23 February 2009

NeoMedia. Big Player in Mobile Communications? (U.S. Patent No. 6199048)

 The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has ruled in favor of NeoMedia  in the re-examination of its U.S. Patent No. 6,199,048 , System And Method For Automatic Access Of A Remote Computer Over A Network. The full story is here .

This patent was discussed in a previous post and it seems valuable because it covers such a broad range of useful mobile phone applications. From the EFF's description :
The idea behind the inventions claimed in this patent can be broken down into three steps:
  1. some index must be read off of a data carrier;
  2. that index is used to look up information; and
  3. that information is used to form a connection with a remote computer.
For example, suppose a consumer walks into a supermarket and comes across a brand of soup he has heard about but never seen before. The consumer wants to get more information on this product, and he turns to his web-enabled cell phone to see if the company who produces the soup has a web site with more information about the product. Instead of running a search on any widely-known search engine, the consumer types the UPC number found on the can of soup into his phone. The phone then looks up a web site associated with the UPC number, and that website is loaded into his phone’s web browser.
Sure enough, most of the early useful Android applications work like this. With 4 billion mobile phones in the world , NeoMedia are looking interesting.

NeoMedia's Stock chart shows that even though their stock price more than doubled on the news of their patent victory, their market cap is still only US$6M .

Still a very interesting company.
Yorkville Advisors is the principle investor and majority debt holder for NeoMedia Technologies.

This stock board  tracks NeoMedia.

58 comments:

streetstylz said...

It should be noted that Senior Staff Attorney for the EFF, Michael Kwun, used to represent Google.

Mr. Kwun came to the EFF from Google in June 2008:
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/06/09

In July 2008, Mr. Kwun wrote an exuberant piece on the EFF website prematurely celebrating the fact that the USPTO rejected all ninety-five NeoMedia patent claims. Mr. Kwun stated:

“Now that the USPTO has agreed with us that the patent claims weren’t novel, NeoMedia is in the difficult position of trying to explain what was so inventive about its ideas, in light of the prior art that EFF highlighted.”

NeoMedia’s patent attorney Anthony Barkume went to work immediately by reviewing the USPTO’s rejections and the newly-submitted prior art. Barkume & Associates summarily concluded that the prior art simply did not bear on the inventions in the ‘048 patent. They then proceeded to conduct an in person interview with a three-Examiner panel at the USPTO in August 2008. At the conference, we explained the inventions of the ‘048 patent and how the newly discovered prior art had no relevance. We then submitted a written amendment to clarify the language of the claims and consolidate them. Ultimately, the PTO agreed with our position regarding the patentability of the ‘048 inventions.

On February 17, 2009, the USPTO publicly announced its complete agreement with NeoMedia’s position regarding the inventions in the ‘048 patent by issuing a “Notice of Intent to Issue Ex-Parte Reexamination Certificate”. This terminates the reexamination completely in favor of Neomedia, since it provides that all pending claims are patentable and will publish shortly in a Reexamination Certificate. This decision cannot be appealed by EFF or any other third party.

As a result, NeoMedia has successfully defended the challenge brought by EFF against the’048 patent as part of its “Patent Busting” project. The ‘048 patent has withstood the intense scrutiny of the reexamination process, in which the Examiners reviewed not only the numerous prior art references submitted by EFF, but also those that it may have uncovered in its own follow-up searches. The claims of the ‘048 patent as clarified once again will enjoy the presumption of validity and have been strengthened as a result of the process.

That being said, some important questions arise:

Did Google have a vested interest in challenging NeoMedia’s patent via the EFF? Did Google send one of their top lawyers to the EFF to help Paul Grewal and James Czaja of Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder? Now that Michael Kwun and the EFF have failed in their attempts to invalidate one of NeoMedia’s core patents, will we see Scanbuy step up to the settlement table? What about a multi million dollar licensing agreement with Google? Will NeoMedia be enlisting the services of Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP? Keep in mind that Wiley Rein & Fielding represented NTP on contingency in their $612.5 Million patent infringement victory against RIM (BlackBerry).

Just some food for thought.

:)

Neon Leon said...

Here is a NeoMedia stock board

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=2276

Adam said...

Here is Mike Kwun's take on the USPTO ruling http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/patent-office-reissue-narrowed-version-neomedia-pa

streetstylz said...

I love the backpedaling by the EFF!

Michael Kwun, a former attorney for Google, couldn't even crack, let alone put a dent in NeoMedia's core patent.

This decision cannot be appealed by EFF or any other third party. The claims of the '048 patent as clarified once again will enjoy the presumption of validity and have been strengthened as a result of the process.

Checkmate :-)

Anonymous said...

Yep, indeedy. Checkmate. And the EFF unwittingly helped strengthened patent # '048. Something that Kwun refused to point that out, of course. "Narrowed" doesn't mean "weakened" but consolidated the claims with better clarifications which, again, made it much more stronger.

I just love seeing the irony. And this was EFF's first case they lost against.

Serve 'em, right. Their egos needed to be popped. Neomedia just squeeze the pus out for them.

"Bogus" claims? Hardly.

Go lick your wounds, Kwun. We're on to you.

KK

Anonymous said...

These weak general patents, that get through because they claim to no be narrowly focused, all get shot down in the end.

Reminds me of the Amazon one click patent only with less content.

