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.
I don't know the answer to that question, but I suspect that the disclosures of ownership and trading activity may be a direct result of the litigation or perhaps SEC investigation.
Take the dollar amount of convertible debt divided by exercise price to get the number of potential outstanding shares.
Assuming a conversion price of $0.027645, if the Preferred Stock were to be converted as of the date hereof --
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1022701/000095012311004403/c11291sc13dza.htm
*******************************************************
Personalizit, The warrant conversions are only "free" to the extent that the PPS exceeds the exercise price and according to the following formula.
All Warrants are currently underwater, according to the last 10Q.
Section 2. Exercise of Warrant.
(a) Subject to the terms and conditions hereof, this Warrant may be exercised by the Holder hereof then registered on the books of the Company, pro rata as hereinafter provided, at any time on any Business Day on or after the opening of business on such Business Day, commencing with the first day after the date hereof, and prior to 11:59 P.M. Eastern Time on the Expiration Date (i) by delivery of a written notice, in the form of the subscription notice attached as Exhibit A hereto (the “Exercise Notice”), of such Holder’s election to exercise this Warrant, which notice shall specify the number of Warrant Shares to be purchased, payment to the Company of an amount equal to the Warrant Exercise Price(s) applicable to the Warrant Shares being purchased, multiplied by the number of Warrant Shares (at the applicable Warrant Exercise Price) as to which this Warrant is being exercised (plus any applicable issue or transfer taxes) (the “Aggregate Exercise Price”) in cash or wire transfer of immediately available funds and the surrender of this Warrant (or an indemnification undertaking with respect to this Warrant in the case of its loss, theft or destruction) to a common carrier for overnight delivery to the Company as soon as practicable following such date (“Cash Basis”) or (ii) if at the time of exercise, the Warrant Shares are not subject to an effective registration statement, by delivering an Exercise Notice and in lieu of making payment of the Aggregate Exercise Price in cash or wire transfer, elect instead to receive upon such exercise the “Net Number” of shares of Common Stock determined according to the following formula (the “Cashless Exercise”):
Net Number = ((A x B) – (AxC))/B
For purposes of the foregoing formula:
A = the total number of Warrant Shares with respect to which this Warrant is then being exercised.
B = the Closing Bid Price of the Common Stock on the date of exercise of the Warrant.
C = the Warrant Exercise Price then in effect for the applicable Warrant Shares at the time of such exercise.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1022701/000114420411002357/v208108_ex10-3.htm
I wish you would get off that dead horse. Just because Barkume voluntarily cancelled a few of the original claims in his ammendments does not mean they were not patentable. Also just because you cannot find a relevant patent(s) does not mean that no one can, or that they do not exist.
Looks like partial indirect to me
24:50 LM - "To date, we have not seen any practical applications of encoding schemes that we believe would work around our IP. We believe that Partial Indirect also referred to as Managed Direct would likely fall within our IP, subject of course, to review by council.
Mobile Marketer's Classic Guide to Mobile Creative
http://www.neom.com/press/in_the_news/mobile-marketers-classic-guide-mobile-creative-mobile-marketer
http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/opinion/classic-guides/8965.html
LM - page 17
http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/lib/11150.pdf
indirect code
http://njwight.tumblr.com/believes
Ammended 2 claims (1 and 71) and added 6 claims (96-101)
Looks to be well laid out arguments in rebuttal.
He is now sitting on 1.4mil common that he got for .028 and the stock is trading at .07, not so hard to imagine the motive of letting traders move it up.
Yes, I know but initially he converted 70 Series C into 1.2Mil or thereabouts, dumped them on the market driving his conversion price to .027645 and has now converted another 40 Series C shares into 1.4 Million common which he is now holding. This move doubled his potential common share count from 6mil to 12mil and increased his % ownership.
Assuming a conversion price of $0.027645 (was .058 on initial filing), if the Preferred Stock were to be converted as of the date hereof, the Reporting Persons would own 11,032,736 shares of Common Stock
(current holdings) - Based on ownership of 265 shares of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock and 1,446,916 shares of Common Stock.
YA still holds something like 8,000 shares of Series C --- do the math!
Climbing fast, 10 million shares in 12 days!!. This SOB (Cline) lowered his own conversion price and YA's by dumping a few million shares into the market. His ownership % and future conversion shares increase as a result. What a racket!!
Based on information provided by the Issuer, on January 18, 2011, 35,660,877 shares of Common Stock were outstanding as of January 18, 2011. Hopefully the Rothschild restricted shares are now included. Cline did not dump 10 million in this time frame.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1022701/000095012311004403/c11291sc13dza.htm
*************************************************************
Dilution confirmed. Possible restricted shares for the Rothschild patents included in the Jan 6 number??
