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.
Now that I think about it, NEOM's "user profiling" redirection can also be easily circumvented through the use of browser cookies and server-side sessions.
cyclo, After reading your review of qode, I came away from it thinking your main criticism is that it is a closed system.
It is closed source in an increasingly open source world. It also seems to fly in the face of Web 2.0 philosophy embracing user-generated, community based content.
Not surprisingly, NEOM management approached the market with a outdated business model. As industry front runners they could have driven widespread adoption of qode and barcode technology by opening up the creation of 2D barcodes to the public. There is no better way to get qode software loaded onto mobile devices than offering free barcodes followed up by driving the user to NEOM's solution toward resolving the barcode.
But none of it really matters as I believe the entire package -- from the creation of barcodes to mobile device-wide software used for resolving the code -- will be open source. IMO, the money, from a technology standpoint, will be in offering a free "reader" supported by advertisements.
That explanation seems to discredit hangdogs "DD" post where s/he insists:
"Server side redirects are in direct violation of the patents NeoMedia holds. It's still a server pointing the hand-held browser to another place. That is the crux of our patents that were applied for in 1996."
While Jeff retorts:
"NeoMedia DOES NOT own a patent on server redirects using .htaccess files or any other method."
Hmmmm....
Please provide the number of the patent where this is cited.
Thanks.
Are you kidding me?
These large players, players whom undoubtedly have a fairly robust IT unit - or at least outsource that need - won't use server-side redirects?
You are aware that these entities are already using redirects and rewrites to change dynamic URLs to static and search engine friendly URLs?
They're ALREADY doing it; in fact it is a extremely important element of SEO. But they won't do it with their mobile campaigns because ... because they want to pad NEOM's corporate coffers? Because large businesses enjoy unnecessary expenses? You're funny!
You said "Link Manager" will take out the guess work? What guess work?
It's easy as 1,2,3
1. Download the .htaccess file.
2. Add the following:
redirect 301 oldpage.html http://www.website.com/newpage.html
3. Upload .htaccess back to server.
Done.
All requests for oldpage.html will seamlessly resolve to newpage.html, and your mobile campaign has just "dynamically" changed without the need to pay NEOM a licensing fee.
Wow, amazing...
Jeff, from announcemobile.com, said:
"With Qode the power of the patents is that it controls how the “dynamic response” from the server to the individual code is handled. The power of the patent is the process for which this is done...
"Lastly, someone e-mailed us and asked us to again differentiate between making a code dynamic through the use of redirects at the server level and the qode application. AGAIN, YES you could make redirects at the server level to change the function of the code. That is not the point. To do so requires a system administrator to go in and make the change. A function not typical of a marketing department within a corporation. With qode the change can be made from a user-friendly WEB-BASED interface that marketing-departments will have access to."
So basically Jeff (presumably a Qode licensee?) is asserting that Neomedia's value-added, a value protected by patents, is some "user-friendly" web application that makes redirecting the webpage a mobile barcode resolves to easier.
Wow, NEOM's patent protected, value-added approach is worth .. ummm .. a lot less than five million, in my opinion.
It is no wonder why NEOM cannot attract traditional sources of venture capital -- opposed to the vulture capital they're so fond of dealing with -- the company's highly touted intellectual property is far from earth shattering. In fact it is down right pedestrian, assuming Jeff is correctly conveying the "patent power".
Here are some ways to accomplish what NEOM's patent covers without violating it. I mean this stuff is really amateur level stuff and general can be accomplished via the cPanel of most quality web hosts.
How to Redirect a Web Page
http://www.webconfs.com/how-to-redirect-a-webpage.php
301 Redirect
301 redirect is the most efficient and Search Engine Friendly method for webpage redirection. It's not that hard to implement and it should preserve your search engine rankings for that particular page. If you have to change file names or move pages around, it's the safest option. The code "301" is interpreted as "moved permanently".
You can Test your redirection with Search Engine Friendly Redirect Checker
Below are a Couple of methods to implement URL Redirection
IIS Redirect
* In internet services manager, right click on the file or folder you wish to redirect
* Select the radio titled "a redirection to a URL".
* Enter the redirection page
* Check "The exact url entered above" and the "A permanent redirection for this resource"
* Click on 'Apply'
ColdFusion Redirect
<.cfheader statuscode="301" statustext="Moved permanently">
<.cfheader name="Location" value="http://www.new-url.com">
PHP Redirect
<?
