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.
This is perhaps not such an important point, but someone pointed out that the statement about his compensation was pretty vague. Indeed. It said something like he got a percent or two of the sale price if it were above some level, but not to exceed $200M.
I have to believe that's an upper limit expressed on sale price, not compensation, or else it's contemplating the case that the sale price could be between a couple million and *tens of billions*. Tens of billions is unrealistic even for you guys. :)
Anyway.
Reporter carries a connotation of arms-length, objective and impartial. I imagine Bena is an honest person, but Pop is right to point out that Neomedia is a sponsor of that blog. It creates an appearance of conflict of interest, at least. I mean, why is Bena the only person talking about Neomedia, interviewing these people? Because Bena is quite aware of the company, I assume likes the company, the company sponsors the blog. That's all above board. But it's not a normal 'reporting' relationship.
I tend to agree, doesn't really make sense to think this interview was fudged or anything. However it was written up as a paraphrase, not a transcript, which reinforces Pop's point that one should think of Gomo as a blog -- opinion and editorial -- more than something attempting to be journalism.
I think it came up merely because someone wanted to see the exact words and phrasing used, in an attempt to further read between the lines, and indeed one does not get that from this interview since it was not transcribed verbatim.
FWIW I agree, the apparent conflict of interest is quite big. I imagine the reasoning was that it pertains to the whole "organizing all info" thing and also to Google Health, but...
Now what on earth is this DNA barcode patent thing you speak of? Can't wait to hear how this has to do with sequencing DNA and locating SNPs.
Not quite, it is...
a) not quite Google's though it was developed in-house and open sourced
b) is not SS or CA, though those are based on the same code -- they read 1D codes
c) is called Barcode Scanner, and is, you guessed it, this project: code.google.com/p/zxing
I was curious so I took a look too. Pop is right that there is some inconsistency in the document. It lists *some* claims that were amended, but not others. It lists *some* claims that were dependent on modified claims but not others. It's not clear why.
All the claims are referenced, in the end. I don't see any reason to think this is either an oversight, or, that there is in fact some rhyme and reason to what was included.
I don't think Pop is challenging anything about the patent here -- you guys are jumping to a knee-jerk conclusion there. He's just curious about a detail in the re-ex that may not look right. You'd think the people on this board who love the patent so much would appreciate someone making sure the re-ex is all in order, that there have been no technical mistakes, that nobody snuck anything in on you guys, etc.
So, ease up. Why not just let him do some digging. I bet you'll find it is as I said, typo, or, that there is some reason, and there's nothing to be concerned about either way.
Yes I remain an owner of the project. I started it while at Google. I still work on it a bit from time to time though I am not an employee anymore. Yes this project provides the 'Barcodes' client on the iPhone, 'Barcode Scanner' on Android, and powers almost all of the other barcode apps you see for Android.
This is hardly supporting your 'counterpoint' because:
1) This is a PR from one of the companies involved in this project. It is not objective, and is not going to say anything except 'this is all great!'. A arms-length critical review of this would be more compelling.
2) This specifically does not address my point. Indeed, you could concoct and indirect-based scheme that works on multiple carriers, with several barcode symbologies, with any of several readers (this appears to be what 'scanning technology' means -- it does not mean direct/indirect, which would not be a scanning technology would it?). The question remains: what happens when you launch a campaign, on several carriers, using DM and QR Code, and almost every single reader on the planet can do nothing with it? Don't tell me, explain it to the marketers, who will have to explain to their customer, and boss, what the heck they were thinking.
Your other link to a Neustar has nothing to do with a standards body, so therefore, is no argument against standards bodies 'standardizing' a patented technology. I mean, I suppose you or Neustar could say, "oh, we are a new standards body!" But how quickly does that get laughed out of the industry?
New Standards Body: Hello, industry, we would like to propose a new standard for mobile barcode ecosystem stuff.
Industry: That is great. If we standardize this, we increase the number of participants which adds value for all participants. Is anyone using it yet?
NSB: No, it's pretty new. We have all said we'll use it.
Industry: OK, but this is better than the existing standards and ways of doing things right? so it will catch on eventually.
NSB: Of course. Well it has about the same functionality as other approaches big industry players are using, but this is the future.
Industry: ... OK. So you have a plan to make it very easy and compelling to adopt this approach too, to maximize uptake of this standard
NSB: Of course. Oh! but, the approach is patented. Anyone that wants to use it will have to pay us. Including you.