Maybe you guys are onto a new scam too. You set up a second entity to mount a weak challenge to your patent. To pump your stock and strengthen your patent.

Mat

srowen said...

Three of the apps involve barcode scanning, but no, I don't agree that any of them match the claims of the patent. None involve resolving an identifier to a URL on a remote server.

In fact, IMHO, no interesting application of barcodes does something like this. QR Codes for instance encode URLs directly.

We know from conversations with Neomedia they agree this doesn't count. I still believe it is a bad patent and that the wrong thing happened here, but that's life. But, this is in fact not applicable to almost all of what we think of as use of barcodes today.

As a developer of the barcode scanning technology between those three apps, I can say we sure don't think this has any bearing on us, nor apps doing something similar.

srowen said...

Street I'll also respond again to your weird conspiracy theory, to point out that Mike joined in 2008, and the re-exam was started in 2007. Hope that helps. Google has an interest in a world freer of bad patents, like everyone. I don't think any "sending" occurred here -- he changes jobs right? So your post doesn't actually make much sense.

streetstylz said...

@ Sean Owen

I'm sure RIM didn't beleive that they were infringing any of NTP's patents either. $612.5 Million dollars later..... I think you catch my drift.

I'd be curious to know how you directly encode a URL within an already existing UPC barcode without resolving an identifier to a URL on a remote server.

Either way, this will be for NeoMedia's and Google's legal teams to hash out and/or the courts if it goes that far. Not you.

srowen said...

OK Street, I feel it's important to respond to you here as well.

What you're not telling here is that the USPTO did not reinstate all 95 claims. It reinstated many, with modification. The modifications narrowed the patent to a fairly specific embodiment, that involves resolving a code against a remote server, which has a predetermined code-to-URL mapping.

So if I don't contact a remote server to generate a URL -- like, say, generating "google.com/product?upc=3258923" and redirecting a browser, this isn't covered.

Direct encoding of URLs in QR Codes -- not covered.

Even sending a UPC to a remote server, which dynamically generates a URL or other info from it -- *not covered*, under the modified claims.

Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but the text isn't hard to understand if you read it.

That is, this patent covers a particular flavor of indirect encoding. Though you say Google should license this patent, and have even started naming, at random, Big In Japan, neither of these companies do anything of the sort in their products. You need to connect your claims to the patent with a clear argument.

I wonder how you'd answer Mike's closing remark about the re-exam here:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/patent-office-reissue-narrowed-version-neomedia-pa

"Given that those features are the basis for the PTO's decision to reissue the amended patent claims, and given that those features were well known long before before the NeoMedia patent application was filed, the amended patent claims are obvious and thus invalid unless the combination yields novel and unexpected results. Where are the novel and unexpected results here?"

Street, what is novel about the patent in your opinion? It will be interesting to see if you skip this question too.

Anonymous said...

Sean Owen said: "Google has an interest in a world freer of bad patents, like everyone."

Please, Sean. You're a smart guy, get your head out of the sand. Don't you realize how ludicrous and subjective a statement like that is? If I attacked an important Google patent, claiming it to be "bad" or "wrong" or whatever, I'm sure you'd be eager to tell me otherwise. Neomedia has spent incredible sums of money and human resources to establish their IP portfolio, which goes WELL BEYOND this one patent. They aren't "bad guys" any more than Google's inventors are. And considering Google's "Don't be evil" policy in the face of several things they do that are questionable, I don't think you're in a position to declare arbitrarily what's "good" and what's "bad". I don't understand why there is so much animosity about this patent. NEOM's new management has made it abundantly clear that they are going to use their position symbiotically. Past managerial attitudes are a thing of the past, and completely irrelevant.

Everyone should stop sniping and arguing this - it's done. Move on and let the barcode space move on and prosper.

Anonymous said...

Re: "Mike's closing comments", (to sowens) firstly I would not rely on anyone from EFF's opinion about the patent (nor any other patents if this is an example of their expertise), the "prior art" that took them 3 years to find, and it took 2 submissions to USPTO to get it submitted properly, then claimed the USPTO decided against the patents last summer(they did not), and then still states an opinion totally contrary to the USPTO's finding ...well, they have struck out more than their 3 times! The prior art they submitted was not even relevant, their submission was not even right the first time (did they not understand the process or want to prolong it or ?), the USPTO did not strike down the patents initially last summer (that is part of the process), and now they say they still don't agree? Sounds like the boy who cried wolf to me.

If you want to really understand the patents, the challenge basis (which was found totally irrelevant) and see the real strength of the patent was really not "narrowed" as Mr. Kwun claimed, the BEST source of info is the USPTO's very website where you can read the documents for yourself.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Barkume's comments about the patent being upheld (he is the patent attorney who successfully saw the process through)
http://www.barkume.com/Site/Reexam_Win.html

Good read.

Anonymous said...

@ SROWEN,

When a 1D barcode is click with the gphone, using the T-mobile's service, does it not access a server to retreive additional information from the web on the product?

if it does, Who's server is used?

Would it not be infringement, or, potential licensee for Neomedia's IP?

Anonymous said...

SeanR you're forgetting NEOM is going to be larger than Google one day... thats what Streets and his board members truely believe.

They also think that every barcode scan on the planet such as boading an airline, bank card swipe, RFID read etc are all covered by their patent.

The good thing is their stock is 0.002c which is a bargain, so maybe we should stock up ;-)

brewskih said...