Based on information provided by the Issuer, on January 6, 2011, 25,678,877 shares of Common Stock were outstanding as of December 31, 2010
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1022701/000095012311002466/c10938sc13d.htm
The number of outstanding shares of the registrant’s Common Stock on November 9, 2010 was 24,551,867.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1022701/000114420410059835/v202114_10q.htm
yes, patent number 6101534. Someone is trying real hard to get patents set aside, but are failing miserably.
Discovered something very interesting about this patent today. It seems that the patent was under reexamination and rejected in a final office action by the USPTO. Rothschild appealed that rejection and it was subsequently reversed by the board of appeals (Sept. 2010). Very curious as to why it has been referenced on at least two occasions in the SEC filings (eBay licence agreement). From what little I have read regarding the claims, it sure sounds alot like some of the NEOM patent filings.
Not sure how much I trust that file sharing website. My security software does not like it.
Try this link, I uploaded it there.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/0207djox1woj202/Ammended%20Complaint.pdf
The Clawsuit refile lays out a pretty impressive case that YA was indeed a beneficial owner of NEOM and failed to comply with SEC regs.
R.I.P. S.R.M. You will be missed here.
Had to be pre-Series C warrants because every warrant issued since 2006 is still intact and unexercised according to the last Q. Who needs to read filings when you have Ihub history lol.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1022701/000114420410059835/v202114_10q.htm
Warrant To Purchase Common Stock
Warrant No.: NEOM-0111 Number of Shares: 1,250,000
Warrant Exercise Price: $0.10
Expiration Date: January 10, 2016
YA Global Investments, L.P, the registered holder hereof is entitled, subject to the terms set forth below, to purchase from the Company upon surrender of this Warrant, at any time or times on or after the date hereof, but not after 11:59 P.M. Eastern Time on the Expiration Date up to 1,250,000 fully paid and nonassessable shares of Common Stock of the Company at the exercise price per share provided in Section 1(b) below.
“Warrant Exercise Price” shall be $0.10
******************************************
What does this mean??
Basically these warrants give YA the right to buy shares of common stock at the exercise price at any time up until the expiration date. In order to take advantage of their option, they would pay NEOM $.10 per share received which would equal $125,000 dollars to the Co. in exchange for 1.25mil shares of common stock. None of the Warrants are "in the money" because they all carry an exercise price at $.10 or more (last time I checked). If at some time in the future, the PPS is say $.20, they could put up the cash to buy (exercise their option) shares at $.10 and would then own common worth $.20 that they just bought for $.10. They have never exercised an option to purchase warrants and probably never will, unless the PPS spikes as the result of a sale or some other significant event. They have plenty of convertible debentures and preferred stock to convert for day to day dilution which they have already paid for.
All of the new warrants now carry a cashless exercise formula that basically allows for exercise of options on a cashless basis. The formula is in the filings but basically equates to potential free shares if the PPS exceeds the exercise price.
Does anyone else have an opinion?
Or perhaps he has been shorting it down from $.15 to $.08 in anticipation of recieving 6 million shares at $.058 with which to cover. Or perhaps Jeff scared the hell out of Mobilelover again today. Who the hell knows, but I got a few of those $.08's to go along with the 06's I got from Pop.
Gooooooo Neooooooooo!!
Of course the Rothschild deal was dilutive. That was confirmed when the deal was announced
There are no restricted share in the market
1 through 5 triggered the filing 6 is pure speculation. Hopefully this new owner will be less inclined to convert and dump than YA was. Any way you look at it, it is less owed to YA.
Dilution confirmed. Possible restricted shares for the Rothschild patents included in the Jan 6 number??
Based on information provided by the Issuer, on January 6, 2011, 25,678,877 shares of Common Stock were outstanding as of December 31, 2010
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1022701/000095012311002466/c10938sc13d.htm
The number of outstanding shares of the registrant’s Common Stock on November 9, 2010 was 24,551,867.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1022701/000114420410059835/v202114_10q.htm
Anyone consider reading the filing before pushing the freak out button? That was easy!
Item 3. Source and Amount of Funds or Other Consideration
As of December 31, 2010, Mr. Cline submitted a redemption request to YA Global Investments (U.S.), LP (“YA Global”), a private equity fund, for funds previously invested by the Reporting Persons with YA Global. On January 3, 2011, Mr. Cline received a letter from YA Global informing him that the redemption request would be satisfied through an in-kind distribution of securities held by YA Global (the “In-Kind Distribution”). Securities received by the Reporting Persons pursuant to the In-Kind Distribution were valued by YA Global as of the close of business on December 31, 2010 at $420,000, and included, among other securities received by the Reporting Persons, 375 shares of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “Preferred Stock”), of the Issuer valued by YA Global at $375,000. As a result of the In-Kind Distribution, the Reporting Persons may be deemed to have acquired beneficial ownership of 375 shares of Preferred Stock.