Industry: ...
NSB: Hello? Industry?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=38701576
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=38699238
Remember these? how is that not answering the question "how do EZCodes work" but I don't see why you can't just look at the spec, or why you are asking?
As to your post about CTIA and EZCode, um, didn't you just get done explaining that EZCode is open? The paper you cite does not indicate that CTIA is standardizing on EZCode. On the contrary, they suggest two formats will be initially suggested, both now open, and leaving room for more. This is exactly not standardizing on a proprietary code!
frac I don't know how else to answer your question, other than my three last posts attempting to address it. What are you looking for? I told you exactly how EZCodes work, as requested. Posted you the spec and everything.
I think you want me to say how the part internal to Scanbuy works? well, that I obviously don't know, nor do you. The mechanism they use does involve an opaque ID in a barcode, being sent off to a remote server (right?), so that part seems quite similar to the claims in the 048 patent. But all claims have to match before you can say 'infringement'. And we don't know things like whether they use the database of predefined mappings from IDs to URLs like that described in the other claims. I mean, it seems conceivable and simple to just work around these claims by doing something similar, and clunkier, but different.
So if your question is really "explain how the entire mechanism used by Scanbuy, of which EZCode is a part, does or does not infringe on the 048 patent" well I can't answer that with certainty. All I know is what I observe, above.
This, in any event, doesn't particularly concern or interest me. I don't find this mechanism interesting or compelling going forward anyway, and I am not a shareholder.
(jeffz2 suggested I have invested in this company, for some reason. Nope, never have, never will, don't now have any investment of any kind in this company or a direct competitor.)
Been following this conversation a bit and I think there are several bits of confusion.
frac: yes, YA is not buying more warrants in any event. But, in no situation would YA be acquiring shares on the open market. Literally, they would be receiving shares from Neomedia.
yj: Whether Neomedia settles from treasury stock, or acquires it on the open market, is up to them. I don't think they have treasury stock, so, yes, in theory Neomedia would acquire the shares.
frac: Arp is right that this provision, forcing the warrant exercise, is not something YA desires. Their upside is therefore capped. (But, I do imagine many people would be happy for the share price to rise to that level anyway!)
Arp: I actually imagine this whole thing would be settled in cash anyway. I am not sure what you are talking about when you say YA would purchase warrants? They have warrants now. It is that they will be exercised -- they will be forced to purchase, for the exercise price of 0.01 or whatever it is, shares of stock. They'll be happy about that, as the market price would then be 0.11+. This provision just caps the upside from this extra warrant added to the debt at a gain of 0.10 per share, and the provision only makes YA pony up the exercise and take on an actual position in the stock.
I think I already answered in my last two posts? EZCode appears to encode a numeric ID, only. Do you want to know technical details? why not go look at the specification?
http://www.scanbuy.com/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=15
Sorry I may be missing what you are asking.
Of course, I agree, that the best possible outcome is to both dominate the market and control the ecosystem! I think it's become clear that nobody will own a proprietary ecosystem, so, there is no longer value, and in fact there are costs, to trying to push a proprietary system.
A proprietary system is not a competitive advantage. It is a disadvantage, compared to open solutions. Open solutions have inherently more value, all else equal, to customers -- mostly because they are free. ;) But of course, if you can overcome that disadvantage and still dominate, that's the best thing.
I am just saying, this looked clear a couple years ago too, but it's only now they've opened it up. I personally think it's good that Neomedia has stopped pushing Aztec (which is, actually, open too) and sticking to QR.
One thing to note is: Scanbuy doesn't own the EZCode format. It was developed at ETH Zurich were it was called Visual Codes, and, they own the IP. They license it exclusively to Scanbuy. So all this amounts to is: Scanbuy has given up the exclusivity part. For that reason, I don't really buy the argument about damages, since, it is not theirs to 'give'.
I don't know. I imagine Scanbuy has done something to work around the 048 patent internally, that they don't do quite what the claims outline, internally. It seems similar to me.
I am not sure I am reading your triple-negative right: do I think there is any commercial barcode product (you mean marketing, campaign management, etc.?) that uses a direct method? yes, certainly. MS Tags offers this, Google (for a short time) did, I know a startup called TigTags that does as well.
