Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
There are plenty of good lawyers looking for a gig right now, who could probably be hired on the cheap.
Seriously?
They really dropped the ball in a big way. No one can be happy with this - and just when we were finally getting some traction. Now, s/hs appear to be racing for the exits.
Beam -
NOL carry overs are severly limited once the company has changed ownership by an aggregate of 50% within a 3 year period. With the sell-off NEOM has endured over the last 2 years, I would be surprised if this threshold was not reached. Potential suitors hoping to achieve tax savings as a perk of the buy-out would definitely do their research in this area.
If, as you are suggesting, an entity is trying to buy up control, why wouldn't they just go to Cornell to work out a private deal? All this buying on the open market lets the cat out of the bag and raises the price for their future purchases.
Another theory - perhaps this is just speculative buying before the CTIA? NEOM does have a history of run-ups immediately before the CTIA. Hopefully they will use the platform to make a big announcement this time.
My apologies if this has already been posted:
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/delta/stories/2009/03/19/cell_boarding_pass.html
Could someone with a strong grasp on NEOM's patent coverage please explain whether this new "electronic boarding pass" option infringes?
That code sure looks familiar.
Thanks!
ER
YJ -- can you please elaborate on what you meant by the following:
Following the scenario above would go a long way toward keeping us (retail shareholders) very happy IMO and would very likely keep YA out of our 'litigation' sights (or the SEC's).
Specifically, what SEC regulations are you alleging that YA might be violating in that scenario? If they legally own the warrants and choose to exercise them, what rule would that break? Maybe I misunderstood what you meant.
Thanks for clarifying!
ER
YJ - Time is a valid concern.
NEOM only has about half of the life remaining on its 6,199,048 patent. It will expire in just under 10 years (20 years from filing date of 01-15-1999).
That said, a lot of time can be made up quickly if licensees are indeed "lined up".
Aside from any derivative suit, I’d personally love to see the SEC go after TS for scalping. He’s the reason I bought every [now worthless] share I own.
Re: Derivative Suit
It might be in Neomedia's best interest to initiate a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation against former officers who were grossly negligent in their performance and breach of fiduciary duties. I believe a favorable outcome in such a suit would put money back in NEOM's coffers - given our cash situation, this would certainly help the company stay afloat for a while longer.
Going after directors who are no longer with the company should not affect the current business plan or operations.
Do not confuse this derivative suit with a class action to recover damages to shareholders.
A claim "change" likely means that it has been narrowed -
While this is not a cancellation, it could certainly impact the scope of the patent.
A quick google search revealed this article citing USPTO reexamine statistics:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/85/8503cover3.html
PTO requires that a patent reexamination be conducted in a manner similar to the examination of a new patent application. During the process, the patent as originally issued remains in place. The result of this inspection can confirm the patentability of the claims, amend the patent claims, cancel some or all of the patent claims, or add new claims to the patent.
According to PTO, the process takes on average about 21 months to complete [...] PTO statistics also show that 74% of patent reexaminations result in at least one of the claims modified or canceled or a new claim added.
At least new claims are also as likely an outcome as cancellation of claims. Also appears as though we are in for a very long ride - hope NEOM can afford the fare.
T-mobile appears to have the same restrictions built into their software.
NeoReader can't access the phone's camera, same as qode before. There may be a way to "unlock" such features, but the average Joe is not going to spend the time required to figure this out.
Does the website work for anyone?
I can't pull it up (www.neoreader.com) on my computer or my phone.
Also, for whoever has been able to download the reader - is it basically just qode rebraded?
Quality critiques aside, perhaps we should be happy to receive any form of communication (assuming it did come from the MC2 crowd). Don't complain too loudly or they may just leave us guessing if they're still alive.
Was his name "ChuckerFla" or something?
Not many of the old posters left around here.
Beam -
I'm curious how you can conclude so matter-of-factly that "This case will stop the others". Are you suggesting that the SB v. Neom infringement case is the end-all litigation suit encompassing any and every possible future infringement? Do you not believe it possible that there will be other companies or different technologies/methods of circumventing Neom's "Bridge" that will be tried in future litigation?
p.s. I believe you mean "pawn", rather than "pun".
My guess would be that the courts' dockets are excessively full.
I'd be really curious to know what the average cost-basis is around here. I think most would need a 600% buy-out premium to come close to break-even.
Claw,
IF this scenario (bad-faith examination request) does play out, and IF NEOM chooses to take no action (be it for lack of funding, time, man-power, etc.) would it be worth pursuing in a shareholder's derivative suit?
No, on the contrary, I think this news was being looked for -- by Cornell.
It was implied when you said that in your response to his post.
