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.
OK, well we heard different things I guess. But my interactions with NEOM match Alex's.
Let's stick to the patent text then. Care to reply to the substance of my analysis? Where does SS return manufacturer or product info?
It seems more relevant than 048, but does this describe a comparison shopping app? The patent seems to concern locating the product manfacturer's site, or info on the manufacturer (e.g. finding pepsi.mobi when scanning a Pepsi, or other sites about Pepsi) It speaks about product and manufacturer info, and never mentions price, which seems to be all that SS presents.
Alex says their lawyers have already reviewed this and they don't infringe, for what that's worth. He says Neomedia execs have agreed as well. FWIW.
I agree. There is a market for the services of ad agencies, markets, analytics providers. These are by no means trivial services to build or provide. They add value. They rightly cost money.
All of these are independent of the details of barcode technology though.
I am saying there isn't, and won't be, any meaningful market for the service of 'getting the content from a barcode' because these are trivial to build and provide given the free tools available, they don't add value over free solutions, and so it'd be a heck of a trick to charge money for it.
Again, nobody is suggesting an app like this works without data connectivity to a server. But the 048 patent does not cover 'data connectivity to a server'.
Your example is all very nice, no problems, but has not shown where a predefined ID to URL mapping exists, which would be necessary for 048 to apply. Where is it, do you imagine? if you can't find it, it doesn't apply.
Yep, I worked there and know more than I can tell you about what they do. It is not foolproof, nor is it the same thing as verifying it's a 'safe' site in some sense. So how is this clearinghouse going to manage it any better...
You are talking about advertising, which was is not the same thing. Earlier you drew an analogy between expectations about reaching consumers, and barcodes. Indeed, because I don't expect I pay a middleman internet traffic cop just to have an online presence, to be able to answer hyperlinks to my own site, to answer clicks from search engines to my site, I don't think I'd expect to pay some infrastructure provider to be able to answer 'clicks' from barcodes. Would I expect to run a barcode as an ad on a billboard? sure. But I am paying for the ad, not for the barcode. I am paying to run the site behind the barcode link, but not the barcode. Because I don't pay for hyperlinks.
Indeed, I think there is no business model in providing a barcode ecosystem, because the price is already 0. Likewise, if I launched a for-pay alternative to DNS today, it would be comical.
I don't think a redirect is more effective than some indirect method. I think they're basically identical in capability.
What do you mean you don't need a redirect -- aren't you touting the indirect method which would also have this extra 'bump'?
And how does this make money for programmers...? What do you mean about hiring programmers, as opposed to 'cheap' option of clearinghouse? Barcodes already cost 0 to generate, scan, etc.
I think I understand you're saying, well, if you don't pay a clearinghouse to manage your redirects and analytics, you'll pay someone else. Nothing's free. And I agree. But you're talking about providing analytics and other marketing services as well. And yeah that's a totally legit business model.
But that does not depend on a clearinghouse or the indirect method. These are separable. I don't need to pay for that part. So why would I? Pay less for all the same services I need, based on free/open systems that do the same thing.
1) Who says anybody needs to make money off of the barcode ecosystem itself? I doubt it's possible anymore. It's no longer the case that one has to pay carriers to get apps distributed (think iPhone, Android) and therefore must find a way to get paid. You can rightly say mobile operators would much prefer a model in which they get paid, but they don't get to decide anymore. And if the model means people are forced to pay for something that's free... who's going to pay?
2) People can, and do every day, track barcode clicks on mobile websites already. You could do this by encoding a redirector URL, but that's not even required. Analytics can be based on server logs, or Javascript in some cases. This is not an argument for a clearinghouse model.
You seem to assume that a scan can only be handled by delivering a URL of a web site to access. Not so, it could be a client-side app.
Your point about personalizing the type of result doesn't seem relevant.
Even if such a system returns a URL, it doesn't necessarily fall under 048 claims. Why would such a system maintain a bunch of explicit mappings like "123" -> "pop.com/info?id=123" instead of just constructing said URL? Because the former is what the claims require. Predefined mappings.
It's speculation either way, but, seems more reason to guess this doesn't relate to 048 than reasons to guess it does.
