:
Please state the total amount of money you received from inventors while you were involved in a "devastating invention marketing fraud". Did you return the money you took under false pretenses to the people you defrauded? Why didn't you turn yourself in to the authorities?
How many inventor clients have paid or 'donated' money to UIAUSA?
How many have made more money than they paid or 'donated'?
Please name the total number of successful inventions that UIAUSA has developed and where these inventions are selling?
Please state the percentage of income that UIAUSA has received from fees or donations, versus royalties from sucessful inventions.
Since you claim to be an inventor yourself - please state how much money you have received in royalties from your own successful inventions.
What has been the extent of your relationship with UIAUSA? What kind of relationship do you have currently with UIAUSA and its employees, directors, consultants (full and part-time), and any other individuals or organizations involved either directly or indirectly with UIAUSA?
What is the extent of your relationship with Ronald J. Riley? Please provide copies of all documentation and correspondance between you and Ronald J. Riley.
Finally, what credentials do you have in the field of researching, developing, marketing and licensing of inventions?
It appears that your good friend Ronald J. Riley has a long list of fake credentials that were just uncovered by a law firm that is suing him.
Don't birds of a feather....???
and needless to say...you're wrong on the initials...but think what you like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bob Lougher
Dear "anonymous": Your attorneys appear to be as ignorant as you are. (Birds of a feather) Since all you ask is public record, look it up yourself. As far as discovery, I have been through discovery as a result of a lawsuit by a well-known scammer. It is indeed a double-edged sword. His frivolous lawsuit was dropped. The information WE obtained from discovery was used against him in his criminal case. He received 8 years federal time. He had a well-known, high-power and intelligent attorney.
In case there are people that actually read your dribble, I present a vivid example of your lack of knowledge: "Why didn't you turn yourself in to the authorities?" I did and it also was well documented. I was also deeply involved in the FTC Project MouseTrap. Something tells me you were one of the scammers that was indicted.
Try doing something useful with your life, "get an education."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bob Lougher - Still a Con Man
Bob - aside from all your dribble - for the last time - state your credentials/qualifications (besides 'former scam artist') and please name one successful invention that you helped to launch(and actually made more money than the inventor paid you).
I know that you will NEVER answer these questions because you are a carbon-copy of your good friend Ronald J. Riley. Riley has lied all over the internet about his non-existent, false credentials - and it turns out that he is a college drop-out - NOT the MIT engineer he claims to be (he's also never made a dime marketing an invention).
So Bob, YOU HAVE NO CREDENTIALS - YOU HAVE NEVER SUCCESSFULLY MARKETED ANY INVENTION - AND YOU FOOLED ATTORNEY GENERALS, THE FTC, AND Hundreds OF INVENTORS - BUT THE TRUTH IS: YOU ARE A LIAR, A FAILURE AND A NOBODY -
So - just answer the two questions above (with verifying information) or go back to your rat hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bob Lougher - Still a Con Man + Penny Ballou
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bob Lougher - Still a Con Man + Penny Ballou
So Bob & Penny, YOU HAVE NO CREDENTIALS - YOU HAVE NEVER SUCCESSFULLY MARKETED ANY INVENTION - AND YOU FOOLED ATTORNEY GENERALS, THE FTC, AND Hundreds OF INVENTORS - BUT THE TRUTH IS: YOU ARE A LIAR, A FAILURE AND A NOBODY -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Penny Ballou
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
penny ballou
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 22nd, 2009 @ 10:42am
It's a shame when people can not be real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 22nd, 2009 @ 10:42am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 22nd, 2009 @ 10:42am
What's funny is, if you scroll up, the last 10 posts are all from Mr. Riley using pseudonyms to attack Penny. I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather have an attorney who lives in a trailer park, than one who belongs in an insane asylum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The final word on Ronald J. Riley
In 1990, Riley found himself unemployed. A community college dropout, he was soon living in a mobile home. And then he came up with an ingenious plan. Riley enjoyed tinkering, and so he decided to falsely portray himself as a renowned and successful inventor, even though he was neither. The Internet gave him an idea. If he could create a false identity, he could convince those not familiar with his background that he was an expert in entrepreneurial ventures and inventions. Then he could make money as a consultant and offer feigned “expertise” to assist inventors and entrepreneurs in commercializing their ideas and creations. Years later, Riley describes the settlements and licensing deals he has obtained for entrepreneurs and inventors as a “win-win situation for me.”
