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.
KoKo: From the printed summary of the abc news/video piece:
"Neomedia plans to launch it in the U.S. later this summer."
Yes, they were referring to the US launch. CeBIT in March for Europe (as we all know).
Diamondtech; see link below:
http://www.digitalrum.com/customers.asp
Digital Rum has many mobile service providers as clients. I'd like to see them all working with Paperclick through Digital Rum (not just Vodafone).
Couponing is ready to go now. We don't need better camera lens to launch because you can enter the Paperclick ad code manually.
CeBIT launch would be sweet with a deal including all of the service providers via Digital Rum!
Neom is in the Digital Rum booth (as we all know) for the current show in Cannes. I hope there is time for getting a contract done with all the service providers on board with one all inclusive deal by Digital Rum representing NeoMedia.
From Digital Rum's web site:
Point of sales redemption
Digital Rum knows that many retailers and event venues want their customers to visit them - footfall is a key indicator of success when measuring the effectiveness of marketing. Since much of a brand's budget is spent on traditional paper advertising a lot of the promotions aim to bring consumers into the high street to claim their offer or discount. This encourages the consumer to return and buy more things. However, paper coupon handling is very expensive. Now there is an alternative that uses your mobile phone to redeem your offers.
If you're a high street catalogue business, we can quickly enable you to offer item reservation.
If you're a retailer or entertainment venue, Digital Rum offers a barcode and number based coupon system, so you can offer point of sale mobile redemption (using your existing barcode readers).
This is an example of how it works:
a consumer sees an advertised product with a text back request telling them they can receive 10% off
the consumer sends "Offer" to the published shortcode
either they receive an SMS, EMS or MMS with the coupon (how it appears on your phone depends on how the retailer wants to redeem it)
OR the consumer receives an SMS, EMS, or MMS with an option to reserve the product at their nearest stockist
the consumer visits the venue where the promotion is valid and hands their phone to the shop assistant
the coupon is scanned and the discount given
http://www.digitalrum.com/technology.asp?id=7
Nice post donbalon! The following excerpt is of particular interest. Note Virgin was willing to sign a license!
"The patent ruling, while not final, is a sign that more of the most basic technologies and techniques underlying online media may be privately "owned" than previously thought. For example, Acacia Media Technologies has claimed it owns patents on the process of transmitting compressed audio or video online -- one of the most basic multimedia technologies on the Net. So far, it has signed up licensees such as Mexican satellite-telecommunications company Grupo Pegaso and Radio Free Virgin, the online music division of Richard Branson's Virgin group of companies."
Add these partners to possible PR list.
From the "Go To Market" PR:
http://www.neom.com/corporate/press/2003/20031030.jsp
NeoMedia is now in the final stages of naming Click Management Services partners in the U.S.A. and Europe, as well hosting service partners."
It's not an answer, just an official appearance of counsel for the records.
As to why Airclic and Lscan haven't yet appeared...?
They are srambling to find an attorney???
More likely they will just file a response and counsel will be noted then.
FYI on Lawsuits:
Only Scanbuy's attorney has appeared on record so far for Airclic et al suit. Airclic et al have first hearing date of 3/17/04.
Virgin still has until 3/1/04 for a legal response and 4/23/04 for first hearing date.
Unless and until there is an agreed settlement, don't expect Neom to release info, even if they are in settlement discussions. However, we can at least monitor the court docket to see the progression of the suits in terms of its' entries.
2/20/04 4 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Scanbuy Inc by William
T. McGrath, Barbara J. Mulvanny (hp) [Entry date 02/23/04]
Basic facts about PCT:
http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/basic_facts/basic_facts.pdf
Personalizit;
The inventor of the barcode doesn't license through us either.
I said spotcodes, not bangocodes.
Neom can use spotcodes without Bangos permission. However, if Bango wants to use spotcodes to act like Paperclick, they will have to work out a deal with us. If Bango wants to go to 1 server (in-house) for specific client info that they maintain that would be OK.
Some people here are missing the point with spotcodes. We are not in competition with spotcodes. We are not in competition with barcodes. We are not in competition with numbers that can be entered manually on a keyboard. Its how you use them that's at issue!
I welcome spotcodes! They can make using regular lens on existing camera phones work for clicking.
This was not a Kaminer PR.
BSD Software announces it has secured the ability to provide 900 services to North America
Monday , February 23, 2004 10:34 ET
BOCA RATON, FL, Feb 23, 2004 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- BSD Software Inc. (OTCBB:BSDS) announced today that its wholly owned subsidiary Triton Global Business Services Inc. has completed an agreement with one of Canada's largest Independent Local Exchange Carriers (ILEC) to provide cross border 900 services between Canada and the US.
Pay per call 900 is growing exponentially in North America. Fortune 500 companies are utilizing 900 services to generate new streams of technical and customer support revenue. Customers reluctant to use credit cards or enter into long term support contracts can bypass the queue and receive direct services. Legal advice is an example of a 900 pay per call service wherein the client is provided an opinion over the phone at a fraction of the cost of an office appointment.
Triton is providing a turn key North American 900 solution that enables US based companies to access Canadian markets and conversely Canadian companies to access US markets. A full suite of account management and customer service features include:
- voice print, creation, storage and customer service lookup.
- live customer service for billing and collection.
- reconciliation of customer calls and inquiries.
- managed refunds to customers (end users).
- live transfer to service providers customer service if desired.
- macro reporting capabilities, reconciliation reports, chargeback,
bad debt tracking support revenue
- monthly summaries and settlements checks.
About Triton Global Business Services Inc.
Triton was incorporated in April 1998 and is a leading provider of billing, clearinghouse and information management services to the telecommunications industry. Triton focuses on helping its clients improve services and profitability by enabling them to streamline their operations and make quicker, more informed business decisions. For more information please visit www.tritonglobal.ca
For further information please contact Triton at 1-877-813-2419 or info@tritonglobal.ca
Forward looking Statement
The statements made in this press release are forward-looking and are based on current expectations that are subject to a number of uncertainties and risks, and actual results may differ materially. The uncertainties and risk include, but are not limited to, the ability of Triton or the company to execute effectively its business plan, changes in the market for Triton's business services, changes in the market activity, anticipated increases in customers, seasonality, the development of new products and services, the enhancement of existing products and services, competitive pressures (including price competition), systems failures, economic and political conditions, changes in customer behavior and the introduction of competing products having technological and /or other advantages. Any forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and, as such, speak only as of the date made. Statements made in this document that are not purely historical are forward-looking statements, including any statements as to beliefs, plans, expectations, or intentions regarding the future. The company assumes no obligation to update information concerning its expectations.
rk888: We (longs) still need PATIENCE.
How long will it take for the word to spread at Cannes that Scanbuy is being sued by NeoMedia?!
More immenient PR's:
Quote from 3GSM on Paperclick's enthusiastic reception...
Digital Rum on board with just an LOI?
Vodaphone...
More Paperclick camera ready phones...
License deals...
CSI developments...
SST overdue...
and of course the rest mentioned by Diamondtech's post.
I'm not sure when Neom is going to start pounding us with info, but its coming...
We are moving forward, but we must still be Patient for the big guns to go off which will send the pps out of the pennies!
Should be a fun week for us nonetheless!!!
Diamondtech: You have your answer from Neom!
One small step for us longs, one giant step for Neom!
"SpotCodes
fast, accurate 2D symbol recognition"
Neom's patents don't discriminate how the 2D symbol is designed (barcodes are just an example), in fact Neom has;
"MaxiCode is a two-dimensional symbology which can encode about 100 characters of data in an area of one square inch."
But if you want that symbol to act as a "switch" to bridge the internet... you will have to pay the Neom toll.
Any body can design their own 2D sybology. Neom doesn't get paid because someone puts a barcode on a product, or a spotcode...
BUT, if you want to have that code contain info for the purpose of switching on the internet via two servers... we get the $$$.
I WELCOME SPOTCODES! THEY APPEAR TO MAKE IT EASIER TO SCAN WITH CURRENT CAMERA PHONES. I WONDER HOW MUCH INFO THEY CAN ACTUALLY CONTAIN, HOWEVER. CERTAINLY NOT AS MUCH AS A MAXICODE.
