USA patent no. 6,199,048 (NeoMedia) is weak and harmful to our industry (Part 1)
As (mobile) technologists we must be aware of and recognize the potential for harm when obvious/weak-patents are granted by the Patent Office. We should be able to trust the patent system, but the system is weak.
In particular I am here writing about the USA patent 6,199,048 (PDF) titled “System and Method for Automatic Access of a Remote Computer over a Network” by NeoMedia which was part of EFF’s Patent Busting Project. I’ve written about NeoMedia back in 2006 and now I find myself once again writing about it.
As a technologist in the field of software and specifically mobile computing, I will say that the patent ‘048 has no merit. And that it is unfortunate that our PTO is weak in understanding the foundations of the web (on which ‘048 is based) and what is obvious vs. non-obvious concepts and variations. The ‘048 patent is totally based on existing Point of Sale (POS) and Web concepts (even for 1999 when it was filed). That an index or key (i.e. code) is entered by hand or scanned and is then mapped by a remote computer and related information is returned, this has existed years before in POS systems. That a URL is returned and used later on for the initiation of a connection to a particular resource on the Internet is at the heart of the Internet and the Web, even before 1999. While I do recognize the inventors’ vision, their claims are or should be invalid due to non-obviousness and prior-art.
It is my personal opinion that honoring this patent is harmful to the industry, and that the EFF while having good intentions failed by initiating a process which gave NeoMedia the opportunity to “strengthen” its position from the PTO perspective, resulting on the narrowing of some of its claims vs. invalidating the patent per-se. That said, the narrowing might turnout to be a success all on its own, as by narrowing the claims it allows for alternative paths or workarounds. At the end patents are about protecting a set of claims, which also is the weaknesses of patents.
I want to point out the fact that the PTO first granted, then invalidated, then narrowed the claims for ‘048 is proof of the PTO’s incompetence and lack of proper expertise thus failing at its duties. You will hear from lawyers that this happens all the time, but it still shows the lack of expertise by the PTO as this specific ‘048 is not rocket science to get.
The community must recognize the harm of granting obvious patents such as ‘048 which is going to be applied in strength by NeoMedia to everything related to digital-to-physical world connections, such as “mobile barcodes” and even potentially to NFC-based interactions; the latter harder to protect as the ‘048 is mainly about barcodes yet it is up to interpretation as the ‘048 does mention “RF”.
This is a serious matter and I predict the ‘048 patent is going to be a heated topic in the future.
ceo
“The community must recognize the harm of granting obvious patents such as ‘048 which is going to be applied in strength by NeoMedia to everything related to digital-to-physical world connections”
From what I have read in other blogs 1D, 2D, QR, Data Matrix, Aztec, Maxi, EAN, UPC, logos, trademarks, slogans, RFID, and Google’s famous keywords, spoken or typed to get to information on the mobile web in one click.
OUCH!
How many of these companies made money by selling their patented technology, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Nokia, Apple, IBM, Cisco, Symbol/ Motorola, Honeywell?
Are you saying that there should not be any room in the technology industry for a person who developed a new idea and wanted to create a business model around it? It is one process. Probably the best process, IMO.
Where is the spirit of becoming an entrepreneur in a capitalist country?
Everyone should get over it and license and move on!!!!
JMHO
Licensing is OK and I support it, if the patent was novel. But that is the problem here, the concepts claimed were widely used before 1999, and before ‘048. That is the unfortunate thing here…
But, the patent can be worked around! And it will be worked around and fought that way.
That is the spirit of entrepreneurship in a capitalist country… why license if doesn’t have to.
ceo
Chief Justice Roberts said in an important patent case (decided on April 30, 2007) on the issue of obviousness:
“They say obviousness is deceptive in hindsight,”…. “In hindsight, everybody says, ‘I could have thought of that,’”
The case, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., is one of the most important Supreme Court cases on the issue of “obviousness”. The case was well know to the USPTO when it re-validated and strengthened NeoMedia’s 048 patent.
