Poll: Mobile Voice Search Hot or Not?

Mr. Stylz,

Since you incessantly bring up NM at every opportunity and seem to be an expert on patent law, I think it would only be fair if you divulged your present and past relationship with NW along with your qualifications as a patent attorney.

Either that, or go annoy people somewhere else.

Peace,
Tom

Mr. Tom Emmons,

Understandably, you have a vested interest in Scanbuy. I am nothing more than a mere investor in NeoMedia … I am in no way a patent attorney. And for you to think I am is laughable at best.

I am glad to hear that I annoy you. I must take after your wife.

Hugs & kisses,
Mr. Stylz

I don’t have any standards - if someone complains I remove it - no complaint - it stays. this is a blog and I don’t like to censor at all. I don’t play favourites either.

Mr. Stylz,

Thank you for answering my question, you are an investor and considering your position in NM … you get the point.

I never claimed you were a patent attorney, or someone who even remotely understood how the modern patent system works. If you were, you would know that Microsoft (via the aquisition of TellMe, who are ex-Netscape guys strangely enough) has a slew of Voice Search patents and a stellar legal team to back them.

The modern patent system is merely a game of large companies building up patent portfolios to defend each other against frivolous infringement lawsuits (that rarely are enforced and almost never come to trial), propagated by said patent attorneys.

There have been some great strides in the last 12 months around the space of business process patents, in trying to clean up this mess.

http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9719020

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11332744

FWIW, I am not a patent attorney though I am loathe to say I have several patents under review at the moment.

Back to you Mr. Stylz, quit pretending and prove some sort of a point now an then. Next time post a link to the patent in question, or better yet get a patent attorney to comment on it.

Peace,
Tom

Trippytom,

You were right on for questioning his patent litigation skills. he has stated numerous times here and all over the web he expected great news soon from the USPTO on the re-exam.

The news is out and available for anyone to read on the USPTO web site. All 95 claims in Neomedias patent have been rejected as I suggested may be the case many times now.

This is a non final action so neomedia has the right to challenge this, but their chances of wining are slim to nil at this point.

There is an 87 page down loadable file under the re-exam file wrapper which explains the rejections and why.

Streetstylz,

Thats your problem, you think you know it all, and over and over after so much rhetoric you have been wrong. But no one is supposed to challenge you, in your little world.

Well your assumptions and your rhetoric on the NEOM patents was dead wrong as is illustrated above, and thus proof why more people like myself need to be challenging your pump NEOMEDIA rhetoric.

Read the USPTO ruling out today.

LOL….Streetstylz I think thats what I said three responses up from yours.

Now I see you are agreeing with someone in another forum, who states his patent friend told him this was not a rejection at all. LOL. The USPTO states in claim after claim, that they are REJECTED due to prior art.

Whether its a final rejection, or a non final rejection, its still a rejection, but the spin mi esters are busy trying to make it look like something else.

This individual you are agreeing with even says he just learned they are not in the apppeal stage yet…..LOL.

Of course they aren’t. Neomedia gets to respond to the non final rejection, and if their response is not satisfactory for the USPTO to reverse their decision, then a final rejection action comes. At that point Neomedia gets the opportunity to appeal.

But with all 95 claims rejected at this time, that does not look promising.

I was looking back on statements you and I made in this forum in late May, and my what a surprise how your assumptions were so far off base, and mine at the time were dead on.

But you are right, its not over yet, but Neomedias court battle with Scanbuy, will have to be amended to exclude this patent until there is a final decision. If they intend to go forward with the legal case before this process plays itself out.

That is very significant going forward for Neomedia. I think I also stated Neomedia had an idea what was coming, and thats why they hired a CEO with a focus on selling the company. They still have time to sell before a final decision comes around and the appeal is exhausted next year some time in my opinion.

By the way will this critical news in the bar code space make it onto your blog….hehehe

NeoMedia can, and should, move forward in their patent infringement suit against Scanbuy on the 3 other valid and subsisting patents owned by NeoMedia.

IMO, this isn’t critical news and nothing is final. Therefore I see no reason at all to comment about it on my blog

At the bottom are a couple of your comments made just in the past couple months regarding Neomedias patents. And the very system you claimed in one comment that Neomedia owned the patents to is exactly what the USPTO today said was non patentable. The unique identifier you pointed to the USPTO said was included in Wellnors 1993 patent, referenced as a pointer. They went on to describe it in details and stated someone in the art would of known this pointer or identifier pertains to bar codes which identify a company by their first 6 digits and the product by others. It goes on with more elaborate details but for the layman that explains it pretty good.

So even thogh this is not the final decision, it is critical to Neomedia and you thought so when you made these comments around the web and on this site…..LOL

“”"”It’s gonna be great when NeoMedia’s patent is upheld by the USPTO and Scanbuy has to license NeoMedia’s IP.

Indirect encoding (patented by NeoMedia) is the process of linking the target information to an index (364528 for example) and putting that unique identifier into a 1D UPC/EAN or 2D barcode. The code reader on the mobile phone reads the barcode and sends the code data over the Internet to a central resolution server that will tell the mobile phone what action is associated with the index, i.e. access a URL, download media, initiate a phone call, ect.”"”"”

So much for full disclosure on your blog huh?

Yeah, I have seen the latest spin on how if it happened in the RIM case it can happen for Neomedia too.

Problem is thats just spin and speculation of what could happen. I rather deal in the reality of what HAS just happened. At this point and time all we know as fact is all 95 claims in their patent were covered under prior art based on the USPTO’s opinion as WE KNOW IT.

All this what if this happens or that happens, has gone on so long in Neomedia land by the investors, then they come here complaining how so many other suckers(I mean investors) lots tons of money, myself included.

How about you stick to the reality of what has gone on with neomedia, and leave the rogue case of RIM out of it, since there is no evidence the same will occur here. Yes I know it sounds good and might suck in a couple more investors along the way, but its not fact.

As to what Neomedia can and should do with Scanbuy, one thing is for certain. They will have to amend their complaint. The other thing I am almost certain of is that their counsel is probably the one told them to stay the court case, and i expect that counsel is better equipped to judge then you or I.

I do know the procedures in this patent are core to all the other patents. I also know some foreign patents were issued based on the legitimacy of this patent. So in the end if this patent remains rejected in its entirety, the fallout will be huge with the other patents as well.

Those are the facts and i am sticking to them, rather then high hope speculation that got so many investors in hot water financially.

Streetstylz,

I think you do not get it. The bar point patents you speak of are of limited scope.

This patent which at this time IS rejected in its entirety, dates to 1995, when the concept was supposedly dreamed about by the Neomedia founders. It covers the basic process and the other patents acquired merely complimented this process or expanded it.

Yes those acquired patents have some uniqueness, but they certainly do not make up the bridge that you and others claimed Neomedia owned by this patent under re-exam. At best those patents merely give them a foot path on that bridge.

As to the spin, yeah right Streetstylz. Call it what you want to call it, but as even you suggest, its speculation of what could happen in a best case scenario. And this reliable source that keeps getting mentioned wouldnt be the same one who said the EFF had no case and the re-exam would be denied would it? Is this reliable source even a patent attorney?

News flash. Even patent attorneys skilled in the art, who disagree on a patent issue never know what way its going to go. Both legally or in a case like this re-exam. So some source you are relying on has no more clue then you or I at this point, and therefore any speculation is pure spin, as has occurred since yesterday on the financial message board for this stock, where your group has attempted damage control, recieved talking points that you have since used here etc.

You ought to be a politician…..LOL