SROWEN....Since you follow this technology closely, I probably do not have to tell you, its futile trying to correct the conspiracy theories of these posters. There isn't enough hours in a day to follow them to all the blogs to correct their mis-statements.

The problem is they have another stock message board forum where they can post these false claims in an effort to regain their losses in Neomedia stock, and readers hang on their every word, and consider it fact regardless since they too have lost on the stock.

You are absolutely right, neomedia has no patents covering redirects on the web, and they have no patents covering direct embedding of URLs into bar codes. And I do not believe they have any patents on directly entering UPC codes into web browsers to look up data on a product, since this was available for a long time now.

As you state, their service requires that a unique ID be entered into the bar code, then that ID has to be matched in a server data base to a specific URL, and then that URL is retrieved from a second server data base and sent to the users mobile device.

But the conspiracy theories live in in Neomedia investment land. Just go check the latest one where Honeywell is now the 800 pound gorilla, thats going to rescue Neomedia by partnering with Gavitec, when in fact all Honeywell did is license their imaging solution to gavitec so they can make a better scanner. The fact is Honeywell has many models of scanners to Gavitecs two or three models, and now the conspiracy theorists are claiming Honeywell needs Gavitec for bar code scanning......LOL

Anonymous said...

As I have posted elsewhere:

I have learned not to trust or rely on the EFF's PR's regarding the success of its patent-busting project.

Clearly, the EFF was way off base last summer when it claimed it had achieved a victory against Neomedia as a result of the USPTO issuance of an explicitly "non-final" rejection of all 95 claims in Neomedia's 048 patent.

From those premature PR's to the words the EFF uses (like "bogus" and "lame") the organization comes off as emotional and immature. One has to wonder how sophisticated the EFF really is.

Anyone remotely familiar with the detailed mechanics of USPTO's ex parte review process would/should know that a "non-final" rejection of all the claims in the challenged patent is very often the initial outcome. The process is set up in such a way as to discourage the patent holder from responding to the challenge at the first stage.

Indeed, many experienced patent lawyers advise their clients not to respond to the challenge itself, but to wait for the "non-final" rejection and then to challenge that. This "waiting" strategy has the advantage of locking the original ex parte challeger (in this case, the EFF) out of the process once the initial non-final rejection has been issued.

This is s very solid legal strategy for a patent holder that is interested in the best ultimate outcome; the disadvantage is that -by not responding to the initial chllenge - the USPTO has to make its initial "non-final" decision solely on the basis of what the challenger has submitted. Therefore, the patent-holder must often endure an initial "non-final" rejection.

Kudos to Neomedia's lawyers for their professional conduct of this process.

Also, as for EFF's recent spin PR that the patents were somehow "narrrowed": well, that "narrowing" had - in practice - already occurred some years ago as a result of the Neomedia/Airclic litigation. The new consolidation of the 95 claims into 89 claims with some modification is - in essence - an incorporation into the patent of the results of that litigation. Bottom line: the patent now more clearly covers what Neomedia wants and intended it to cover.

streetstylz said...

Case Study by NeoMedia's patent attorney Anthony Barkume

http://www.barkume.com/Site/IP_News/IP_News.html

During reexamination, NeoMedia clarified that (1) the bar code resolution database resides on a remote server computer, (2) the database stores predetermined relationships that link bar code data to a pointer (e.g. a URL) and (3) the pointer is returned from the database to the user device to enable that user device to communicate with the remote information computer directly (such as with a browser redirect command). Further according to Dennis Priddy, NeoMedia is unaware of any instance in commercial use today where the resolution database resides anywhere but a remote server computer. From a practical commercial standpoint the '048 patent has clarified and strengthened, not narrowed.

:)

brewskih said...

Streetstylz......I see in another forum where you are making the claim that Neomedias patent does cover redirects, because the so called case study you posted here uses the phrase
"(such as with a browser redirect command)"

Notice that phrase is in brackets and is meant to compare neomedias process to a web redirect. It in no way makes the claim that Neomedia holds the patents on web redirects, merely that their process is similar to such.

But that fact does not fit your agenda does it?

streetstylz said...

@ brewskih

Straight from the horses mouth:

"yes on browser redirects"

:-)

Anonymous said...

I can back up Streetstylz on that one.

kk

brewskih said...

Well you and Streetstylz better check when NETWORK SERVER redirects first were used.....LOL. I think it was even before Neomedia was ever even a company, and before they ever filed their first patent. So even they would not try to claim they have the patent on web redirects. They might however compare their process to the already existing web redirects as being similar.

You better check this patent filed in 1991, 4 years before Neomedia was even founded. It covers both telephone call redirects as well as internet redirects, or computer host server redirects. Just do a find of the word redirect in this document and read the various eses it describes for redirects...Why it even discusses packets being sent which contain an identifier, and each packet containing different types of information. Not only was this filed before Neomedia was a company it was published in June 1995 about when Neomedia was just filing their first patent application. BTW read the claims as well before you try to argue that this patent deals with phone calls only, since the claims make it clear that a computer network is involved. And if this does not satisfy your claims there are more refernces to redirect prior art lol.

:)

http://www.wikipatents.com/5426427.html

streetstylz said...

Well what do you know..... brewskih is playing arm-chair patent expert again LOL. I think we all saw how well that has worked out for you.

I bet it just eats at you that NeoMedia's patent was upheld and validated by the USPTO.