In what sense do you pay Google in order to reach consumers? A search engine is not required to run a web site. Being listed in a search engine even is free. No, nobody at Google 'verifies your website', what are you talking about? How would Google somehow stop you from running a website?
(They do proactively investigate phishing and so forth and can blacklist sites. They do have some automated checks for suspicious activity. But this is hardly the same as verifying every URL, or guaranteeing everything is safe. It is definitely not the same as giving you permission to run a website!)
Arp rightly points out that Nokia in no sense invested in Neomedia. The other examples you give are about as much a 'link' as standing in the same room. They are in no sense investment or endorsement.
I am not suggesting that a clearinghouse system is vulnerable to hacking -- seems like a remote risk indeed.
I disagree that a clearinghouse would provide 'at least some level of verification of a URL'. There is no way a human can review all, or even many of them. (Look at how much trouble Apple has reviewing a couple apps.) There is no reliable way to automatically detect phishing. Here's a thought: when accessed by the clearinghouse, show a Nice Respectable Website. When accessed normally, show a Malicious Site. I think a clearinghouse would never want the liability of guaranteeing it's OK.
But you raise a good point about paper trail. If I am forced to sign up with all my details or billing info, and I can be traced to barcodes, yeah, big disincentive to malicious activity. In the end, this is a security advantage only if consumers perceive it as such. I suppose what I am really getting at is: consumers do not seem to demand such a system on the web, so why would they start here? (On the other hand consumers do seem to be finicky about their activity being logged by third parties.) You raise a valid argument for security advantage; I suppose I think it is not an advantage in practice.
I am a student, actually, but not an undergraduate. That was some time ago. My undergrad degree is in CS and I am just about done with an MBA degree now. I agree everyone should keep an open mind and it's in everyone's interest to trade fact and logical argument only.
I agree it can't all be in a UPC code. But the 048 patent does not cover 'anytime you connect to a remote server after scanning a barcode'. In particular, I don't see a reason to think a URL is returned at any point.
No, for starters, there is no URL returned from a remote server. That pretty clearly, by itself, means that app has nothing to do with 048
Do I believe the claims of the 048 patent represent common practice in the world? no. In fact, I think if you thumb through all the press releases posted on this board, you will find none (at least, I do not remember seeing any) that use the method described in this patent. I would actually be fascinated for someone to show me one example of it in use.
Yes, I therefore think it's deplorable to run around the internet posting that this patent have a bearing on all these barcode-related activities that they don't. You could say, hey, it's a matter of opinion -- but I feel like these arguments have been debunked. Even streetstylz says, yeah, direct encoding is nothing to do with Neomedia. But that doesn't stop him from posting this boilerplate "Neomedia grandfathered barcodes.." PR thing on any blog to do with barcodes. Surely the point is to imply the Neomedia patents cover whatever the article is discussing. Isn't that, basically, lying? Don't we all think that's bad?
Do I wish NEOM would go away? No, NEOM has never given me any trouble. They seem like decent folks trying to make something out of a tough business. They aren't the ones posting around the internet, hurling insults.
Is it for the courts to decide? Meaning, is it me or the courts that gets to rule in a legal sense? Courts of course, but I don't imagine this question is as simplistic as it sounds. The implied statement seems to be: therefore, nobody should bother thinking about the patent or discussing it. Ridiculous. I think this meme gets trotted out as a shield against actually engaging in a discussion on the patent itself, when it becomes uncomfortable.
I disagree with your security argument -- actually, don't know what your argument is. You seem to be claiming that the clearinghouse will verify each URL and its target somehow. This is not how any existing service works, nor can it possibly scale.
I'd also say that to the extent people believe, anyhow, that such a clearinghouse-based barcode is 'safe', it becomes simply a bigger target for phishing. That is, I'd absolutely want to get my URL into such a service, were this true.
Example: the best phishing URLs are those that *seem* to be leading to a safe well-known site like eBay.
Example 2: do you think bit.ly verifies all its URLs? why would the mere fact that the URL redirect is hosted have any security implication?
You are welcome to disagree with me -- but you must admit you're just putting out statements without arguments to back them up. Please advance your security argument.
