Scanbuy
By popular demand and request (ten in total), here is the interview I conducted with Jonathan Bulkeley CEO of Scanbuy in December2007. It was a candid and to the point interview and I am publishing now to do a bit of a competitive rally between the interview that Streetstylz just published on his blog today.
Also we are adding video interviews to GoMo News - get ready for this next month but here is a write up.
BR: Can you give me a two minute pitch on Scanbuy?
JB: We are the global leader in the visual recognition space using your camera phone. We provide software that allows advertisers and publishers to distribute this technology to allow consumers to view tags.
BR: Tell me about the tags?
JB: At the moment the barcode readers can read any of the standardised codes. The software on the phone can read Datamatrix and QR codes.
BR: Is it proprietary?
JB: Yes, we do this with Telefonica and we have a strong barcode solution. We provide services that operators want us to create.
BR: Are you being asked by operators to create a global solution or for specific devices only?
JB: This all depends on the market and geography. In China operators are bundling our software, not their own. In other markets the mobile operators control the whole thing. This is true in the US where no software goes on devices without the mobile operator approving it. In Europe it’s a little different. But where carriers control, they want to offer services by owning the controlling use of the barcode. Carriers have software (proprietary) on the phones and the software has to be on the device. Carriers want a mandate for software on the phone.
BR: Who are your customers?
JB: We are pilot on SFR and have a pilot with Vodafone. All the French carriers are launching barcodes in Q1.
BR: What about Mobile Tag – I thought they were the leader in France?
JB: I think that Abaxia’s claims are overblown. The French code platform is Scanbuy’s. The AFMM the association of French mobile marketers is using the Scanbuy software and the platform. So Abaxia does not own the market.
BR: So there is room for growth?
JB: It’s a very early market.
BR: I predict its going to be THE growth market.
JB: Me too.
BR: But I worry that the trouble is that people give up quickly and downloading is a pain…
JB: Downloading is not an option
BR: There are so many ifs and buts in the market – there is no standardisation and this frustrates the consumer.
JB: In the markets where carriers are king, they are setting specifications and rules, so there is stnadardisation in the French then the Spain then the US. Each market is a separate entity and technology allows these markets to breathe.
BR: What about patents what do you hold?
JB: We have a number of strong patents.
BR: What about conflict to do predict a patent war?
JB: I don’t see a patent war. Neomedia has been dealt a big blow in the US. The US patent office has accepted 90% of the re-examination request. This means that its patents are changed or invalidated. Neomedia’s strong hold is like Abaxia’s claims. There is no leader and there will not be a war as all the patents are different in this area. Did you know about the patents?
BR: I thought that they had been approved?
JB: NEOM put out a press release that the patent office had upheld the patents, but this was a mistake because there was some irregularity in the filing. This was a false press release. Neomedia went to our judge and put the litigation on hold so now litigation between Neomedia and Scanbuy is not currently ongoing.
BR: This is very confusing. I think there are still some patent problems and the barcode market is stumbling off the blocks.
JB: We just closed another round of funding for USD 6.8m with the same VCs as the internal round. We considered an external round, but didn’t need to at this point. This is a series B1 release. We are excited that this is our market. We are going to be around for a long time and we are going to grow and grow.
BR: We’ll be watching with great interest. Thank you.
(Disclaimer this was made in December 2007)
23 Responses
Leave a Reply
Hi Bena
Thanks for posting the interview, even though I wasn’t one f the ten requesting it. It sure did shed some new light on Scanbuys position, in regards to the patent litigation issue.
But the one comment that struck me the most was about the standardization issue. The reason it struck me, is a few days ago, I typed a very lenngthy comment to another of your articles, where the consensus seemed to be there needed to be a global standard. I disagreed with that consensus, but felt my reply which included examples as to why, was to lengthy to include on your blog, although I saved it as a text file.
Perhaps it is relevent to post it here with your permission, since this seems to be a very important issue, going forward for this technology.
Thanks Bena,
After reading this interview, I have even less respect for Scanbuy’s CEO Jonathan Bulkeley … And that is very unfortunate.