One of Neom's patents:
United States Patent 6,108,656
Durst , et al. August 22, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic access of electronic information through machine-readable codes on printed documents
Abstract
The present invention is a system and method for providing automated access to electronic information stored in a database in either a local or remote location. The system utilizes a machine-readable code printed on a document, referred to herein as an intelligent document since it stores information used to automatically access the information. The machine-readable symbol comprises encoded source data, wherein the source data comprises application launch information as well as file location information. The source data is encoded and printed, and then distributed by the vendor by any logical means to the end user. The end user then scans the code via appropriate code scanning (e.g. bar code scanning) equipment, decodes the raw decoded data, and the file location information is then used to access the appropriate file. In a preferred embodiment, a Web browser program is launched, and the URL of the vendor's Web site is accessed through the Internet. Local file retrieval may also be implemented on the client computer itself, as well as over an intranet or LAN environment. Additional user-specific demographic data such as the user's name and address may also be encoded in the machine-readable code when the document is specifically tailored for individual targeting, such as mailing labels. This demographic information is uploaded to the WWW site for use by the vendor. In addition, the present invention encodes security data, such as an encryption key, for use in secure data transmissions such as electronic commerce over the Internet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Durst; Robert T. (Fort Myers, FL); Hunter; Kevin (Fort Myers, FL)
Assignee: NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. (Fort Myers, FL)
Appl. No.: 309869
Filed: May 11, 1999
Current U.S. Class: 707/10; 707/3; 707/9
Intern'l Class: G06F 017/30
Field of Search: 235/462 380/25 395/200.3,766 707/10,514,9,3 705/26,3 463/41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References Cited [Referenced By]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Patent Documents
5304786 Apr., 1994 Pavlidis et al. 235/462.
5649186 Jul., 1997 Ferguson 707/10.
5671282 Sep., 1997 Wolff et al. 380/25.
5682540 Oct., 1997 Klotz, Jr. et al. 395/766.
5710887 Jan., 1998 Chelliah et al. 705/26.
5745681 Apr., 1998 Levine et al. 395/200.
5757917 May., 1998 Rose et al. 380/25.
5765176 Jun., 1998 Bloomberg 707/514.
5778367 Jul., 1998 Wesinger, Jr. et al. 707/10.
5791991 Aug., 1998 Small 463/41.
5848413 Dec., 1998 Wolff 707/10.
5933829 Aug., 1999 Durst et al. 707/10.
Foreign Patent Documents
WO 98/24036 Jun., 1998 WO.
WO 98/24050 Jun., 1998 WO.
WO 98/40823 Sep., 1998 WO.
WO 98/49813 Nov., 1998 WO.
Primary Examiner: Amsbury; Wayne
Assistant Examiner: Pardo; Thuy
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Barkume; Anthony R.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parent Case Text
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
This application is a continuation application of application Ser. No. 08/967,383, which was filed on Nov. 8, 1997 now U.S. Pat. No. 5,933,829, which was on and claimed the priority of then co-pending provisional patent application filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on Nov. 8, 1996 and assigned Serial No. 60/030,166.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is claimed is:
1. A method for a client computer to retrieve a computer file comprising the steps of:
a) encoding a symbol data string comprising a file location pointer into a machine readable symbol;
b) rendering said machine readable symbol within a data carrier;
c) transposing an input data string from said machine readable symbol with a computer input device coupled to said client computer;
d) parsing said input data string to determine said file location pointer; and
e) utilizing said file location pointer to request the computer file designated thereby, by
assembling a computer file transfer request word comprising said file location pointer, and
transmitting said computer file transfer request word to a target server computer via a computer network system;
f) said target server computer receiving said computer file transfer request word and
g) said target server computer transmitting a computer file to said client computer in response thereto;
wherein said machine readable symbol also has encoded therein a source identifier data string, said source identifier data string comprising data correlated to an expected user of said data carrier, and wherein said source identifier data string is transposed by said computer input device.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein said computer network system is an Internet, and wherein said computer file transfer request word is directed towards a target server computer in communication with the Internet.
3. The method of claim 2 wherein said file location pointer comprises a uniform resource locator (URL) for specifying a file on the target server computer in communication with the Internet.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein said file location pointer comprises a network address associated with said target server computer and a file identifier correlated to the computer file requested by said client computer.
5. The method of claim 1 wherein said source transposed source identifier data string is assembled within said computer file transfer request word and transmitted to said target server computer.
6. The method of claim 5 wherein said target server computer stores said source identifier data string received from said client computer in said computer file transfer request word.
7. The method of claim 5 wherein
said machine readable symbol also has encoded therein an encryption key associated with said source identifier data string,
said encryption key is transposed by said computer input device,
said transposed encryption key is used by said client computer to encrypt information specific to a user associated with said client computer, and
said encrypted user information is assembled within said computer file transfer request word and transmitted to said target server computer.
8. The method of claim 7 wherein said information specific to a user is obtained, prior to encryption thereof, from a user information data file stored on said client computer.
9. The method of claim 7 wherein
said machine readable symbol also has encoded therein user demographics data,
said user demographics data correlated to a targeted user of said data carrier,
said user demographics data is transposed by said computer input device, and wherein
said information specific to a user is obtained, prior to encryption thereof, from said transposed user demographics data.
10. The method of claim 7 wherein
said target server computer utilizes said source identifier data string to access a lookup table to determine a decryption key associated with said encryption key, and
said target server decrypts said encrypted user information received from said client computer.
11. The method of claim 10 wherein said lookup table is stored locally on said target server computer.
12. The method of claim 10 wherein said lookup table is stored remotely on a secondary server computer.
13. The method of claim 10 wherein said user information comprises a credit card number associated with said user of said client computer, and wherein on online electronic commercial transaction is accomplished by utilizing said credit card number.
14. A method for a client computer to retrieve a computer file comprising the steps of:
a) encoding a symbol data string comprising a file location pointer into a machine readable symbol;
b) rendering said machine readable symbol within a data carrier;
c) transposing an input data string from said machine readable symbol with a computer input device coupled to said client computer;
d) parsing said input data string to determine said file location pointer; and
e) utilizing said file location pointer to request the computer file designated thereby, by
assembling a computer file transfer request word comprising said file location pointer, and
transmitting said computer file transfer request word to a target server computer via a computer network system;
f) said target server computer receiving said computer file transfer request word and
g) said target server computer transmitting a computer file to said client computer in response thereto;
wherein said machine readable symbol also has encoded therein user demographics data, said user demographics data correlated to a targeted user of said data carrier, and wherein said user demographics data is transposed by said computer input device.
15. The method of claim 14 wherein said user demographics data is included in said file transfer request word transmitted to said target computer, and wherein said user demographics data is stored in said target server computer.
16. The method of claim 15 wherein said computer file transmitted by said target server computer to said client computer is at least partially determined by at least part of said user demographics data.
17. A computer system comprising:
a) a client computer interconnected to a computer network comprising a target server computer associated therewith, and
b) a computer input device coupled to said client computer, adapted to read a machine readable symbol from a data carrier and transmit to said client computer an input data string;
wherein said client computer comprises
processing means for transposing said input data string to a plurality of constituent fields, said fields comprising at least a file location pointer;
means for utilizing said file location pointer to request the computer file designated thereby; comprising
means for passing said file location pointer to an application program on said client computer suitable for processing the corresponding computer file;
means for the application program to retrieve the computer file from the specified file location;
means for assembling a computer file transfer request word comprising said file location pointer, and
means for transmitting said computer file transfer request word to said target server computer via said network;
wherein said target server computer comprises:
means for receiving said computer file transfer request word; and
means for transmitting a computer file to said client computer in response to said computer file transfer request word;
wherein said input data string fields also comprise a source identifier data string, said source identifier data string comprising data correlated to an expected user of said data carrier.
18. The computer system of claim 17 wherein said computer network is an Internet, and wherein said computer file transfer request word is directed towards a target server computer in communication with the Internet.
19. The computer system of claim 18 wherein said file location pointer comprises a uniform resource locator (URL) for specifying a file on the target server computer in communication with the Internet.