Understood. But common sense must be applied to the issue of obviousness. That is what bugs me here.
ceo
CEO,
As an investor, I look at what, I have seen in past and where we are going in the future.
http://theponderingprimate.blogspot.com/2006/02/neomedia-gets-camera-phone-bar-code.html
A great post by a intelligent man who’s background in the field is almost unsurpassed.
You stated the following, “the concepts claimed were widely used before 1999, and before ‘048. That is the unfortunate thing here…”
Please show me where.
Obvious? YES! Can it be worked around? Probably. Is it the best solution for marketing to the consumer, again, IMO yes.
I do not think that their business model is just about patents. Licensing, IMO, has always been the preferred route. This should be about getting the 2D ecosystem moving. It should be about helping educate and incorporate 2D codes into a marketing plan to get to consumers. JMHO.
First, I acknowledge the vision of the inventors, and the business folks who saw the future and translated the 1999 concept to current mobiles and executed the appropriate M&As. But that is a “productization” exercise of existing concepts and technologies; examples of this are POS at grocery stores and how the web client/server works.
Second, another problem is that the way the patent was granted it has the danger of being applied to anything that translates to “enter code on a client, hit server/DB, return information, in this case URL”. What I just described is the foundation of the web! way before ‘048.
I have gone claim by claim and the patent is written very broadly (smart to be broad) but it is so broad that in my opinion it shouldn’t have been granted as it is.
I will expand on part 2. Stay tuned on that (hopefully I will get time shortly to write part 2).
ceo
NeoMedia currently has 30 active patents spanning 13 countries, with 29 additional patents pending. These patents cover various linkage methods including: Barcodes, RFID, Mag Stripe, Voice, and other machine readable and keyed entry identifiers.
According to NeoMedia’s CEO Iain McCready, “A couple of competitors in the USA have already asked us for a free license but we can’t accept that. We are a business and so are they. In a reasonable manner, and at a fair price, we want to move forward with this. I am open to discussion and we want to be seen as fair. We want the whole mobile barcode market to succeed and the license fee model is tried and tested and it works. It can be as simple or as difficult as people want it to be and we aim to keep it simple. We have been working very very closely with both the GSMA and the OMA, and by being connected, the introduction of a license model can and will only succeed.”
Are you a competitor to NeoMedia? I’m wondering if you are bashing this patent in order to protect http://www.ezee.com which (which you founded). Ezee might have to license to NeoMedia. Is that the case? (Not that you would admit it)
I’ve been “busting” this since 2006, long before eZee.
Nope, I am not at eZee anymore, but good observation.
Yes, I am stating the obvious specially when this may have such a big impact on the industry; and of course, this potentially includes me in the future. Remember IBM vs. SCO over Linux? And what it would had happened if IBM didn’t pointed out the obvious against their claims? Difference here is IBM has big pockets and resources and the EFF not as much.
…just pointing out the issues here; someone should.
What about you, do you work for NeoMedia?
ceo
No, I am a NeoMedia investor. Thank you for responding. Interesting that you use the word “busting”. This reminds me of EFF.org’s Patent “Busting” Project. are you related to EFF in anyway?
Heh. I didn’t mean to write “busting” but I meant “bashing” per your previous comment. After spending a long time examining this patent and the EFF documents (see above for links), I guess my brain played a trick on me.
Nope, no affiliation to EFF. I’m just an individual Mobilist who cares about this space and who seems the writing on the wall. And of course will attempt to protect/”defend” against what I see as a problem. As I’ve said I’ve no problem with protection of IP but in this case I have a problem w/ the fundamentals of ‘048.
On licensing, I wouldn’t license unless needed, and I don’t think it would be needed. More on this maybe later (if time permits).
ceo
“On licensing, I wouldn’t license unless needed, and I don’t think it would be needed.”
Be careful with that advice. That’s like telling your readers to ignore federal patent laws, and go ahead and infringe on legal patents.
Have a good day.
Please note that I am not giving advice to anyone; but just pointing out my opinions/facts.