Header( "HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently" );
Header( "Location: http://www.new-url.com" );
?>
ASP Redirect
<%@ Language=VBScript %>
<%
Response.Status="301 Moved Permanently";
Response.AddHeader("Location","http://www.new-url.com/");
%>
ASP .NET Redirect
<script runat="server">
private void Page_Load(object sender, System.EventArgs e)
{
Response.Status = "301 Moved Permanently";
Response.AddHeader("Location","http://www.new-url.com");
}
</script>
JSP (Java) Redirect
<%
response.setStatus(301);
response.setHeader( "Location", "http://www.new-url.com/" );
response.setHeader( "Connection", "close" );
%>
CGI PERL Redirect
$q = new CGI;
print $q->redirect("http://www.new-url.com/");
Ruby on Rails Redirect
def old_action
headers["Status"] = "301 Moved Permanently"
redirect_to "http://www.new-url.com/"
end
Redirect Old domain to New domain (htaccess redirect)
Create a .htaccess file with the below code, it will ensure that all your directories and pages of your old domain will get correctly redirected to your new domain.
The .htaccess file needs to be placed in the root directory of your old website (i.e the same directory where your index file is placed)
Options +FollowSymLinks
RewriteEngine on
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.newdomain.com/$1 [R=301,L]
Please REPLACE www.newdomain.com in the above code with your actual domain name.
In addition to the redirect I would suggest that you contact every backlinking site to modify their backlink to point to your new website.
Note* This .htaccess method of redirection works ONLY on Linux servers having the Apache Mod-Rewrite moduled enabled.
Redirect to www (htaccess redirect)
Create a .htaccess file with the below code, it will ensure that all requests coming in to domain.com will get redirected to www.domain.com
The .htaccess file needs to be placed in the root directory of your old website (i.e the same directory where your index file is placed)
Options +FollowSymlinks
RewriteEngine on
rewritecond %{http_host} ^domain.com [nc]
rewriterule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.com/$1 [r=301,nc]
Please REPLACE domain.com and www.newdomain.com with your actual domain name.
Note* This .htaccess method of redirection works ONLY on Linux servers having the Apache Mod-Rewrite moduled enabled.
LOL.
Get back to me when you're interested in addressing the actual question I have posed.
Oh, BTW, patents do not automatically equate to financial success, or "$$$$$$$$$" as you put it. In fact the overwhelming majority of patents have never produced a return on investment.
P.S. Your post seems to insinuate that NEOM is a patent troll. I agree.
Did I understand Jeff correctly?
NEOM's value-added is the ability to customize redirects from a web-based interface opposed to directly on the server via .htaccess, on-page 301s, et al.?
That's hardly a "moat".
637,591,000 shares issued and outstanding as of 12/31/06.
105,822,000 options outstanding.
316,325,000 warrants outstanding.
557,268,041 associated with the Series B CP.[1]
-----------
1,617,000,000 fully diluted.
Note: This number is not precise. It is based on a cursory review of the 10K. NEOM's financial statements are more convoluted than those of some large cap companies I follow.
[1](21,622 series B outstanding * 1000 par value) /
(0.04 lowest closing bid over the last 30 days * 0.97 discount)
beacon27,
You said:
"the costs [of accessing the mobile web] will reduce to affordable levels very rapidly with volume. With ubiquity comes volume comes cheaper pricing structures."
Yes, clearly this is obvious.
Your assertion, however, begs the following question: when do we reach "volume" or "ubiquity", or perhaps it might be better defined as critical mass?
In 2000 internet companies began making deals to position themselves for the rollout of broadband in the States. It wasn't until three to five years later before those investments began to demonstrate any semblance of a return on investment. Even today, most of the early adopter companies that positioned themselves for a broadband rollout are now either subsidiaries of larger entities or have been picked over in bankruptcy court.
What's my point? We are much further away from mobile barcodes reaching "critical mass" than many here are willing to admit. Will it happen? Yes. Is it the natural direction of the mobile web? Yes, merging barcode technologies with mobile devices equipped to read (camera, scanner) and decode (network connected to a resolution server) physical links is the panacea of the mobile web, it is what Digital Audio Devices (read MP3) was to the "Walkman" "or Discman".
It is "inevitable", but it is still in the distant future.