20. The system of claim 17 wherein said assembling means also assembles said source identifier data string within said computer file transfer request word.
21. The computer system of claim 20 wherein said target server computer further comprises means for storing said source identifier data string received from said client computer in said computer file transfer request word.
22. The computer system of claim 20 wherein
said input data string fields also comprise an encryption key associated with said source identifier data string,
and wherein said client computer further comprises
means for encrypting with said encryption key a user information data file stored on said client computer, said user information data file comprising information regarding the user associated with said client computer, and
wherein said encrypted user information data file is assembled within said computer file transfer request word and transmitted to said target server computer.
23. The computer system of claim 22 wherein said client computer comprises memory means for storing a user information data file, and wherein said information specific to a user is obtained, prior to encryption thereof, from said user information data file.
24. The computer system of claim 22 wherein said input data string fields also comprise user demographics data correlated to a targeted user of said data carrier, and wherein said information specific to a user is obtained, prior to encryption thereof, from said user demographics data.
25. The computer system of claim 22 wherein said target server computer comprises
means for accessing a lookup table, said lookup table for storing a decryption key associated with said source identifier data string, to obtain said decryption key associated with said source identifier data string, and
means for decrypting, utilizing said decryption key, said encrypted user information received from said client computer.
26. The computer system of claim 25 wherein said lookup table is stored locally on said target server computer.
27. The computer system of claim 25 wherein said lookup table is stored remotely on a secondary server computer.
28. The computer system of claim 25 wherein said user information comprises a credit card number associated with said user of said client computer, and wherein said client computer further comprises means for executing on online electronic commercial transaction by utilizing said credit card number.
29. A computer system comprising:
a) a client computer interconnected to a computer network comprising a target server computer associated therewith, and
b) a computer input device coupled to said client computer, adapted to read a machine readable symbol from a data carrier and transmit to said client computer an input data string;
wherein said client computer comprises
processing means for transposing said input data string to a plurality of constituent fields, said fields comprising at least a file location pointer;
means for utilizing said file location pointer to request the computer file designated thereby; comprising
means for passing said file location pointer to an application program on said client computer suitable for Processing the corresponding computer file;
means for the application program to retrieve the computer file from the specified file location;
means for assembling a computer file transfer request word comprising said file location pointer, and
means for transmitting said computer file transfer request word to said target server computer via said network;
wherein said target server computer comprises:
means for receiving said computer file transfer request word; and
means for transmitting a computer file to said client computer in response to said computer file transfer request word;
wherein said input data string fields also comprise user demographics data correlated to a targeted user of said data carrier.
30. The computer system of claim 29 wherein said user demographics data is included in said file transfer request word transmitted to said target computer, and wherein said target server computer comprises means for storing said user demographics data.
31. The computer system of claim 30 wherein said target server computer comprises means for utilizing said user demographics data to at least partially determine the computer file transmitted by said target server computer to said client computer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Electronic data sources, such as conventional databases, the Internet (i.e., the World Wide Web("WWW")) are a rich and important means of information retrieval and distribution and, increasingly, electronic commerce. However, there are problems finding the information desired in this increasingly complex and changing network of data sources. Recently introduced Internet "search engines", such as YAHOO, help by allowing a user to search on-line indices of information sources, and even full source text, for relevant key words and phrases related to their topic of interest, but even carefully structured queries by experienced users often results in hundreds and even thousands of possible "hits" which are not sufficiently specific to preclude further manual search which is both data resource inefficient and time consuming.
Because of these inefficiencies, as well as general lack of familiarity with search engines and their syntax, users often rely on human readable print and broadcast media advertising to identify source addresses (e.g., Uniform Resource Locators ("URLs")) for Web sites and other online information of interest. Print media is particularly effective since: (1) it is the most ubiquitous method of communication and advertising in the modern world; and (2) a printed document can serve as a persistent reference to be saved and used during a subsequent on-line session.
However, human readable printed source addresses, and especially URL's, are particularly difficult to manually enter in software programs, such as web browsers, due to their length and use of complex and unfamiliar symbols. If the characters in a URL are not entered exactly, retrieval is prevented or, in a limited number of cases, a legal but incorrect source is accessed. This is especially true when URLs incorporate foreign languages and/or complex query instructions to on-line databases, as is increasingly frequent in most Web sites. In addition, the inability to type or otherwise manually enter symbolic address information due to either disability or lack of training complicates use of on-line information resources such as the Internet for millions of individuals.
Finally, it is widely anticipated that Internet access will increasingly be provided through interactive cable television via Web-ready television receivers and set-top boxes used in conjunction with conventional television receivers. In this home entertainment environment, it is difficult to use keyboards for address entry due to both lack of typing skill and the cumbersome placement of these components. Another method which would eliminate typing and allow users to directly link printed addresses and query scripts to electronic information sources would be highly desirable.
Companies that host Web sites for the purpose of providing information such as advertising, often want to know the identity and other related information of the users who visit their sites (i.e., download files therefrom). It would be quite advantageous to provide such companies or vendors with this information as part of a specific file transfer request, e.g., as part of a CGI parameters string included in a URL. Additionally, it would be desirable to be able to effect a secure manner of transferring this information, so that a user would have confidence in the system and thus send sensitive information such as a credit card number or the like with the file transfer request. This would enable electronic commerce to flourish well beyond the point it exists today.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention is a system and method for providing automated access to electronic information stored in a database in either a local or remote location. The system utilizes a machine-readable code printed on a document, referred to herein as an intelligent document since it stores information used to automatically access the information. The machine-readable symbol comprises encoded source data, wherein the source data comprises application launch information as well as file location information. The source data is encoded and printed, and then distributed by the vendor by any logical means to the end user. The end user then scans the code via appropriate code scanning (e.g. bar code scanning) equipment, decodes the raw decoded data, and the file location information is then used to access the appropriate file. In a preferred embodiment, a Web browser program is launched, and the URL of the vendor's Web site is accessed through the Internet. Local file retrieval may also be implemented on the client computer itself, as well as over an intranet or LAN environment. Additional user-specific demographic data such as the user's name and address may also be encoded in the machine-readable code when the document is specifically tailored for individual targeting, such as mailing labels. This demographic information is uploaded to the WWW site for use by the vendor. In addition, the present invention encodes security data, such as an encryption key, for use in secure data transmissions such as electronic commerce over the Internet.
In particular, the present invention is a method and system for a computer, such as a client computer in a networked computer system, to retrieve a computer file in which a symbol data string comprising a file location pointer is encoded into a machine readable symbol such as a two-dimensional bar code symbol, and the machine readable symbol is rendered within a data carrier (e.g. printed on an intelligent document). A computer input device such as a two-dimensional bar code scanner is coupled to the client computer and transposes an input data string from the machine readable symbol. The computer parses the input data string to determine the file location pointer, and the file location pointer is then utilized pointer to request the computer file designated thereby.
The file location pointer may be utilized to request the computer file by either passing it to an application program on the client computer suitable for processing the corresponding computer file, and then the application program retrieving the computer file from the specified file location. Alternatively, the file location pointer may be utilized to request the computer file by retrieving a copy of the computer file from the specified file location, and then invoking an application program on the client computer suitable for processing the corresponding computer file.
The client computer assembles a computer file transfer request word including the file location pointer and transmits the request word to a target server computer over a computer network system, which may be a wide area network such as the Internet or a local area network (LAN) or intranet. The file location pointer may alternatively specify the location of a computer file stored in a local memory resident in the client computer rather than on a target server computer. When the computer file to be retrieved is on a target server computer on a network, then the file location pointer is a network address associated with the target server computer and a file identifier correlated to the computer file requested by said client computer. In particular, when utilizing the Internet, the file location pointer may be in the form of a uniform resource locator (URL). In any type of networked environment, the target server computer receives the computer file transfer request word and transmits a computer file to the client computer in response thereto.