It's not OK to suggest I am somehow omitting half an argument that I 'know to be true' or something. Don't do that; it's disingenuous.
I am not sure I understand why you'd complain that people listen to people that seem to know what they're saying. You guys seem to have this notion that people can only know about one thing. So I am a good programmer -- can't understand business then right? I don't follow.
If you think my example is simply direct encoding of a sort, and not covered by the patent, then thankfully we agree. You agree that what the world does in not related to 048.
I am not sure I follow the rest of your rant, but, I think you're just saying that the overhead and cost of tying myself to this indirect system isn't all wasted: it buys you some kind of security since surely the good people running the URL database won't allow 'bad' URLs.
I will not even challenge you to say how this clearinghouse could know a 'bad' URL from good. Let me accept the argument for fun. How, then, is a consumer to understand this URL is 'good' just by looking at the barcode? What about the experience is different?
I do agree with youe implicit point that a reader should show you the URL you are accessing before doing so. But they do.
So we simply have the same real problem as on the web: how do we spot phishing, how do we educate consumers. But whether the URL was directly or indirectly encoded makes no difference: the consumer still has to decide whether the URL is good. This is simply not a problem that an encoding method resolves. Unfortunately.
"This means that if a bar code is scanned, and remote access to a database is performed (e.g. looking up the appropriate URL based on language, type of device, location, age group, etc), this patent covers it."
This is very important sim: this is exactly wrong. This is exactly what the patent does *not* say. One must have a 'data carrier modulated by an index' sent to the remote server. Read the patent -- I am sure you understand this is the language. It is *not* sufficient to merely 'scan a barcode' and 'look something up'.
Let's take your example. How then does the patent cover this situation?
1) I encode the URL "http://foo.mobi/promo" directly.
2) Browser accesses this URL. Receives a 302 redirect to "http://foo.mobi/blah"
If you're about to say that "http://foo.mobi/promo" is an index, remember that in no circumstance is "http://foo.mobi/promo" sent to a remote server. Be aware that this redirect occurs with no mapping for "http://foo.mobi/promo" anywhere. If anything, it is something like "/promo" mapped to "/blah".
We are missing an index sent to a remote server, and missing a predefined mapping of this 'index' to a URL. What I have just described is how anyone who uses an intermediate URL in a barcode operates. This is why the patent doesn't cover it. Find the flaw!
Getting back, I hope, to good-faith discussion: no, this is not how patents work. They cover, in specifics, one approach. The language of the patent is quite clear in differentiating its terms. An ID is never said to be a URL and these are defined separately. I understand your common-sense argument that, in English, you could say a URL is like an ID. Agree. But as used in the patent these are terms of art meaning very specific things.
You do accept that this is not how NeoReader actually works? the point was always to encode something *shorter* than a URL, like a numeric ID? So the system they have exhibited does not support your reading.
Even if I accepted your argument, you must see that this URL is not sent for resolution to a remote server. You could say the DNS name is resolved to an IP address, but that is not the same thing as treating the whole thing as an ID to be resolved.
You must be willing to read the patent carefully, especially if you want to bust out weird theories like "I'm encouraging people to break the law". Please. This stuff only makes you look bad. Surely my incorrect, disingenuous arguments can be quietly deconstructed with logic alone! no name-calling even needed!
Right, and my point is: it was suggested that Scanbuy is 'busting' the 048 patent because it covers something really valuable. In fact, in the case of Scanbuy, they are the defendant, not the plaintiff. And, fighting the lawsuit merely says 'we do not do every one of the things claimed in the 048 patent'. It does not logically follow that the point of the action is to hang on to an indirect approach because it is somehow superior.
Meanwhile, I can't believe people look at two small companies in a corner tussling over the details of an encoding technology and think it is the center of the world, when every day people post examples on this board of great uses of barcodes in the world that have nothing to do with an indirect approach. I just wonder how one gets from these to thoughts like "wow it's really heating up for us!"
I think you've jumped to a conclusion, that what Scanbuy does falls under all claims of the 048 patent. But, I think your point is merely that they seem to do *some* of the same things, like encoded a proprietary ID in a code and that's all we're talking about.