NeoMedia Technologies has a suite of twelve issued patents covering the core concepts behind linking the physical world to the electronic world.
According to Bulkeley, “NeoMedia has been dealt a big blow in the US. The US patent office has accepted 90% of the re-examination request. This means that its patents are changed or invalidated.”
This is a gross misstatement. The US Patent & Trademark Office agreeing to review the claims of NeoMedia’s patent does NOT invalidate or change them. It simply introduces the possibility that the claims may either be validated, modified, or canceled. Often times, reexaminations lead to the broadening and strengthening of a patent’s claims.
While not going into a long diatribe about patents in general or discussing ScanBuy’s newly issued patents in particular, it is important to note that the fact that a company is issued a patent doesn’t necessarily mean much. There are broad patents (NeoMedia) and narrow patents (Scanbuy). Narrow patents are much easier to get issued, but are also of little or no enforcement value. In addition, even if a company gets a patent issued, that doesn’t mean that it is protected in any way. A patent is not a “right to operate” it is a “right to prevent someone else from operating using your invention.” One can issue a patent on a particular subject and still be infringing another’s patent on the same subject … As is the case with Scanbuy owning narrow patents, but still infringing on broader patents owned by NeoMedia.
Scanbuy uses the indirect encoding method for their barcode resolution process.
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 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.
NeoMedia’s CEO William Hoffman and Scanbuy’s CEO Jonathan Bulkeley will both be participating in a panel discussion at CTIA Wireless in April.
Cameraphone Code Scanning Technologies: A Survey
Time: Apr. 01, 2008 from 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM.
Location: Las Vegas Convention Center - Room: North 107
This panel discussion will be focused on the devices, software, applications, etc., that enable code scanning via a mobile phone’s camera functionality. While cameraphone code scanning has the potential to revolutionize the way users access information, content and advertising, questions still remain. What is the current state of the technologies? What are the main obstacles to mass adoption and what are the strategies to overcome them?
Moderator: Gerry Purdy
Principal Analyst
Frost & Sulllivan
Speakers:
William Hoffman
NeoMedia Technologies
Jonathan Bulkeley
Scanbuy
Chris Dury
scanR
Dudley Fitzpatrick
JAGTAG Inc.
Dean Tang
ABBYY USA
I will be at that panel - it should be fun!
On top of that I just had the CEO of Abaxia on the phone Cédric Mangaud. Watch out for an interview and some new information shortly.
[...] crois que l’entrevue de Bena Roberts, Fondatrice de GoMo News, avec Jonathan Bulkeley, le CEO de Scanbuy, mérite [...]
To: Jonathan Bulkeley
Akamai Technologies, Inc. announced that a jury in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts returned a verdict today that Limelight Networks, Inc. is infringing the content delivery patent asserted by Akamai. As a result, the jury awarded Akamai $45,526,946 in damages, plus interest.
The verdict, which came at the end of a three-week trial in Boston, stemmed from a lawsuit that Akamai had filed in 2006. The jury found that Limelight infringed all four of the claims that Akamai had asserted in its Internet content delivery patent, U.S. patent 6,108,703, issued in the name of Akamai founders Tom Leighton and the late Danny Lewin.
The jury rejected Limelight’s defense that Akamai’s patent was invalid.
“We are extremely pleased with the jury’s verdict,” said Melanie Haratunian, senior vice president and general counsel of Akamai. “Today’s ruling recognizes the strength of Akamai’s patent portfolio and is a tangible reflection of our resolve to vigorously defend the Company’s intellectual property.”
Akamai intends to ask the Court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting Limelight from continuing to sell infringing services.
Is there some kind of relevance between the Akamai/Limelight legal case and the Neom/Scanbuy legal case, which supports the posting of that verdict here, addressed to the CEO of Scanbuy, from a Neomedia shareholder?
Best I can tell there are no similarities other then the both cases involve patents.