In addressing your second point, specifically "Generation Y leads tech consumption". Generation Y leads technology ADOPTION. Technology companies currently design around the needs and expectations of the EMERGING consumption class. Advertisers, however, continue to target the largest demographic of consumer dollars the world has ever experienced -- the American babyboomer class.
Will this eventually shift? Yes, obviously. But generational shifts do not occur over night. They take time and, most importantly, money. When the consumption shifts toward the middle class of the G-Y class, we should see a real golden era in technology adoption. We aren't there yet, in fact we are currently witnessing money shifting around in an attempt to position itself to service said demographic once it inevitably emerges.
Is NEOM selling the right idea? Yes, yes they are. Right place, right time. Is the current management team equipped to take the company to the next level? No, no the are not. The current crew at NEOM is not the right personnel to take this company to the next level. I wish I could say otherwise, but that is my observation. NEOM management is EXPERT at serving themselves from the OTC-BB game but they are TERRIBLE as operators of a high technology company. Have shareholders already been sold out? Yes, absolutely. Is there a pop or two left in this stock? Yes, without a doubt.
Dude, streetz...
Mould was all about circumventing patents.
And he is right. Mobile barcodes will not be made pervasive by "intellectual property" but by "consumer adoption".
Slamming patents down the throats of companies attempting to introduce ingenuitive concepts is foolish. "Mobile barcodes" will be a "pull"-led innovation. That is to say, "standards" will be determined by the consumer.
Two hurdles standing in the way:
COST -- the average American cannot bear the cost of accessing the internet through his or her cell phone. Like broadband in the late nineties; today, in 2007, we are a half decade away from the overlaying infrastructure becoming conducive toward "true" mobile search. Keep it in mind -- it COSTS alot to download a simple image onto one's mobile device.
ACCEPTANCE -- Babyboomers drive consumption. Sure, this paradigm is set to change shortly, but to assume a rapid change is foolish. Most boomers still have great difficulty navigating the internet from their PC, let alone navigating from a mobile device. Making websites, mobile or otherwise, more accessible to the blind or deaf is a "short cut" toward meeting accessibility standards. If a "site" is navigational from someone who is blind or deaf, then it follows that said site is probably navigational by everyone else.
I can go on forever.
I just wish the crew at Ft. Myers was receptive toward ideas.
Astockcollapse Now
A initiative for NEOM engineers:
1) Build a PC-based version of qode.
I have another one but it is so revolutionary that I am hesitant to offer the idea publicly.
This is kinda cool...
http://labs.google.com/goog411/
it certainly changes the "game".
With that said, it cannot find a number of my own listings I have on google.
NEOM has triggered a buy signal...
See my post here and here and here for a more historical, technical perspective.
Nevermind. They were deleted by Neom Moderators.
But I digess, back to the topic on hand..(making money)
With the closing price being above the 50dEMA for four consecutive days. A rare event for this paper.
I recommended Selling at 0.0925 and Stopping Out at 0.0625.
It is highly unlikely that NEOM will trade at or above $0.10 for any period of time within the near future. There is a caveat to that, but I will address that caveat if NEOM closes above $0.10 for more than ten business days.
One additional connection between AutoMart, Inc. and Neomedia executives:
Charles W. Fritz is registered as the managing member of Old Burnt Store 50, LLC, a Florida limited liability company based in Ft Myers, FL.
http://www.sunbiz.org/COR/2007/0216/80522148.tif
http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?a1=DETFIL&n1=L02000028349&n2=OFFFWD&n3=0001&...
A google search for Old Burnt Store 50, LLC returns two SEC links, one of which is a 8K filed 2/13/07 for Deep Field Technologies dba AutoMart, Inc..
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Old+Burnt+Store+50%2C+LLC%22&btnG=Search
http://www.secinfo.com/dScj2.v88j.htm#1stPage
8K Excerpt:
James H. Schneider Mr. Schneider has served as a Director of the
Registrant [Deep Field Technologies] since February 13, 2007. Mr. Schneider is Vice President of Cray
Construction & Development, Inc., a multi-million dollar construction company
involved in residential and commercial development in Southwest Florida where he
oversees both Land Development and Residential Construction. Mr. Schneider
joined Cray Construction in 2002. In 2002 Mr. Schneider founded and served
through 2004 as Founding Member of Old Burnt Store-50, LLC, a fifty (50) acre
mining operation and single-family residential development in Punta Gorda,
Florida.
