InventorEd, Inc. Presents:

Invention Promoter Caution List
Click here to break out of Frame

PLEASE Support InventorEd

Your Donation Helps

Special Page for Inventors Publishing & Research (IP&R)

IP&R  Bully Letter By Anthony R. Flores, Esq.

Blue bar graphic divides sectins of the page

All information which allows identification of the SLAPP threat victim has been redacted.

We are publishing this in conjunction with the comments which IP&R is trying to censor, in the interests of fairness that both sides have their say.  The public deserves to have all the information available so that they may judge for themselves the relative merits of the issues at hand. 

What is not acceptable and is very much contrary to both the public interest and justice is for well heeled corporate interests to silence whistle blowing employees or dissatisfied customers.

Read the thread which IP&R bullied a service provider into censoring here.

Blue bar graphic divides sectins of the page

Publishing & Research
60 Spear Street, 6th Floor * San Francisco, CA 94105

TELEPHONE: (800) 627-5382 * FAX: (415) 422-0668

Blue bar graphic divides sectins of the page

Blue bar graphic divides sectins of the page


January 2, 2007

**SLAPP Threat Victim's Name**
**Advocacy Group Name**
**City, State, Zip**

Re:   False & Confidential Information Regarding IP&R / Amazing Innovations on **Name** Website.

Dear **SLAPP Threat Victim's Name**,

I am writing as general counsel for Inventors' Publishing and Research LLC / Amazing  Innovations ("IP&R"), as encouraged by your **Name** Terms and Rules to give you notice of postings on your Forum that are each false, defamatory, inaccurate, malicious, and unlawful in a number of ways (1).  Several persons claiming to be former employees of IP&R have posted such information about IP&R on the **Redacted**.

The first post relating to IP&R was made on or about September 19, 2006 by username "Former IP&R employee" and is entitled "Ip&r Is a Scam!, Former IP&R Employee."  We have identified the writer of this post as **Whistle Blower Name**.  This post contains numerous falsehoods, unsubstantiated rumors and misleading exaggerations presented as fact. (2) These statements constitute "trade libel". (*) (Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 328, 340.)  In addition, to the extent that the information about IP&R's operations and/or sales data in this posting is accurate, revealing it constitutes a breach of confidentially under **Whistle Blower Name** employment agreement. (3) Please see the enclosed copy of my letter to **Whistle Blower Name** in this regard.

False accusations of criminal conduct are defamatory per se.  (Cal. Civil Code ##44-46; Fisher v. Larson 1982 138 Cal.App.3d 627.)  Her effort to keep others from doing business with IP&R also constitutes unlawful interference with IP&R's existing contracts and/or with its business prospects. (5)  (Pacific Gas & Electric Co, v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1118.)  Her conduct also violates California's Unfair Competition Law.  (cal. Business & Professions Code ##17200, et seq.)

In addition to **Whistle Blower Name** there are two (2) other users of the same Forum section who we have not identified (6) certainty, who claim to be former employees of IP&R: "inventorman" and "InventorGuard."  Just like the first posting, these two postings contain numerous falsehoods, unsubstantiated rumors and misleading exaggerations presented as fact (7).  Woven in with these libelous remarks are true statements that reveal IP&R's confidential business methods (8)

Page 2 of 3
**SLAPP Threat Victim's Name**
January 2, 2007

and data.  Assuming they were employees of IP&R , these two users must have signed confidentially agreements as a condition of employment.  Therefore, these postings constitute unlawful breaches of their promises to IP&R. (9) 

Inventerman and InventorGuard have gone even further than **Whistle Blower Name** by naming individuals at IP&R, such as Steve Barbarich and Ajay Gupta, and by posting false and defamatory per se statements about those persons (10).  Those two posting also lump IP&R in with several invention promotion companies (some of which have been investigated, fined and otherwise reprimanded by public agencies) (11)  as examples of fraudulent businesses.  This association is both improper and unfair as to IP&R. (12)  