The main goal in my writings is not necessarily against NeoMedia, but against the USA PTO because of the situation the PTO is leading the industry into, again because of what I believe is lack of expertise from their part.
The above will likely result on the ‘048 patent to either be worked around or a re-examination re-requested. Potentially wasting lots of time, effort and money. Or maybe licensing will be favorable, thus not worth the fight, thus no one will care. Time will tell.
At the end, the best barrier to entry is to have a great product-and-great penetration…
Again, my personal opinions based on expertise on the matter.
Cheers Jim,
ceo
CEO,
I suggest you read this:
CASE STUDY – REEXAMINATION OF US PATENT NO. 6,199,048
http://www.barkume.com/Site/IP_News/Entries/2009/2/25_CASE_STUDY_-_REEXAMINATION_OF_US_PATENT_NO._6%2C199%2C048.html
I did… which reinforced my opinion. Thanks,
ceo
In my opinion, I think you have a hidden agenda here. Not related to the patents themselves, but instead to someone you know having to now license from NeoMedia. Just a guess.
CEO,
Looks like the industry disagrees with you:
NeuStar Announces Global Bar Code Interoperability
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/NeuStar-Announces-Global-Bar-prnews-14798170.html
NeuStar’s pilot program is based on open standards and demonstrates interoperability among the world’s most successful bar code campaign managers, symbologies, and code reader technologies through NeuStar’s trusted third party central clearinghouse and registry services. Announced at CTIA, the program currently involves industry-leading companies 3GVision, Mobile Discovery, Mobile Tag, and NeoMedia.
“”The current industry partners in this program are highly successful players in mobile marketing and bar code scanning solutions, as well as intellectual property leaders.”
Intellectual property leader = NeoMedia
Disagrees w/ what? All they did is to create a common reader for all types of 2D-barcodes, further minimizing dependencies on NeoMedia; don’t you see it?
You are missing the point here on my post. I am not disagreeing on the value of barcodes or 2D-barcodes or NFC or short-codes; just hit my blog and read to see that. And I’m not disagreeing with you guys or others successes! Good for you. But I disagree with the claims of the ‘048 patent and the PTO failing to recognize prior common patterns and concepts before. But, it is OK you disagree.
In any case the announcement above is a partnership announcement, which means it was designed to look pretty; good for you and congrats. Let’s next see the execution.
ceo
I have to agree with CEO that the patent is obvious. The UPC code was designed to retrieve information from a server. Saying that a URL link is novel over, say, an in-store coupon, is a stretch. Based on a UPC scan, we were pulling an image and printing competitive coupons from on in-store server in 1993.
However, I don’t think the patent provides much resistance to design-around. The ‘048 has obvious design-arounds. Most obvious, ‘048 specifies a double bump – the consumer is required to have two outbound communications to comply with the claims. So, a single bump would be a complete design around: consumer scans an item and is taken directly to the website.
The NEOM process on an iPhone:
1. User opens scanner application
2. Application establishes connection to camera
3. User places barcode image in viewfinder and clicks button.
4. Camera captures barcode (waiting for consumer to stabilize camera for acceptable read)
5. Camera transmits barcode, as an image, to NEOM
6. NEOM recieves the image and translates to barcode, then associates with a URL.
7. NEOM returns URL or “unable to recognize” message
8. User clicks on URL to launch website
9. Browser opens and launches website. If browser is already open, it focuses on current page, minimizes current page and shifts to the left, creates new page, and focuses on new page.
So, there are 9 steps in the best-case scenario. If camera operator is skaky, the operation loops between 3 and 7 until a clear image is obtained.
Go ahead and try to take a picture of a UPC with your phone. Many of you will the image is blurred. My job requires photography of UPCs and I will generally take 6 shots to make sure I get one clear one. Which also suggests a design-around…
I just noticed Mark Handley’s ad on the site. Pop! Technology has been using Mark since 2002. If you are looking for an attorney to prosecute a patent, you will not find a better attorney.
