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.
DAILY CHART
Still trading within the boundaries of an ascending triangle.
jonesiethepositive
Thanks bleedingedge ....
.... I'm very glad to hear you , as a former employee at NeoMedia , say that.
I'd rather think that , even though it 'walks like a duck , quacks like ..... etc' it's not really a duck lol. That certainly holds out a bit more hope that somebody there might at least have actual intentions of conducting 'real' business one day.
Thanks again.
jonesie
bleedingedge , your comment about the core patents ....
.... being purchased/acquired by NEOM jogged my memory a bit , for an obvious reason you will see in the below.
According to a source who has tracked the Neomedia saga closely:
"IMO, it's a 'patent scam'. This 'model' is prevalent in P&D's. Develop or procure some overly-broad patents and wrap them in a publicly traded company; use the patents to underpin the real model -- the sale of common stock. That's what EDIG did.
Another favored model includes mining / drilling rights on barren land - a model NEOM took a stab at with their failed acquisition of Loch Energy.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Loch+Energy"
So B.E. , we certainly saw what might be categorized as the 'P' in 'P&D' on the front end of the current situation , with Tobin/NEOM execs/et al all touting imminent greatness.
We see a patents component , based on patents which are currently being challenged .... successfully so far , as they are at least temporarily 'rejected' , 'set aside' or otherwise in question.
And we saw what could be categorized as the 'D' in 'P&D' , including the stock sales of Chas , Hayes , JJ , Chuck(?) , whatever 'dumping' Yorkville/Cornell has done along the way , and whatever stock has been sold to finance the salaries/bonuses/exit-packages of those in charge.
In fact , as drmyke and others have speculated a few times , the only 'profitable' part of Neomedia's business model to-date seems to have consisted primarily of "the sale of common stock".
So ... it all kindasorta fits my source's scenario as quoted above.
Could you perhaps elaborate on what reasons you might have to believe that the current situation was in fact not originally conceived as just such a scenario?
TIA
jonesie
bleedingedge , I'm glad to see you say that ....
.... that you think NEOM's patents could stand in the end.
On that subject , JP says "According to a source who has tracked the matter closely, both the Wellner and Berners-Lee patents have already been overcome."
JP , does that mean they have been overcome in another ruling made by the USPTO? If so , there should be public information available on that , it would be interesting to see.
Yeah , timing is an issue. Speaking of timing and funding , NEOM may be about due for another payday-loan from Yorkville. They got one for $500K (gross) on 5/16 and another for $790K (gross) on 5/30.
jonesie
As I said ....
.... "Neomedia can reply/argue".
Let's hope they have the desire to do so , and something good to argue with.
jonesie
The Wright Brothers , interesting , didn't know that
As regards "the patent office will find out that there was no specific prior art" .... the USPTO already found that there was prior art. They described that finding in detail in a 78-page document.
The USPTO's current interpretation of the prior art/prior patents and their relevance to Claims 1-95 in NEOM's patent-in-question resulted in the USPTO "rejecting" each of those claims in a non-final action. Neomedia can reply/argue.
jonesie
I think you're right lesnshawn
The patent attorney who originally missed the prior art which is now causing problems might owe Neomedia some free but seriously hard work at this stage of the game lol.
jonesie
"This is a wrong assumption"
In what way , in4it? I'm simply reading what the USPTO put up on their website yesterday , certain details of which I posted , and other details of which Steelers_Fan posted. I didn't actually make any assumptions.
jonesie
in4it , I couldn't find that phrase ....
.... at the bottom of page 14. Are you talking about page 14 in the 78-page 90008779.pdf file posted yesterday on the USPTO website , titled "Reexam - non-final action"?
I did find the phrase you quoted "All claims 1-95 will be examined" at the bottom of page 14 in the "Determination - Reexam order" filing which the USPTO made .... however that was made on 10/16/2007 .... nearly 9 months ago.
So , yes , the USPTO said last year they would examine all claims.
They have now examined them.
They found or were given information about relevant prior art .... analysis of which resulted in yesterday's filing with every claim marked "rejected".
jonesie
lesnshawn , an interesting argument ...
"then I'd think NEOM would have a HUGE case on their hands AGAINST THE USPTO!"
I don't know if that sort of action can or has been brought against the USPTO ... but that's because I'm not a patents expert lol.