James H. Schneider also serves as President and CEO of Nanoscience Technologies (OTCBB: NANS), a Nevada corporation headquartered at 1428 Brandywine Circle Fort Myers FL 33919.
http://www.secinfo.com/dScj2.v88j.htm#1stPage
In 2005 NANS received $6,000,000 in funding from Cornell Capital Partners and Highgate House Funds.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:8dF1-VhjBM4J:www.nanoscience-tech.com/Nanoscience%2520Technolog...
Dude that's GROSS...
as in a gross loss, as in the cost of goods sold was greater than the net dollars in sales received.
It's the equivalent of a widget business that buys its widgets for $1 and then turns around and sells it for $0.87. Net result, a gross loss of $0.13.
Gross doesn't factor into operating costs which, at NEOM in 2006, represented 89.7% of all costs excluding one-time items and financing related costs .. just for gavitect and qode.
In 2006 NEOM recorded $15.8 million in costs related to operating activities for qode and gavitec. The unit generated $1.6 million in annual sales at a gross margin of (negative) -13%.
In 2006 the more "qode" NEOM sold the more money it lost. Not a workable model, obviously. Qode should be / needs to be operating at 50%+ gross margins while growing at a 25% quarter over quarter rate not -13% gross margins and 10% annualized growth rates.
Assuming that operating costs remain static at $16 million per year, at a 50% gross margin and 25% QoQ growth rate, NEOM will achieve a profit on a operating basis of $780,000 by Q3 2010.
At a 33% QoQ growth rate and 50% gross margin, operating profitability would be reached by Q4 2009 .. 50% Q1 2009 .. 66% Q4 2008.
As you can see management's stated goal of reaching "break even", which is a nebulous statement in and of itself ( break even on what line gross, operating, net?), by Q1 2008 seems unlikely if not impossible unless the company dramatically slashes operating costs.
You can play around with my spreadsheet here...
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pRaJyugT6zUOmX2JUit6KJw&hl=en
In 2006 NEOM's "core" business unit, or Neomedia Mobile Marketing (Neom + Gavitec) AKA qode FKA paperclick, generated $1,600,000 in net sales.
In 2006 the three top executives at NEOM, Fritz, Jensen and Dodge, were paid a combined salary of $572,000.
$0.36 ($0.357, really) of every $1 in sales generated by NMM went toward paying the three top executives at NEOM.
35.7% of the sales from qode+gavitec went to paying the three top executives and the unit is not even profitable on a gross basis.
It cost NEOM $1.13 to generate $1.00 in sales, resulting in a gross loss of $204,000 for FY2006.
jonesie,
You are correct, NEOM would receive funds should Cornell elect to convert the warrants.
With that said, and history as our only guide, NEOM will likely default on the outstanding debentures thus converting the warrants to a "cashless" exercise.
You might respond with something like .. "History?! What history?"
As of December 31, 2006, the Company was in default of this instrument due to the Company’s pending registration statement to register the underlying shares of previous convertible instruments not becoming effective by the specified date. As a result of the default, the holder of the securities could redeem the convertible debentures and preferred stock for cash at their discretion, and could convert warrants on a cashless basis at their discretion.
And the "cashless" exercise equation:
[I]f at the time of exercise, the Warrant Shares are not subject to an effective registration statement or if an Event of Default has occurred, 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) - (A x C)) / 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.
Hunter, Dodge, Rifkin and ...
you overlooked Steinborn and Sada.
Is a veritable who's who of Neomedia.
Dr. Christian Steinborn, managing director of NeoMedia's Gavitec AG - mobile digit subsidiary in Germany and head of NeoMedia’s mobile division in Europe and Asia.
Jose Sada - technology partner of NeoMedia Micro Paint Repair
http://www.automart-china.com/Advisory_Board.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=Jose+Sada+Neomedia
http://www.google.com/search?q=Christian+Steinborn+Neomedia
Automart
I can't seem to locate Automart's ticker symbol or SEC filings.
Does anyone have that information?
For reference:
David A. Dodge, NeoMedia’s Chief Financial Officer, and Kevin Hunter, NeoMedia’s Chief Scientist, are each members of the board of directors of Automart, a publicly traded company trading in the Over-the-counter Bulletin Board.
This is important information from the recently filed 10K for the period ending 12/31/2006.