Jon,
NeoReader has given us the best user experience to date. We are not seeing the picture quality issues you are experiencing. In addition, those 9 steps you listed are a bit misleading… because only three(3) of those steps are required by the user (1, 3,
making this the most efficient application on the market. BTW, your “double bump” theory is incorrect in regards to outbound communications which is not required for packet data exchages via traceability queues, and domains. Especially with 3.2 QOS protocol which is becoming the choice of transmittal.
NeoMedia is doing it right.
Best,
Jim
Jim,
The double bump is not technically required but it is required by the ‘048 patent. During the re-examination, other methodologies were removed.
Learn to live under our government!
Government in this case is the USPTO.
If you don’t want to live under these rules…
I suggest you leave this country…
However, I would have to warn you that there are worse countries out there w/ much choatic governments!!!
NEOM created this Patent.
NEOM won this Patent and even stronger than before.
NEOM is the current route now.
IF you want passage…please pay the ticket.
If you choose another route, that is fine.
BUT stop rebelling…kicking and screaming…what are you? 2 years old? =P
Too obvious? Weak? Harmful?
Obviously it’s obvious because the patent has been created and patented!
It’s not weak but it was upheld and clearly it can be commercialized!
How in the WORLD can this be harmful? If this is harmful, so is AIR you breath or the WATER you drink!
BTW: Have you ever heard of Google? Do you think Google’s idea of a search engine was too obvious, too weak, and too harmful when they started up. Were people upset because of Google? Of course, because they were probably thinking…darn, wish I thought of that OR geez whiz, wish I put that into market earlier than Google. Well, look around you…Google has competition such as Yahoo, Microsoft Bing, etc.
All in IMO of course and bringing up Google was an “indirect” example. haha
Right, you have reminded me that I need to write, when I get some time, part 2 and about how this patent is really not a problem – as it can be worked around; something I realized after spending hours studying it… so the concern I had is not really that bad… Thanks for the reminder.
Good for NEOM and their patent! I’ve nothing against them, just the patent process.
Oh, and on your comment about “learn to live under our government” — I do, and I pay taxes, and I vote as well, and I raise my voice when things are not right. What about you? Do you just suck it up? I see….
And one more thing, I understand you are concerned about your investment, and that is fine/understandable, but please note that a weak patent process is not good for anyone, including your *future* investments.
ceo
In response to Jim March 30, 2009 at 11:31 a.m. CEO writes: “I’m just an individual Mobilist who cares about this space and who seems the writing on the wall. And of course will attempt to protect/”defend” against what I see as a problem.”
In response to Streetstylz March 32, 2009 at 12:29 p.m. CEO writes: “In any case the announcement above is a partnership announcement, which means it was designed to look pretty; good for you and congrats. Let’s next see the execution.”
First, the chosen moniker “CEO” says it all and also indicates the Scanbuy’s CEO (ain’t that you Bulkeley?) has a big ego. Second, CEO’s reponse to Streetstylz fits with how one would expect a CEO to respond: “Let’s see the next execution”, CEO speak! Such talk does not fit with a humble, individual Mobilist who just cares about the space, (how touching).
The then Whole Foods CEO Mackey (don’t know if he is still CEO) was caught writing on Yahoo Message Boards for eight years bashing his competitor, Wild Oats. Scanbuy steals NeoMedia’s IP so it is not a stretch that the crooks at Scanbuy would also be bashing their enemy, NeoMedia, on the internet.
http://ethisphere.com/whole-foods-ceo-bashing-competitors-on-yahoo-message-boards/
The gig is up for Scanbuy, the significant deal NeoMedia is closing on is going to be game changing for NeoMedia. Scanbuy’s dreaded day is at hand.
