Mobile visual barcode company Scanbuy gets 6.8 million USD Series B 1 investment

Street - great comment thank-you. I just wanted to say that even though know one responded to you - I got feedback from several people that prefer to remain anonymous.

Street give it a rest, you are really sounding like a moron with your patent rants. So you picked the wrong horse, it is OK.

Do you have any idea how the EFF works or who they have gone after in the past?

http://w2.eff.org/patent/wanted/patent.php?p=neomedia

I should of mentioned as well, when a shareholder questions what a private company did with their 9 million funding over the past year, that shareholder out to ask what his company did in the same time period.

It appears from the PRs coming out that Mr. Bulkeley did an outstanding job with that 9 million. Now ask Streetstylz what NEOMEDIA has to show for the over 30 million they threw away during the same time period? And that dont count the massive share dilution that occurred at the same time either.

In comparison, for 1/3 the cost Mr. Bulkeley seems to have accomplished a great deal more, and the company he is CEO of seems to have gained far more traction in the bar code reader space.

As for Streetstylz NEOMEDIA, even their core product QODE is now being scrapped and replaced by a GAVITEC designed NEOREADER. What would they have done without Gavitec? Hmmmm.

I stand behind everything in my post and will continue to do so despite the childish personal attack by brewskih, .

I welcome Scanbuy’s Jonathan Bulkeley stating that he is ready to, “stand up and be a man.”

Scanbuy’s indirect resolution process which they use for their proprietary eZcode is infringing on NeoMedia’s core IP.

Is it really that difficult to acknowledge that your company is infringing on another company’s intellectual property and do the honorable thing by licensing their IP?

Had Scanbuy just licensed NeoMedia’s patents, both companies would not be tied up in litigation and both companies could go about their business — either working apart or together — to bring the very best mobile code reading initiatives to market.

Stagnation and progressive fragmentation in the market is threatening to cripple the
growth and overall adoption of mobile codes.

Swampthing

Yes I do own stock in Neomedia. So are you implying because I own stock in the company, that means I am not allowed to look at the company objectively and report the negative aspect, that get spun as positives daily by a certain group of posters?

Does being a shareholder in a company mean you cant be negative about what management has done, and the financial situation the company is in? Especially when that financial situation is very dire, by the companies own words in very recent filings with the SEC, and is very evident in their financial records.

As a shareholder this concerns me greatly as my investment is on the line, but that doesn’t mean that I am going to go around to all the blogs pumping and spamming the company, as some investors are doing. I prefer to instead challenge their misstatements that are being made, that may cause other investors to make the same mistakes I made.

And since its my understanding that these blog sites are for open discussions both pro and con the topics being discussed, I don’t see a problem with that.

Neomedia PatentDescription: “A system and method for using identification codes to access particular computers on a network, including the use of bar codes to lookup information about products via a network.”

Issue date of Patent is 1995 and I am very sure that in those days it allready was common technology to use barcodes to be scanned by price checkers in retail shops that looked up price and product information over internal retail IT networks. Now what patent attorney is willing to challenge Neomedia with this. Here a link to a product launched in 1993: http://www.identcode.sk/PDF/SCANTECH/sg10.pdf

Swampthing, thanks for your opinion. All of these positives you point out are in fact in question as we speak.

The core patent that many others are based off of, is being reexamined by the USPTO, and in NEOMs own filing this morning they state they BELIEVE that SOME or all of their claims may be supported in the results. Thats a far cry from the public statements made in the past to investors that their patents were rock solid.

I hope you read this mornings 10-Q closely. NEOM with the sale of the 2 subs recieves approximately 3.5 million and they predict that will carry them to April 30th the latest. As of the end of September they had a little over 200,000.00 in cash so they have already started burning some of that 3.5 million. They also have a payment due this year to 12snap of 4.6 million which is in that same 10-Q. So just how far is that 3.5 million going to go when one debt alone is greater?

And then look at the revenue from both Neom and Gavitec. Both dropped this quarter and dropped significantly from the year ago period. A booming industry and both their revenues dropped year over year. Whats that tell you?

Theres much mre in that 10-Q but others can read it themselves and make up their minds. I only point out the above, because Bena asked a valid question about NEOMs financial situation earlier and I responded, only to be attacked by a certain group of posters.

As of today, even my assessment a day or two ago, is far more positive, then this mornings 10-Q states as facts.

As for your question about Scanbuy holding up the US in adoption. the answer is simply NO.

The US has traditionally been at least 2 years behind the rest of the developed world when it comes to new technology adoption, dating back to the late 70’s which is as far back as I can go based on my own experience. Matter of fact it appears Scanbuy is getting things really going in Europe with the most recent deals announced. That should eventually help the US to move toward adoption, because they typically do not, until others have.

On your other point about what would be in my best interests as an investor in Neomedia. Of course that would be in my best interest. But I chose to put others interests ahead of my own, and do so by putting the facts out there, so others are aware of the actual situation, and just not the positive side. The devils advocate if you will.

Ron
The technology was also developed in 1993 using none other then a DIGITAL CAMERA, same as cell phone camera technically, by a company called Intermec, who at the time was one of the worlds largest companies in the bar code technology. Thats two years before NEOM filed its patents, and according to the USPTO guidelines, something is not patentable, if anyone in the art(NEOM) is aware of a similiar patent, and should know that their idea is a next step in that technology. Here a digital camera was used, and therefore NEOM can not claim the use of a cell phone DIGITAL CAMERA is a new and patentable idea. They can however make the claim their process may be knew, but the core of their patents is the use of the cell phone as the medium because it contains a camera.

“In 1993 new Intermec products combined PC technology with industrial data collection capabilities. In addition, that year the company claims to have “perfected the first pen-based hand held computer with desktop PC performance.” Developments in 1994 included the Janus 2020–a portable data collection computer equipped with a 386 processor, Microsoft ROM DOS, and an integral laser scanner; data collection technology that involved 2.4 GHz wireless local area networking; and what Intermec calls “the first and only product to combine a fully-automatic digital camera for non-contact image capture and decoding with an integrated computer.”

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Intermec-Technologies-Corporation-Company-History.html

Again Swampthing, probably there was no challenge over the past 10 years because there was no benefit.

Remember NEOM brought on the challenge themselves, in 2003, when they started their law suits against several companies for supposed infringement. Even then there was little to no value in bringing a suit against anyone as you are well aware of, because the companies that did settle with NEOM, have produced no revenue of significance for NEOM since the suits were brought.

So the short answer is companies arent going to bring suits normally, if there is no value to them at the time. the costs far exceed the benefits.

Now that the technology is starting to gain traction in certain parts of the world, there is a dollar value to challenging NEOMs claims, which didnt exist over the past 10 years.

Also companies such as Intermec, that I posted here, had no reason to suit NEOM to claim they had prior art, because NEOM and their patents, were not at that time taking business share away from these companies. NEOMS claims had no market value because they were based on the use of the cell phone which there was still no market for.

Of course these are just my opinions, but they are logical opinions based on what we know, and whats been stated by the EFF as to why they brought on the challenge, and we can only base our opinions on whats been stated publicly and common sense. I expect when this technology starts producing real revenues you may see a lot more challenges, using other prior arts that the EFF hasn’t used in their claims and that would as well be grounds for new reexams if new prior art is introduced.

But as we already discussed in another forum, the art of taking a picture of a bar code to obtain data has been in use in the stores since the 80s long before NEOMs patents. You and others at the time claimed that was different because it was a closed loop system, where NEOMs patents involve the internet. So obviously some of NEOMs claims if the above is true, can not be upheld by the patent office.