No funds, including any borrowed funds, were used by the Reporting Persons for the acquisition of any securities of the Issuer
**********************************************
Assuming a conversion price of $0.0582, if the Preferred Stock were to be converted as of the date hereof, the Reporting Persons would own 6,443,299 shares of Common Stock of the Issuer which would represent approximately 20.1% of the total shares of Common Stock outstanding at such time.
Anyone understand what these assignments are all about??
*****************************************************
Patent #: 5933829
Conveyance: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
Assignor: AIRCLIC, INC. Exec Dt: 11/01/2010
Assignee: NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
TWO CONCOURSE PARKWAY
SUITE 500
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30328
*****************************************************
Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USING AN ORDINARY ARTICLE OF COMMERCE TO ACCESS A REMOTE COMPUTER
Conveyance: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
Assignor: AIRCLIC, INC. Exec Dt: 11/01/2010
Assignee: NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
TWO CONCOURSE PARKWAY
SUITE 500
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30328
************************************************************
Title: AUTOMATIC ACCESS OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION THROUGH MACHINE-READABLE CODES ON PRINTED DOCUMENTS
Conveyance: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
Assignor: AIRCLIC, INC. Exec Dt: 11/01/2010
Assignee: NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
TWO CONCOURSE PARKWAY
SUITE 500
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30328
*************************************************************
Title: SYSTEM & METHOD FOR AUTOMATIC ACCESS OF A REMOTE COMPUTER OVER A NETWORK
Conveyance: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
Assignor: AIRCLIC, INC. Exec Dt: 11/01/2010
Assignee: NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
TWO CONCOURSE PARKWAY
SUITE 500
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30328
*************************************************************
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&asnr=NEOMEDIA&page=2
Here is what she actually said
24:50 LM - "To date, we have not seen any practical applications of encoding schemes that we believe would work around our IP. We believe that Partial Indirect also referred to as Managed Direct would likely fall within our IP, subject of course, to review by council.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58065714
MZ also referred to "your white paper" while directly addressing LM at some point during the QA session, but would have to go back and listen again to pinpoint the time mark.
It appears also, thay you may not be taking into consideration that NEOM Has more than one patent.
I went back and listened to the CC again and picked out these quotes that I believe are significant: I suggest that everyone read them closely, Listen to them carefully, and fully understand the implications of what is said!!
Remember that these were prepared statements and not likely made in error.
Not exact quotes but as close as I could get.
1:40 mark LM - "we will continue to see a larger volume of campaigns deployed by the leading players, for example Facebook, Ebay, Google, and Apple."
6:00 mark MZ -"During the first 9 months of 2010, we reported our first significant patent licensing revenues. Revenues included base line fees from our IP licensees Mobile Tag and Scanbuy as well as platform licensee Bems. Each of these licenses will allow for additional revenues in the future based on percent of revenue or on per click revenue based on transaction volumes." *** We have the opportunity to benefit from our customers success as well as our own."
12:45 mark MZ - "As of December 2010 total investment by YA Global including interest is 49.9 Million."
19:15 LM - "Neomedia's recommendation is for Managed Direct and in fact this is the only way to do existing product codes like UPC and EAN."
21:50 LM - "Begining in 2009, we signed a number of licensing agreements which included annual upfront and ongoing loyalty payments."
24:30 LM -"We will announce IP licensing partners as they occur and as appropriate."
24:50 LM - "To date, we have not seen any practical applications of encoding schemes that we believe would work around our IP. We believe that Partial Indirect also referred to as Managed Direct would likely fall within our IP, subject of course, to review by council.
http://www.neom.com/press/investor
krays:
A UPC is indirect. Poptech
Sure got quiet all of a sudden. I'm guessing that half are trying to decide when to get in and the other half are trying to decide when to get out
The "Transaction"?? IM Era agreement and the timeline works.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=50887571
WHEREAS the Parties have negotiated in good faith, entered into a binding Term Sheet dated June 22, 2010 and now desire to enter into this Agreement
10 Patents and a possible license for "Search" in the wings.
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,383,209; 6,993,573;6,865,608; 6,542,933; 6,434,561; 6,199,048; 6,108,656; 5,978,773; 7,430,588, and 5,933,829 and related patents and applications worldwide.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1022701/000114420410067691/v206271_ex10-1.htm
Gotta love the no PR strategy - First chance to the longs!
Can you say Catalyst?
Alert - Neomedia (NEOM) licenses patent portfolio to Ebay-PayPal. Worldwide rights, No PR yet. Chart has been looking up lately - May fly today.
Be aware of the YA Global financing.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1022701/000114420410067691/v206271_8k.htm
That's big! Thanks
4.“EBAY” shall mean eBay Inc., PayPal, Inc. and their predecessors, successors and AFFILIATES.