I imagine Scanbuy actually paid to get their reader on Samsung handsets, net-net; I can't imagine Samsung paid them at least. They were not selling the reader, sub-licensing the technology, etc. This is why I say, it is not as if they were making money of the format directly.
The play there is to get your format so widely used that everyone has to come to you for the services around it where you make your money. Now I don't think there is a chance to monopolize the infrastructure anymore; companies will be competing just on the services directly.
I am not sure I see the connection to the USPTO decision. If I am right about the motivations, then they would be opening up the format at this point anyway to try to increase distribution, since it's clear QR kinda won the format 'war'.
You say the format is irrelevant. I couldn't agree more, it makes sense to just use QR code, IMHO. (Or Data Matrix if you like.) It is the services that matter now.
We disagree about whether this model even makes sense in the market. The quickest way I can argue for that, and perhaps you want to take a shot at rebutting this, is this: What happens if I launch an indirect campaign today (using QR codes, say)? Of everyone that can read the code -- and it's basically anyone with a barcode reader -- 99.99% of them just see a number. The client can't make sense of it. Users scratch their head or say "FAIL". No marketer in the world is going to walk into this SNAFU. I wouldn't launch a campaign like this if even 5% of users had this experience.
What do you tell the marketer, who's looking at what you offer, and looking at folks offering similar services without this problem?
frac what's wrong, this is a calm and decent post, and you didn't use ALL CAPS once? is it you?
As far as I know, EZCode can only encode a numeric ID. Their web site seems to confirm this as it demos EZCode as a format that uses an "indirect" method. That part does seem similar to the claims in '048. I don't know how the rest of their system works. They obviously claim there is no infringement; don't know if they have a good argument or not.
I do agree, there is no way any format would have been endorsed as a standard by any standards body were it proprietary. That is a non-starter in any such group. So I do imagine this is part of a push to have EZCode standardized, yes.
I personally still don't see why one would endorse EZCode over QR Code at this point, yes.
Standards bodies also aren't going to endorse a patented technology as a standard -- unless the holder agrees to basically renounce exercise of the patent. Why would some companies basically promote one of the members' technologies, so they can pay more money? This is, for instance, how the W3C works.
I don't know enough about the Scanbuy suit to comment on it.
Why open it up? I actually wonder why they didn't do it sooner. They are not making money off the format itself. I think it's too late to own the barcode infrastructure by controlling the formats, so that's out.
Where they are making money is marketing services, and to have a value proposition, you need people to be able to read (and also make) these codes. If you control the format, you have to do all the work of developing and distributing encoders and decoders. This opens the way for people to make their own encoders and decoders, which would increase distribution of the technology they use and make their value proposition better.
I, of course, still think there's little point in not just using QR Codes now.
Why, what's your theory?
Can you read a code from an HD screen? Sure just like you can read from a computer display or page. In any of these cases I am saying it is very hard to read it across the room. Up close, no problem. At a range of 10 feet, you just cannot read a 2" x 2" code. It has to be much larger.
Anything is possible. Even today people aren't really used to using barcodes in print, so scanning off TV seems quite far away as a common sight. I would imagine other solutions to bridging TV and web will take hold first. These are already pretty related worlds that afford connections easily. I mean, already on my TV box I can hit a button to see more content and interact a little. I can already watch video on the web. Barcodes are not somehow a necessary missing link in this domain.
No, the TV ads people were also briefly interested, after Print Ads got into barcodes, but some quick proof of concepts showed it didn't work well. The other challenge was time. You have to leave that code on screen long enough for folks to whip out a phone, start the app etc. It just doesn't work for time.
This is an interesting question I looked at a while ago. The issue is not the resolution of the camera (which is never really a factor), or the screen resolution. It's not even focus, since the user is typically sitting at some distance. And because of the distance, that's why the screen resolution matters little.
The problem is really that distance. If the code is maybe 2" x 2" as Pop says, it's so tiny from across the room that it's unscannable just due to hand-shake blur. If you make it big enough to compensate, it's huge.
I think this is hard to do today -- though possible if you're willing to fill the screen with the code -- and better technology isn't going to change this particular issue.
Maybe the ID is just an example or expired.
I tried scanning it with other readers, for kicks, and I got what I expected: The reader said "13458903". That's it. Nothing else happened. This will be true of anyone using any reader besides Neoreader. And you will admit, that is the very vast majority of 2D readers out there.
If this is the experience for 99.9% of your potential users... ? Who would use this?