Remember when you ignorantly suggested to RapidID's Rick May:

"You by the way are the same individual who once claimed you researched this patent thoroughly and it was rock solid, the same patent that the USPTO has rejected all 95 claims on. You chose as you stated to license the technology, after your research. Maybe you should of waited."

Oops! Speak too soon there brewskih? LOL, I love it!

Again, "yes on browser redirects"

:-)

Anonymous said...

So Streets why are you so literally obsessed with NEOM?
You've pretty much devoted your life to them for the last several years. So if they do finally crawl out of the sess pit they're in now what will you do, continue to blog about them for years to come?

streetstylz said...

Of course I will continue blogging about NeoMedia. They are the global leader in camera-initiated barcode transactions for mobile devices.

NeoMedia has the potential to be bigger than Google one day!

I'm just along for the ride :-)

Anonymous said...

- NeoMedia has the potential to be bigger than Google one day!

Seriously are you for real? Wow you've clearly not been taking your medication, or been laid in your whole life.

Octavious said...

Bigger than Google huh..

Somehow I think the number of internet searches will be massively higher than people walking around with cellphones snapping barcodes. The numbers simply don't add up, people are much more at their computers all day that standing in front of barcodes.

How many barcodes could a user potentially see and want to click on each day... the number doing Google searches is going to be 'much' higher. So thats a pretty bold statement you're making here.

streetstylz said...

From Scott Shaffer (11/15/2004):

(Updated by me to reflect present day changes in NeoMedia's technology platform)

The search wars are heating up and it is becoming clear who is winning. But, what happens when Google runs out of runway space? What happens when the race changes venues?

Will Google see it in time or will it be Microsoft that "gets back to the future".

Search is finding the best solution/answer and advertising, and advertising, and advertising. Advertising drives search. There will come a point where you cant open up any more windows on your pc. There are only so many programs on your pc (surf, chat, email and now desktop) that you can find ways to advertise on. Then you cant put any more pay-per-clicks on your pc screen, then what happens?

How will search advertising continue this growth once this happens? How will advertisers shift their advertising dollar to the mobile device?

There WILL come a point when there is more internet traffic from mobile devices than pc’s. What happens to search engines then? What happens to the Golden Goose of advertising when people wont be using a search engine to do their surfing?

That screen on your cellphone will be the most coveted piece of real estate to advertisers. How will advertisers advertise then? People wont be using search engines on their phones. What replaces the "keywords" model for the advertising dollars?

PHYSICAL WORLD HYPERLINKS

The NeoMedia/Neustar Registry represents a way to hyperlink every barcode, keyword, number, spoken word, VIN, fingerprint and RFID tag. The NeoSphere platform is the browser for the physical world and the hyperlinks represent the way to direct-connect every physical item in the world to the Internet.

When a TM owner registers a trademark, barcode, word (phrase) with this registry, it is now part of a universal database and has an electronic identification. So the word Nike now isn’t just a word that search engines can generate keyword revenues from, it now represents a specific URL. This completely changes how and where a search engine can direct a search user.

3 Billion unique barcodes (every can of 12 oz coke is just 1), 3 Million trademarks, 450,000 word (phrases), numbers, fingerprints and RFID tags amount to over 4 Billion interactive websites, or over 4 Billion unique hyperlinks. Every 12 oz can of coke in the world is considered just 1 of those 4 Billion. 4 Billion unique hyperlinks all providing a direct connection to the internet without having to use a search engine. Now that the hyperlink owner has a direct connection to his site, outside of advertising, where is the need for search engine optimization? You are already optimized!

When RFID gets implemented that 4 Billion doubles in the first year alone.

So now every barcode on every can of Coke, the printed word Coke in every magazine, billboard, t-shirt, the spoken word "coke", and a NeoMedia created code, become a hyperlink, or direct connection to wherever Coke wants you to go. 4 Billion websites and hundreds of billions of physical objects have now found THEIR OWN WAY to direct traffic without using a search engine. How much traffic and advertising will Google miss out on when this happens? Or will Microsoft recognize that this is their opening to dominate the mobile world Operating System?

Companies wont give out websites to go to, they will advertise w/ NeoMedia/Neustar registered words and get a direct connection, bypassing a search engine. They will put a created code on a poster, or magazine ad, or registered keyword on the tv screen. When any user types, scans, says this word, they will be directed to the specific site that company wants you to go.

What happens when the physical world keywords, barcodes, and spoken word gets registered? NeoMedia/Neustar Word Registry will be THE "KEYWORDS" for mobile.

How does Google sell their "keywords" now? There wont be algorithms to decipher to put your site at the top of the search request. The registered keywords will be the direct link. How will Google and other search engine's get a piece of these 4 Billion plus unique hyperlinks? This registry will replace "keywords". Will you really want to see the first page of 1,200 top ten results for a search on your mobile?

Between the slowing growth of PC's and the number of mobile devices connected to the net, search and advertising will change. What companies will see this first and dominate Phase 2 of the Internet. Offer the browser for the physical world?

Phase 1 was about surfing, searching, chat, email. Machine to machine form of communicating. It was revolutionary, it disrupted many industries, it made our economy so much more efficient and it created many new powerful companies. Ebay, Amazon, PriceLines found a way to create businesses from Phase 1. They recognized how commerce would change with the introduction of the Internet and created businesses to accommodate this change. Not only did they disrupt the traditional method, but by utilizing the Internet they opened up the boundaries for potential customers.