(-PAGE 57-)
NeoMedia’s reliance on Cornell Capital Partners as its primary financing source has certain ramifications that could affect future liquidity and business operations. For example, pursuant to the terms of the convertible debenture agreements between NeoMedia and Cornell signed in connection with the convertible debenture sales, without Cornell’s consent NeoMedia cannot
(i) issue or sell any shares of Common Stock or preferred stock without consideration or for consideration per share less than the closing bid price immediately prior to its issuance,
(ii) issue or sell any preferred stock, warrant, option, right, contract, call, or other security or instrument granting the holder thereof the right to acquire common stock for consideration per share less than the closing bid price immediately prior to its issuance,
(iii) enter into any security instrument granting the holder a security interest in any of its assets of, or
(iv) file any registration statements on Form S-8.
In addition, pursuant to security agreements between NeoMedia and Cornell signed in connection with the convertible debentures, Cornell has a security interest in all of NeoMedia’s assets. Such covenants could severely harm NeoMedia’s ability to raise additional funds from sources other than Cornell, and would likely result in a higher cost of capital in the event funding were secured.
Additionally, pursuant to the terms of the investment agreement between NeoMedia and Cornell signed in connection with the Series C convertible preferred stock sale, NeoMedia cannot (i) enter into any debt arrangements in which it is the borrower, (ii) grant any security interest in any of its assets, or (iii) grant any security below market price.
NeoMedia has incurred both cash and non-cash costs associated with the financing arrangements with Cornell Capital Partners, as follows:
·In connection with the $7.5 million convertible debenture in March 2007, NeoMedia issued 125,000,000 warrants to Cornell with an exercise price of $0.04 per share. NeoMedia also paid cash fees of $781,000 from the proceeds.
·In connection with the $2.5 million convertible debenture in December 2006, NeoMedia issued 42,000,000 warrants to Cornell with an exercise price of $0.04 per share, and repriced an additional 210,000,000 warrants held by Cornell Capital Partners that had been issued in connection with previous financings. NeoMedia also paid cash fees of $270,000 from the proceeds.
·In connection with the $5 million convertible debenture in August 2006, NeoMedia issued 175,000,000 warrants to Cornell with exercise prices between $0.05 and $0.25 (which were subsequently repriced in December 2006), and repriced 85,000,000 warrants that had been issued in connection with a previous financing (which were subsequently further repriced in December 2006).
·In connection with the $27 million Series C convertible preferred stock sale in February 2006, NeoMedia incurred the following costs: (i) Cornell held back a $2,700,000 cash fee from the proceeds of the sale, (ii) NeoMedia issued 75 million warrants to Cornell with exercise prices between $0.35 and $0.50, which were subsequently repriced, and (iii) NeoMedia issued 2,000,000 warrants with an exercise price of $0.328 to another party for structuring and consulting fees associated with the sale.
·In connection with the 2005 SEDA in March 2005, NeoMedia incurred the following costs: (i) NeoMedia issued 75,000,000 warrants to Cornell with an exercise price of $0.20, 10,000,000 of which were subsequently repriced to $0.04 in connection with the convertible debenture financings in August 2006 and December 2006, and (ii) NeoMedia issued 4,000,000 warrants with an exercise price of $0.227 to another party for structuring and consulting fees associated with the 2005 SEDA. The fair value of these warrants in the amount of $13,256,000 was written off during the year ended December 31, 2006.
The effective interest rate on the recent convertible debenture was far more than 13%.
You also have to take into account the granting 125,000,000 $0.04 warrants and the $781,000 in financing fees retained by Cornell.
Let's do the math:
Warrants: $5,000,000 (125,000,000 * 0.04)
Fees: $781,000
--------------------
Net: $5,781,000
Funds received: $7,500,000
Outlay: $5,781,000
--------------------
Percent: 77% (fixed) + 13% annual.
In short it cost NEOM $5,781,000 in cash and stock for a $7,500,000 loan at a 13% interest rate, and that is not taking into account the fact that the paper is convertible into stock at a 10% discount to prevailing market prices.
I know guys in Vegas who would do it for a lot less though the cost of defaulting would literally be "deadly".
The company is in default and the market the company purports to compete within is in it's infancy.
NEOM's core business, Qode and Gavitec, generated $1.7 million in revenues in fiscal year 2006.
cpeck,
Common share holders (you and I) have been sold down the river.
