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.
None that I am in violation of. I would never reveal things I wasn't supposed to, and wouldn't say anything I know about what in particular is happening now, since that is confidential. What I talk about is fact and within bounds of ethics and law to talk about.
Nobody, really. Nobody had any obviously awesome technology or traction. We had matched in a couple months the technology that most companies seemed capable of, and had exceeded it on Android.
You are correct that as a non-employee, who knows, in theory, maybe there is all sorts of secret stuff going on that I can't be told. From what I know of what the company is (publicly) doing with barcodes, and what I know from private NDA-ed conversation, I have no reason to believe there is a shift in thinking.
The indirect model was dismissed early on as an obsolete approach to tackle technical limitations in the past. The direct commercial strategy only ever related to print ads, and they're no longer in that business, so I see no catalyst for any change in that position.
I do not own NEOM or GOOG stock. I am not going to make an investment recommendation. I am providing information which can inform your assessment of the prospects for monetizing this technology, and analysis of the company's equity vs debt position. You make the call.
If that seems like a reasonable story for you to believe, I welcome you to do so, and invest more if you like. Nobody was 'pissed', just meant the company was dismissed as a non-serious player compared to 3 or 4 others in the space. Misunderstanding indeed, but in the end moot -- nothing in the space was close to an attractive acquisition.
I welcome readers to decide whether to believe your speculation, or the words of someone who was actually there and continues to have an inside connection to the company. I'm your "DD"!
I think this is off-topic and will be deleted, but since you ask an honest question, and I can't private-reply:
I was a Google engineer until August 2008. I am an MBA student now and I live in the UK.
I was one of two engineers who pushed to include barcodes on Android and in Google Print Ads (now gone) from early 2007. As such I was at the center of Google's thinking about this space and have tried to make you all privy to it here.
What I meant to communicate was, while there was some brief consideration of acquisition and some talks, over 2 years ago the company decided an acquisition was not necessary. And NEOM was not even on the list, mostly due to a misunderstanding Street caused. At this point, don't think anyone but maaybe my eng colleague remembers the name. What about this statement confuses you?
I bring it up because people here continue to speculate about acquisition interest which I know is not there (from my continued connection with people inside the company), wasn't there years ago when a build-vs-buy decision was being made. You can do with that fact what you like; I'd like to make sure people deciding whether to invest their money hear this voice, instead of just the voice of people who have a vested financial interest in this stock. Surely that's OK with you.
Us two started Google's open-source barcode scanning project (http://code.google.com/p/zxing) which underpins just about all the barcode scanners on Android (most directly, 'Barcode Scanner'), and some on the iPhone (RedLaser and ShopSavvy, in modified form). I remain involved to help the other eng deal with the support of the project, though this is not my 'day job'.
I'm all for facts, information and reasoned debate, and have trouble abiding some of the posts here. I think some people are disadvantaging other investors by trying to scare off dissenting voices and inconvenient information. Bad. I also think people are spreading unnecessary attacks about me, and trying to scare off developers from using work and IP which is mine. Bad. This is my agenda -- I will continue to combat this with facts and info. Is that reasonable?
Street sent me a message that represented himself as someone who wrote Neomedia's corporate blog (he'll post the mail if you like). The message suggested a need to license patents. As such it was turned over to legal, and after their evaluation it was determined there was no relation between the IP in question and our current work. However it had the effect of making Neomedia look very unprofessional -- nobody was "pissed" but just forgot about the company.
This ensured they were never considered in the same though as 'acquisition'. (The misunderstanding was cleared up later when contacted by Neomedia, who is not pleased with this 'help'). In the end Google "built" vs "bought" barcode technology, which you're all aware of. There was never any offer to purchase any company -- sorry, that's completely false. That piece of strategy was quite settled, and years ago. I'd move on.
This is evidence of how FUD and misinformation can do damage and I have a "grudge" against it. Unfortunately it's just me -- nobody at Google even knows who Neomedia is anymore.
You should use whatever barcode scanner you like for Android. Try several and use what works best for you. Since Barcode Scanner has 50 times more downloads, and is rated 4.5 stars vs 3 stars, I wonder why a few of you here have such a different opinion. Anybody "pissed" and letting that color judgment?