Now comes Phase 2, and boy I can’t wait. This is what ubiquitous computing is all about. Phase 2 is when every physical item in the world can, and will be, connected to the internet. People are no longer stuck at their office, home PC. They are mobile, using their mobile devices for more than speaking. The combination of a portable microprocessor and trillions of objects having their own link to the net. This is Phase 2.

When you walk down the street, look at how many people have their cell phones/PDA’s in their hand or in their pocket. How many operating systems are now mobile? How many browsers are there that are untapped? Every one of those cell phones represents an internet user. Another pair of eyes for Google. A way for Google to generate advertising, but how? How can Google continue their search/advertising dominance in the mobile world?

What if MSFT unveils the "browser for the physical world". The PC's are "walking", untethered. This is transformation.

There are now more mobile devices connected to the net than PC's. Mobile computing represents a new way to look at how to advertise. How does Google and others get these users to their site when they are not at a desk? What does search look like when it's mobile? How will we surf/search when we are mobile? How do advertisers and service providers generate revenues?

What happens when society is surfing more with their mobile device than the PC? What does Google do when this happens? Will they recognize there will be more Google eyes on mobile devices than PC's? How do you sell keywords for this? What if keywords and trademarks are already registered? The bigger question, as an advertiser, how do I advertise with this new medium?

Advertisers are still trying to catch up with the eyeballs that left TV to the stationary net. What happens when the net shift goes from the PC to the cell phone. Will advertisers realize their new mediums are the supermarket, the restaurant, sporting goods store, billboard, movie poster, or in other words, every physical object in the world with a unique identifier.

Google says their database is up to 8 Billion now, MSFT is bragging about 5 Billion. The 1 Billion cans of 12 oz Coke represent 1 Billion ways to get to just one website. So instead of offering access to 8 Billion websites, there are now 1 Billion ways (just 1 12 oz can of Coke alone) to get to Coke’s website.

What happens when every can of Coke can be hyper-linked to the net? Or every Elton John CD, or every menu, concert ticket, street sign, business card, bag of Pringles. With a direct link to the net, why do I need to pay Google for this? If I'm Pringles, I don't need to pay ANY search engine to get me "at the top of the list". I'm already there and I am interacting with my consumer. I now, for a small fee, (by registering a barcode and/or keyword in a registry), have a one on one interaction with a customer of mine.

Advertisers will now have a service that measures an ads effectiveness immediately. It will merge the advertising in the physical world (magazines, TV, newspapers) with the Internet.

How much is this worth to a brand manager? Now every physical item in the world becomes a hyperlink to the net, bypasses any search engine, and is the medium by which advertisers will advertise and conduct e-commerce. What companies will see this first?

Will Google realize their market is finite? The vehicle for their advertising is shrinking and is now becoming mobile. There is a head-on collision coming. The search engine and the physical world hyperlink are on the path for a collision. I'll put my money on the hyperlink. It is everywhere. Doesn’t matter who's operating system it is. It will be marketed by the advertisers, and will give me a direct connection.

Microsoft, Symbian, and Apple are on all of those untethered PC’s (cellphones/PDA’s). Texting isn’t direct connect. The question is, who will have the physical world browser/OS for this?

If Microsoft realizes this before Google, they could license this ability NOW from NeoMedia Technologies. Google's keyword business will be put in serious jeopardy when the NeoMedia/Neustar Word Registry starts.

Microsoft can change the whole dynamic of search, force advertisers to advertise through the MSFT portal, limit the Google keyword business, and then lower the boom on Google when MSFT implements this in their mobile OS. Microsoft then recaptures their dominance in the OS space, but this time in the mobile device market. They then have the OS for Phase 2, a much bigger market than Phase 1, which they dominated for years.

Who will recognize this first? The boys at Google that are finding advertising markets for every part of Phase 1? Or Microsoft that is looking to dominate the next space, Phase 2, which is much bigger and ubiquitous.

brewskih said...

Hey Streetstylz.....I guess I got the last laugh huh because the patent was not rock solid now was it. The only way it escaped the re-examination was by deleting 6 claims and redifinig several others.....LMAO.

Funny how you changed the subject once again, when you can not respond to the facts. Why don't you ask Neomedia if they hold the patent on web redirects.....LNAO

Anonymous said...

Again, EFF and others have unwittingly helped Neomedia ensure that their *core* patent '048 become even more solid. In fact, rock diamond solid. This decision cannot be appealed by EFF or any other third party.

Read it here folks where REAL patent attorneys explain why Neomedia's patent '048 is rock solid. It's better to hear from real patent attorneys about '048 than anonymous naysayers here.

By the way, Michael Kwun, who was at EFF (see the Google cache version), is now back at his old law firm as of this month.

No matter what you do or say, Brew, the fact of the matter is that Neomedia's core patent '048 is rock diamond solid.

Live with it and stop being such a sour puss and sore loser. It's patently (ahem) obvious.

kk

brewskih said...

Hey KK, I hate to bust your bubble but your group of stock pumpers got it all wrong.

First of all your claims that the changes made the patent stronger are false. As the company stated the fact the patent survived the re-exam made it stronger, not the changes that were made.

Secondly the patent office only issues patents. The courts determine validity. And the final say so lies with the FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS not the patent office.