First of all both of these companies are producing large revenues of their technology, which one claimed the other infringed upon. You and others have to date claimed that Scanbuy and Neom are making nothing off this technology, since it is still in early adoption. Matter of fact you and the others posting in this forum claimed many times Scanbuy is losing money by paying for partners to trial their application.
Which brings up difference number two. Limelight is still using this infringing technology as a part of their business and has done so, for the past 2 years since the lawsuit was filed. Almost everyone agrees that Scanbuy stopped using the aspects of their technology that supposedly violated Neom’s patents, back when the lawsuit was filed. Damages are considerably higher for a company that continues to infringe knowingly and in the limelight case for 2 years or more. damages also are typically a lot higher when revenue and profits are earned by the infringer, as a result of using someone else’s technology.
Limelight has about 250 million in assets after subtracting their liabilities. They have revenue of about 120 million a year, or 30 million per quarter. Cash alone is about 120 million of their assets. All factors that juries consider when rendering judgments. Based on every Neom shareholders posts in various forums to date, Scanbuy is getting zero revenue for their solutions, and are paying others to trial their solutions.
And most importantly of all, Akamai’s patents were not being challenged, or re-examined.
So what was the point of your post, if not just another cheap shot attack at the CEO of a competitor company, to the one you own stock in, but act as though you are more involved then that?
From NetEco
http://www.neteco.com/127552-flashcode-orange-sfr-bouygues-telecom-utiliseront.html
Orange, SFR and Bouygues Telecom have just agreed to use the same 2D codes “Flashcode” (Datamatrix) in France. Orange, SFR et Bouygues Telecom are associated with the AFMM “the association of French mobile marketers” and MobileTag - strong supporter of the technology - to offer as a standard 2D barcode “Flashcode”.
Jonathan Bulkeley claimed that “the French code platform is Scanbuy’s”. Where is Scanbuy in this story?
Scanbuy uses the indirect encoding method for their barcode resolution process.
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 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.
I especially like this part:
“Akamai intends to ask the Court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting Limelight from continuing to sell infringing services.”
Bena since you will be at the show, could you ask Jonathan Bulkeley a questions in my place. I would like to know his answer on the following:
Why didn’t Scanbuy submit a reference to Neomedia’s Patents under, “US Patent References” just like Neomedia did back in 1997 when they made sure not to traverse on Lucent Technologies Patents?
The next question would be for the U.S.P.T.O.:
Could the Primary Examiner and Assistant Examiner approved the Scanbuy Patents in late 2006 and early 2007 without knowledge of Neomedia’s Patents if it was not under US Patent References?
Scanbuy’s IP is, IMO, is (1) step around the best solution.
BUT, IMO, it covers the same idea of what Neomedia based their business model on years ago. Linking to physical world objects with your mobile device.
Should Scanbuy’s Patents be revoked for being a copy cat or infringing on prior art?
I am NOT a expert in the area, BUT, I have just as my questions as the next.
Is it the idea of what the mobile user is clicking on to receive information, OR, as some would say, a “process” on how to receive information that separates the Scanbuy Patents and Neomedia Patents.
I for one, am still in favor of the best process to get instant information from the physical world around me in one click. Speak it or click it with the mobile broswer. I do not want to type, AND, permission based so that I do not receive spam.
Thanks.
In a follow up to Jonathan Bulkeley’s false statement regarding, “NeoMedia has been dealt a big blow in the US. The US patent office has accepted 90% of the re-examination request. This means that its patents are changed or invalidated.”
NeoMedia has 4 core patents - 2 Hudetz patents and 2 Durst patents.
Hudetz - 5,978,773 & 6,199,048
Durst - 5,933,829 & 6,108,656
The Hudetz patent (6,199,048) currently under review by the USPTO was filed in 1999 and granted in 2001.
NeoMedia has 3 other core patents (5,978,773 - 5,933,829 - 6,108,656) that pre-date the Hudetz patent (6,199,048) currently under review by the USPTO.
Patents (5,978,773 - 5,933,829 - 6,108,656) were granted in 1999 and 2000, which pre-dates the Hudetz patent (6,199,048) which was granted in 2001.