Here's "DD" you should try: read the Market feedback on Scanlife. Because it only reads indirect Scanbuy codes, it just doesn't work on anything people scan. It's been savaged as a result, since everyone already expects to read the direct codes out there. What does this say about how feasible this model is, today?
If you want my opinion again -- that latest announcement can only be good news. The money to be made here involves capability to run campaigns and provide services. I think all agree on that. What you don't see yet is revenue, which the real value-creator, but this opens the possibility of revenue which is good.
If had to take a wild guess I would still imagine there is some sale of assets coming to Scanbuy.
I still think the value from any of these deals (which is non-zero) isn't going to accrue to common stock holders, if any does at all, given the financing. Look at the debt and volume of convertible debt and preferred stock that is soaking up the upside of the equity. The deal would have to be in the ballpark of $100M to justify the current PPS.
I love how your thesis is that because I understand the technology, and you don't, and I have industry experience in barcodes, and you don't, I'm 'out of touch' with the common man who really gets barcodes. I'll just let that speak for itself.
So, you're telling me that signing a contract, transferring money, logins, etc. to set up some indirect campaign is easier and quicker than the 13 seconds it takes to generate a QR code at zxing.appspot.com (or any generator)? Again, speaks for itself.
What I do completely agree with is that people will pay for someone to manage campaigns. To provide analytics. That's a real business. That business won't work with an indirect method for the reason I already gave -- even if one thought it was technically superior, and I don't, you can't escape the fact that virtually every reader out there doesn't work with an indirect code. It's too late.
I suppose your entire industry doesn't include Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, who specifically aren't behind what you suggest. Third thing I'll let just stand on its own, thanks les.
Google is quite an exception, but, they had revenue within 2 years. How long has Neom been around? Doesn't matter, your comparison is irrelevant anyhow.
Thanks les for a typically content-free post. This has to be construed as not-bad news, since as I've said, there is plenty of a market for barcode-related marketing services. Neom had no hope of providing this; with some kind of partner, maybe they do. I still think the indirect method will get laughed out of the room once people understand for how many people it won't work. "JMHO".
But what you don't see here is revenue, or paying customers, right? so, what's the deal?
'Cashless exercise' sounds like you are referring to exercise of the warrants? or are you talking about conversion of the debt?
I suppose I still don't follow the point? at least, where you're going here doesn't seem to relate to my posts. It is not surprising the deal is structured to be favorable to YA -- they are lending to a very risky firm. This doesn't mean they'll make money, though, of course. So if you mean 'you can't be right that YA will make money -- look at all they've *made* from conversion' then I remind you that:
1) that doesn't follow logically
2) remember to consider unrealized potential losses
3) converting doesn't realize a gain or cash, it exchanges one instrument for another. If they are getting revenue from that, it is from selling those shares. To willing buyers like people on this board.
I am surprised that people are surprised by all this conversion. When you take on convertible debt, you are not only taking on debt but also selling off some of the upside of your equity. Neomedia could not otherwise have gotten a loan, maybe at all, but certainly not for a 15% coupon without such provisions. They are too risky.
But selling the equity upside means that, surprise, your stock equity is worth less. Because they are able to convert, and that dilutes the value of your equity. This isn't wrong or illegal. You 'should have' understood this when the debentures were announced and dropped your price target accordingly, rather than buy more shares at the same price.
I say 'should have' since, well, this stuff is quite complex. Your average investor can't really be expected to do all this analysis. Which is why the average investor should stay out of illiquid penny stocks.
I am not sure what your definition of 'control' is but yes you are not talking about actual control of the company, since that *would* mean a board seat here. I think you're suggesting they're a market maker and manipulator in the stock. I don't know.
Sorry man I did misread your question. You ask an interesting question, and defining their ROI on this investment really depends on what you think the present value of the equity is. That's complicated to evaluate, because the company itself is composed of assets that are hard to value (IP), because we're talking about valuing not just that but equity, and convertible instruments on that equity.
The *realized* value to date must be positive since they've gotten some coupon payments on the debentures. The coupon averages 15%, so, one simplistic answer is 15% + some function of the value of warrants/conversion.