I do not see Scanbuy backing down from the law suit, so I expect that the courts will be the deciding factor once again, as they always have been, even before the USPTO came up with the low cost alternative called ex=parte re-exam.

Sour grapes? Hardly not. Just trying to keep you and your group in check, with all the false information you spread around the web daily. Challenging your supposed facts equates to me having sour grapes and being a sore loser? What labels do you give yourself for posting mis information over and over again?

By the way the Texas case of Scanbuy versus Neomedia on Scanbuys patents is moving at break neck speed. Of course you all believe patents are to be upheld, so what do you think the jury will decide on that one? Never mind I already know what kind of spin you will put on it...;)

brewskih said...

This conspiracy theory about an attorney leaving google to help the EFF on behalf of GOOGLE is laughable at best. Even the idiots know that when that attorney left google to work for the EFF, the EFF was no longer involved in any way in the re-exam process, so his presence at the EFF could in no way have any impact on the re-exam, since they were no longer active in the process.

But when you are a stock holder trying to recover your huge losses, any conspiracy theory that will suck in new traders is worth a shot right?

Anonymous said...

Wow Streets that quite the several paragraphs of drivel you have just written, I think you like yourself as manipulating the entire industry in your carefully crafted words. I can't wait to see Neomedia be a $50b/year business though.

You really need to take your meds man

Octavious said...

Streetstylz, Microsoft has already created its Tag product in this space www.microsoft.com/tag so what would it need NEOM for? Also they're using filenames for each individual barcode so it looks like they're not using a database lookup at all hence not going up against NEOM's patent.... to bad for NEOM I guess, that patent is narrower than it appears... unless they have patented the file system to. Or can you point out to us that NEOM has patented the file system?

Anonymous said...

Octavious, OK MS's "tags" point to a filename, so what. Where does that filename go to? A remote server? Maybe a remote server that further resolutes that "filename" to another location? If the "filename" is direct info located on THAT file server and that particular server relays to the user the specific info on THAT server, then it's a CLOSED system. NEOM already stated that their patent doesn't cover that...read up on it as it relates to the LScan suit.

BUT, if the "filename" goes to a remote server that then redirects to a location OUTSIDE of that system, then guess what...it is covered by NEOM's patent that was just bolstered by the USPTO.

Sure, the courts would have the final say but either way they line the jury...with "experts" (who, the USPTO are viewed as...after all, they're the granters, right?) or with naive citizens, the outcome, IMO will be the same. Both camps will look at the USPTO as the authority and after their re-examination, the "authority" STILL deemed the patent, well, patentable. So, therefore, both parties will, IMO, slam dunk this in favor of NEOM and look at the plaintiffs as whiners not wanting to pay up what the law requires them to pay up to do what they want to do. After all, isn't that what patents are all about?

streetstylz said...

Right on the money!

Further, according to Dennis Priddy, NeoMedia is unaware of any instance in commercial use today where the resolution database resides anywhere but a remote server computer. From a practical commercial standpoint the '048 patent has clarified and strengthened, not narrowed.

Simply put, NeoMedia was able to address the prior art, clarify its claims, and fully strengthen its patent position.

Anonymous said...

Well heck lets load up on stock and let the fat lady sing. Sounds like this little NEOM company who is 80m in debt, currently making a whopping $200,000/yr will be bigger than the domestic product of the whole US... Wow... I can wait !!

Octavious said...

Hey anon

You state redirects outside the system are covered, I respectfully disagree. There is no database involved which the strengthened patents specifically were narrowed down on.

What gives?

streetstylz said...

@ brewskih

According to Anthony Barkume:

It was advantageous for NeoMedia to be given the opportunity to address this prior art and clarify its claims in this reexamination forum. During reexamination, the patent owner is able to work across the table with the PTO to explain the differences between its claims and the prior art, to clarify the claims (as NeoMedia did), and to answer any questions the Examiners may have. The alternative to reexamination would be to address these issues in court during litigation, such as a defense raised by a defendant in a patent infringement suit. However, in court the patent owner is unable to amend its claims - they will either stand or fall exactly as issued. Therefore if any clarifying revisions may need to be made, the patent owner is unable to do so in a litigation forum, and the patent runs a higher risk of being invalidated. In addition, the PTO Examiners that conduct the reexamination proceeding are presumably much more experienced in patent and technical issues than are judges and juries, so the PTO is generally a much better forum in which to address these issues than is a court of law. It is also much less expensive to participate in a reexamination than in litigation. All of these factors came into play in this case, in which NeoMedia was able to clarify its claims and end up with a much stronger patent.

NeoMedia has the real potential to invalidate Scanbuy's patent.

:-)

brewskih said...

@ Streetstylz,

Do you and your group even read what you are famous for copying and pasting all over the web?

Your own statement you posted in the last comment you made confirms everything I have said for over two years now, and your group claimed I was wrong on. You all claimed the USPTO was the final authority, and some stated blantantly the courts could not over rule them, but merely could settle damages claims from infringement.

And here comes Neomedia, stating in your own reference, that they have a better chance of success defending their patent claims, through the USPTO and the re-exam, then they do in the US COURTS due to the various issues they state in that reference. They also make it clear in that reference that the courts do in fact have the authority over the USPTO to invalidate a patent, which by the way happens quite often.