For reference, it is definitelt focus, and not resolution, that matters. Our Android client, for instance, decodes from a 320x240 capture - that is 0.0768MP! But with focus, no problem.
Code reading worked OK on the current iPhone camera, for simple codes. The real problem was no real API for getting at what the camera sees. All you could do was ask the platform to have the user take and save a picture, which was very slow. That is why, as someone noted, all the iPhone readers looked alike. They were all invoking this API.
I assume the 3GS resolves both. Barcode scanning will work very well, for complex codes.
This is as compared to, I imagine, getting a reply asynchronously after some delay. For example, maybe you get the result in an SMS message. I think we all agree, that would not fly in the case of barcodes.
I think be's comments are great. I suppose I slightly disagree with one point. Any demographic info one can collect and exploit in an indirect model could be collected and exploited in the direct model. But I imagine be's point is that, if you have gotten someone to download your special reader, which you must in the indirect model, you already have interacted much more with the user, had more chance to collect information, etc. You might on average have more info to act on.
That is a big 'if' - I think it is quite hard to push the special reader, or even moreso, to launch a campaign that most readers won't understand. But to the extent you do distribute the reader, maybe you get better info. This isn't really a function of the model though.
Is this 'partnership' people keep referring to just the fact that an ad agency mentioned NeoReader in an *ad campaign* for Nokia? Is that a 'partnership with Nokia'?
http://neom.com/press-detail.php?id=24
OK then, purchased IP is certainly capitalized. R&D is capitalized after the point where the technology is proved feasible for commercialization. Pretty sure legal isn't capitalized, but you may specifically know otherwise.
Claw: good example. In this case the asset value is plainly impaired and should be adjusted downward by the accountants. That is, indeed, this situation can't persist. But both of these are tangents and I actually think we think similarly about what all this means, or does not, in practice.
Len et al: I have not and will not be a shareholder. I see a different world than you do. It is cool to see you guys interested in all the possible uses of barcodes. I see the same value in all these articles you post. But these don't have anything to do with this company. They are not involved, not using any patented approaches. Indeed go search for info on 2D barcodes and you have to dig a while to find anything about any these companies in relation. So, for you to pull out a few PRs from the companies themselves, and ignore else, and then confidently claim this is the wave of the future, is interesting to say the least.
You are both right. If I acquire a company for more than its assets are worth, the difference shows up as 'goodwill'. This is where that premium shows up which presumably reflects the value of the intangibles you got like brand name.
Goodwill can go down over time, in which case the decrease is an expense netted against profits. Companies can and should test and revalue goodwill; it is revalued downward typically if an acquisition is not proving so valuable. IIRC in the US goodwill can never be revalued upward.
This is not true of acquiring simple assets, which are shown on the books at their purchase price.
But the IP in question is neither since it was 'developed' in house right? So it should appear as capitalized R&D.
Yes, I fully understand how IP shows up on balance sheets. It's goodwill, in the case of acquisition, or capitalized R&D. Indeed I completely agree with you: book value is *not* market value. It is, if anything, a *minimum* possible market value. The book value of the company really shouldn't be *more* than what you compute now from its ~$30M market cap.
And yes, the market value should reflect the future value of the IP as well. The market is expressing a value. Yes, many people here are therefore contrarian, going against the market consensus. Hey, if you have reason to believe you know more than the market, or have extra insight into the prospects, by all means. If you don't, you're probably taking a bad bet. For example, I'd never take a contrarian position in a pharma company. I simply can't possibly know enough to make that bet reasonably.
I suppose I somewhat question whether everyone here understands this in the way you do. And then that concerns me when I hear about people tapping credit lines to invest in this. Suggesting things like a company will pay $500M for a company worth -$160M or so means there is a *substantial* contrarian view out there, shared by several big companies! in which case it's not really contrarian, in which case, why is the market cap what it is, etc. It's hard to line those things up.
I substantially agree with the rest of your other post, though don't see how my arguments against the 048 patent is a denial of reality. People keep repeating this. One can accept a decision while questioning the logic behind it. Like I said in my analogy: I can accept that the speed limit is 30mph on this empty road near my house and drive 30mph, while feeling quite sure it's the wrong limit. I am not very receptive to people that keep willfully misunderstanding this point and thereby dodge having to answer the issues that I raised. If it's so easy to explain what's wrong with my objection, why can't someone do it? It's like a bureaucrat telling me "I don't want to hear why you think it should be 45mph! It's 30mph! can't you accept that? there can't be a reason it should be 45mph because it's 30mph!" See how that doesn't work?