But ROI must include unrealized gain/loss, so this would not be accurate.
By your logic -- say a bank lends $1M to buy a house. $100K is repaid before the the buyer walks, because the house is now worth $500K. To say the bank's ROI on the mortgage is $100K/$1M = 10% is, well, not accurate to say the least.
But what are you getting at... I'm sorry I'm missing why you asked? You are arguing that YA is actually going to make a profit on this? And so that means what exactly? I ask honestly. You might be stringing together some interesting point.
May I ask, with respect, whether you have any experience in finance or technology? I am not clear given your apparent understanding of ROI.
If that was a serious question -- the ROI is negative. Looks like about -$100M in retained earnings versus $140M paid in capital? that's only a rough way to calculate it but would give about -71%
Do you disagree that this is a loss? on what basis... ? that would be very weird.
You still repeated a misunderstanding of me. YA can't unfortunately dictate the price the get for the company of course. They can't reasonably expect to get their debt paid back, no. I never said such a thing. *It is you* that seems to expect this if you are buying equity in this company! because it implies you think the assets *will* exceed the value of liabilities.
The debt holder is merely interested in minimizing loss. Would be great if the loss is $0, but that is not the only criteria.
Yes claw, I have read a few in my time. My points are two:
1) it's sure not every 10-Q that says we actually *may not be* a going concern *in a month*. Plenty talk about hypothetical risks to their ability to continue as a going concern
2) to repeat something that is factual, and therefore required to be disclosed in a 10-Q by the SEC, standard language or not, is hardly 'slamming' the stock or company. The Cowboys lost this week but stating that is hardly the same as dumping on Dallas
This is my work in this area: http://code.google.com/p/zxing/
This is basically the barcode scanning infrastructure for Android. I work on it a little bit, but I don't work as an engineer anymore. I don't think Neom is a competitor to Barcode Scanner, no. This is not even a for-profit project.
Nope, I think you have not understood my point then.
Right now, what's done is done. YA can't change history. They may wish to take back all their investment but can't. It's going to be a loss. But if they must choose between getting about nothing, or putting in $1M to improve the liquidation and get $2M of debt back, it makes sense.
The people that should be concerned about the size of the debt and liabilities are *you shareholders*, not YA. Make sense? Because shareholders' claims are junior.
Sounds like you could do with an MBA my friend!
I see, now these are illegal debts -- you suggest the management should never have taken the financing on the terms offered and should have instead have entered bankruptcy. Sorry?
Even if you are right, this is an indictment of the management, not the debt holder. You imagine this results in the debt being cancelled? and what YA just gets their loan back? with what money -- it's spent. Because, indeed, it was necessary to continue operating.
This idea that it's somehow not *your* responsibility to take losses on bad investments is fantasy. There is such a thing as negligence -- I don't see it here. They took on financing under very unfavorable terms. But hey, they were nearly bankrupt. Same reason you can't get a good loan rate with a D credit rating.
These debentures have been going on for almost 2 years, so why would these people who have been complaining so loudly continue to put money in the company? It would be foolish at least -- and pretty much shoots this argument that the management was criminally negligent in the foot. Or else you have to say, yeah, I gave my money to criminals knowingly.
They're a private company and I don't know their finances, but cannot imagine they have even a couple million in *revenue*, given what I do know of the company and space. They have maybe $10M in VC funding? something like that? I just mean none of that is nearly consistent with a big payoff from a lawsuit (which as Poptech pointed out, in a useful post, before being banned, would be judged based on actual lost revenue, not potential future revenue).
Tell me 'how things work' claw, can you tell me what you mean?
I did say 'you and others'. I only meant to speak generally of the positive spin you and others put on this stock, while having an active interest in the price as a shareholder. This is inconsistent with criticizing me for 'disingenuously' slamming the stock when a) I am not a shareholder and b) I'm not slamming the stock.
Investment banker? nope, this is more the province of private equity anyway. I am an MBA but one doesn't need to be an expert to get the basic mechanics here.
