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.
Wow, can't scan anything? Guess you won't be deceived by yourself ROFLMAO.
I think it's at least more obvious to anyone who thought different. But who knows, maybe socksy will stay at a Holiday Inn Express and brighten up.
Do yourself a favor and figure that one out on your own. Then maybe, just maybe, you'll see the light.
Not aware of that, but thanks, just makes Qode all the more valuable.
OMG. You truly just don't get it do you? Why don't you at least research what Mobot was purchased for (HINT: VISUAL RECOGNITION OF LOGO'S) before you tell people Qode is a joke. Qode does not require MOBOT for barcode scanning.
If you don't know something as simple as this, how can you expect to have any credibility or form an intelligent opinion? Unless of course that's not your intention.
OT: Actually, it was changed after I lodged a complaint (voluntarily on Sox's part)because it used to be an offensive statement that violated board rules.
Not kidding at all. If you don't understand what Mobot contributes to the pie, then you need to spend a considerable amount of time figuring it out before you start inferring that your "in the industry" or have any idea of what you're talking about regarding NEOM. If you don't know the basic building blocks of what NEOM and their IP is, does, or can do, your opinion is surely a very uninformed one at best.
What on earth does Mobot have to do with entering barcodes?
Read the press release, and read the text book in January.
One problem solved by Qode:
Barcode scanners were invented for numerous reasons, one being a major improvement in q/c because the party inputting the information only has to scan the code, not manually input it. Qode solves the same problem but with many more opportunities. To say "just send a shot code" is also to say that manually typing in the information is just as good as scanning it with a reader. There's a reason why bar codes are so widely accepted, just as there's a reason Qode can be just as widely accepted because it AUTOMATES the process. Unless of course you think that minimized user error is not a problem.
I suppose Prentice Hall are to be called on the carpet as well for publishing such a joke in their latest marketing textbook?
Actually, my theory is that the most capable of answering the repeated questions have decided to use their iggy button. Let's see, quantitative selective reality. I'll ask a question, and if no one answers it then my premise MUST be true.
Wouldn't it be nice if a major player in each category mentioned in the magazine by NEOM's bus dev VP announced this month?
Perhaps something about NMPR sale falling thru?
OT: Question: How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb? (no offense intended claw)
One, they hold the bulb up and the whole world revolves around them.
Just thinking that if Pacer is slow to update we'd know sooner.
Can someone contact the clerk of the court where the case is filed?
Boy, your extrapolator much be the turbo charged model.
Depends on whether a phone can be categorized as a client computer.
In other words, in order to "redirect" a user to a specific sub-page of the base URL on the QR code, the phone could perhaps append the URL with a fixed result that would map out for the individual user.
Sequence:
User "reads" the QR code with their phone.
QR code generically delivers a url of say "www.microsoft.com"
Phone, based on info input into the software, adds demographic specific information to the URL, a fixed response based on the user info say if Male, between 30 and 39, zip code 78701, the phone may append the url to be "www.microsoft.com/m3078701.html" which would in turn direct the user to a specific page, not just the generic URL embedded in the QR code.
If the phone isn't considered a "resolution" server, which it doesn't seem it would since it's "resolved on the device" (didn't PP use this term recently?), then you have a static setup that would seem to work around NEOM's IP.
However, I think NEOM anticipated this somewhat at the latest SHM going into the differences between static and dynamic setups. In my mind, if qode is reasonably priced, the advantages of a dynamic setup and it's flexible nature would outweigh the costs of having to change codes for different campaigns. Seems like an opportunity cost issue, cost of static vs. cost of dynamic with the benefits having to be monetized. JMHO.
One question in my mind to you point of tweeking the QR code to somehow redirect to more than just a web address is what exactly is considered a resolution server? If a device remotely reads the code and resolves some type of pre-entered demographic about the phone's owner and redirects, is it or the process somehow acting as a resolution server? Hope that makes sense.
To me, though, it still seems much easier using the qode approach with a dynamically based approach, rather than having different QR's for different geographic areas thru a static approach. Static is so much more limited in flexibility. Once the QR is out, there's no changing the URL.
Exactly, a start is a start, and you have to start somewhere!
Is there a Chinese equivalent of MySpace?
Pot, meet the kettle, kettle, pot.
Wonder if Nike and Apple are simply referring to similar technology or if they are actively using qode? It's the "we" part that has me wondering.
OT: O M G
OT: I believe we were discussing men here.
OT: 8's, I agree with you. I saw this and laughed. These so called studies crack me up when they try to sensationalize things. First thing I thought was that the majority of men "addicted" to cell phone use probably also had ALL the characteristics that would lead to this result. BTW most people injured in auto accidents are driving in cars.
OT: Is it Skype? Don't know if their public but read somewhere from TS that Skype was getting market share from Vonage.