http://www.gomonews.com/mobile-news-paul-stzelecki-iain-mccready-and-michael-libes/
Well, fracatowa, just FYI, “CEO” are my real initials; is not a chosen moniker out of the blue or for the reasons you said; BTW I’m not Scanbuy’s CEO. If you are leaving a comment on a blog, at least try to learn a bit more about the person you’re writing about — because ignorant comments such as that one says a whole lot about the commenter…
This is a great thread, one that gets all kinds of people all worked out on both sides… There is the NeoMedia camp (the majority of the commenters here) who are all focused on their specific NeoMedia investment and who are missing the whole point of the blog which is about the US PTO office vs. weak patents, and that because of the blinds these investors are wearing today they are themselves potentially jeopardizing other investments of their own!; the ones that may have to battle other weak patents. Then there is the other camp, typically technologists, who are the folks who realize how the USO PTO and weak patents can jeopardize innovation and waste time and money.
The whole issue here is way larger than NeoMedia and their specific patent…
ceo
“CEO” posted “Next let’s see [NeoMedia's] execution”, that is the way a CEO speaks, yet “CEO” claims to be a individual Mobilist who simply cares about the space-clue one to your real identity “CEO”.
As to moniker CEO being the initials of your real name, we all know names can be faked, and I think most would agree people post under false names and not their real names. So as to your claim that CEO is the initials of your name, I agree–the initials of your fake name. A number of individuals have commented on Bulkeley’s arrogance, large ego and of course he is the head of a company that actively, knowingly steals NeoMedia’s IP.
Where is the discussion on companies owning weak, harmful patents? NeoMedia is the only name predominantly splashed across the blogs here. I’ve seen IBM pop up, Google, but 99% is about NeoMedia so “CEO” your claim that this is a discussion board about USPTO and weak patents is absurd and a rouse to give cover to your bashing NeoMedia on this Board.
“CEO” I challenge you to stick to your statement by writing blogs here that go beyond NeoMedia for a change. “CEO” states “The whole issue here is way larger than NeoMedia and their specific patent..”, let’s see him prove it. Can “CEO” let one month pass by without mentioning NeoMedia or its patent on this blog? “CEO” I want to read here about other patents, other companies, organizations involved in reforming the USPTO, legislation affecting the USPTO….these are some topics I expect you “CEO” to start researching and posting the info you’ve found here for the benefit of all who read. You’ve got your marching orders “CEO” goose step to it!
Heh, you are funny… fake names. Nope, that is my real name, and yes, humans went to the Moon.
Don’t be silly and go read my About page; you can find the link at the top of my weblog.
At least some humor is coming out of this thread…
In any case, thanks for the comments… You know, it has been months since I’ve written about NeoMedia; and recently only in response to comments like yours. But yes, I will write more when I get some free time… In the meantime, I’m sorry to disappoint you’ll have to bear with me until I find the time get to re-visit this topic about “USPTO and weak patents”.
Cheers,
Carlos Enrique Ortiz (aka CEO)
http://www.CEnriqueOrtiz.com
Did man land on the moon? There is a radiation belt 500 miles above the earth, these bands of intensive radiation surround earth and are thousands of miles thick. Anyone traveling through the Van Allen Belt would be rendered extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereafter.
The last manned mission that allegedly went to the Moon was on December 14, 1971. An economic recession and waning public interest in the Moon led to the cancellation of Apollo 18, 19, and 20, although Apollo hardware did fly again, during the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project and the Skylab missions. NO MANNED MOON LANDING since 1971 and NASA claims its because of economic recession, bull. NASA even throws in no public interest for good measure because to claim lack of funding for a manned moon landing since 1971 is absurd. NASA CAN’T FAKE MOON LANDINGS ANYMORE, that’s why there’s been no man on the moon since 1971. Too much technology in the hands of common man would debunk any landing, as the previous moon landings have been debunked, but the public is largely unaware of the debunking info. See links below.
http://www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/radiation.html
http://www.rense.com/1.mpicons/manmoon.htm
NASA spends money like its water. There ain’t no project NASA wants that NASA doesn’t get. Congress huffs and puffs about it but in the end the cost overruns get paid, the mission goes forward.