If your question is about what debt is -- debt holders don't own the company. They lend money and demand to be paid back later. Obviously they have to be paid back before the company owners can take money from the company. Debt comes first. Those that hold equity -- investors -- own part of the company. Debt is less risky since, in the event of a bankruptcy, debt gets paid back first before owners get anything. But of course it carries a more fixed payoff, no big upside potential. This is why debt demands seniority. Why would take more risk for less payoff, otherwise?
This is just Finance 101, I can recommend books if you want to read more. If that isn't clear -- I think it really should be to investors.
If your question is, who are the debtors? look to the 10-Q. It's YA Global, which has provided almost all the financing. Looks like they financed in 2006 in return for convertible preferred stock (which is *not* debt, but senior in some ways to common stock), and then subsequently financed via convertible debentures totalling about $30M in face value alone over the next few years. That is raw debt.
The convertible-ness of this financing also constitutes a sort of liability that looks like adds up to another $60M or so, as carried on their books. This isn't debt in the sense of a loan. But it is an estimate of the value owed to financiers -- if the equity indeed eventually has some decent value -- that ultimately falls on the company. This is because they have to provide shares at a price that is below the market value (this is why the holder would convert!). And that's money that comes out of the equity holder's pot in the end.
The point for common-stock holders (you guys here) is that they *own* the company that is left over after obligations like debt are paid off. But they are therefore last in line behind the financiers for claims on assets. You have to ask not just what the assets are, but what the liabilities are. Equity = assets - liability
My guess is based on the fact that the lenders are plainly providing bridge funding to something. That it's happened a few times is a sign of trouble -- they've been 'almost there' a few times and didn't reach a goal. A few small add-on investments is not a sign of betting on long-term growth potential. It's a sign that they don't see the company as needing to exist in a few months.
This company just isn't going to get out from its debt. Maybe their assets, in other hands, do better. The debt holders basically own the company (and stand to lose a ton) so, it's their job now to arrange a fire sale, which leaves them with some salvage value, in an orderly liquidation and immediate sale by the debt holders of assets to a new buyer. Putting a few more bucks in to make that go smoothly, to get out a few more bucks, is better than just getting about nothing.
Wait, but could it not have been because they expected some big payoff from a lawsuit? with Scanbuy? I just don't buy it since they obviously understand how little money Scanbuy has. It would have to be on the order of a hundred million dollars to make business sense. Does that seem realistic?
Sorry guys, there is no reason for a Google or MS to buy this. Google already got out of the print ads business anyway, and, already achieved its goal of further establishing QR codes as a de facto standard. Android has had barcode scanning built in from day one -- they have their own software and are the biggest player in QR code readers out there besides DoCoMo. MS already has their own team, software, strategy. Nobody's obviously making money here, so other big companies are not looking at this as a 'hole' in their portfolio. (I'll eat my shoe if this is wrong.)
The most obvious answer is someone like Scanbuy indeed, since by acquiring the assets for cheap they at least save continuing to pay a lawyer! and remove any of the FUD you guys have built up about patents. Dunno, maybe the software is useful to them. Maybe some of these 'deals' could be converted into actual revenue with a healthy company behind them. I have to tell you, fire-sale acquisitions like this aren't pretty for the seller. They have no power, facing bankruptcy imminently. There is no cash flow to value. I can't see rationale for even a $1M price tag.
Another explanation is that they have a somewhat nicer acquisition lined up but it depends on getting out from the fog of the suit and countersuit with Scanbuy. So they too are rushing to settlement, which won't make it very interesting (probably just everyone drops their claims and goes home and technically agrees to cross-licensing).
So when you and others who actually have a direct financial interest in the stock laud it with fact-free predictions about $1/share and these 'big deals' or whatever... it's honest? That's just staggering.
Like I said, it's people like you I have a problem with (see statement above). NEOM is not a good company but don't particularly want to see them succeed or fail.
You can't sue just because you thought the world was one way and it wasn't. (Well, you can. A lawyer would be happy to take your money to try it on.) You can rightly sue for gross misconduct of management. You'd have a hell of a time explaining that, yes, you continued to invest (as documented on this board) while you though said 'misconduct' continued. So I don't believe even you believe this.