In addition to the file location pointer, the present invention takes advantage of the information density of the two-dimensional symbology by encoding a source identifier data string within the machine readable symbol. The source identifier data string is used to denote the particular source of the data carrier such as a particular magazine or ad, or can be used to denote an expected user or targeted group of users of the data carrier. The source identifier string is then transposed by the client computer, assembled within the computer file transfer request word, and transmitted to the target server computer. The target server computer stores the source identifier data string received from the client computer in the computer file transfer request word.
Additionally, the machine readable symbol also has encoded therein an encryption key associated with the source identifier data string, which is also transposed by the computer input device. The encryption key is used by the client computer to encrypt information specific to a user of the client computer, and the encrypted user information is assembled within the computer file transfer request word and transmitted to the target server computer. The information specific to a user may be obtained, prior to encryption, from a user information data file stored on the client computer, or it may be obtained from user demographics data correlated to a targeted user of the data carrier that had been previously encoded within and transposed from the machine readable symbol.
The target server computer may then utilize the source identifier data string received as part of the file transfer request word to access a lookup table to determine a decryption key, and then decrypt the encrypted user information received from the client computer in the file transfer request word. The lookup table may either be stored locally on the target server computer, or it may be stored remotely on a secondary server computer.
The decrypted user information may comprise sensitive user information such as a credit card number associated with the user of said client computer, thus enabling on online electronic commercial transaction by utilizing the credit card number. The user demographics data may be used by the target server computer to determine the file to transmit to the client computer; i.e. certain files may be targeted to specific users of the system.
The machine-readable symbol may also have encoded therein an executable command to launch a software utility resident on the client computer, and the software utility is then automatically launched after the machine readable symbol is transposed. For example, the software utility may be an Internet browser program or a word processing program. In addition, specific functions may also be encoded in the machine readable symbol along with the application launch command, such as a command to execute a print job of the retrieved computer file.
The symbol data string may optionally be obfuscated prior to being encoded into the machine readable symbol, in which case the input string transposed must likewise be de-obfuscated by the client computer. The obfuscation may be by computing a checksum of the symbol data string, encrypting the symbol data string by utilizing the checksum as an encryption key, and assembling the checksum with the encrypted symbol data string prior to encoding into the machine readable symbol. The de-obfuscation would then be accomplished by parsing the input data string to determine the checksum, decrypting the encrypted symbol data string with the checksum as a decryption key, computing a checksum of the decrypted symbol data string, and comparing the computed checksum with the checksum from said input data string. A valid data condition would be indicated when the comparison step is successful; and an invalid data condition would be indicated when the comparison step is unsuccessful.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING
FIG. 1 is a diagram of the system of the present invention.
FIG. 2 is a diagram of the document generation function of FIG. 1.
FIG. 3 is a diagram of the client computer functions of FIG. 1.
FIG. 4 is a diagram of the deobfuscating function carried out by the client computer of FIG. 3, and FIG. 5 is a diagram of the target server computer of FIG. 1.
FIG. 6 is a top level flowchart of the method of the present invention.
FIG. 7 is a flowchart of the document generation of the present invention.
FIGS. 8 and 9 are a flowchart of the scanning and processing by the client computer of the present invention; and
FIG. 10 is a flowchart of method used by the target server computer of the present invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
The system 100 of the present invention for generating and reading an intelligent document 100 is illustrated in block diagram form in FIG. 1. The system 10 comprises an intelligent document generation system 14, which encodes, assembles and prints an intelligent document 10 for subsequent scanning at a client computer 32.
The system operates with respect to FIGS. 1 and 6 as follows. A vendor who wishes to provide an intelligent document 10 programs certain parameters which will be encoded within a machine-readable code 12 and printed on the document along with text 16 or graphics 18. The document may be an advertisement in the form of a magazine insert or page, a brochure, a label for an envelope, a memorandum, and the like.
Parameters to be included within the machine-readable code depend upon the application desired by the vendor. For example, if the vendor wants the end-user to be able to load the vendor's world wide web (WWW) site automatically upon scanning the code 12, then the parameters included in the data string 20 that is assembled into the machine-readable code include a command 22 to launch an Internet browser application, such as NETSCAPE, and a file location pointer such as a uniform resource location (URL) code, such as www.xyzcorp.com (see FIG. 2). This information is encoded with encoding function 20 in accordance with the particular type of machine code being used. For example, one type of code which may be used by the present invention is a PDF417 symbol, which is described in detail in U.S. Pat. No. 5,304,786, which is incorporated by reference herein. The PDF417 symbol, known as a two-dimensional bar code symbol, has enough storage information to encode the browser launch command as well as the URL.
A printer 30 then utilizes the encoded data and desired text 16 and graphics 18 to print an intelligent document 10 a shown in the Figures.
The intelligent document 10 is disseminated to the end user in accordance with the methods desired by the vendor. For example, if the intelligent document is a magazine advertisement, then the user will obtain the magazine by conventional means such as purchase at a retail outlet, the mail, etc. Thus, as shown in FIG. 6, the data string at step 202 is used to generate and distribute at step 204 the intelligent document as desired.
The user, after reading the text and graphics in the document, can access the WWW site of the vendor by utilizing a scanner 34 in conjunction with his computer 32, programmed with appropriate software in accordance with the invention. That is, the user will optically scan the code 12 with an optical scanner 34. An optical scanner 34 sufficient to scan bar code symbols and the like is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,448,050, which is incorporated herein by reference. The device disclosed in the '050 patent is housed within a mouse type device, thus also including circuitry useful in point-and-click applications popular in personal computer platforms today.
After the two-dimensional bar code data is scanned by the scanner 34 (at step 208), a decoder 36 is used at step 210 to decode the raw data into usable commands and data. The decoder is typically a software program executed by the microprocessor of the computer, and provides thereby the browser launch command and URL which had been encoded by the vendor into the code. The WWW browser application 40 is then loaded, and the URL is used to access the WWW site of the vendor accordingly (at step 212). As a result, the user may automatically access the vendor's WWW site without having to enter the URL, thus eliminating all chances of error due to manual data input. After the file request is made at step 212, the internet server 48 at the target server computer 46 fetches or generates the target file 50, as shown in step 214. As shown in step 216, the file is transmitted to the client computer 32 and displayed on the browser 40 for viewing by the user.
The above scenario is useful when a vendor prints and distributes such intelligent documents on a mass scale. That is, the code distributed is the same for each user. In an alternative embodiment, specific user data is included with the data string 20 to provide for personalized operation as follows. This scenario is useful when the vendor makes individual printings keyed to individual users, such as when mailing labels are printed for inclusion on an envelope surrounding a magazine or the like.
In this case, the vendor may include in the code personal data such as the user's name, location, phone number, and other appropriate demographic information 23. When the user scans the document and loads the WWW site, the personal data is uploaded to the vendor's host computer 46 and stored in demographics log 52, thus providing the vendor with useful demographic data as to which users have actually utilized the intelligent document scanning service.
The code may also include security information useful in completing secure transfers across the Internet 44. For example, an encryption key 25 appropriate in a public or private key system may be embedded within the code. An appropriate software routine 38 in the user's computer utilizes the key after decoding it in order to encrypt certain data being sent across the Internet 44. For example, the encryption of credit card information is desired in order to thwart would-be intruders from misappropriating the information. The system of the present invention could be used to allow the user to order an item advertised in the brochure by taking the credit card number, already resident in the user's computer memory, and encrypting it with the key decoded from the code. When the user desires to purchase the item, he scans the associated code, and the credit card number is encoded and transmitted after the WWW site is accessed. The host computer can match the user's name (sent with the transmission) with the appropriate decryption key stored at the host, and decrypt the credit card number accordingly.
The system 10 of the present invention has additional embodiments which allow quick and easy retrieval of a data file on a local basis as well as the Internet 44. That is, the same principles may be applied within a company utilizing an intranet or local area network (LAN) 98. Thus, a department of a company may distribute fliers regarding certain events, new products, etc., and encode appropriate document access information in accordance with the teachings of the invention. The user may obtain further information by scanning the code on the document, which then causes his computer to access his network, file server, etc.