About the only layman's thoughts I can offer on your comments are these:
-- When an entity seeks to obtain a patent they usually hire a patent attorney to do searches to see what , if any , similar patents have been awarded and/or what prior art exists. If a similar patent or prior art is found , then it is up to that patent attorney to render an opinion to his client on the patent the client seeks. I imagine prior art can be missed in those searches , in which case the patent-seeker might have recourse against the patent attorney he originally hired to do the research and/or provide a sound opinion.
-- Once a patent application is received by the USPTO , do they perform their own patent searches looking for prior art? If so , I suppose they could miss prior art as well , causing them to grant a patent on a 'best efforts' basis .... and the USPTO may well have disclaimers regarding that sort of thing which would prohibit legal action against them.
"After all, the patents are what NEOM first built their business around"
That being the case , it would certainly be encumbent upon Neomedia to insure that the original patent attorney work/searches was thoroughly and exhaustively performed.
Further , Yorkville f/k/a Cornell has charged us a lot of money/fees within a category they call 'Due Diligence'. One might speculate that part of their 'DD' would have been to determine the validity of the patents to their own satisfaction.
That would only apply if Yorkville was financing Neomedia based on a belief they would profit when the patents eventually led to higher share prices ... as opposed to merely profiting from the up-front fees , warrant conversion ratios , Preferred conversion ratios , etc etc.
It certainly looks like someone , either the EFF themselves or some interested third party , may have provided the 'prior art' information which the EFF was seeking in order to bust NEOM's patents.
http://w2.eff.org/patent/wanted/neomedia/neomedia_prior.pdf
JMO
jonesie
Awesome flowchart Krays , thanks
Got that bookmarked for sure. You're right ... could be for years ... we're still pretty high up in that flowchart if the Appeals process is included.
jonesie
that's great personalizit ....
.... glad to see them PR'ing it in a more public way.
jonesie
Page 3 of the 90008779.pdf file
It would appear that in the chronology of USPTO work to date on the EFF's request for reexamination , it was first stated by the USPTO that Claims 1-95 are subject to reexamination , and then in this most recent non-final action , Claims 1-95 are rejected.
Of course , as has been pointed out , Neomedia can reply to this non-final action wherein the Claims were rejected and make appropriate arguments as to why the Claims should not be rejected .... and then if necessary , appeal any adversarial rulings by the USPTO.
It seems clear that at this point in time the Claims are rejected ... and will remain as such until Neomedia replies , within the stated 60 days ... hopefully with some good arguments.
JMO -jonesie
Yorkville / Cornell Tracking Board #board-9964
"I can think of no more valuable commodity than information"
Thanks steelers_fan ....
.... appreciate the effort in going through that and posting it here.
I'm outta here for a , no , for two or three Absolut-rocks!
Good luck to us, we need it.
jonesie
The EFF requested a reexam
and gave the uspto a lot of info to help
http://w2.eff.org/patent/wanted/patent.php?p=neomedia
elliot, all of the claims you just listed ...
... have the same 'rejected' check marks next to them as the others. They are probably rejected for different reasons.
JMO
jonesie
Sorry ...
.... I've been busy "manufacturing slanted information" regarding the USPTO's Image File Wrapper.
But we have lots of patents left!!
Yeah , right. What's slanted is the slide NEOM's PPS is about to go down.
jonesie
Iain thinks they are in his back pocket.
I suppose he's been pick-pocketed. I hope the patents aren't why he signed on to sell NEOM.
Well , it's been a long un-fun ride guys.
jonesie
The claims were made in the patent.
Claims are made in patents. It appears the USPTO, upon reexamination, is now rejecting each of those claims.
They are saying, basically, that the original patent's claims never should have been granted. They are now saying that the patent's claims would have been 'obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art' to have taken the next step, and that this patent and its claims should not have been granted.
jonesie
No, they are rejecting all of the claims (95) in the...
... NEOM patent. Saying they all should have been obvious to anyone 'in the art', and could easily have been covered in the Wellner patent.
jonesie
LOL, yeah, I was doing that.
I'm doing it on another computer now, working fine, thanks
jonesie
I think the definitive answer is in ....
... this 78 page document , but I can't get it to display beyond Page 1, which I posted already.
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/PA_1_0_15H/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=FIERELTUPPOPPY5&lang=DINO
Someone just emailed me after they WERE able to view that document, here is their take on it:
"The 78 page response states the claims are being rejected as they should of been anticipated by the Wellner patent 193 etc. This is not a denial of the EFFs claims, those claims were already accepted and the re-exam ordered."