Even if you're right, exactly how much can you extract from a liquidated company that defaulted on debt, as you posit? debt claims are senior to anything you'd get.
Well, depends on whether one thinks this is the next 'cell phone', doesn't it? And that's what we're trying to have a reasonable discussion about. If you assume it's true, well, not surprising you think it is true.
While I think barcodes are a legit, useful technology that will become a moderately important part of people's lives, it does not mean that *anything* related to barcodes is important, or will be successful.
I did not think that post presented anything new to comment on, so, no reply. I don't understand how it's a 'zinger' or a 'gotcha' in any sense.
Oops, you're right, it's OTCBB. Same sort of thing, but not the same.
I'm not trying to make up numbers -- take a look at the latest 10-Q. Correct me if you think I misread the balance sheet but the figure is pretty clear. I'm not merely counting the debentures and such, since their debt encompasses more than just that -- check short-term payables and such.
Anyway I don't know that it changes whatever minor point I was making there, in any event.
Check the August 2009 10-Q -- $92,237,000 in current liabilities.
If I may. You are right, in theory, a reverse split does exactly nothing. There are X times fewer shares, but each is worth X times more. The number of outstanding shares and PPS are purely nominal values.
But there are some factors that actually affect nominal values. To wit, major exchanges typically require a minimum PPS to stay listed. I think it's $1/share on NASDAQ. So, one might reverse split to stay above this threshold. That, of course, happens to troubled companies. So a reverse split has negative connotations, and, as a result, is frequently followed by a drop in PPS. Some investors who actually give value to the nominal PPS might also see a magically higher PPS and decide it's a good time to sell. It's not logical, but happens.
The exchange issue doesn't apply to NEOM as it is on the pink sheets. The investor psychology bit might still hold. And, dealing with a reverse split costs money -- gotta pay lawyers. So it hardly makes sense.
To those wondering if a reverse split has an effect on the convertible debt provisions -- it shouldn't. The conversion price ought to be adjusted for splits, logically. (As would par value, etc.) I can't say I've read the agreements, but, would be shocked if it didn't work that way.
To answer the last question: the market cap of NEOM appears to be just under $20M today. Read literally, it means that the market thinks that after about $100M of debt is redeemed, there is still like $20M of value left to equity holders. This is undoubtedly almost entirely option value: bets on the small but nonzero chance that the value of the company will be much greater later.
No judgment there -- just interpreting.
Hey see + les, here's another nice example of QR Codes and direct encoding!
True but this is hardly a matter of personal preference like favorite colour, or something we can't know much about like debating the next Super Bowl winner. You can search the Internet, read blogs, watch stories posted here and see what the world is up to. And I just don't think it is anything like what you are suggesting. It is not even orders of magnitude close. Dont take my word for it. Trying to figure out why people are choosing to expect an apparently much less likely outcome. I am afraid it is the cognitive bias that makes us throw good money after bad. One is invested so one is reluctant to believe evidence that the investmentvis bad. At least, I can say I speak with no investment on the line.
You are waiting not only for an approach that has had 15 years to take off to finally do so, to sort out its own chicken and egg problem, when another approach is plainly the de facto standard. I just don't see why anyone would believe this. It is your time and money. But from industry, this look wildly uninformed.
Great, now how about you address the point I made, versus one I didn't? I think you got your wires crossed. To wit, what exactly would you tell a marketer when he calls up and says, just about everyone who tries to scan my code sees a funny number? Does that strike you as a problem?
Hmm, tell me more about what you mean? it is indeed an important issue.
Do you mean, in order to distribute a reader on phones, one has to pay carriers, and to pay carriers one must be paid, so one has to run a closed system? that was true, but it seems that the chicken-and-egg has been discarded a while ago. Free readers seem to be pretty available for any modern phone.
If you mean something like, surely the people operating these 'open' campaigns aren't getting paid, and how can that ever work, I have two replies --
1. Oh but they could -- what one should be selling here are marketing services and analytics. Not the simple encoding/decoding.
2. Do you believe these proprietary deals necessarily involve revenue? here is roughly how a conversation went with one of the advertisers we talked into running QR Codes on print ads --
Us: Hi, would you like to run QR Codes on your ads?