This embodiment is also useful in a small office environment, where a user prints out documents such as letters or memos that may need to be revised at a later date. It is common practice to manually type in the drive location of the document in the lower corner of the document to allow the user to easily access the document at a later date, without searching through massive amounts of files. Thus, a user may type in the text "c: .backslash.user.backslash.files.backslash.smith.backslash.clients.backslas h.letters.backslash.xyzcorp.backslash.jonesltr.backslash.dec12" to indicate its location on his drive 94. When he desires to edit or otherwise access the document, he would, in the prior art, have to type in the entire location after launching the proper application (e.g. word processor). In accordance with the teachings of the present invention, a machine readable code may be encoded with this information (as well as a command to launch the application) and printed on the document. When the user later desires to edit the document, he scans the code. The code is decoded, the application is launched, and the file is fetched from the location specified in the code.
The symbol data string 20 may be obfuscated by obfuscation function 28 prior to being encoded into the machine readable symbol. In this situation, the input string transposed by the client computer 32 must be de-obfuscated by de-obfuscating function 60. Referring to FIG. 2, the symbol data string is obfuscated by first computing a checksum of the symbol data string 20 by checksum computation function 62. The checksum is then utilized by the encryption logic 66 as an obfuscating encryption key 64. The symbol data string 20 is input to the encryption logic 66 as shown in FIG. 2, and provided thereby is an encrypted string 67. The encrypted string 67 is assembled with the checksum 64 (which has not been encrypted and is thus "in the clear"), and is input into an encoding function 29. The encoding function 29 then encodes the input checksum 64 and encrypted string 67 into a machine readable symbol, which is printed by the printer 30 onto the document 10. As mentioned above, optional text 16 and/or graphics 18 may also be printed onto the document 10 along with the machine readable code 12, if desired by the vendor.
FIG. 7 illustrates the logic flow implemented by the preferred embodiment of the present invention as thus described. That is, at step 202, the data string (which may comprise the file location pointer, a launch command, user demographics, a source identification, an encryption key, and/or a code type) is operated on to compute a checksum at step 218. At step 220, the checksum is used as a key to encrypt the symbol data string. At step 222, the checksum and encrypted key are assembled together; at step 224 this assembled word is encoded into a machine readable symbol (such as a PDF417 two dimensional bar code symbol). The symbol is then printed onto the intelligent document 10 with optional text or graphics at step 226.
FIG. 3 illustrates in detail the processing of the client computer 32. The machine readable symbol 12 is scanned by the bar code scanner 34, and the scanned data is processed and decoded by block 36 as well known in the art. The decoded data is input to the de-obfuscation process 37 (described in detail below), or, if obfuscation has not been implemented in the system, to parsing block 39 as shown by the dotted line.
De-obfuscation is the reverse process of obfuscation, and is shown in detail in FIG. 4. The decoded input string from decoder 36 is parsed into two constituent components; the checksum 64, and the encrypted string 67. The checksum 64 is utilized as a decryption key along with decryption logic 97 (which is the parallel process of encryption logic 66) to produce a decrypted data string that is comprised of a file location pointer 21, launch command 22, user demographics 23, source identification 24, encryption key 25, and code type 26. A checksum of this decrypted data string is then computed by checksum compute block 99, and compared by compare block 101 to the checksum 64 that was received in the clear. When the comparison is successful, then a valid condition is indicated on the go/nogo line 103. Conversely, when the comparison is not successful (the computed checksum is not equal to the received checksum), then an invalid condition is indicated on the go/nogo line 103.
The logic flow of the de-obfuscating function is illustrated in FIG. 8. At step 208, the bar code symbol is scanned by the user. At step 218, the decoded input data string is parsed to obtain the checksum, which is utilized at step 220 as a key to decrypt the remaining portion of the string (the encrypted data string). At step 222, the checksum of the decrypted string is computed, and at step 224, it is compared to the received checksum. Decision block 226 directs the flow to step 228 when an invalid data condition is detected (i.e. the checksum comparison is unsuccessful), and the routine exits at step 230. Decision block 226 likewise directs the flow to step 232 when a valid data condition is detected (i.e. the checksum comparison is successful). When successful, a code type 76 (see FIG. 3) is fetched from memory 70 at step 234, and then compared via comparator function 78 at step 236 to the code type that was in the received (decrypted) data string. When no match is found, an invalid data condition is indicated at step 228, and the routine exits at step 230. When a code type match is found, then the decrypted string is unpacked at step 238 for further processing.
With reference to FIG. 3, once the de-obfuscation process 37 is determined to be successful and the code match is valid, then the file location pointer 21 and source identification data 24 is loaded to a file transfer request word for subsequent loading to the Internet browser 40, LAN interface 96, or local memory 94, depending on the location of the file to be fetched. The file transfer request word may also be loaded with client version data 72, which indicates to the server which version of the client software is requesting the file.
The source identifier data string 24 that is parsed from the decoded (and de-obfuscated) scanned data string may comprise data correlated to the user (or expected user) of the intelligent document 10. As described below with reference to FIG. 5, the source identifier (source id) string will be used to access a lookup table to determine a decryption key associated with the file access, so that the target server may decrypt certain (encrypted) user information received from the client computer as part of the file transfer request word.
Local user data 74, such as the user's credit card number, is stored in memory 70 and accessed by the client computer for inclusion in the file transfer request word 90 after being encrypted by encryption block 80. That is, when it is desired to transit sensitive user data such as the user's credit card number to the target server computer 46 over the Internet 44, then the encryption block 80 will encrypt the user data by using the encryption key 25 that was obtained from the received data string. In addition, certain user demographics data 23 may be included in the data string 20 (see FIG. 2), which may be correlated to a user (or expected user) of the document 10. This user demographics data could then also be encrypted with encryption block 80 utilizing encryption key 25 to produce encrypted user information 82, for inclusion in the file transfer request word 90.
Optionally, if a launch command 22 was included in the data string 20, then it could be used to execute or launch the designated application. For example, the launch command 22 could cause a word processing program to open and fetch the target file from local memory 94. Likewise, the launch command 22 could execute an Internet browser program 40, so that the file transfer request word 90 would cause the browser to request the appropriate file over the Internet 44.
The logical flow of this process is shown in FIG. 9. At step 240, the user data is taken from memory 70 and encrypted, optionally along with user demographics data obtained from the scanned and de-obfuscated bar code symbol to produce encrypted user information 82. At step 248, the file transfer request 90 is assembled from the encrypted user information (step 242), the file location pointer (optionally comprising the IP address and file identifier) 21 and the source identifier data 24 that are obtained from the scanned and de-obfuscated bar code symbol (step 244), and the client version 72 fetched from memory 70 (step 246). The browser and/or other client application is launched at step 250, and at step 252 the file transfer request is transmitted over the Internet (or LAN) to the target server computer.
With reference to FIGS. 5 and 10, the operation of the target server computer 46 upon receiving the file transfer request will now be described. At step 254, the target server computer 46 receives the file transfer request, for example from the Internet 44. In the Internet example, the target server computer 46 is located at "IP ADDR" (internet protocol address), via means well known in the art. A web server process 112 is executing on the target server computer 46, which at step 256 uses the source identifier string from the file transfer request to fetch a decryption key from key table 110. That is, for each particular source ID, there exists a decryption key mapped thereto that is complementary to the encryption key 80 utilized by the client computer to encrypt sensitive user information prior to assembly into the file transfer request. The decryption key is then used at step 258 to decrypt the encrypted user information with decryption process 114 to obtain user file 122. Optionally, an external key server 116, which may be interconnected to the Internet, is used to obtain the decryption key. The decrypted user file is then stored in the secure customer data memory 52, and the user request is tracked in the user log along with the date and time 120 of the request.
As shown in step 262, if a pre-existing file (i.e a static web page) was requested, then the file is obtained from storage 50, wherein the location is a function of the file identifier (ID) taken from the file location pointer. In this event, the file is fetched from the appropriate location at step 268 and returned to the client computer via the Internet at step 270. The file is then displayed on the client browser at step 272.
If, however, a static page was not requested, but a dynamic page must be generated, then the dynamic page is generated at step 266, for example as a function of the user data and file ID. This could occur where the file to be returned is customized to a user in accordance with is or her identifying indicia. The generated page is then returned to the client browser via the Internet as described above.