Thanks for the reply, it has been over a decade since I was involved in IP ligitation and I didn't know if there were any major changes to the rules. All makes perfect sense.
Perhaps the manner in which PSL's are handles for NFL tickets would work. The team has the right to review any such transfer, which allows for a measure of control .
Brew,
I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE......
Please point out where I disagreed with you that more platforms should be out. My point was that your information was inaccurate as to NEOM working on a platform for 10 years. It simply wasn't true. I am sure that you can RESPECTFULLY AGREE that anything that is incorrect should be corrected, less an innocent party looking to educate themselves be mislead. If the point of your posts is how long it takes to get something out, the time frame involves needs to be accurate. That's all I'm saying.
Claw, correct me if I'm wrong, but if the case does go to trial, 10 years would be an absolute worst case scenario where multiple appeals for varying reasons had to be ironed out. The actual trial and/or initial verdict would come WAY sooner. Of course, some only talk about absolute worse case scenarios here while chastising others who take a differing view. IF the case is tried in 2007, which seems likely given the MH upcoming and consistent with when the case was filed, AND there is a verdict in NEOM's favor, it will be devasting for anyone to swim against that tide when the foundation for ones technology has taken such a devistating blow. Claw, one thing I'm certainly not clear on, if a judgement is issued against an infringer and they decide to appeal, don't they have to put something up (bond, etc) to protect the patent holder if they continue to infringe on the patent? My belief was that there was some type of protection in this instance, but I don't even play an attorney on tv.
Even a bigger question is how did a management team that allegedly knows "nothing about mobile marketing" have the foresite to see their value?
Wouldn't it be difficult to work on a platform that wasn't even around 10 years ago?
BREW is an application development platform created by Qualcomm for mobile phones. It is air-interface independent, i.e. it can support GSM/GPRS, UMTS, and CDMA. However, when BREW was first introduced it was solely developed for CDMA handsets. Standing for Binary Runtime Environment for Wireless, it is a software platform that can download and run small programs for playing games, sending messages, sharing photos, etc. The main advantage of BREW platform is that the application developers can easily port their applications between all the Qualcomm ASICs. The BREW runs between the application and the wireless device's chip operating system; therefore BREW enables a programmer to develop applications without needing to code for system interface or understand wireless application. It debuted in January 2001.
By slammer I meant as it pertained to NEOM or a ban. No "misinformation" here Brew. Sheesh, even when we talk about defending you, there's a negative spin.
Or when someone just manufactures statements like "NEOM is a scam". If you look at the bans on this board I think you'll find them balanced. If i remember right, several folks who disagree with Brew came to his defense when he was put in the slammer, yet didn't come to the defense of a pumper who experienced the same fate.
Can anyone point out posts where anyone with a negative opinion on the stock with a valid point of view who wasn't being overly redundent was attacked ad nausuem? I just don't see this crisis taking place.
If it's out of balance it's out of balance, plain and simple. The purpose of this board is to discuss the stock, not repeat the same things over and over and over again as some are want to do (pro or con I might add).
Endless bashing or endless pumping is not what anyone wants here, in either direction. Plenty if not most folks who are pro the stock admit and openly discuss the warts. It's those who ONLY discuss the warts in a reduntant and disrespectful manner, who have no ownership, and thus a questionable motive, that I am referring to. CLEARLY some on this board have resorted and continue to resort to out and out calling shareholders stupid.
It really is simple, our "bias" is clear and evident. We own the stock, like posted earler, and we want it to go up. Not becuase we "pump" it, are enthusiastic about it, or talk well of it on a stock board, but because it we want it to go up on it's own accord.
Do you honestly think calling the company a "SCAM" w/o any evidence to back it up is "putting the information out there for the general public". If you want to be intellectually honest, you have to call a duck a duck, whether it's long or short.
Lastly, the specific posts were DIRECTLY aimed at existing shareholders, not the "general public".
OT: Def of an "expert"
Ex is a has been
Spurt is a drip under pressure
I guess in order to satisfy some posters on this board, anyone who believes in NEOM and their IP would have to post something like:
"This stock is not going to the moon, it has way too much dilution and faces some significant financial hurdles. In fact, this stock is a horrible investment! Why do I own it? What have I done? OMG help me now please!"
Just what do they expect? If we didn't believe in the tech DESPITE the outstanding hurdles, we wouldn't own the damn thing. If we didn't think it was going to appreciate at a rate relative to the risk we all have taken, we wouldn't own it. I can't believe they actually don't understand why we don't say "This stock sucks out load and I own a boatload of it because it's going DOWN".
Give us a break folks, we know the risks involved, quit acting like your some good stock samaritan saving us from ourselves. Quite simply, we believe, you don't.