The company will never go bankrupt. Okay, never say never, but the most probable outcome is a systematic dilution of commonshare holder ownership (which we are witnessing now).
Your best bet is to consult a tax specialist to determine how you may be able to leverage your "entrepreneurial spirit" to work toward your advantage.. regardless of "win or loss". You might be surprised about the options available to you.
Not a tax attorney (but married to one),
ASN
George G. O’Leary was named to NeoMedia’s board of directors in February 2007, and is currently the President of SKS Consulting of South Florida Corp. Prior to assuming his duties with NeoMedia, he was and still is a consultant to NeoGenomics (OTCBB:NGNM) and was acting Chief Operating Officer from October 2004 to April 2005 were he helped the turn-around of that organization. He is currently a member the board of directors of NeoGenomics. Prior to becoming an officer of NeoGenomics, Mr. O’Leary was the President and CFO of Jet Partners, LLC from 2002 to 2004. From 1996 to 2000, Mr. O’Leary was CEO and President of Communication Resources Incorporated (CRI). Prior to CRI, Mr. O’Leary was Vice President of Operations of Cablevision Industries, where he ran $125 million of business for this major cable operator until it was sold to Time Warner.
Pffftttt! These guys are sooo transparent. Seriously, inject a little creativity into the operations. A Child!, A Child!, could figure it out.
I'm concerned about the fact that ..
R&D costs only account for 14% of aggregate operating costs after discounting for impairment charges.
Sales & market account for 39% and general & administrative account for 47% of total operating costs.
Let's order the list:
G&A: 47%
S&M: 39%
R&D: 14%
That's indicative of bureaucratic bloat and not of a flexible, dynamic high tech company (of which defines the space NEOM purports to compete within).
A company like NEOM should look like:
R&D: 40%
S&M: 40%
G&A: 20%
The fact that the order is opposite of most competitive high tech companies is evident of poor executive leadership.
At NEOM, the top of the pyramid is not interested in introducing a cutting edge product to the market, they're interested in paying themselves for being the officers of a publically traded stock.
In an effort of good faith to shareholders, all NEOM officers should forfeit their annual salary and bonuses for one year otherwise they are simply pigs at trough.
Issue number one..
For every $1.00 in gross sales, the company spends $2.60 in operating costs (not including impairment charges).
Put simply, that means to generate $1.00 in sales the company pays it's staff $2.60. That's not a workable model.
Sales & Marketing and General and Administrative costs were, respectively, about equal to and greater than gross revenues. Research and development accounted for only 18% of operating costs after discounting for "impairment charges". That is not what one might expect from a "high tech" company. In real high tech companies R&D is usually the greatest operating cost, followed by sales and admin.
Taking it a line further, to generate $1.00 in sales the company must spend $4.00 (again, after discounting for impairment charges but including the cost of goods sold). Not a workable model.
Conclusion: The company's Executives, Sales, Marketing and average staff member is greatly underperforming. They are a waste of space and simply feeding from the shareholder trough.
Solution: 66% paycuts across the board if cost reductions cannot be satisfied with attrition and overlap terminations.
The entirety of the company was just pledged for $7,458,651 million:
>> $780,865 of which is payable to Yorkville advisors,
>> $1,677,786 of which is payable to Cornell for monies previously owed.
NEOM, in exchange for a $5,000,000 capital infusion, pledged all of the company's current intellectual property, all future intellectual property, all rights to sue for infringement on said current and future intellectual property and all other assets held by the company.
Assuming $1 billion shares outstanding, at a value of $5 million (the price NEOM assigned to all of the company's assets) NEOM's "fair value", as represented by share price, is approximately $0.005 per share or about 90% less than where it is trading currently.
EXHIBIT 10.9 THIS SECURITY AGREEMENT (PATENT)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1022701/000114420407016721/v070332_ex10-9.htm
Grant of Security Interest. For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, to secure the payment and performance of all of the Obligations of the Company, the Company [NEOMEDIA] does hereby mortgage, pledge and hypothecate to the Secured Party [CORNELL] and grant to the Secured Party a security interest in all of the following property (the “Patent Collateral”), now owned and existing:
all letters patent and applications for letters patent throughout the world, including all patent applications in preparation for filing anywhere in the world and including each patent and patent application referred to in Schedule “A” hereto;
all reissues, divisions, continuations, continuations-in-part, extensions, renewals and reexaminations of any of the items described in clause (a);
all patent licenses and other agreements providing the Company with the right to use any of the items of the type referred to in clauses (a) and (b), including each patent license referred to in Schedule “A” hereto;
the right to sue third parties for past, present or future infringements of any Patent Collateral described in clauses (a) and (b) and, to the extent applicable, clause (c); and
all proceeds of, and rights associated with, the foregoing, (including license royalties and proceeds of infringement suits), and all rights corresponding thereto throughout the world.