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/07/charlie_bolden_nominee_to_head.html
“Great individuals invent their own values and create the very terms under which they excel.”
— Kierkegaard and Nietzsche
Create their own values–that is what The Third Reich did, Mao Tse Tung did, Stalin did–great individuals where the term great means reached the highest levels in society and the meaning the philosphers are applying. Rockefeller praised the Mao Revolution saying it gave the populace a purpose, how nice of Rockefeller. Mao is one such “great” individual Kierkegaard and Nietzsche delight in, “great” Mao creating his own values. Does the common man love Mao, no–it is the moneyed men of the world who are not content with great riches but must Rule over everyone who loved Mao.
http://www.robertmihaly.com/useful.htm
Just a few rabbit holes to explore below:
Secret Societies rule this world
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869614609770971945&ei=DOBdSp2SO5HgqQK9uPUp&q=walter+veith+freemasonry&dur=3
J.F. Kennedy’s “conspiracy” speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeYgLLahHv8
Kennedy’s Executive Order 11110-had the order gone into effect, Federal Reserve Notes would have been put out of business.
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm
Larry Silverstein WTC 7 “pull it” video–IT TAKES DAYS to rig a building for demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
CEO, as to your being impartial towards NeoMedia, to take a jab at NeoMedia by saying let’s see them execute belies impartiality. But you do give exposure to NeoMedia and those smart enough to see NeoMedia owns the Barcode Lookup Patent are going to make a nice profit in NEOM.
Regards, Frac…
OK, fracatowa of Fort Kent, Maine… not only it seems that you are a Troll, but with your conspiracy theories, seems stupid too… I just skipped all that nonsense; you are wasting my time now.
…only the last paragraph was relevant and the rest was pure worthless conspiracy theory BS. On the last paragraph on the barcode lookup patent, yes NeoMedia owns *one kind* of lookup algorithm, so don’t get stuck (on the idea of) them owning the whole barcode lookup business — gheez…
So if you are smart you will just stop writing worthless stuff; either write things of value or just wait until I get to write Part 2.
BTW, Trolls are not allowed here and all future troll-like comments, such as yours, won’t be approved…
ceo
For those conspiracy theorist who doesn’t believe humans went go to the moon:
CEO:
Unfortunatly, for you, you are now in the sight of the NEOM “investors” most of which post on investorhub. I say “investors” because most of the posters are actually paid by Yorkville/Cornell Capital, a vulture fund that has complete control of Neomedia and ownership if the patents via assignment for all the money it loaned Neomedia. They now are in a position to pump and dump the stock as they sell stock equal to or greater to each tranche of funding. Your blog will now be targeted by a cult like group of “investors” who target every blog that mentions Scanbuy, or others, as infringers. Yet they rarely even understand what they are regurgitating.
Unfortunate or fortunate, it is all relative. I will make my points, and will accept the comments on my blog that have merit. My patience towards stupidity has a limit, which was reached w/ the last commenter from Fort Kent, and who truly believes that I’m the CEO of Scanbuy (and that humans didn’t go to the moon). Kind of shameful for NeoMedia such individual “represents” them.
I have noticed the pattern on the comments left, except for one commenter if I recall correctly, the others don’t seem to understand what NeoMedia has and more importantly what they don’t have.
I do need to find the time to write part 2, not because of me, since I already convinced myself the ‘048 patent really poses no threat (‘048 is just *one* way of doing things), but, I owe it to my readers on how the USPTO must address the problem w/ weak-patents.
Thanks for the comment…
ceo
“The next execution”:
Neustar and NeoMedia Speed Up Widespread Implementation of Mobile 2D Barcodes
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS106096+06-Oct-2009+PRN20091006
Isn’t that the *same* company from last March’s announcement related to barcode interoperability?
Yes, but it was pointed out in March that it was only a “partnership announcement.” Now it has become a 4 year deal on a grand scale.