Interesting how Neomedia in their statement even acknowledges that in the courts the patent stands a greater risk of being invalidated then in the re-exam process(greater risk means it's more likely to happen for those who do not comprehend English well).

BTW I should note that you deserve the credit for exposing the Neomedia/Pappa Johns campaign, that landed them in the Texas court defending themselves against Scanbuys patent. Way to go. As I pointed out, that case is going forward at a rapid speed and the inexperienced judges and juries your source points out, tend to weigh on the side of the patent holder, giving them the benefit of the doubt, since the burden is on the defendant to proof the patent invalid in a court of law. I expect the Scanbuy Vs. Neomedia case to come to a conclusion long before the Neomedia Vs. Scanbuy case, unless their is a joint settlement involving both cases agreed to by both parties.

Swampthing said...

I've been following this subject for years and the damange Streetstylz has done to Neomedia's reputation in his crusade of incessanty representing them as a patent troll and generating such ill-will against the company is quite amazing when you think of it, rather than actually promote them in a positive light. If I was Neomedia I'd hand him back his stock ta full price so he doesn't further continue tarnish the reptuation.

He actually removed my posts along this line from his investors forum that he so perfectly moderates and continually removing posts from, that doesn't following the partyline.

Back to this thread Streetstylz specific avoided Octavious exposure that a system that doesn't involve a database isn't infringing. He has a tendancy to go off on another tangent not the answer the question.

streetstylz said...

The alternative to reexamination would be to address these issues in court during litigation, such as a defense raised by a defendant (NeoMedia) in a patent infringement suit. However, in court the patent owner (Scanbuy & Marshall Feature Recognition) is unable to amend its claims - they will either stand or fall exactly as issued. Therefore if any clarifying revisions may need to be made, the patent owner is unable to do so in a litigation forum, and the patent runs a higher risk of being invalidated. In addition, the PTO Examiners that conduct the reexamination proceeding are presumably much more experienced in patent and technical issues than are judges and juries, so the PTO is generally a much better forum in which to address these issues than is a court of law.

Brewskih, did you read the actual complaint filed by Scanbuy & Marshal Feature Recognition? Obviously not.

"On information and belief, NeoMedia has been and is infringing, contributing to
infringement, and/or inducing others to infringe the ‘696 and/or ‘750 Patents by making, using,
offering for sale, selling, and/or importing “NeoReader” code scanning software and/or “NeoServer-OMS” and by its activities related to Marketing: Real People, Real Choices, “Gulfshore Business Magazine”, and a market test involving Papa John’s International, Inc."

NeoMedia's legal team responded with the following:

* NeoMedia admits that Scanbuy purports to bring an action for patent infringement, but denies that there is any infringement, and denies that there is personal jurisdiction.

* NeoMedia admits the ‘696 Patent on its face sets forth the information alleged in paragraph 6, but denies that the patent was duly and legally issued.

* NeoMedia admits the ‘750 Patent on its face sets forth the information alleged in paragraph 7, but denies that the patent was duly and legally issued.

Just like I believed NeoMedia's patent would withstand and be strengthened by the USPTO reexamination process, I also strongly believe that this court case will be a slam dunk for NeoMedia.

Again, NeoMedia has the real potential to invalidate Scanbuy's patent.

:-)

Anonymous said...

It's obvious for whatever reason people are trying to buy as much time by dragging this out as long as possible against Neomedia.

The USPTO and now the Texas court case.

kk

streetstylz said...

@ kk

I think we both can appreciate Iain McCready's stance on NeoMedia's patents and the company's efforts to license the IP going forward:

"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 at a fair price we want to move forward with this."

"We have invested so much in this and have had battle after battle. But now we are going to power ahead and make this work. 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."

I wonder which competitors asked NeoMedia for a free license? Scanbuy? Upcode? Big In Japan? Sure would be funny if it was Scanbuy. Can you imagine Jonathan Bulkeley crawling on his hands and knees begging for a free license? Bulkeley should just save himself the embarrassment and stand up and be a man and license NeoMedia's patents.

brewskih said...

Nice try Streetstylz.

For your information yes I read the complaint and the response, and Neomedias response to the majority of the issues was that it did not have enough information to answer.....LMAO.

Funny how you pick and chose the parts you want, to support your spin and leave out the rest.

Your little scenario, where you plugged in the names of Neomedia as defendant and Scanbuy as plaintiff, work the the other way around don't you forget, in the NY case, where Scanbuy is the defendant and Neomedia the plaintiff.

Now on your part about Neomedia's response to the Scanbuy suit, of course they are going to say what you quoted. Its the only defense they have, that the Scanbuy patent is not valid. BUT ISN'T THAT A DECISION FOR THE JURY TO MAKE, since Neomedia never challenged that Scanbuy patents validity with the USPTO?

Isn't that what your group has argued all along, that if the USPTO issues a patent it is valid and enforceable?

Haven't you and your group claimed that the validity of a patent typically is upheld by the courts, since the burden of proof is so much higher in a court of law, then it is in the USPTO?

I know, you want it both ways, when Neomedia is the defendant these rules apply, but when they are the plaintiff its a whole different system right?

By the way, go check and tell us what some of the other defenses Neomedia replied to the suit with are. How about the one, that states the suit by Scanbuy wasn't filed in a timely manner, so it should be dismissed? That is laughable. Within a few months of Neomedia's Pappa Johns trial in the mid west, the suit was filed, using that trial as an example of Neomedia actually employing their solution in violation of the Scanbuy patent. I guess in Neomedia world you have a week to file suit or its untimely and the case should be dismissed.