Capped by the ChangeWave tsunami day.
Interesting.
>
Historically speaking, price must close above the 50dEMA for four consecutive days to establish a sustainable short term upward trend.
Typically what happens, at the bottom of the cycle, is the shepherds condemn their flock for not selling earlier while taking little to no accountability for influencing others to hold or continue to buy.
We will also likely hear that some of the more vocal touts sold long, long ago - pulling down a quite hefty profit.
The importance of the 50 dEMA...
The chart below illustrates the gravitas of the 50dEMA in relation to the direction of NEOM's stock price. Closes above the 50dEMA are highlighted by the color green.
I included a chart illustrating NEOM's correlation to the Russell 2000 small cap index on a 66 day moving basis.
Make certain each blog links to one another.
Oh, and make sure the link to the other blogs is keyword-rich e.g. <a href="http://www.blog.com" alt="Mobile Marketing">Mobile Marketing</a>
Doing so will increase the search engine ranking of each respective blog within the "network".
The next step then is submitting the blogs to directories.
StreetZ,
Do yourself a favor and
1) register a domain name (~$0.80/month) and
http://www.pcnames.com/
2) pay for hosting (~$4/month)
http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/hosting/
- totaling about $60 per year in total (or 1,200 NEOM shares) and this is without using rebates or scouring for better deals,
3) Upload WordPress as your blog software,
http://wordpress.org/
4) Open up an Google AdWords or AzoogleAds account,
http://adwords.google.com/
http://www.azoogleads.com/corp/index.php
5) Host ads,
6) Profit!
Given your creativity and apparent following, I wouldn't be surprised if you netted at least $10K per year off your blog if you update it regularly.
Enjoy!
Astockcollapse Now
You miss the point.
Technical analysis is simply a measurement of the probability of future events through the observation of past events. Technical Analysis is science. The art of TA, where things begin to get foggy, depends on the practitioner and most are simply not hardwired from birth for math and science.
You (and John Stossel- LOL) find no value in past events and their influence on the future, I see patterns, repeating patterns, in that information. Patterns that repeat so often as to be nearly miraculous.
Here is some food for thought - TA is a integral component of FA.
Technical analysis is a means to an end.
Simply, TA is the science of using historical information to assess the probability of an array of possible outcomes.
"TA", in one form or another, is used by everyone in nearly all aspects of life.
This has traditionally proven to be an area to sell.
However past performance may not be indicative of future results.
>
It likely was convertible arbitrage actors covering to meet anticipated margin calls in other equities. That and/or traders with a persuasion to sell short reacting to the opening market paradigm and the new opportunities brought forth with it; opportunities that may be more advantageous on the risk/reward spectrum relative to NEOM.
With that said, NEOM is due for a bounce. You can't squeeze blood from a stone, you know.
Streetz,
About seven years ago, I was your age. :)
Here is something I posted on a financial message thread regarding a company poised to spearhead the convergence of the internet and television -- a company that held a significant portfolio of patents at that -- a derivative of what we now call "on demand".
.:
Anyone that knows anything about the Internet knows that the convergence of TV and the Internet is the next step.
One, think about the marketing possibilities for advertisers.
Two, think about the consumer demand for "interactive" or in this case Hyper-TV. (Although a more marketable name would seem relavant, I will not question the management at this point as they have made me alot of money).
Three, the average American does not, and I repeat does not use the Internet. The only way it will expand to increasing consumer usage is through leveraging Televison.
:.
The stock of the company in question went parabolic in 2000, as did most "technology" stocks, before eventually crashing to the sub-penny level and taken out by it's creditors for pennies on the dollars. All "LTBH" (long term buy and hold) shareholders were left in the dust.
What's the moral of the story? Learn how to read a financial statement. I eventually did.
Respectfully,
Astockcollapse Now