Can't I turn your point around on you or others on this board? You have a lot of money tied up in this. How objective can you be? As long as everyone is going into this with open eyes, and aware of our cognitive biases, it's all good.
claw, I understand your argument about a risk-adjusted value being lower than it's 'real' value. It is true that risk, all else equal, lowers value. But the book value of the company, which is a function of stuff like the value of equipment, is relatively-speaking guaranteed. You would not discount their future book value at the company's cost of equity. To put it another way: even if Neomedia runs some risk of bankruptcy, that does not mean their desks and chairs might soon be worth $0. So no I do not quite think an argument from risk adjustment explains how a company can be worth more "dead than alive".
If a company can be acquired for $10M and has assets that can be sold for $20M, well, I have a pretty nice way to make $10M... It has to be a fairly temporary failure to price the assets 'correctly'. Likewise, if in fact this IP is worth so much more than the market price suggests an acquisition would cost... why isn't someone snapping it up? I agree it's possible another firm would create more value with them than Neomedia does, but, that would be accomplished by an acquisition too.
Later you suggest that it's that we don't know how much the patents are worth. Yes, that is a much better explanation, to argue the market just says one thing and you say another, than to attempt to argue it's somehow priced below book value. But then people are back to needing to explain why the whole market is so wrong.
MyKey -- I think you hit it on the head. The reasoning here seems to be there's something utterly different about this company, so that all these 'normal' arguments don't apply. Well... to misquote an old aphorism, show me a mother that doesn't think her child is the most special, unique one in the whole world...
Hey, could be true. But most companies aren't special, rather by definition. The issue with this line of thinking is that it's not falsifiable. If one starts with the assumption that this a billion dollar company, and then can disregard evidence to the contrary with the 'special company' argument, you can never reach any other conclusion. Is that healthy when you're trying to make objective investment decisions?
I am indeed strangely addicted to reading this board. Part of my study involves investor psychology and market rationality, and this is useful 'raw material' for that.
So you're suggesting it's a function of market failure. Sure, I accept that could happen, likely for a limited time. It would be odd for, say, a company's value to dip below that of its machinery and plants and so on, since presumably you'd buy the company and turn a profit, at least, selling it's stuff!
Problem here is the 'assets' are hard to value. Your claim is that the assets are objectively more valuable than the market says it is. To me that just sounds like the market is expressing one opinion, and you another. :) To each his own, just pointing out you are claiming the market is collectively wrong but you are not, which is always a tough claim.
(I did say "nobody *remembers* Neomedia", except maybe me and a couple others who looked at the industry landscape in early 2007. It wasn't that nobody knew about them. It just never looked like the most interesting firm to engage -- none of them were in the end.)
I didn't say anybody was going to offer $0.08/share. :) I don't know of or imagine a company interested in acquisition, but I would only know about one wouldn't I. I don't deny the possibility -- anything is possible.
What I *am* pointing out is that an offer at, say, that level would probably be accepted by most shareholders. I'm just guessing. So why would one pay $0.31/share -- which is what this $500M+ suggestion implies? I understand you're saying this would start a bidding war up to something like that price. So now you think there are at least two acquirers who value it that much. That's an even bigger claim. What are these two guys waiting for? :) surely would have been much better to bid-war this up from $0.002 a while ago than now.
My guess is these patents will never fall into Google's hands anyway. :)
Well, these two things are certainly related aren't they? the market cap is the 'price' of the company equity.
But you are right -- and I did say a premium over $30M. You are describing a hostile takeover, and indeed, it gets expensive to acquire enough shares to get enough votes, and management typically doesn't like getting removed so they write in poison-pill.
But it seems like we're all talking about a simple tender offer, a "non-hostile takeover". How much would you have to offer to get enough shares to complete it? If one suggests the returns to equity will be $500M it has to be at least $0.31/share. I know many here hope for more. :) But. For a stock trading below $0.06/share in the last year, and touching virtually zero... do you think you'd need to offer more than say $0.08 to get enough subscription?
Who can say. But, saying the premium is $470M seems really far-fetched even for a hostile takeover.
Why would this company have a higher liquidation value than market cap? That would be saying the company is worth more chopped up and sold off than operating as-is. What's a company that matches that description?