Alternatively, the requested file may be located on an external file server, which may be accessed by file generation and storage means 50 for return thereto or for direct forwarding to the client computer via the Internet, as shown by the dotted line in FIG. 5.
* * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanbuy patents are for protecting their software, Neom still owns the bridge.
In other words, Paperclick is one type of car (Mercedes) and Scanbuy has a BMW and Airclick has a Lexus and Lscan an Audi..., but they all drive over the Neom bridge and will have to pay a toll (except of course; Paperclick, which has a lifetime toll pass)!
Donbalon: Very interesting. Good job! Vodaphone, Vodaphone, Vodaphone, Vodaphone, Vodaphone, Vodaphone!
Vodaphone deal is the last piece needed to launch in Europe!
Remember, for couponing, Paperclick codes from printed ads/fliers... can be entered in manually like dialing a 7 digit phone number. Any Symbian O/S phone will be able to work!
Koko: Thanks for doing the work while I was out to dinner!
The trial for this suit is set for August, a full year after its filing for those wanting to understand how long the Virgin or Airclic suits could take. Also, Pinpoint went after Amazon's affiliated partners in the same filing (which includes Virgin). Perhaps this is a similar situation with Neom filing primarily against Airclic and adding Lscan and Scanbuy (who from their own site respectively list Airclic as an affiliate).
From your link, the following strategies are interesting to note since there are similarities to the Virgin/Neom case from a business standpoint:
"Pinpoint may have the following strategy in mind: Amazon can afford to pay a relatively small license fee without breaking into a sweat, so maybe it will just do so rather than fight. The financial details, of course, would not be made public. Then, the precedent of having appeared to be able to force a settlement out of Amazon would give Pinpoint a psychological edge when they subsequently go after smaller practicioners in the CF field, who do not have Amazon's resources to defend themselves.
From a purely business sense, Amazon would have the following reason not to go along with the strategy above: if it settles in this case there may be hundreds of other companies and individuals "waiting in line" to sue (as one lawyer who emailed me regarding this article put it). Alternatively Amazon could go a step further and simply purchase Pinpoint and its patent portfolio. I don't need to descibe the danger of a company with Amazon's resources having such patents in its back pocket. Even if the prior art mentioned above would be a powerful weapon in combating lawsuits based on those patents, small companies may simply not have the financial resources to avoid simply being overwhelmed by Amazon's legal resources."
***I can't help but think the Virgin situation (in the light of Neom's British partners/agents and desire to launch PC soon) will be a settlement that will make Neom "look" very good.
Airclic et al is another story. With the US launch apparently slower than Europe, I think Neom is going to play hardball and holdout for what they want. They gave Virgin an extension, but Airclic et al have no such docket motion. To me, the Aiclic situation is one that Airclic has been afraid of for some time given their intimate knowledge of Neom's patents and visa versa.
Lscan appears to have the least in common with Neom's business plans, so they may just suffer damages and make a license deal. But Scanbuy may very well be in jeopardy of going out of buisness at Neom's hand. And Airclic may get counter sued by the affiliates.
In summary, my best guess at this time is that Virgin will get settled within 4 months, but Neom will be looking to nail Airclic to the wall and stop Scanbuy from competing with PC. That suit may very well get dragged out.
We may also hear from Neom that they have agreed to a settlement with Virgin before the definitive paperwork is executed (similar to them telling us that the Airclic alliance/loan suit was settled well before that paperwork was finalized). However, I can't see anything sooner than April, at the absolute earliest, which would be only one month after Virgin's legal response as per the docket schedule.
Is this the same pinpoint?
http://www.pinpoint.com/
If so, very interesting.
OK gang: Here is another patent infringement case in which Virgin is a defendant. There is also some other notable defendants. Notice this was also filed in the same court as NeoMedia's suits.
Smartbiz; why don't you have some fun on figure out what's going on here!
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 03-CV-4954
Pinpoint Inc v. Amazon.Com Inc, et al
Filed: 07/17/03
Assigned to: Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon
Jury demand: Both
Demand: $0,000
Nature of Suit: 830
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 28:1338 Patent Infringement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PINPOINT, INC. Fred H. Bartlit, Jr.
plaintiff [COR]
Philip Scott Beck
[COR]
Mark Edward Ferguson
[COR]
Peter Benjamin Bensinger, Jr.
[COR]
Shawn F. Fagan
[COR LD NTC A]
Mark S. Ouweleen
[COR]
Rebecca Weinstein Bacon
Suite 300
[COR]
Paul J Skiermont
[COR]
Adam K Mortara
[COR phv]
Bartlit, Beck, Herman,
Palenchar & Scott
54 West Hubbard Street
Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60610
(312) 494-4400
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC. Todd Clark Jacobs
defendant [COR LD NTC A]
Laura K McNally
[COR]
Robert David Donoghue
[COR]
Grippo & Elden
227 West Monroe Street
Suite 3600
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 704-7700
Lynn H Pasahow
[COR LD NTC A]
J David Hadden
[COR]
Darren Donnelly
[COR]
Wendy Bjerknes
[COR]
Lynne A Maher
[COR]
Fenwick & West LLP
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
(650)998-8500
BABIESRUS.COM, LLC Todd Clark Jacobs
defendant (See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
Laura K McNally
(See above)
[COR]
R David Donoghue
[COR]
Grippo & Elden
227 West Monroe Street
Suite 3600
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 704-7700
Lynn H Pasahow
(See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
J David Hadden
(See above)
[COR]
Darren Donnelly
(See above)
[COR]
Wendy Bjerknes
(See above)
[COR]
Lynne A Maher
(See above)
[COR]
BORDERS INC Todd Clark Jacobs
defendant (See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
Laura K McNally
(See above)
[COR]
R David Donoghue
(See above)
[COR]
Lynn H Pasahow
(See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
J David Hadden
(See above)
[COR]
Darren Donnelly
(See above)
[COR]
Wendy Bjerknes
(See above)
[COR]
Lynne A Maher
(See above)
[COR]
CDNOW, INC. Lynn H Pasahow
defendant (See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
J David Hadden
(See above)
[COR]
Darren Donnelly
(See above)
[COR]
Wendy Bjerknes
(See above)
[COR]
Lynne A Maher
(See above)
[COR]
EGGHEAD.COM, INC. Lynn H Pasahow
defendant [term 09/12/03]
[term 09/12/03] (See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
J David Hadden
[term 09/12/03]
(See above)
[COR]
Darren Donnelly
[term 09/12/03]
(See above)
[COR]
Wendy Bjerknes
[term 09/12/03]
(See above)
[COR]
Lynne A Maher
[term 09/12/03]
(See above)
[COR]
TARGET CORPORATION Lynn H Pasahow
defendant (See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
J David Hadden
(See above)
[COR]
Darren Donnelly
(See above)
[COR]
Wendy Bjerknes
(See above)
[COR]
Lynne A Maher
(See above)
[COR]
TOYS "R" US, INC. Todd Clark Jacobs
defendant (See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
Laura K McNally
(See above)
[COR]
R David Donoghue
(See above)
[COR]
Lynn H Pasahow
(See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
J David Hadden
(See above)
[COR]
Darren Donnelly
(See above)
[COR]
Wendy Bjerknes
(See above)
[COR]
Lynne A Maher
(See above)
[COR]
TOYSRUS.COM, INC. Todd Clark Jacobs
defendant (See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
Laura K McNally
(See above)
[COR]
R David Donoghue
(See above)
[COR]
Lynn H Pasahow
(See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
J David Hadden
(See above)
[COR]
Darren Donnelly
(See above)
[COR]
Wendy Bjerknes
(See above)
[COR]
Lynne A Maher
(See above)
[COR]
VIRGIN GROUP, LTD. Todd Clark Jacobs
defendant [term 09/12/03]
[term 09/12/03] (See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
Laura K McNally
(See above)
[COR]
R David Donoghue
[term 09/12/03]
(See above)
[COR]
Lynn H Pasahow
[term 09/12/03]
(See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
J David Hadden
[term 09/12/03]
(See above)
[COR]
Darren Donnelly
[term 09/12/03]
(See above)
[COR]
Wendy Bjerknes
[term 09/12/03]
(See above)
[COR]
Lynne A Maher
[term 09/12/03]
(See above)
[COR]
WALDEN BOOKS, INC. Todd Clark Jacobs
defendant (See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
Laura K McNally
(See above)
[COR]
R David Donoghue
(See above)
[COR]
Lynn H Pasahow
(See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
J David Hadden
(See above)
[COR]
Darren Donnelly
(See above)
[COR]
Wendy Bjerknes
(See above)
[COR]
Lynne A Maher
(See above)
[COR]
BORDERS GROUP INC Todd Clark Jacobs
defendant (See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
Laura K McNally
(See above)
[COR]
R David Donoghue
(See above)
[COR]
Lynn H Pasahow
(See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
J David Hadden
(See above)
[COR]
Darren Donnelly
(See above)
[COR]
Wendy Bjerknes
(See above)
[COR]
Lynne A Maher
(See above)
[COR]
BEMUSIC INC R David Donoghue
defendant (See above)
[NTC]
BORDERS GROUP INC
defendant
TOYSRUS.COM INC R David Donoghue
defendant (See above)
[NTC]
VIRGIN ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC R David Donoghue
defendant (See above)
[NTC]
WALDEN BOOK COMPANY INC
defendant
========================
AMAZON.COM, INC. Todd Clark Jacobs
counter-claimant [COR LD NTC A]
Robert David Donoghue
[COR]
Grippo & Elden
227 West Monroe Street
Suite 3600
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 704-7700
Lynne A Maher
Fenwick & West LLP
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
(650)998-8500
v.