If every claim in the Hudetz patent (6,199,048) currently under review by the USPTO is deemed unpatentable, NeoMedia still has 3 other core patents, which pre-date the Hudetz patent, that they can operate under and derive revenue and licensing fees from.
For the record, although we had this discussion, years ago, before you ever became a shareholder in Neomedia, the patent in question is an extension of the original core patent filed in 1995. That application was filed in 1995 and the patent awarded in 1999. At that time Neom filed what is known as a modification of the patent, and a debate ensued as to whether the patent date changes to 1999 or stays 1995. The outcome of that debate based on the USPTO rules, was that the original date of 1995 stays for the purpose of expiration etc.
If you do a little history of the patent being reexamined, it shows its a member of the 1995 patent family, which was awarded in 1999.
So if this patent is considered not valid by the USPTO, it calls into question the parent patent it was based off, and Neomedias very first patent covering this technology.
Its funny how in the past, you and the group you post with, have opined this patent was crucial to Neomedia going forward, and now you seem to be saying the outcome of this patent doesn’t matter, because Neomedia has prior patents?
Simply stated patent number 6,199,048, filed in 1999 is a division of patent number 5,978,773 filed in 1995, as it states in the application.
Even Neomedia seems to think the outcome of the USPTO action is relevant to the Scanbuy case, and thus the reason they stayed their case against Scanbuy, PENDING THE DECISION BY THE USPTO.
Here is a little background info showing the parent patent number, and following that the link to the parent patent, filed in 1995 and awarded in 1999.
Description Parent Number Parent Filing or 371(c) Date Parent Status Patent Number
is a Division of 08/538,365 10-03-1995 Patented 5,978,773
Application Number: 08/538,365 Customer Number: -
Filing or 371 (c) Date: 10-03-1995 Status: Patented Case
Application Type: Utility Status Date: 10-21-1999
Examiner Name: PAN, DANIEL H Location: What is a Location? FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
Group Art Unit: 2183 Location Date: 07-12-2007
Confirmation Number: 6434 Earliest Publication No: -
Attorney Docket Number: 75353-00006 Earliest Publication Date: -
Class / Subclass: 705/023 Patent Number: 5,978,773
First Named Inventor: FRANK C. HUDETZ , LISLE, IL (US) Issue Date of Patent: 11-02-1999
http://tinyurl.com/ysnl4q
i cant wait until neomedia’s patent is upheld. scanbuy is nothing more than a copy cat infringer company. i hope they go out of business!
In response to Dlethe, I may be wrong (and please corect me if I am), but I believe Flashcode is Scanbuy’s reader.
http://www.scanbuy.com/article.view.php?id=11&press=1&page=company
Elin, Please read the “recent” French press articles. Orange, SFR, Bouygues Telecom, the AFMM, and Mobiletag have agreed to use the same 2D codes “Flashcode”. Is Scanbuy involved in this agreement?
DLETHE01,
You keep referring to FLASHCODE as a particular companies solution, in this case Mobiletag.
Flashcode in France is a general term used for all 2D barcodes. So the fact that every telecom comes to an agreement to use one 2D Flashcode as a standard, has no bearing on what readers will be used to interpret that standard code.
So the standard 2D flashcode will be the data matrix, as opposed to the many other varieties of 2D codes available, such as AZTEC, or QR or the many proprietary 2D codes. That does not leave Scanbuy out of the mix as far as code reading solutions are concerned.
On your own blog, in a debate with a french individual who works in the industry, you conceded that the only two bar code readers that could read FLASHCODES were Scanbuys and Mobiletags.
Also a little research shows flashcode as the term is defined is associated with Scanbuys trial with the SFR back last summer. Amazingly that trial was so successful, that SFR extended the trial just this past November, and guess what they refer to as the codes. Yes they extended their FLASHCODE TRIAL using SCANBUYS solution.
So the question is, why wasn’t Mobiletag mentioned, if flashcode refers to their bar code reader as you often suggest?