FYI and FWIW
jonesie
Yorkville / Cornell Tracking Board #board-9964
"I can think of no more valuable commodity than information"
yes B.E., here it is
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4gPMATJgFieAfqRqCLGpugijnABX4_83FT9IKBEpDlQxNDCRz8qJzU9MblSP1jfWz9AvyA3NDSi3NsRAHxEBJg!/delta/base64xml/L0lJSk03dWlDU1lKSi9vQXd3QUFNWWdBQ0VJUWhDRUVJaEZLQSEvNEZHZ2RZbktKMEZSb1
Check Public PAIR then go to the next screen, 90/008779 for application number
Claims Rejected?
EFF's claims , or the original patent claims?
This is either very very good, or very very bad, because they all have check marks next to them which means "rejected"
USPTO Image File Wrapper up
IMO, the shipping/freight part of that ....
.... has no relevance to anything NeoMedia would get involved with. Tracking packages? Our IP somehow puts UPS and other freight carriers at risk of having to pay us something? I don't think so.
However the last paragraph in that article certainly does apply to us:
"MEDIA: Trust us on this one. Companies expanding from print media to electronic and online media are finding themselves in greater need of bandwidth, content and multimedia management solutions. From the smallest local weekly newspaper or radio station to The New York Times, solutions that can help media companies expand into new horizons are worth their weight in gold ink."
Yorkville / Cornell Tracking Board #board-9964
"I can think of no more valuable commodity than information"
LaoWai , that's a good guess.
Last I heard OPUS members are presented with a choice ... they can receive regular (and deserved , by virtue of their investment) updates from TIV but they can't trade/buy/sell on that information .... or they can decline to receive such information and they can trade/buy/sell all they want.
(I've always wondered how that sort of system can be monitored , but that's not my point lol)
If non-inside-info-receiving OPUS members do see their monthly checks increasing , they could well do as you say.
If we look at the average monthly oil and gas production in both of these tables (lower left corner in both of these posts) we see fairly flat production over the last few years ... perhaps even decreasing a little.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=30294555
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=30294698
But that only goes through February and depending on how timely the OPUS checks are mailed , OPUS members could get a pretty good 'heads up' on any increasing and sustained production which may currently be taking place.
jonesie
p.s. I can't help but recall a time in the past when several OPUS members posted on various boards , stating that their checks were increasing , stating that production must be increasing , and stating that it must be 'time to buy'.
As the historical data clearly shows .... if production did in fact increase it must have been a fairly short-lived increase. Or perhaps they simply weren't being totally forthcoming regarding the actual magnitude of the increases in their checks.
In any event , we non-OPUS members are relegated to waiting on proven published data .... or operating based on the PRs .... whichever anyone prefers.
They could change one thing on the MC2 site
This list
Steering Group members:
Deutsche Telekom Gavitec AG – mobile digit Hewlett-Packard Laboratories KPN Neomedia Technologies (qode) Nokia Publicis Group Qualcomm Telefónica O2 Europe
still mentions qode and still links to http://www.qode.com/en/index.jsp
Is qode still a viable offering?
jonesie
I'm looking forward to seeing ....
.... some clear and unequivocal numbers up on DOGGR ... but I realize I might have to wait a while and see something definitive in upcoming SEC filings.
Along those lines , I've got a question about which you might have an opinion ....
If the production numbers in TIV's PRs are in fact clear and unequivocal , why are they using the Confidentiality technicality to avoid submitting the numbers to DOGGR?
I think we can rule out one possible answer to that question .... if the PR'd numbers are in fact an accurate representation of sustainable and growing daily production rates , with no uncertainty or doubt about them , that would imply they are not concerned about competing lease-buyers .... unless they think potential competitors aren't reading their PRs.
What other legitimate reason might there be for refraining from showing current and potential shareholders exactly what their oil production was for March , April , May and now June?
In other words , why would they not proclaim these numbers as proudly on DOGGR as they proclaim them in Safe Harbor protected PRs where they have the latitude to use words such as anticipate?
I can't think of a valid reason ... can you?
jonesie
Hey , that's what makes for good discussion!