OK, thanks… Congrats to the team.
ceo
whether ur stating that the patent is weak.. or u r taking a straight shot at neomedia… to those invested in NEOM look at it like this, whether these patents can be easily worked around or not,, in the world of business, time is money… google could have done what admob did, without buying the company, but that would have taken alot of time. they saw that it was worth paying 750 million dollars to avoid wasting their time doing their own work and research to get to the point this company had already achieved,, which i think is much the case with Neomedia, y start from scratch when u can just pay for the work another company has put in.. when u have companies like google and microsoft, with a near infinite bank roll, that r constantly looking for that little piece of technology to give them the upper edge.. big things happen for small companies like Neomedia
A patent is a patent. When the courtrules in favor of a patent for lets say in this case Neomedia the patent will be enforced and should be. This company has had many companies using their patents on many products and not been paid a cent. Why because they are a small company? If it was Microsoft or Apple you would see how fast they would be in court asking for royalty payments. Now let us get back to Microsoft. Have you happen to notice how many times and large sum of money this company has had to pay out in the last few years because of patent infringement here and in Europe? Large sums huh? Meomedia has just won a important case or let us say settled in the last month on their patents. Now why is this dangerous? Because they are a small company and do not deserve it? The company has worked hard to produce a product and now the court and case has approved it. Now you will see the courts begin to heavily enforce these patents and payments to Neomedia. There is not a price you can put on these patents but looking at the IP technology and the way it is used already in Japan and the rest of Asia and begining to take major shape in North America you could be looking at Neomedia as a sleeping giant waiting to explode upward in share price. Neomedia is owed a lot of royalties and licence payments going back over 5 to 9 years. You can be looking at the next Microsoft, Apple, or Dell. So why is it dangerous. They have won and now it is time for major companies to pay up. The courts will make sure of this too. What can happen here too is that a major company like Google buy them out now and try to steal them at a cheap price. Now what has to happen is that hopefully someone will be watching the boards actions with a very sharp eye and so should shareholders. It has been quoted and i have said quoted that the CEO of Neomedia has until Nov 29th 2009 which is this month to receive a hefty bonus to sell this company. Shareholders must be on top of this board and watch out for the sale price of NEOM People say they want to see earnings. Well give back royalties from what has been taken from them by patent infringement and you will see profits and earnings. 3M was just sold to HP for 2.7 billion yesterday. Barcoding and IP technology is very interesting and is the next new technology to hit the market in a long time because it is mobile and will be used on every smart phone made and the computer will be your phone soon so you are looking at the next biggest generation of new technology to hit the market and this is going to be big. Neom has patents going out 10 years. Now put a price tag on that. 2 billion 5 billion 10 billion? The worth of this companies protential is huge! This company needs good lawyers and strong management to be right in the face of all these companies that have not paid them a dime and now with the settlement and the courts approval should not be hard for them to due now to enforce their legal rights for payment going back years. Yes i am a shareholder but not a pumper. I just happened to find this company and the patent issue caught my eye. I strongly beleive we have the next Microsoft or even Google here. Why is it dangerous i ask again? Why would the courts give them these patents if they felt that Neomedia was not entitled to it? Watch this company it is going to be a giant and watch the board fellow shareholders not to give this company away. As for what a company is worth. In all my years in technology related investments and owning a computer chip and hardware company it is the future of the products potential where the price comes into view. Technology companies i beleive are sold and priced on their future earnings from now to years to come. That is because technology changes on a daily basis. You have a product today that can be replaced with something new in 6 months or less and i am speaking in the chip market with processors and drams etc etc. Neomedia by winning that settlement with Scansbury has just gave them a green light to print their own money. This company is a very cheap pice ticket in share price and should be rated a strong buy.
@JW1047 – yes, agree.
@John – Regardless of how Neomedia got the patents, via hard work or IP acquisition, yes it is theirs, and yes they are in a good position indeed. I am not arguing that. If you go to the beginning of my post, I am making a point against *US PTO* and what I believe is a weak patent — you like it or not, that is my opinion, and I say that because of prior-art and the piggyback on obvious web technologies and/or methods. Again, good for Neomedia for getting the patent.