What don't you understand or agree with? Equity is assets minus debt. Debt is $174M. I'm positing that assets are basically the IP, and that's $500M. That means equity is $326M. Shares are claims on equity. Therefore the market capitalization, the sum of all share values, is the market's estimate of the value of the company's equity. That is indeed, "stock market 101"! What do *you* think equity means?
You can see the same calculation in their balance sheet, though at the moment of course shareholder equity is about -$160M, since assets are far less than debt.
There's nothing to prove or disprove about that, it's just what the words mean.
I'm kind of suspicious since you are just attacking and dodging my question. It tells me there is some agenda here, that you don't want others to hear this for some reason, though you can't really directly explain why it's wrong.
Which 'fact' did I miss? You weren't able to point to anything. And I'm just asking questions. Not sure if eliot was being serious or not, but I do have an MBA.
Street do you have a reference on that acquisition offer? Not doubting you, just curious.
I am not sure Chip Hoffman's press statements are any kind of objective source of valuations for the company, nice as he is. He can't but be optimistic. I do think it's funny how you often quote Neomedia folks in support of why Neomedia is great. :)
I guess one question is, if indeed the IP alone is worth, say, $500M, then the market cap of the company should be ($500M - $174M) = $326M. But it isn't. How do you square that?
You can say, oh, but it should be that for all these reasons. That's fine. But the fact is I can by all the equity now for (some premium over) $30M. Which makes it hard to understand why some have just suggested it is about to be valued at $500M.
This is not a criticism of the company. It is a critique of perhaps faulty investment theses. I would hope that an investment BB would welcome discussion on this, since the goal is to make the best investment decisions. You don't have to agree with me if you don't like, but if you don't, I'd be curious to know why.
I'm curious. Why would someone pay $500M for all the equity when the market cap is $30M today? You can have it all for $30M -- plus some premium, I'd imagine, but $470M?
The company has $174M in debt, so you are suggesting that an acquirer would spend in total $674M?
Where did the $500M come from out of curiosity?
So, let's say an acquisition is coming. I have read some posts about it and don't disagree with the logic, while I don't know anything more than you do about it. (Well, in one case I do.) It would need to come soon, since cash burn will consume short-term assets soon.
So what price would the company fetch today? Let's say it's "a whole lot" like your $674M. The major debt holders essentially have a claim on the whole company at this point. Would they not have simply claimed the company last month after the company defaulted, and then receive all of the purchase price?
So they presumably don't think it's worth "a whole lot". Let's even say they think it's more like $50M. They're happy to arrange a sale at, say, $60M. They get $60M (and write off the rest of the debt), instead of $50M they would have if they claimed the company.
But at this valuation, shareholders get nothing, because all debt claims are senior. In fact shareholders basically don't get anything unless it fetches over about $174M. But then if it were worth more than that... back to the above argument, would they not desire to let the company go bankrupt?
I'm not trying to bash. But I do wonder where you think this logic breaks down, since many are talking about investing more as a result.
Erm, what are you talking about? on the contrary it was published publicly in its entirety, open-sourced. (http://code.google.com/p/zxing).
It is used in the Google Chart API to generate QR codes. It's linked to by Google Product Search. It was used as part of an ad campaign in the NY Times (http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3ic1abd1883d215637eb097396d8aa7ae0). It's used internally to generate codes on business cards. On Android alone it's been downloaded about 3 million times as part of the 13+ apps that use it. Where is the trash can again...
I already mentioned this. This is part of why I thinkI know quite a bit more about the lack of any 'deal' here than most anyone. We spoke to Chip Hoffman last year, after it was learned who streetstylz was and the air was cleared. It was a pleasant and general conversation. There was no talk of patent infringement -- sorry guys, from the CEO here -- and he emphasized turning around their image as patent trolls. That's about it. It was clear Google wasn't going quite the same direction, so little opportunity to work together, but, good vibes all around.
I know all the people that ever cared about barcodes, keep up with some of them, and know all of their attitudes about this space.
You're right, maybe something crazy happened and they changed their minds and nobody told me. Maybe there is another barcode group at the company I don't know about it.
But in any event, why on earth do you think you'd know better than I? That is funny.
This is a question for me? Yes, I know about this. On Android, Product Search shows a hyperlink which launches Barcode Scanner, or prompts you to download. This is one of the clients I worked on, yes. (Actually, the link will link you to whatever local barcode scanner app you like.)