Why would you do it if it is technically inferior? 'Technologically inferior' doesn't mean that it can't end up a de facto standard, unfortunately. That was the thinking that led all these companies to try to create and own the world's barcode ecosystem. And at the time -- limitations on camera optics and therefore symbol capacity created another argument for using IDs, but an argument that no longer holds.
Times have changed, I think. To be fair, Scanbuy has actually gotten somewhere, at least able to get some EZCode trials out there. And to be fair, it's not like this indirect-style method is awful. It works fine. I can't agree it's 'better' and that world will eventually embrace it, because it isn't and the world hasn't, but if you've built a business around it, I mean, maybe it's hard to bring yourself to rock the boat that hard? It's not the strategy I would pick, but, nobody asked me!
I'd turn the question around and say, if this other approach is so much better, why is virtually nobody (present company excepted) using it, and, why can't you rebut the disadvantages I've listed? surely someone will be able to...
None of these companies tried to bust the 048 patent. The EFF did. Scanbuy is defending itself in a lawsuit. They may well have a point, I don't know -- I actually highly doubt they do everything in the 048 patent, and that's the question. But I don't know any more than you do, and that's what the lawsuit is about I guess! I suppose that they are fighting the lawsuit suggests they think they have a case?
Agree -- and that's a great thing. I think it's an entirely viable business model to compete on offering services around barcodes -- regardless of the format or encoding technology. It's great, because, I think there is great reason to doubt this particular indirect scheme is technically relevant anymore. See previous post.
The thing is, that's a different argument than betting on a business model whereby you just cash in on licensing. If one thinks direct is the way to go, you need to evaluate the former business model, not this one. And that is a more competitive business -- plenty of firms ready to offer these services.
If the company is prepared to offer services based on open approaches, I think that puts it ahead of say Scanbuy who seems to still be wedded to owning the ecosystem. It suggests this company has had more of a reality check.
.. and yet nobody can explain why it's more 'elegant' to be forced to involve a third-party server. In either case there is an extra round-trip to the server. In the indirect model, you also have no choice, even if you wouldn't mind a direct link. Yes, this more 'elegant' solution includes a dependency on an extra third party server, extra request, network traffic and latency.
... and somehow nobody here can explain why virtually nobody uses this great patented mechanism. Why all the great links you guys post about QR Codes show people directly encoding URLs 90% of the time (not possible using Neomedia's describe approach), or redirector URLs the other 10%, and never anything like what the 048 patent describes.
... and somehow everyone here remains so puzzled about why that big licensing deal mysteriously hasn't shown up yet!
Yes, this a side project of the folks that did Semapedia, Alexis and Stan. They've been active with barcodes for ages.
I don't believe she's said anything like she can't or won't furnish the source if legally required, but, did anybody suggest there is a legal reason to compel this?
Of course you could get in trouble for publishing fake news, but, isn't that jumping several steps ahead to conclusions, and pretty extreme ones?
Come on, the item in question is, after all, barely news. I don't understand why people expect a PR on this necessarily. Or then jump to the conclusion that she could be making it up. And then argue she's legally required to answer the question. And this could be libel. And ... yeah, understand why she took a swing at that post since it does sound a little nutty.
... that's not the YouTube site, is it?
We may or may not be talking about the same thing -- this is probably too much of a tangent anyway. But my understanding is the encoding (meaning the pattern of bars and their widths) is completely determined by the input for UPC-A, UPC-E, etc. (Though UPC-E is really a shortened version of UPC-A). I'm not talking about differences in size, height, or the human readable characters, which I agree could vary to taste. The substance of the barcode is fixed for an input though -- and that is not true for 2D formats.
Anyway I think perhaps we ultimately agree on the answer to the original question: it is possible for two (direct-encoded) 2D barcodes to encode the exact same content while having a different pattern of modules (black-and-white squares).
Sure, though this is a bit more than saying the barcode can be rendered in different sizes.
The original question seemed to be, will the same content always produce an identical-looking (size aside) 2D barcode? you said yes, with direct encoding, and that if you encoded the same content two ways and saw different barcodes, it would mean one was using indirect encoding.