Them: Oh what is that?
Us: Well it's a super high tech technology that few people use yet
Them: Oh. So why am I interested?
Us: Well, maybe it will get you a couple more ad clicks
Them: ...
Us: And you will look cutting edge by being an early adopter
Them: (brightening)
Us: And you'll get to announce a minor tie-up with another company
Them: Oh we like press!
Us: Great so here's what we charge for the ads and analytics
Them: Yep, OK. But are you charging for these crazy codes of the future that nobody is really going to click yet?
Us: It's on us for now
Them: OK! cool!
I guess I'm saying, I can imagine getting paid for marketing and analytics services. I can't imagine, based on a few first-hand encounters, being able to sell encoding/decoding as an extra. Yet, or ever.
So no I don't think most of these 'deals' involve revenue. Beyond perhaps what is normally paid for managing a whole marketing campaign. And that's why I am curious when people here get so pumped when they see a 'strategic partnership' PR. Indeed, you should demand to see revenue before feeling chuffed.
My point is that one particular way of doing things -- open, common format plus proprietary payload -- is particularly disastrous. I agree it's not so much the 'open' bit but the 'already in common use for non-proprietary encoding' that is the problem. So my point is that it's difficult to imagine GS1 endorsing QR Code and Data Matrix and then somehow endorsing any proprietary encoding of contents.
But, to answer your separate question -- honestly it's harder to find a campaign that is *not* based on QR Codes or DM, with direct encoding:
http://www.gomonews.com/iq-mobile-and-telering-mobile-barcode-campaign-in-austrian-schools/
http://www.gomonews.com/cool-mobile-marketing-campaign-a-mobile-barcode-scavenger-hunt/
http://www.trackingqr.com/2008/09/bmw-2d-bar-code-campaign-a-success/
http://techgutter.com/2008/11/30/pepsi-max-2d-barcode-campaign/
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3760049.ece
http://streetstylz.blogspot.com/2009/04/neomedia-iq-mobile-power-nokia-campaign.html
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/06FFB2C4-F8E8-4AAC-96ED-8F26C9238065/
http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2009/07/20/mobile-barcodes-dead-or-alive/
...
'All mobile campaigns using some type of scanning are proprietary.'
I mean, have you been reading this board? even here, seems like just about every mobile barcode campaign someone posts here is using QR Codes. Tell you what, go search for 'mobile barcode campaign' in your favorite engine and tell me how many of the first 10 results are using QR Code or Data Matrix. It might be eye-opening for you, if you think QR Codes are only used in Japan.
However I slightly agree with you, in the sense that, if anyone is using a proprietary code, it is in the context of a marketing campaign. The barcode companies offer to operate a campaign at essentially zero cost, and so 'pay' to have their format used. Given the insignificant penetration of readers for these codes, indeed you do see quite a disproportionate number of campaigns with such codes.
But I think my point was slightly different -- nobody has *readers* for these codes. Look at Android -- everyone is using Barcode Scanner. On J2ME and Symbian, it's QuickMark and Kaywa or i-nigma. iPhone -- Barcodes, BeeTagg, QuickMark again.
It's one thing to launch a campaign with proprietary codes and proprietary readers. At least people visually understand the reader they have won't read that barcode (well, one hopes). But using an *open format* with a *closed indirect model* is a disastrous worst-of-both-worlds (which is why I can't figure why Scanbuy is trying it). It appears to kind of work, but fails harder.
You simply can't sell this to marketers. An ad campaign around barcodes where most of the world won't be able to use it, and worse, it will just make them look like they launched something busted?
This is why I say, recommending QR Codes is tantamount to recommending direct encoding, because pairing it with indirect encoding is the worst thing you can do.
Looks like I checked in at the right time. I don't really see that Pop said this document says, directly, 'indirect method is out'.
But, can you launch an indirect-based campaign based on one of these open formats? 99.99% of the world will scan your code and the reader will say, just, '9025309902'. ... user thinks, what a stupid barcode campaign, doesn't work. Because, that indirect code makes no sense to the barcode readers out there today.
Can you as a marketing company pitch this with a straight face? it's that, or lie about it.