Now, that said, this patent will be worked around via the use of alternate approaches or different technology approaches (beyond barcodes).
ceo
With that said it will also take time most likely in years to so called work around Neomedia’s patents and hopefully Neomedia’s management takes advantage of this. Also now is the time for all these companies that have infringed upon this patent to as they say pay the piper and Neomedia’s management and lawyers should be heavily focused on this and reward their shareholders. Thank you for the chance to share my views on this blog.
Thank you CEO for taking a stand and writing a piece to get people thinking about the realities of this patent and their potential negative effects.
Neomedia is a PATENT TROLL – plain and simple. I was kicked off the investorshub crackboard for saying this (in a much more polite way mind you). They obvioulsy want to keep this closed lipped.
Scientific Study on Patent Trolls by Berkeley University http://bit.ly/828bkJ – page 22, table 1 – TROLLS IN THE DATASET = NEOMEDIA.
A Harvard Law article (pg. 23) – http://bit.ly/51nSRq – defines a patent troll as a: participants who seek patents solely for the purpose of initiating infringement lawsuits and extorting licensing fees from competitors without producing any product or bringing any innovation to the market.
What did Neomedia create? What does Neomedia sell?
They did not create QR Codes, barcodes or any other code. They did not create URL’s and redirect processes, They did not create mobile readers. They did not create anything in the patent 048.
What do they sell? Nothing – their reader is free and there were 20 of them on the free market before Neoreader – therefore not innovative – and their campaign manager sphere is useless and no one uses it – it also has nothing directly to do with patent 048.
How do they make their money? Licenses/Ransom. Why is their share price $0.01? because they aren’t selling licenses nor will they. Name the license agreements – Mobiletag – ceo used to work for them. Neustar is a partnership…in crime, Scanbuy – settled out of court probably for $1, who else – i think i heard of a deal in south america – who knows for how much.
So although their business model is licensing which makes them a TROLL – they don’t seem to being doing a very good job collecting. GomoNews or should I say the Neomedia Times – said that there are 100’s of patent infringers. Ok – so where are 100’s of licenses almost a year after the patent was reduced from 95 claims to 89 claims?
Bottom line is that there is tremendous overhead if your business model is based around courts and litigation. NEOMEDIA simply does not have the funds to pursue anyone. Certainly not a Microsoft or a Google – who in essence are the companies they need to reel in to a. make any kind of money b. send a message to other infringers. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!
Companies will create work-arounds to 048. Neomedia and there investors should pray that they do. Why? Because as soon as Neomedia decides to actually go to court – you can say goodbye to 048 and NEOM all together based on “obvious” and “prior art”.
Here’s a question – if Neomedia is the true player in the industry and owner of all the technology and patents – then why would Google partner with Quickmark? I know why – to send a VERY LOUD message to Neomedia that they are a non-issue.
Neomedia has 20 employees, no revenue, and no business model, for the time being all they have is fear tactics and that to will prove to be useless. I think i read they are about to pay their CEO 5mil for not doing much. That is almost 25% of the market cap. 6 BILLION SHARES OUTSTANDING…what???
People should continue to be inventive and come up with workarounds – not to mention that the Direct Method is a better way to proceed regardless.
As you can see i’ve spent no time on this – all just my humble opinion.
Thanks for the pointers above; I will read.
I agree w/ all you wrote above.
On GoMoNews, it is too bad; I know Bena. And I have written on her blog:
And as I wrote on the Semapedia.org blog:
ceo
So Motorola invested in Scanbuy.
Good… And that says a whole lot about the importance of being product/customer-driven (i.e. Scanbuy) vs. being a patent troll (i.e. Neomedia).
The Neomedia investors I’m sure are going ballistics about their “IP” and why this was not them… And most are not sure of what just hit them.
Congrats Scanbuy!
ceo
[...] says a whole lot about the importance of being product/customer-driven (i.e. Scanbuy) vs. being a patent troll (i.e. [...]