It's a nifty trick, and has notably increased distribution of Barcode Scanner on Android. The good news for all of us -- even more good 2D barcode scanning-capable phones out there. For some of you the bad news is, that's hundreds of thousands more devices that don't read any indirect-model code...
As the, erm, mole here, I can tell you, indeed, you guys are imagining things, and not very well. Nobody at Google even remembers Neomedia, except for one or two folks that spoke to them a while ago.
I understand -- me saying this only confirms the conspiracy. Oh well I can try:
1. This Michael Kwun conspiracy thing. It's pretty far-fetched to suggest one guy staked his career on this case -- moved just at the behest of his 'masters' to beat up on one company. So I guess the company was paying him on the side? or he just agreed for fun? And nobody at Google could prosecute this with in-house counsel? But really, ignore that. The reexam was requested in July 2007. The guy joined in June 2008. Ouch, that doesn't add up does it?
2. Me. I am not an employee. I keep in touch with the couple guys thinking about barcodes there but have no official, or even much of an unofficial link, to the company. I was in no way sent or prompted by anyone at the company. You realize Google got *out* of the print ads marketing business right?? I came to challenge people spreading bad info about my work, stayed to argue against more misinformation, and now lurk just for fun. It is just that simple. I know it's hard to believe -- at worst, believe that I am just wasting time, given that I have no monetary interest.
3. "NEOME". Guys, "NEOM" still finds Neomedia on Google Finance! did anyone check that? So what is this plot? to hide the ticker? great work then. I don't have a reason why the data providers switched the symbol, but you will admit the company did not file by the usual deadline. If it's technically a mistake, it seems like an honest one by the data provider.
I think if you looked at this from a distance, you'd see it does sound nutty, like Sandeep says. It's some kind of pointlessly baroque plan worthy of the Keystone Cops, achieving nothing. The plot is to drive the stock price down? well hell, it was 1/10th of what it is now six months ago! why not then? So what is the plot again?
I think some people here are looking for hope on the one hand, and scapegoats on the other, and it is poisoning reasoned thought. I think people want to see simple 'good' and 'evil' in the world; it's much easier to construct a story of greed than no story at all. If you only take all this as more confirmation of your conspiracy theory, you're trapped in a spiral where *nothing* can disprove it, be careful.
I agree with most of what you say. Does the reader need to be standard? or do we need standard barcode formats and contents? I think the latter. For example, on the web, we have many browsers, but (basically) one markup standard.
Given the readers out there today, what is the barcode format and content format that is understood by the largest proportion of them? Whatever that is, would seem to be the de facto standard, which marketers or anyone else using such a technology would choose.
To wrap up this discussion -- no, my point was that, in the context of the 048 patent, a *URL* is not an ID (think that is what you mean to say). Poptech well explained that indeed the patent distinguishes the two.
I added to that that, in fact, the 048 patent seems to continually refer to these IDs as UPC codes in particular, strengthening this point that ID != URL. This is not a different point, but continuation of the same. You can take Poptech's interpretation that, in spite of that, the patent doesn't intend to limit itself to UPC codes.
But even the original point stands then. You are welcome to decline to answer this point, for whatever reason you want to give.
... and now let's look at the definition in the patent, since that's what counts, eh? Here's a quote from column 3 of the 048 patent, which summarizes the invention: "A computer database is provided that relates standard UPC codes to Internet URLs or other network addresses."
Indeed the whole patent seems to narrowly concern UPC identifiers, not even general opaque identifiers -- and certainly not URLs. You simply cannot stand here and argue with a straight face that a UPC symbol is a URL. That these two are the same thing:
036000291452
http://foo.com/bar
Try putting the first one in your browser.
Try searching for the second at your grocery store.
If you want to read the patent closely, it doesn't even seem to concern indirect encoding as we know it today -- where you make up an ID, and then map it to a URL. 048 repeatedly talks about UPC symbols.
Anyone care to comment on that??
Context.WINDOW_SERVICE is simply an identifier used to retrieve the WindowManager 'service', which is just a Java object. It's not even outside the dalvik JVM, let alone outside the device.
Go ahead and look if you like. You will simply not find anything using a remote server for decoding or resolution.
What you will find is the source code for zxing.org/w/decode.jspx, which is a web-based decoder where you can upload a file or URL for decoding. This isn't used by a mobile device though.