Should I go on and quote the other defenses that make no sense as well, since you seem to think that attorneys responses are facts, whether they have validity or not. You sure did not have that opinion of the EFF attorneys submissions to the USPTO now did you? Why when its Neomedias attorneys filing are the points facts, but when its the other side, their filings are all bogus claims, as you and others stated was the case with the EFF attorneys filings?

A little hint for you. Defense filings or answers, are a matter of opinion of one side in the suit, and are not necessarily factual. That is why the courts are there, because two sides in any court case, have two differen views on what are the facts, and its the courts job to decide which side is right, and which side is merely throwing everything against the wall hoping something sticks. Does that phrase sound familiar to you.

:}

Anonymous said...

Fact: USPTO grants patents.

Fact: USPTO awarded a re-exam certificate for Neomedia's Patent '048.

FACT: Courts do see the USPTO as being the expert on patents, especially if a patent has successfully undergone a 2nd but rigorous review certification process. After all, it is they who grant patents. The review process essentially explores whether the patented invention or process meets the legal requirements for a patent. In this case, Neomedia's Patent '048 fits the bill quite nicely, the second time around.

And this will certainly be presented to the judge in a lawsuit against Scanbuy.

brewskih said...

hey annon.....

Fact......the case isnt being presented to a judge, its going to a jury as demanded by Scanbuy the plaintiff in the case.

Fact....Juries are unpredictable as anyone knows, and when it comes to a Jury in Texas anyway they tend to favor the patent holder(thats Scanbuy in case you missed it)

Anonymous said...

Wow, Brewskih, you are one bitter, desperate, choleric, and dogmatic S.O.B. You should buy yourself a puppy. Might do you some good.

brewskih said...

Hey ANON,

I did not think it was possible for you to stay on the topic of the discussion and debate what you call facts for long. It was just a matter of time before you would have to resort to your old tactics of personal attacks and name calling.

Since that is your preference when you can not debate the real facts, how about yourself? If all those terms apply to me, what terms apply to yourself, when you have tried to put up an equal fight on the opposite side of the issue using bold faced lies and misinformation?

This isn;t the IHUG stock message board, so here at least try to show a little maturity and stay on the topic of discussion huh? And like myself, why don't you post under that other screen name you use instead of hiding under ANON for a change? Afraid that would tarnish your reputation over at that other board, when they see you can not debate the facts, something you do not need to do there, because you are on the popular side of the misinformation aganda over there?

Anonymous said...

What board?

The Real Swampthing said...

Hey Brewski and to the person impersonating me as Swampthing,

You guys need to get a life.

The patents have been proven by the USPTO. Drop it! You can keep arguing the matter. It does not solve anything.

BTW, I know Streets. He is honest and I do not have any problems with him or the investment forum.

We care about our investment and want it to grow. Just as MSFT or Google would.

The problem is when people start impersonating others on a public forum because of a hidden agenda. SAD!

Iron Mike said...

Michelle Lee says
Of the 20 patent lawsuits filed against Google since late 2007, all but two have been filed by plaintiffs who don’t make or sell any real product or service — in other words, by non-practicing entities or “patent trolls.” Most of these cases seem to feature the same small set of contingent fee plaintiff's lawyers asserting patent claims against the same small set of companies. We've also noticed a more disturbing trend: in many of these cases, the patents being asserted against us are owned by — and in a surprising number of cases, are even “invented” by — patent lawyers themselves.

brewskih said...

@ THE REAL SWAMPTHING or IN4IT

You are in no position to be telling others they need to get a life. For over four years now, you have spent day and night pumping Neomedia, with false information, irrelevant information and attacks on others, while the pps dropped from .76 down to .0015.

Of course you have faith in Streetstylz, since he joined your group as one of the head pumpers in mid 2006.

Maybe you two need to get a life, since none of your pumping, dot connecting garbage has any impact what so ever to the current shareholders, except some could argue you helped to drive the pps lower, through your attacks on others in the space or covering the space over the past 4 years.

streetstylz said...

Dean Wood To Lead NeoMedia Sales Efforts

http://streetstylz.blogspot.com/2009/03/dean-wood-to-lead-neomedia-sales.html

Great job NeoMedia!

:-)

streetstylz said...

Great Reuters video showcasing NeoMedia

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=100074&videoChannel=5

:-)

Anonymous said...

Annonymous wrote n February 26:

"The good thing is their stock is 0.002c which is a bargain, so maybe we should stock up ;-)"


FYI: As of March 23, Neomedia's stock price has gone up 10X.

Obviously, the market is taking Neomedia's patent win seriously.

Anonymous said...

Streetsylz sounds passionate. http://www.gomonews.com/first-interview-with-new-ceo-neomedia-coming-here/ was the first streetylz blog comment I could find. It showed her (his?) human side.

"I think I speak for all of us when I say that myself and the rest of the NeoMedia shareholders have lost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, over the last 2 years in what has become a financial nightmare for all of us. A lot of really good hearted, honest, and hard working people have been literally fleeced and wiped out financially as we have watched our stock price plummet to an embarrassing $0.003."

Anonymous said...




Medical Billing Services in Atlanta for all your medical billing needs