PINPOINT, INC. Fred H. Bartlit, Jr.
counter-defendant [COR]
Philip Scott Beck
[COR]
Mark Edward Ferguson
[COR]
Shawn F. Fagan
[COR LD NTC A]
Mark S. Ouweleen
[COR]
Paul J Skiermont
[COR]
Adam K Mortara
Bartlit, Beck, Herman,
Palenchar & Scott
54 West Hubbard Street
Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60610
(312) 494-4400
========================
AMAZON.COM, INC. Todd Clark Jacobs
counter-claimant [COR LD NTC A]
Laura K McNally
[COR]
Robert David Donoghue
[COR]
Grippo & Elden
227 West Monroe Street
Suite 3600
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 704-7700
Lynn H Pasahow
[COR LD NTC A]
J David Hadden
[COR]
Darren Donnelly
[COR]
Wendy Bjerknes
[COR]
Lynne A Maher
[COR]
Fenwick & West LLP
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
(650)998-8500
v.
PINPOINT, INC. Fred H. Bartlit, Jr.
counter-defendant [COR]
Philip Scott Beck
[COR]
Mark Edward Ferguson
[COR]
Shawn F. Fagan
[COR LD NTC A]
Mark S. Ouweleen
[COR]
Rebecca Weinstein Bacon
Suite 300
[COR]
Paul J Skiermont
[COR]
Adam K Mortara
[COR phv]
Bartlit, Beck, Herman,
Palenchar & Scott
54 West Hubbard Street
Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60610
(312) 494-4400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCKET PROCEEDINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE # DOCKET ENTRY
7/17/03 1 COMPLAINT (Attachments); jury demand - Civil cover sheet -
Appearance(s) of Shawn F. Fagan, Fred H. Bartlit Jr.,
Philip Scott Beck, Mark Edward Ferguson, Mark S. Ouweleen,
Paul J. Skiermont as attorney(s) for plaintiff (Eleven
original and eleven copies summons(es) issued.) (
Documents: 1-1 through 1-4) (hp) [Entry date 07/18/03]
7/17/03 -- RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 7/17/03 in
the amount of $ 150.00, receipt # 10319786. (hp)
[Entry date 07/18/03]
7/17/03 2 NOTICE by plaintiff of claims involving patents. (hp)
[Entry date 07/18/03]
7/18/03 -- MAILED Patent report to Washington, D.C. (hp)
[Entry date 07/18/03]
7/22/03 3 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons as to defendants Borders Inc,
executed on 7/18/03 and Borders Group, Inc. executed on
7/18/03i, Target Corp executed on 7/18/03 and Walden Books
Inc executed on 7/18/03 (Attachments) (3-1 through 3-4) (eav)
[Entry date 07/23/03]
7/23/03 -- SCHEDULE set on 7/23/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon : Status
hearing set on 8/21/03 at 9:00 am. At the status hearing,
the parties are to report on the following: 1. Possibility
of settlement in the case; 2. If no possibility of
settlement exists, the nature and length of discovery
necessary to get the case ready for trial. Plaintiff is
directed to advise all other parties of the court's action
herein and to forward a copy of the court's procedure
guidelines to defendant(s). Mailed notice (cgb)
[Entry date 07/23/03]
7/24/03 4 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons as to defendant Virgin Grp Ltd
executed on 7/22/03 (Attachment) (eav) [Entry date 07/25/03]
7/30/03 5 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons as to defendants Babiesrus Com
LLC, executed on 7/22/03 Toys R Us Inc executed on 7/22/03
and Toysrus Com Inc executed on 7/22/03 (5-1 through 5-3)
(eav) [Entry date 07/31/03]
7/31/03 6 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons as to defendants Amazon.Com
Inc executed on 7/21/03 and Egghead Com Inc executed on
7/28/03 (Attachment) (eav) [Entry date 08/01/03]
8/6/03 7 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons as to defendant CDnow Inc
executed on 7/31/03 (eav) [Entry date 08/06/03]
8/13/03 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Attachments) [1-1] by plaintiff
Pinpoint Inc; jury demand; adding Borders Grp Inc (eav)
[Entry date 08/14/03]
8/19/03 9 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Amazon.Com Inc by Todd
Clark Jacobs, Robert David Donoghue (lxs)
[Entry date 08/20/03]
8/19/03 10 MEMORANDUM by defendant Amazon.Com Inc of points &
authorities in support of defendant Amazon.Com, Inc's
motion to sever & stay action against Amazon.Com's
co-defendants and motion to transfer action against
defendant Amazon.Com, Inc. to the Western District of
Washington. (lxs) [Entry date 08/20/03]
8/19/03 11 DECLARATION of Aparna Rajagopal-Durbin in support of
defendant Amazon.Com, Inc.'s motion to sever & stay action
against Amazon.Com's co-defendants and motion to transfer
action against defendant Amazon.Com to the Western District
of Washington (Attachments). (lxs) [Entry date 08/20/03]
8/19/03 12 DECLARATION of Neil Roseman in support of defendant
Amazon.Com, Inc.'s motion to sever & stay action against
Amazon.Com's co-defendants and motion to transfer action
against defendant Amazon.Com to the Western District of
Washington (Attachment). (lxs) [Entry date 08/20/03]
8/19/03 13 APPENDIX filed by defendant Amazon.Com Inc in support of
defendant Amazon.Com, Inc.'s motion to sever & stay action
against Amazon.Com's co-defendants and motion to transfer
action against defendant Amazon.Com, Inc. to the Western
District of Washington. (lxs) [Entry date 08/20/03]
8/19/03 14 LOCAL RULE 3.2 by defendant Amazon.Com Inc disclosure
statement of defendant and counterclaimant Amazon.Com, Inc
(lxs) [Entry date 08/20/03]
8/19/03 15 ANSWER to plaintiff's complaint [8-1] and COUNTERCLAIM;
Jury demand by defendant Amazon.Com Inc against plaintiff
Pinpoint Inc (lxs) [Entry date 08/20/03]
8/19/03 21 MOTION by defendant Amazon.Com Inc to sever & stay
action against Amazon.com's co-defendants and motion to
transfer action against defendant Amazon.com, Inc. to the
Western District of Washington ; Notice of motion (eav)
[Entry date 08/21/03]
8/20/03 16 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for defendant
Amazon.Com Inc by Lynne A. Maher ; Order entered granting
leave by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon (eav) [Entry date 08/21/03]
8/20/03 17 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for defendant
Amazon.Com Inc by Lynn H. Pasahow ; Order entered granting
leave by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon (eav) [Entry date 08/21/03]
8/20/03 18 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for defendant
Amazon.Com Inc by Darren E. Donnelly ; Order entered
granting leave by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon (eav)
[Entry date 08/21/03]
8/20/03 19 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for defendant
Amazon.Com Inc by J. David Hadden; Order entered granting
leave by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon (eav) [Entry date 08/21/03]
8/20/03 20 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for defendant
Amazon.Com Inc by Wendy Bjerknes ; Order entered granting
leave by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon (eav) [Entry date 08/21/03]
8/20/03 22 MINUTE ORDER of 8/20/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon :
Defendant Amazon's motion to sever [21-1] and stay action
against co-defendants and [21-2] motion to transfer action
against Amazon to the Western District of Washington [21-3]
is taken under advisement. Plaintiff to respond by 9/3/03.