You will notice in the second link, the news article refers to the same 3 magazines that were piloted using Scanbuys software, and refers to the user having to download an application called flashcode to access the codes. Obviously this trial involves Scanbuy and has involved them since it was started in July 2007, and the reader referred to is called flashcode, so either the SFR is promoting one reader, and the AFMM another, and both can click the codes in these magazines, or Scanbuys reader is the one referred to by both agencies.
Who knows the answer to that, since its not in print anywhere. All that is in print is the fact the SFR was using Scanbuys product when they began this trial, and it was deemed such a success they extended the trial. Dis they switch bar code readers in the process to go to Mobiletags?
By the way, this trial was code named “FLASHCODE” by the AFMM at the time of inception last summer.
http://blog.clubtexting.com/2007/10/france-mobile-b.html
Hi Bena,
You will find the Mobiletag Press release on this website. I just downloaded it (PDF file). The document is secure.
http://www.mediafire.com/?ygtxmtyhxxd
It’s my friend JA who provided the PDF file.
http://mobilecrossmedia.blogspot.com/
Paris, March 1st 2008:
Mobiletag, AFMM (the association of French mobile marketers) and 3 french mobile operators, Orange, SFR and Bouygues, have signed an cross-license agreement on the specifications of 2D Barcode
Flashcode.
http://www.mobiletag.com/beta/en/
If Scanbuy/Wister were involved in this agreement then we would find such important news on Scanbuy or Hotscan website.
I am not going to argue with someone who can not read and speak French. It is a waste of time.
Wister and HotScan (Scanbuy) is not involved here.
Merci
Édouard
DLETHE01,
I hope you read Bena’s interview today with Mobiletag. Because it appears that for someone who can not read or speak French(btw you don’t know what languages I am literate in, and there are multiple), my interpretation was correct, and Mobiletag is not at this time working with SFR. And they stated just today, they have 70 percent of the french market, I guess that too means they don’t have SFR.
So your statement of facts you posted all over the is innacurate, when you stated because Scanbuy wasnt included in this release, it meant that all those named in the mobiletag release were working together and Scanbuy was out in the cold.
I knew my interpretation was accurate because I contacted Mobiletag myself and recieved an email reply yesterday, but I am glad to see they also confirmed it through a third party unbiased individual.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. Obviously, you don’t speak French. Go and read my last two blog posts.
I wrote:
“Est-ce que Jonathan Burkeley, le CEO de Scanbuy, nous a dit toute la vérité?”
“Mobiletag et Hotscan sont les deux seuls qui se luttent actuellement pour gagner l’appel d’offre de l’AFMM.”
Did Jonathan Burkeley tell us the whole truth? We need some clarification. Is Flashcode Scanbuy’s reader?
There is a call for bids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_for_bids
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Elin Said:
In response to Dlethe, I may be wrong (and please corect me if I am), but I believe Flashcode is Scanbuy’s reader.
SFR currently has an RFP open and mobiletag is on trial there. This is for NFC communication - a client for barcodes.
I think this is what dlethe was referring too.
Also - I asked the question - Flashcode is the mobiletag name.
Hi Bena
I know what he was referring to because I read all his posts across the net. Statements made in other forums about how p’d off Scanbuy is etc lead to the conclusion. Even here when he questioned the poster Elin, with the same news story, and how it does not say anything about Scanbuy makes it clear what his suggestions were.
Big deal, the pr didn;t include Scanbuy. It did include the SFR and the best anyone here knows, they are still working with Scanbuy, so by default Scanbuy is involved to some degree, whether they are mentioned or not. So what other objective would he have to keep reiterating the same point over and over across the web, and in other forums make statements of how po’ed the Scanbuy CEO is, as if he really has a clue.
And for the record FLASH CODE is a general term used by all french, so yes flashcode is what mobiletag does. It is also what Scanbuy does. Flashcode was the name of the project given back in the summer, by the AFMM and at that time had no bearing on Mobiletag or Scanbuy. It was a code name, and that information can be found on the web if you search. I can provide the link if you need it.
Wister HotScan (Scanbuy) is out. Mobile Tag has won French market.
Beaucoup de Mercis
Édouard