Hence, even if Poptech didn't say it, I will -- this is tantamount to endorsing what the world already does, which is use these open formats to directly-code payloads. You like that rebuttal? Can't wait to hear your re-rebuttal to that.
Launching an Android application is in no sense a partnership. These guys really shouldn't use that phrase since it suggests something quite different.
Guys I do think you should not really read PRs too closely. They are always going to say "big stuff coming" and "we're partnering with everyone" and "we are getting so much attention." They can't say anything else. So PRs really mean little.
(Sorry that was meant to be in reply to SoG's reply)
Since you asked (about patent value) let me answer with another question: what would the value have to be for the shareholders to receive any benefit? That is the question people here should care about. Indeed, the physical assets and revenue of the company are miniscule: if there is any significant value it must be in patents right?
To simplify, the company is now about $100M in debt. That roughly means shareholders won't see the first $100M of the value. So, do you think the figure is over $100M?
Realistically: can you find a comparable purchase of IP of anything like this size?
My research suggested that the market for barcode related analytics and services, all of it, was in the single-million digits in 2008. People are spending this much worldwide in the line of business this company is directly in. Even a company that had 100% of that... even imagining good growth through the end of the patent lifetime that is a total in the tens of millions. And to make that up you need 100% of the market. And you want to pay less than you make. This suggests a maximum realistic value, if you believe in this technology, of a couple hundred thousand. I think the actual value is lower.
You can disagree, but until you disagree to the tune of a factor of 1000, it implies you as a shareholder will lose all your investment if this company is 'sold' in the most likely way: declares insolvency and assets sold off.
My guess - and this is completely my opinion only - is that this company was effectively bankrupt and unable to continue debt financing a year ago. The actions by the lender to date suggest financing an orderly shutdown and fire sale - putting in a little more helps extract enough additional value to be worthwhile over immediate shutdown. But they still lose a good deal of the original investment, but that is sunk.
This talk of shareholder class action is not useful. Proving criminal mismanagement is very hard here: the alternative was to shut down a year ago. You can't sue just because you don't like that your investment didn't pay. YA lent to a very risky venture on bad terms and will likely lose money. Yeah, it wasn't favorable to equity holders who are at the end of the line. But that's how it works guys. If you don't like it, and there is no crime, sell shares. This board seems to be both complaining *and* buying more. Doesn't make sense.
Right on street, but unfortunately this has nothing to do with your original assertion, that Nokia has directly endorsed Neomedia, for which you've provided no evidence.
Nope, not quite what I said. The distinction is: there is no revenue in encoding, decoding, or parsing the contents of a barcode. There is certainly revenue in barcode-related services: marketing campaign management, analytics, etc.
Encoding/decoding is simple enough it should be free, and it is. It is a prerequisite for a healthy barcode ecosystem which can support these value-add services. So, it's easy to see why a goal was to establish a good, free solution for anyone to produce and read barcodes.
The strategy was to make this an extra feature for the Print Ads business. That is, track clicks from newspaper ads, etc. Alas the Print Ads business was canned last year, barcodes or no. This is the reason we put effort into pushing awareness of barcodes, and into free, quality tools -- to accelerate the maturation of this market.
I believe any of these barcode-related companies, NEOM included, could find success in providing these value-add services. That is quite a different business model than "we'll just own and license encoding and decoding" which I don't think has been realistic for a while. It's not a $1B/year industry. It's not even many tens of millions. But it is growing.
All your links show Nokia using ad agency called IQ Mobile, which had some association to Neomedia. This is not endorsement, or even a direct link. Try again?
You're suggesting the patent has been changed in the last year? Don't follow that...
But the sentence you highlight indeed makes this sound more relevant. It doesn't exist in the claims though, only preferred embodiment. I don't know what that means -- Poptech can say.
I'll just say the same thing -- surely there is a great case to be made this is obvious. The prior art section basically says "getting product info based on a UPC code across the internet is already done -- we're patenting querying n sources instead of 1." Oh really. And comparison shopping sites obviously predate the patent. How is this nonobvious?
I imagine even Neomedia isn't interested in spending money to find out in court.