But first, Riley needed to be an expert. So, he created businesses to build an identity. Since 1990 he has served as President or owner of a panoply of ever-changing “businesses”: Ronald J. Riley Consulting, R & R Enterprises, Inc., R & R Enterprizes, Inc., Riley Consultants, Inc., Riley & Associates, Inc., Center for Patent Policy, Riley Consulting Corporation, Riley Enterprises, Ltd., and Professional Inventors Alliance. Riley formed a tax- exempt corporation, “Inventored, Inc.”, in 1995, and accorded himself the position of “Executive Director”. In 2005, three years after the disbandment of the high profile lobbying group, “The Alliance for American Innovation”, Riley incorporated, as the sole owner, a business by the same exact name, voted himself in as its President, and went about assuming the name and online reputation of the well respected special interest group. Claiming a Washington, D.C. address in many of his online posts, he has stolen the identity of the disbanded organization and laid claim to their many publicly available achievements. An inventor and entrepreneur in Silicon Valley, Paul Heckel, the founder of a special interest group known as “Intellectual Property Creators”, has recently passed away. Riley is now claiming he has been entrusted by Mr. Heckel to head up Mr. Heckel’s organization, when in fact that organization was on the verge of disbanding and inactive at the time of Mr. Heckle’s death. Riley is again attempting to hijack the prominent and high profile reputation of this organization in order to create another false credential and affiliation. Recently Riley has been claiming that he is a “Senior Fellow” of “The Center for Patent Policy”. While there is no identification on the organization’s website as to ownership, the domain name is not held in Riley’s name, and the web server hosting the site is different than Mr. Riley’s many other websites, a detailed search of the State of Michigan corporate records shows that the “Center for Public Policy” is a fictitious name used by a Riley owned corporation. Riley has actually named himself a “Senior Fellow”.
Not content with having created executive positions and misappropriating the identity of businesses, he is also focusing on building a reputation of academic achievement, despite having failed to complete the first year of studies at a local Michigan community college. In 1998, Riley convinced a small organization to name him “inventor of the week” by the submission of false information. The organization was using the Massachusetts Institute of Technology website to host its site, but is in no way a part of MIT. Mr. Riley then purchased listings in fourteen “Who’s Who” books and now claims that he is the “recipient (sic) Massachusetts Institute of Technology Invention Dimension Inventor of Week Award”. MIT is simply not aware of the “MIT” award given to Mr. Riley. Unfortunately for the novice inventor, Riley provides a link on his homepage that leads through a directory on this site, and he is listed on the same page as highly successful, prominent inventors (Reese for Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup, Reynolds for Reynolds Wrap, Rubik for Rubik’s Cube), although he has never successfully commercialized one of his “inventions”.
In June of 2006, Riley began claiming online that he had spoken on a panel at Harvard Law School. Harvard Law School reports no record of Mr. Riley doing so. Most recently, Riley has claimed to be an influential lobbyist in Congress, yet he is not a registered lobbyist and has filed no disclosure or contribution reports which would have been required by law. Riley is also claiming to be a “credentialed investigative journalist”, yet after an exhaustive search there is no record found of his employment or engagement by any credible news or journalism related organization in the world.
The success of Riley’s fraud is evidenced by his targeting the 2002 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry (a research professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and a resident of Richmond, Virginia). Riley undertook a campaign to fraudulently gain his confidence and convince him to join the Senior Advisory Board of the Center for Patent Policy, which is clandestinely owned by one of Riley’s corporations. Riley now uses this professor’s association with his organization to further bolster his fraudulent credentials.
Through this fraud, Ronald J. Riley has gone from an unemployed community college dropout living in a mobile home to an assumed identity of a credentialed investigative journalist, an associate of a Nobel Prize winner, the titular leader of seemingly prestigious inventor industry think tanks and powerful special interest groups, a Washington, D.C. powerbroker and friend of U.S. Senators and Congressmen, an award winning inventor revered by MIT, and a sought after speaker by the Harvard Law School. Riley has perpetrated one of the most successful business credential frauds ever committed upon the inventor and entrepreneur community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Info.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]