I don't think this is true, because, at least, there are provisions for different error correction levels. The exact same content could produce barcodes with even different numbers of modules depending in the EC level. It is not the same as UPC in this sense.
And then beyond that there are choices of masking pattern and encoding mode which could also produce different barcodes for the same input.
Even when using normal, direct encoding, you could get two different codes for the same input because one can select different error correction levels in these formats. Beyond that one could select different mask patterns, or encoding modes in some cases.
The problem doesn't hinge on whether the format is open -- indeed, we're saying the problem exists when employing the open QR Code symbology. The problem remains: if I have a non-proprietary reader reading a non-proprietary symbology encoding a proprietary encoding of data, it still fails, and badly.
In general, open is the way to go in this ecosystem. I suppose I am arguing that this half-step -- open symbology, closed encoding -- is actually worse than either all-closed or all-open, since it results in almost anyone who touches the technology having a bad experience to start.
I have the same doubt about the strategy many people here want to see Neomedia pursue, to the extent it also concerns open symbology and closed encoding -- but at least they've taken another quarter-step in the right direction by reading open symbology / open/direct encoding codes.
I expect we will see anyone who plans to stick around in this space give up on closed encoding too, go with open symbology and open/direct encoding, and compete on quality of marketing service to win this market. The first to give up owning the ecosystem and instead focus on winning on service in an open ecosystem, will in fact do well. Scanbuy has done a much better job of building out marketing campaign services but I think their strategy still seems a small but significant step behind.
(PS, who's going to implement EZCode reading if the only thing really using EZCode can't be read by a third party since its encoding is closed?)
I agree that standardization and cooperation would reduce this problem -- amongst the parties interested in a proprietary coding. But it doesn't solve the fact that the vast majority of readers out there now don't read any proprietary code, aren't produced by groups that would ever participate.
That is, the issue is not so much what happens when NeoReader sees a ScanLife code -- that is probably solvable with reasonable cooperation. But this almost never happens in comparison to the number of times, say, a QuickMark user tries to scan a ScanLife code and fails.
I mean it's like a marketing company offering to run a campaign where users can text a code for a coupon -- except unless they are one of 0.01% of users in the country using a certain operator's phone, they'll get garbage back instead of a coupon. This is just a non-starter.
(Is this surprising?) Sure, it seems like a decent enough reader. I never got it to work on my old K800i (QuickMark was my fave there) but people seem to see it working fine.
I suppose what I was saying is that I, like all of you who have been reading codes with it and are pleased, have been reading direct-encoded codes. And yeah it all works just fine. You have been reading codes generated by any number of people, no problem.
Try reading the closed Scanbuy codes with NeoReader or anything else. Try using Scanbuy's reader on an open code. Try Scanbuy's reader on some indirect code from Neomedia. Or any other reader. All will fail completely -- and these are what will happen to most people.
This is what I think is just flawed about non-open code formats or contents. People try it and 99% of the time, don't have the right combo of reader and barcode and walk away with the first impression that it's all totally busted. That is hopeless for adoption.
The only possible hope is standardization of a sort indeed, which many of you have said. How long will it take, will it be too late, will it be enough to overcome the obstacles above? I don't think so, but you guys decide for yourself what you think of it.
Me again. Stopped by to see if I could be of use and...
I can tell you that yes, it does scan QR Code, Data Matrix, and EZCode. I've used it. But, it only reads such codes when they are encoded by ScanBuy, which is a terrible idea. Look at how the reader has been savaged in the Android Market.
I think this is sort of a worst-of-both-worlds strategy, and slightly harmful to the broader ecosystem. At least, when I look at an EZCode, I have some chance of understanding that it only works with this one particular reader. Whether or not you like the model -- at least it is pretty clear to everyone what's going on.
If you employ open code formats in a proprietary ecosystem in this way, confusion breaks out. Now you have...
1) Your proprietary-reader users scan 99.99% of the barcodes in the world and they won't work and say "WTF?"
2) All other readers, should they ever come across one of this half-closed barcodes, scan it and get some garbage that doesn't do anything and say "WTF?"