InventorGuard's posting also contains inaccurate data regarding IP&R's success rate and inaccurately states the result of his own calculation using his own data. (13) he states that IP&R's "licensing rate is approximately .0077%."  Adding, "This percentage is well below the average of 1%....."  IP&R's actual rate is 4.2% and by his own calculation, the rate should be 0.77%.  Both of these postings go beyond merely posting their opinions and accurate information for the benefit of inventors.  They display their personal animus by advocating that IP&R be shutdown (14) and requesting help to "put these guys out of business."  I strongly suspect that both of these users are also competitors of IP&R (15) who have used your Forum as an instrument of unlawful and Unfair Competition as defined in California's Business & Professions Code ##17200, et seq.

As these three users no doubt intended, the publication of these false statements has caused economic injury to IP&R and has inspired others to post similarly false statements about IP&R in the same forum, compounding the damage to IP&R. (16)  

Now that you are aware of these issues affecting your Forum, we ask (17) that you take immediate action to remove the entire thread begun by **Whistle Blower Name**, since it is all derivative of her posting.  If that is not possible, at least the three offending postings by those who claim to be former employees must be removed from all locations on the site(s) you control.  IP&R is also entitled to publication of an acceptable retraction and apology (18) for the damage we have already sustained.

If the offending material is not immediately removed, we demand that you stop protecting the identities (19) of inventorman and InventorGuard, and provide them to me so that we can pursue directly that which you will not resolve indirectly (20).

This letter does not constitute a complete or exhaustive statement of all of IP&R's rights or claims against you or your users (21).  Nothing stated herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waver or relinquishment of any rights or remedies, whether legal or equitable IP&R will use all legal means to protect its reputation in the business community, and it expressly reserves all rights and remedies it may have. (22) 

Page 3 of 3
**SLAPP Threat Victim's Name**
January 2, 2007

Please (23) confirm your agreement to comply with IP&R's requests by removing the offending materials and signing this letter below and returning it to me on or before January 9, 2007.




Anthony R. Flores, Esq.

I represent that I have taken the steps necessary to remove the postings on my **SLAPP Threat Victim's Name** **** Forum made by the three persons who claim to be former employees of Inventor's Publishing & Research.  I also agree that I will prevent or upon notice, immediately remove, future postings of the same nature regarding IP&R or its affiliates. (24)

Place of signature
**SLAPP Threat Victim's Name**


(1) This is a bit long on hype and short on facts.  The facts are that InventorEd has also heard from both employees and clients who feel victimized and their stories have been consistent with what the referenced ex-employees have said.

(2) Sorry Mr. Anthony R. Flores, Esq. but your claims are unsubstantiated and as far as we know you have libeled the party which you allege made the post.  For that reason we have redacted the name. 

(3) Why would the public care if there is a breach?  And what makes Anthony R. Flores, Esq. think that he has any right under the law to compel a party who is not under contract to help him silence a whistle blowing ex-employee?  This kind of bluff is in our opinion an abuse of the process of law.

Also, no one is prevented by a civil contract from bringing wrongdoing, especially when such is contrary to law to the attention of the authorities.  In other words, if you are an employee, ex-employee, or any other party you are not bound by any civil agreement to not discuss these issues with law enforcement authorities.  Do not let any two bit corporate stooge dissuade you from exercising your rights.

 (5) These claims are only true if the allegations being made by a multitude of clients and employees are false.  If what they allege is true that is an absolute defense against a claim of libel.

 (6) As far as we know you have not identified any with certainty.  Also, we have had feedback from both employees and clients to the effect that IP&R turnover is very high, meaning that IP&R has so many ex-employees that it is virtually impossible for IP&R to stop all of those employees from spilling the beans.