14. NEOMEDIA hereby grants to EBAY, effective immediately, for the INITIAL TERM, an irrevocable, nonexclusive, worldwide license, under the PATENT RIGHTS
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1022701/000114420410067691/v206271_ex10-1.htm
Five From Five: Neustar Says Mobile Barcodes Will Spread To The Enterprise
http://www.msearchgroove.com/five-from-five-neustar-says-mobile-barcodes-will-spread-to-the-enterprise/
There are a few holes in your boat Pop. If you take a 50K gain you no longer have a tax loss and you owe short term capital gain income taxes on your 50K - carry forward losses.
I hope your right about the $1 target but I don't think you are, I will certainly sell you some shares at $.20-$.40 in January if noone else will.
Good article, worth the read for sure.
Mobile Connected Retail: Best Buy’s Bet On Mobile Bar Codes
http://www.msearchgroove.com/mobile-connected-retail-best-buys-bet-on-mobile-bar-codes/
You are still missing the significance of the Laura statement and the technology
Laura did not propose to investors an interchange syntax when she said they were recommending partial indirect
For me,clarification was found in the NEOM White Paper, once I took the time to read it through in context. Excerpts below--
**********************************************************
A compromise is a standardized approach where sponsors and proprietary vendors collaborate to allow all codes to be scanned by all suitably equipped mobile devices, thereby creating an open mobile barcode ecosystem with maximum functionality and maximum reach. One way to do this is to require all mobile barcodes in the ecosystem, including proprietary barcodes, to contain an interchange syntax that can be read by all participating proprietary applications in order to determine if it is theirs or not and, if not, to then send it to an identified routing service, so that it can be sent to the appropriate mobile code service provider for processing. This approach requires that all participating proprietary mobile barcode service operators issue codes with this interchange syntax and also modify their client applications to process it, so that all mobile codes can be appropriately routed. This kind of approach is currently being promoted by Neustar with their Mobile Barcode Clearinghouse Service.
***********************************************************
Another approach, and NeoMedia’s recommendation, would be to standardize partial indirect barcodes, so that each contains both the URL address of the service designated to process that particular code and an index value to be used by that service.
*************************************************************
NEOM definition
Partial Indirect, often referred to as Managed Direct
There is also a third kind of mobile barcode, sometimes called a ‘partial indirect’ or ‘managed direct’ barcode, that provides many of the best features (and some of the limitations) of both direct and indirect mobile codes. Referring to this type of mobile barcode as a version of ‘direct’ is in fact a misnomer, in that any barcode that includes an index and thus requires a resolution server, is by definition ‘indirect’. Thus, the term ‘partial indirect’ is the more accurate description.
A partial indirect barcode contains a fully formatted URL so it can be read, like a direct code, by any mobile code reader that is capable of reading a mobile code’s symbology (e.g. in the case of QR mobile codes, any QR reader), but it also contains an index, so that when it is sent to the site indicated by the URL it functions as an indirect code.
Partial indirect mobile barcodes have the advantages of not requiring a specific preinstalled or downloaded client and of being intermediated by the server designated in the mobile code’s URL, so they can be both monitored and managed. But they have the disadvantages of being larger, unless carefully designed (because they contain both the URL and the index – more characters), and of not providing ancillary profiled routing information that is passed with the URL such as psychographics and demographics, if they are not processed by a client application on the mobile device, since this transaction-specific information is not contained in the code URL.
One approach is to use partial indirect barcodes to provide universal reach (e.g. to phones equipped with any QR reader) but to invite the consumer to download the reader application in order to attract indirect barcode clients capable of collecting and passing transactional information to the server.
http://www.neom.com/resources/white_papers
Pops, she used the term "managed direct" at least twice unless I am mistaken. Have we heard that term before? She also said something to the effect that NEOM is unaware of any workaround to managed codes IP currently in use. Waiting for the recorded posting so I can listen to it again.
In this patent, one of the methods is the local app converts the indirect into a "request" URL to identify the clearinghouse, and location within the clearinghouse.
This may also have some problems with prior art since their is a local database
Thus, the present invention is a method for accessing content from an information server computer on a computer network such as the Internet using a camera-enabled cell phone. First, an image of a machine-readable code such as a bar code symbol is captured with the camera-enabled cell phone. The captured bar code image is processed to decode the bar code into a file identifier, and a request URL is formed that includes the file identifier. The request URL is then transmitted to a resolution server computer on the computer network. At the resolution server computer, an information URL is determined as a function of the request URL. The information URL is then returned to the camera-enabled cell phone, which in turn transmits the information URL to an information server computer designated by the information URL. The information server computer receives the information URL and returns content to the camera-enabled cell phone as a function of the information URL.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7430588.html
Give me your opinion on application number 11269139 - Patent Number: 7,430,588