This is such an obstacle to the already-challenging problem of distribution of reader technology in this model.
I like that the NeoReader will at least read non-proprietary codes. And I think it's telling that that's what everyone seems to like about it and use it for.
As far as eye candy goes, yeah, I think it's part of the brand to be a simple white page, even if it is plain. I have seen several "new Google" concepts come and go internally that were pretty interesting, but in the end, just so different that nobody dared turn it loose.
They are almost chained by the "10 blue links". People are so used to it you can't really alter it, but, it is not the most compelling presentation. Bing is the same in this regard anyway -- such an ingrained presentation now.
Search is so un-sticky -- you can switch to a new provider instantly. Provide just enough better spam filtering or whatever and it all tips.
GOOG has popped out a few small research projects that try to do something new with search, stuff like this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=barcodes&hl=en&output=search&tbs=ww:1&tbo=1
http://www.google.com/search?q=barcodes&hl=en&tbs=tl:1&tbo=1
http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=African%20countries&suggest=6
So yeah there is definitely now some urge across the board to do something new.
It shows up when you start with operating income and derive cash flow by adding back non-cash items. It shows up on a cash flow statement in that sense, but depreciation is not, per se, a source of cash like proceeds from debt financing is. I am sure you understand this, so we must be trying to say the same thing.
Elliot is right that, of course, you stay in business only if you can pay bills -- have cash. Cash flow isn't a great way to judge a business in the long term but reasonably appropriate to look at when judging, say, solvency issues.
I disagree that "there is no manipulation in GAAP". There is always a bit of wiggle room to push profits around or be a little creative with impairment, etc. I see no real evidence of that here. Part of the reason is, indeed, the cash flow and operating profit are pretty similar for Q1 anyway. There wasn't much difference between what 'really' happened in the bank account and what happened in accounting-land.
Beam -- no, thinks like depreciation do not generate cash flow. Look at the cash flow statement to see what it includes. The only way this could affect cash flow is if it reduced taxable income and thus taxes, but, the company is not profitable and hence not paying tax now.
Cash flow from operations was -$1.1M for the first three months of the year, so that also rather supports Pers's point -- why are people so sure $700K lasts three months? It may do, but the statements don't really support that.
As I said each time, I don't have a problem with it.
Several people here suggested she was equivalent to a journalist or reporter, which suggests, well, that she is not influenced, let alone sponsored, by her subjects.
She discloses her sponsors reasonably well, so, no foul. But, some people didn't realize this. Pop pointed it out.
I agree, I have no idea what is so hard to understand about this. Or why a poster was sort of bizarrely intimating that this was a meme made up by a group of posters. I mean, it's a fact and is a non-story. End of non-story.
Late 2007 IIRC. Going in to talk about mobile web standards wasn't the most exciting thing...
Yeah actually that is a decent bit of coverage, and recent. It's Reuters but pretty legit. I imagine you can come up with a couple more non-GoMo articles in the last year if you dug.
Again the only point I was trying to make here is that it's waaay disproportionate that one lil' blogger alone is writing several times more articles than the rest of the world combined. And it's because it's quite apparently paid blogging.
I don't think anything is wrong with that, as long as everyone understands that relationship.
Um, one of those articles was written by Ian, check your sources.
I do accept you can turn up an article or two about this company; I didn't know about the mobileeurope.co.uk article. I really should have said 'almost the only one'. I mean...
http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=neomedia
If you take out the ones that are just penny stock bulletins, and about other companies with the same name, you're left with only GoMo articles except for the one in German.
I think Pop's point stands that Bena posts a way disproportionate amount about this company -- most all of the press that doesn't originate from the company or simple news like earnings releases. And she is sponsored by the company. That's all above board, but people need to understand this for what it is -- paid blogging.
Hmm, what is this then?
http://www.gomonews.com/gomo-news-sponsors-neomedia-win-plc-movidilo-zeepmedi/
I think you are saying she is not paid per article to write about Neomedia. I would imagine that is correct. But as conflicts of interest go, that is a pretty direct one. It doesn't mean anybody is making things up, but, does reinforce Pop's point that this is not exactly the same thing as a WSJ article!