OgilvyOne signs NeoMedia for new new@ogilvy in Malaysia

Dean Collins doesn’t get it

http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/ogilvy-doesnt-get-it.html

Neo@Ogilvy understands the true value in the indirect encoding method (patented by NeoMedia). The same reason why Scanbuy uses the indirect encoding method for their proprietary EZcode.

And the wireless carriers certainly agree, as evidenced by all 5 US carriers conducting a 6 month trial at Case Western Reserve University using Scanbuy’s EZcode platform.

Did you happen to read the latest Technical Plenary Summary from the Open Mobile Alliance? In it, they state that a consensus has been reached on the definition of an Indirect Mode Ecosystem.

I highly recommend reading about the advantages of indirect encoding over direct encoding.

http://www.neom.com/178.html

I have a feeling we are going to see more and more interactive ad agencies signing up to use NeoMedia’s NeoReader and NeoSphere platform.

Interactive ad agencies want the most bang for their buck, and NeoMedia has the perfect solution.

Dean,

I’m sorry to hear your blog doesn’t get much traffic otherwise LOL … Happy to help you out there buddy

Are your feelings hurt that the indirect method is winning and the wireless carriers, ad agencies, brands, and media companies see the true value in indirect encoding?

It’s really sad to see you so bitter … The EFF? Is that the best you can do?

Tool

It’s sad to see somebody impersonating JP.

95 patents? … LOL

Try ONE patent encompassing 95 claims. Which by the way, will succeed and be validated by the USPTO.

Looks like we’ve got termites in the woodwork.

Somebody call an exterminator.

Anybody got Dean Collin’s number?

Well Jim Pee,

You sure had a lot to say. My apologies for dozing off midway through.

Something about scavenger hunts? Sorry, not NeoMedia. Do some research on Mobot and Starbucks. Summer 2006 to be exact.

That was a freebie for you.

Now back in your hole termite.

Streetstylz said “Are your feelings hurt that the indirect method is winning and the wireless carriers, ad agencies, brands, and media companies see the true value in indirect encoding?”

It is funny reading these blogs, with so many experts with very little knowledge, or experience in the fields they are commenting on.

First of all I think there is much confusion between marketing and advertising. Marketers preferred method of reaching consumers is through direct contact. Their advertising method to reach those consumers is both direct and indirect through third party channels.

Marketers are very slow to adopt new methods/technology and the internet was proof of that. Advertising agencies are slow to adopt as well.

To state that one method is winning out over another as fact is laughable. Both methods will be winners, especially in new methodology, and it will take years for one to exceed the other. But it is also very arguable which method at this early stage is winning out. I would suggest direct marketing through mobile messaging methods, at this time is far more widely excepted then any 2D barcode method. The 2D bar code is merely one of the tools that can be used in marketing to reach consumers, or execute their transactions. The 2D bar code can be used in either direct or indirect effectively, just as is evidenced by the 2D bar code sent to you7r mobile by airlines. This process is not an indirect process, you the consumer purchase an airline ticket DIRECTLY from the airline and they send you a 2D bar code as proof of your purchase, through means other then a third parties proprietory marketing solution.

Then to suggest that, because a very multi-faceted world wide organization, agrees to use one solution or another in a very limited part of the world, means that method is winning out is also laughable. This ad agency like all the others, will use multiple methods, based on their clients wishes and requirements, and some of those clients will want direct marketing used as the consumer approach method, well others will sign on for indirect advertising.

If this marketing and advertising firm though that any oe solution was the best, why did they only announce that they are partnering to use it in Malaysia and not around the world where they operate?

There is a whole lot more to marketing and advertising then I can include in one post, so the above is just a very general analysis of the field, so one can pick holes through it if they so desire, but the basic principles are reality, and I would venture to guess that direct marketing is leading all other forms of marketing, using sms and mms to directly reach consumers through consumer opt in at this time,, since not many other options are available on the mobile networks.

As for your comments on the SCAVENGER HUNT, thats funny. The Neomedia expert forgot about the 2007 Case Western scavenger hunt using Neomedia’s QODE? Yes its billed as a scavenger hunt on Neomedia’s own web site and it was used for new summer student orientation last March. Below is the NEOMEDIA website link to this scavenger hunt they were a part of before Case Western decided to go to someone else’s solution in the fall of the same year. Check out Neomedia summer of 2007, to be exact…..LOL.

http://www.neom.com/189.html

Posted first at;
http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/us-patent-office-rejects-all-ninety.html

Oh Wow breaking news - It’s a great freaking day for the EFF

U.S. Patent Office Rejects All Ninety Five NeoMedia Patent Claims
http://theponderingprimate.blogspot.com/2008/07/us-patent-office-rejects-all-ninety.html

Hey Streetstylz and all you other Neomedia flunkies - when you read this post think of me

This is a really big deal - 95 out of 95 patent claims all rejected, wow this is too cool and has put a smile on my face for the whole weekend.

Wonder what Ogilvy (and others) are thinking backing the wrong ‘indirect’ technology now. When Neomedia go bankrupt or are countersued out of existence all those marketing campaigns will cease to work and all the time and effort invested will be wasted.