(7)  Anthony R. Flores, Esq., you keep making incredibly broad claims and has offered very little proof to back up those claims.  The best advice he could give to IP&R is that they should start marketing inventions on a contingency basis.  If the company is as effective as they are claiming they could work on contingency and prosper, on the other hand if they are as useless as a multitude of EX-clients have claimed they would no doubt expire in short order.

(8) We have received a great deal of information about IP&R's marketing methods, and frankly I don't see how they are any different than many companies who have proceeded them.  Where IP&R does stand out as different is the fees they charge, which are much higher, in some case up to five times higher than other invention promoters.

(9) To the degree that there are breaches it is a civil matter and of no concern to the inventor community.  What is of concern is the use of confidentially to hide possible wrongdoing by IP&R.

(10) Steve Barbarich and Ajay Gupta have through an incredibly massive marketing campaign spread their names and pictures far and wide.  In addition they have taken very large sums of money from aspiring inventors via a large and growing number of companies.  Unfortunately, according to employees and clients alike they have not been anywhere near as effective at keeping either group satisfied, and it is that dissatisfaction which has led to broad criticism of both them and IP&R.  It would behoove them to address this underlying dissatisfaction.

(11) Most certainly it is true that with the exception of having published complaints on the USPTO web site there has not yet been any action.  But then such investigations often take years to become public (we know because InventorEd works with many agencies to reign in invention promotion fraud).

(12) Unfair!  We are hearing from many inventors who feel that they have not been treated fairly. 

(13) Perhaps if IP&R were to finally comply with the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 we would have meaningful numbers.

(14) I would guess that perhaps 80% of people have an innate grasp of morals, ethics, and the difference of right and wrong.  The other 20% are solely guided by rules, but due to their impairment they have great difficulty knowing where the line should be drawn and are incapable of understanding why the other 80% might be quite indigent about their inability to play well with others.

(15) Where is the proof?

(16) Is the damage due to what people say, or is it due to the way IP&R conducts it's business?

(17) Is Anthony R. Flores, Esq. and IP&R asking or are they demanding?  Is IP&R's attempt to abridge the First amendment appropriate.  Is IP&R's letter a threat of a SLAPP?

(18) Just what is the rational for demanding an apology from someone maintaining a web site?

 (19) What is the basis to demand that a web hosting service do IP&R's investigative work?  Wouldn't a better approach be to have a satisfied customer base and employees?

(20) Anthony R. Flores, Esq. and IP&R already have the means at hand to address their image and public relations problems.  Start satisfying the majority of the people they interact with and these problems will go away.

(21) Be advised that I am passing your letter on to Paul Levy at the Public Citizens Litigation group.  They have been known to take a very dim view of this kind threat.   

(22) The public also expressly reserves "all rights and remedies it may have".  One of those rights is to speak out about injustice, to petition government, and to expose abuse of the process of law.


(23) Is this a "Please" or a demand for censorship?






(24) Now this is an outrage, and a perfect example of the mindset at IP&R which has led to so much criticism of IP&R by employees and clients alike.


Any letters we receive from IP&R or any IP&R stooge will be published!

There is a huge difference between taking on the person you picked on with this letter and getting into a firefight with a professional inventor who has gone head to head with large corporations and prevailed.  This is a lesson which George Davison has learned the hard way.  He messed with us and we engineered his rather dramatic attitude adjustment.  We hope that IP&R is a bit more cautious.


Blue bar graphic divides sectins of the page

USPTO Published Complaints

Read the Caution Flags List at .

Another information source is: Invention Marketing Companies .

National Congress of Inventor Organizations (NCIO).

Blue bar graphic divides sectins of the page

Have you been Scammed?
Find out what to do here.
Please Notify Us Of Any Errors Of Fact - Click ErrorOfFact

Blue bar graphic divides sectins of the page

IP&R Main Page - Site Index - Contact Us - InventorEd, Inc., Page last revised 3-8-2007

Smiley face which turns to a frown

Unhappy Customer

Wallet with money flying away

$10,000 to $20,000 Wasted money

Source FTC Jodie Bernstein