If everybody thought exactly the same way about available information .... there would not be any discussion forums ;)
To hold up my end of the discussion and to offer support for my 'premise' that there is some level of wiggle room in TIV's PRs .... I offer , again , their own words.
TIV's 6/27 PR which proclaims "total field production recorded at 2,058.3 BOED" goes on to call that a "production test" as opposed to a sustained daily production rate , and says they "anticipate" a stable rate in that general area.
"The most recent production test was made to measure facilities capabilities in anticipation of establishing a stable production rate in the 2,000 BOED returning Tri-Valley to operating profitability and providing a platform for further ramp up of oil and gas production."
regards,
jonesie
Affable 'R Us :)
I'll add one other item to my 'not hearing about it before' , an item which might be relevant to whether or not CF can be credited with 'conceiving/creating' MC2. The item comes from one of this board's most prolific providers of DD and commentary on all-things-Gavitec ... dlethe
"Gavitec has a strong partnership with HP. That's the only reason why we are part of the MC2"
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=22938728&txt2find=
If I'm remembering correctly , Gavitec's relationship with HP pre-dated by far anything anyone might have thought CF did with regards to creating MC2. Tim Kindred might well take exception to crediting CF with such as well.
FYI and FWIW
jonesie
DAILY CHART
Closed right at resistance at the top of the ascending triangle.
And on better-than-average volume.
Perhaps we'll see some follow-through tomorrow!
JMO - jonesiethepositive
It is somewhat humorous to read at times.
Well , TIV did get in and I think it was pretty much due to the extra shares they printed between Russell Recon. Days.
Last year there were 24,609,575 shares outstanding going in to the Russell and if no more had been printed TIV's market cap. , based on their $6.50 share price on the relevant date this year , would have been $159,962,237 .... about $7MM shy of what was needed.
So who says dilution doesn't pay off! ;) The roughly 1.8MM new shares which were printed year-over-year diluted TIV shareholders by over 7% ... but it resulted in somewhere north of a million shares sliding into Russell-related funds ... and it provided an excellent and predictable opportunity for a nice swing trade ... shoot, it gave you a round trip since you played it going up and going down!
Anyway , yeah ... the R2K tanking and TIV's dilution worked out well in a weird sort of way lol
JMO
jonesie
TIV just PR'd their inclusion in Russell 2K
Wow , in 2005 they PR'd it before it was final as I recall ... ??
This part is kind of funny "“We are pleased with our inclusion in the Russell index, which reflects our continued positive momentum."
I thought TIV's inclusion reflected the fact that the min. mkt. cap. required to get in the Russell 2K tanked nearly 40% year-over-year , dropping low enough to reach TIV's market cap. which grew just enough due to printing of more shares to squeak in , in spite of TIV's decline in share price and market capitalization.
JMO
jonesie
Yikes! Geez, I just thought ....
.... that perhaps NEOM was simply saving money lol. PRs aren't 'free' to put out on the wires as far as I know.
Hey , on another subject , the USPTO mailed a non-final something-or-other to NEOM last Thursday. I wonder who will open that , and then I wonder if NeoMedia will clue us in as to what it says? Any thoughts?
jonesie
100% negativity?
Most of the time when something comes out of NeoMedia that looks or smells worthwhile I've tried to look at it positively because I hold hundreds of thousands of shares all of which are far underwater , and I continue to look at the events positively until it starts to look or smell differently.
Like these:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=20245773&txt2find=
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=20256226&txt2find=
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=25133894&txt2find=
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=25981448&txt2find=
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=26053713&txt2find=
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=27370872&txt2find=
jonesie
Hey , that has been going on a long time
I mean , what was 'heard' vs what turned out to be 'real' when facts became known , or after some time passed.
We've certainly 'heard' a lot of things. So far , we haven't seen much in the way of actual performance that matched up with what NEOM wanted people to 'hear'.
Perhaps that will change. I sure hope so!
jonesie
DAILY CHART
It would be way cool to blast through .0039-.004 on heavy volume.
Looks like someone did?
Somebody whack that .004 when it shows up on the Ask!
Thanks elliot .... (edited)
.... so , that's good , the bloggers have got it.
Bena thinks it's a shame it's 'Malaysia only'? I thought Malaysia had a lot of cellphone users?
(edited to add): Nice to also see Bena say "OgilvyOne is huge."
jonesie
Yorkville / Cornell Tracking Board #board-9964
"I can think of no more valuable commodity than information"