Direct connect ‘license free’ QR codes are the way to go - paying license fees for a technology that Denso open sourced and made free in the 1990’s is just dumb.

For those of you that want to read more detail check out the EFF site that links directly to the USPTO ruling
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/u-s-patent-office-rejects-all-ninety-five-neomedia

Regards,
Dean Collins
http://www.Cognation.net

I find it to be in very poor taste for the EFF, Scott Shaffer, Dean Collins, and others to purposely misinform the public.

This ruling is a NON-FINAL action. Obviously they do not understand what the word NON-FINAL means. This is in no way a final rejection of NeoMedia’s patent.

People should educate themselves on how the reexam process works:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200_2201.htm

Some have even stated here and across the web, this non final action is insignificant. Right Streetstylz?

Its significant for several reasons. First and foremost, at this time the patent is rejected in its entirety and therefore non enforceable by Neomedia.

Secondly now the burden of proof is placed on Neomedia, and they are in the position where they have to defend their own patent, as opposed to others having to defend against Neomedia.

The significance of that will be evident in the Neomedia VS Scanbuy legal case, where if Neomedia wishes to go forward with their legal case while this process is ongoing with the USPTO, they will have to amend the charges. They can not include the charges of infringement against the patent that has now been rejected by the USPTO.

Streetstylz,

They do not have to state that it is a non final action. The fact is as they reported, the patent is rejected in its entirety at this time. No misleading there.

They provided the link to the documents so any one could read what the USPTO stated and what type of action it was, for those who do not understand the process.

Its not their responsibility to restate everything in the documents, and it is not misleading to report the patent has been rejected.

Just as a criminal gets convicted in court of say murder. Its reported as such although thats a non final action, since the criminal still has the right to appeal the verdict.

Like I said its you and your group that are misleading others, with your claims that this will be reversed in the near future etc. When none of you have a clue what will happen.

My bet is it will not be reversed, but thats an opinion, not a fact as you represent your views as.

As I pointed out to you and your group many times, bar code reading and data input to computers was around long before Neomedia. The only thing that supposedly made their process different was using a cell phone instead of a camera to read the code, and even Chas stated that in public interviews several years ago. As he pointed out, his technology was going no where until the invent and mass use of cell phones. But you and your group are all patent experts and expert attorneys, who claimed all along the EFF wouldnt even get the re-exam they requested. And you were wrong then, just as you were wrong when you claimed over and over that the ruling would be favorable to Neomedia and happen last year.

These people have misled no one unlike your self, who has a blog specific to Neomedia, yet important information on it which is negative does not get reported period.

Asa for your comments on my knowledge of the USPTO, now thats funny. It was I who told you how the process worked. It was I who provided the statistics way back on the re-exam results etc.

By the way, you didn’t wait to post it on your blog, when the request was turned down to re-examine did you. Because that appeared to be in favor of Neomedia. You even posted how the USPTO validated Neomedias patent, which was a bald faced lie put out by the company. The request was denied because the application wasn’t filled out properly.

Why is it that speculation in favor of Neomedia gets posted and now you claim the negatives won’t get the same billing until a final decision is reached. Then you think no one else should post about them either. This was an official rejection by the USPTO of all 95 claims on the patent. You can spin it any way you want as set aside etc. but its an official rejection of the entire patent, whether its the final rejection or not.

To you it may be a non event. To companies in this space like Scanbuy its a big event. At this time thats one claim in Neomedias suit, they no longer have to defend against. Your opinion that its a non event isnt worth the cost of a cup of cooffee at Starbucks, because its your opinion thats all.

No Streetstylz, you are wrong. I expect my opinion is worth more then a cup of coffee. Because my opinion and the courts opinion I assure you are the same.

So whether you think it matters or not, the court will not let a case proceed, claiming infringement of any patent, which the court is aware has at this time been rejected in its entirety by the very office that issued it originally.

I know for certain, Neomedia can not claim in court Scanbuy is infringing this patent, until the 95 rejections are lifted by the USPTO.

So you see its not my opinion, its a matter of law, and that law supports my opinion 100 percent.

As I stated, you and others might not think this is an important event, because you BELIEVE it will be reversed at some time. But anyone who was facing suit by Neomedia, will differ with you greatly, and rightly so, because they now do not have to worry about defending themselves against this patent. At least for now.

What happens in the future is a whole different ball game, and is merely speculation, but the here and now is whats important today.

The fact is, Neomedia has no case of infringement on this patent in the courts, until the USPTO reverses its rejections, if that is what will occur. And thats a big if.

You and others claimed all along that companies like Scanbuy would be paying Neomedia, as early as by last December. That never happened, and now its even lessa likely to happen based on this decision by the USPTO. Thats the facts as we know them today, and you can continue to argue your point, based on your pure speculation, but that does not trump the facts as they now stand.

You are the one arguing based on speculation, and I am arguing based on the existing facts, and the law regarding those facts. No judge will accept a case of infringement on this patent as the ruling now stands, and would dismiss the action as frivolous.

brewskih,

Again, apples vs oranges.

And like I’ve said to you before, it’s best if we just agree to disagree.

Cheers