"Will say when I have solid proof."
You already said. Then you admit to not having solid proof. Fishing for cheapies today?
OT: Success
When I saw the alias, that was also the first thing that came to mind. Good old APD_Y
Jonesie, I completely agree. Unless stated otherwise we should view all news as objectively as possible.
For what it's worth, people said the same thing about all the subs when we went on the spending spree - "Those subs must know something big is coming, because they are accepting NEOM shares as payment."
Not trying to suggest that favorable financing isn't around the corner, I just wouldn't make that assumption from the fact that Gavitec re-negotiated their acquisition terms.
RE: the upcoming letter to shareholders
I applaud their realization that communication is good, especially in light of these disturbing times. All I can say about the anticipated "communication" is that I hope they do a more thorough job addressing the issues than they have in the past.
Recall:
http://neom.com/docs/investor_relations/2006FAQ_Shareholder_Questions.pdf
Specifically, the first slide.
(OT) Brewski -
I have an honest (off-topic) request for you. I have noticed your continued improper use of the word "don't" in many of your posts that I've read. I'm no English major, but honestly as I read that to myself it's like fingernails to the chalkboard. I'm not trying to single you out, nor do I want to come across as a jerk (sorry I don't have PM capabilities). This is an honest request from a frequent reader (not the grammar police). Thanks.
Probably Cornell. And they still have plenty of shares left!
Can anyone shed some light on exactly what was gained from our short-lived relationship with Mobot? Did they help us in the development of qode to the platforms that are available today? Weren't we in the process of integrating their technology with ours?
It has been suggested that NEOM is likely to axe the remaining subs. It was posted when sponge was "returned" that this was good because NEOM was simply cutting out the fat (non-performers), but it was also stated at the time that Mobot was one we could not afford to lose. ("marriage made in heaven", I believe)
As someone who doesn't really understand how the subs are (or were) integrated in NEOM's business model, I find it amusing that everytime news related to the subs comes out, that somehow it is good. Was it good that we bought them, or is it good that we are returning them? Can't be both ways.
Most here can agree that our business with the subs has been the primary reason for share price decline (from the year long quiet period for BSDS to the dilution with mobot/sponge/gavitec, etc). Now we seem to be returning everything in an attempt to recover share price. All I'm asking is, did NEOM gain any benefit from the subs at all? And if so, in what ways? It has cost NEOM dearly (pps was around .40 before acquisitions). Now here we sit, happy about .08. Someone please tell me that we got something out of the deal(s) that cost roughly 80% of our share price. Otherwise, let's call it like it is and quit spinning every business decision (sub purchase, sub release, etc) into good news.
I'm trying not to be too disappointed here, but I had just gotten used to the idea that buying Mobot was a good thing, and that we needed their technology. Now it's time to change gears, again.
Are you alluding to NMPR? I'm not sure about the details of that situation, but we had a deal with a China company and they now owe us a lot of money. NEOM calls it "bad debt". Maybe someone more knowledgeable on that situation can enlighten us.
Yeah, if you spelled it that way you would. Try "Nintendo"?
Ouch, P, you must be a glutton for pain! Hope you close green. I bought another chunk back at .08, so what do I know? We are all victims of the falling knife.
If you were down 400%+ you'd be out 4 times more money than you put in! 100% loss is everything, can't lose money that's not on the table. Might want to brush up on that math.
I wonder if this was mutual? As in, they couldn't reach an agreement on how to recover the promised price of stock used in the acquisition.
Either way, nice to see NEOM putting the clamps on dilution and cash burn. I wonder if any other subs are going to get cut?
Fool me once....
hope you don't fool me again.
Right on the money, Jonsie - down 10% exactly.
In hindsight it appears the PR just slowed down the effect.
The Qode PR seems to be doing a decent job of propping up the share price so far. I was expecting a large drop this morning.
RE: poor revenues.
Leak? Revenues have always been poor, right?
Banks - that is absolutely correct.
I was only clarifying this statement from N E O M:
It is likely that they know they are going to loose and they believe the Judge will grant better terms to them than NeoMedia has....It is further likely that they want to move on with their business, which would mean they are not interested in colaboration.
I would not read that much into the motion. While it isn't necessarily a bad thing (judge will likely not grant), it isn't a good thing either (they believe they have a strong case).
If Scanbuy motioned for Summary Judgment, it means that they believe they will win the case. They are asking the judge to go ahead rule in their favor based on the evidence presented - without needing to go to trial.
Edited to add: This does not mean that they do indeed have sufficient compelling evidence for their motion to be granted. It is just a (common) request.
Didn't we used to have a basher hang around here who also used to call it "paperclip"?