The motion will not be heard on 8/26/03 as noticed. Status
hearing on 8/21/03 stands. Mailed notice by judge's staff
(eav) [Entry date 08/21/03]
8/21/03 -- MAILED Rule 83.16 letter and appearance form to Wendy
Bjerknes, J. David Hadden, Darren E. Donnelly, Lynn H.
Pasahow and Lynne A. Maher (eav) [Entry date 08/21/03]
8/21/03 23 MINUTE ORDER of 8/21/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon :
Status hearing held and continued to 9/23/03 at 9:00 a.m.
Parties to comply with FRCP 26(a)(1) by 9/22/03. Mailed
notice (eav) [Entry date 08/21/03]
9/2/03 24 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants Amazon.Com Inc, BeMusic
Inc., Babiesrus Com LLC, Borders Inc, Toys R Us Inc, Toysrus
Com Inc, Virgin Grp Ltd, Walden Books Inc, Borders Grp Inc
by Lynn H. Pasahow, J. David Hadden, Darren Donnelly, Wendy
Bjerknes, and Lynne A. Maher (eav) [Entry date 09/03/03]
9/2/03 25 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for BeMusic, Inc., Babiesrus Com LLC,
Borders Inc, Toys R Us Inc, Toysrus Com Inc, Virgin Grp Ltd,
Walden Books Inc, Borders Grp Inc by Todd Clark Jacobs, R
David Donoghue (eav) [Entry date 09/03/03]
9/2/03 26 LOCAL Rule 3.2 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(A) Disclosure Statement
by defendant Virgin Grp Ltd (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 27 ANSWER by defendant BeMusic, Inc. improperly named CDnow Inc
to first amended complaint [8-1]; jury demand (eav)
[Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 28 LOCAL Rule 3.2 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(A) Disclosure Statement
by defendant BeMusic, improperly named CDnow Inc (eav)
[Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 29 ANSWER by defendant Toys R Us Inc to first amended
complaint [8-1]; jury demand (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 30 LOCAL Rule 3.2 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(A) Disclosure Statement
by defendant Toys R Us Inc (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 31 ANSWER by defendant Borders Inc to first amended complaint
[8-1]; jury demand (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 32 LOCAL Rule 3.2 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(A) Disclosure Statement
by defendant Borders Inc (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 33 ANSWER by defendant Toysrus Com Inc to first amended
complaint [8-1]; jury demand (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 34 LOCAL Rule 3.2 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(A) Disclosure Statmeent
by defendant Toysrus Com Inc (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 35 ANSWER by defendant Walden Books Inc to first amended
complaint [8-1]; jury demand (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 36 LOCAL Rule 3.2 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(A) Disclosure Statement
by defendant Walden Books Inc (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 37 ANSWER by defendant Babiesrus Com LLC to first amended
complaint [8-1]; jury demand (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 38 LOCAL Rule 3.2 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(A) Disclosure Statement
by defendant Babiesrus Com LLC (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 39 ANSWER by defendant Borders Grp Inc to first amended
complaint [8-1]; jury demand (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 40 LOCAL Rule 3.2 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(A) Disclosure Statement
by defendant Borders Grp Inc (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 41 ANSWER by defendant Target Corp to first amended complaint
[8-1]; jury demand (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 42 LOCAL Rule 3.2 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(A) disclosure statement
by defendant Target Corp (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/2/03 50 MOTION by defendant Virgin Grp Ltd to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)((2) and 12(b)(5) ;
Notice of motion (eav) [Entry date 09/19/03]
9/2/03 51 DECLARATION of Wendy L. Bjerknes in support of motion to
dismiss defendant Virgin Group Limited [50-1] (Attachments)
(eav) [Entry date 09/19/03]
9/2/03 52 DECLARATION of Gordon McCallum in support of motion to
dismiss defendant Virgin Group Limited [50-1] (eav)
[Entry date 09/19/03]
9/2/03 53 APPENDIX of unpublished authorities cited in motion to
dismiss defendant Virgin Grouip limited pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5) (Attachments)
(eav) [Entry date 09/19/03]
9/2/03 55 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities in support of motion
to dismiss defendant Virgin Group Limited pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5)
[50-1] (eav) [Entry date 09/19/03]
9/3/03 43 DECLARATION of Daniel Henderson in support of Pinpoint's
opposition to Amazon's motion to transfer to the Western
District of Washington and Amazon's motion to sever and
stay action against non-Amazon defendants (eav)
[Entry date 09/04/03]
9/3/03 44 APPENDIX of unpublished authorities in support of
plaintiff's brief in opposition to amazon.com's motion to
sever and stay action against other defendants and motion
to transfer action against Amazon to the Western District
of Washington (eav) [Entry date 09/04/03]
9/3/03 45 DECLARATION of Paul J. Skiermont in support of Pinpoint's
opposition to Amazon's motion to transfer to the Western
District of Washington and Amazon's motion to sever and
stay action against non-Amazon defendants (Attachments) (eav)
[Entry date 09/04/03]
9/3/03 46 BRIEF by plaintiff in opposition to amazon.com's motion to
sever [21-1], and stay action against other defendants
[21-2] and motion to transfer action against defendant
Amazon to the Western District of Washington [21-3] (eav)
[Entry date 09/04/03]
9/3/03 56 MINUTE ORDER of 9/3/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon :
Defendant Virgin Group Limited's motion to dismiss pursuant
to FRCP 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5) [50-1] is taken under
advisement. Plaintiff shall respond by 9/18/03. The motion
will not be heard on 9/16/03 as noticed. Mailed notice by
judge's staff (eav) [Entry date 09/19/03]
9/9/03 47 REPLY to Amazon.Com, Inc.'s COUNTERCLAIM [15-2] by
counter-defendant Pinpoint Inc (eav) [Entry date 09/10/03]
9/12/03 48 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL by plaintiff as to defendant Virgin Grp
Ltd, pursuant to Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(i) (ar)
[Entry date 09/15/03]
9/12/03 49 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL by plaintiff as to defendant Egghead.
Com.Inc. pursuant to Federal Rule 41(a)(i) (ar)
[Entry date 09/15/03]
9/18/03 54 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to Virgin Group
Ltd.'s motion to dismiss [50-1] (eav) [Entry date 09/19/03]
9/18/03 57 MINUTE ORDER of 9/18/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon :
Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.'s motion to sever [21-1] and stay
action against Amazon.com's co-defendants [21-2] and to
transfer action against defendant Amazon.com, Inc. to the
Western District of Washington [21-3] are denied. Entered
Memorandum Opinion and Order. Mailed notice by judge's
staff (eav) [Entry date 09/19/03]
9/19/03 58 MINUTE ORDER of 9/19/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon :
Pursuant to plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(1)(i) dismissal notice,
defendant Virgin Grp Ltd is dismissed from this action
without prejudice. Thata defendant's motion to dismiss
[50-1] is moot. Mailed notice by judge's staff (jmp)
[Entry date 09/22/03]
9/22/03 59 MINUTE ORDER of 9/22/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon :
Defendant Egghead.com, Inc. is dismissed without
prejudice. Mailed notice (eav) [Entry date 09/23/03]
9/23/03 60 MINUTE ORDER of 9/23/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon : Status
hearing held. Parties have complied with FRCP 26(a)(1).
Proponents to comply with FRCP 26(a)(2) by 1/30/04.
Opponents to comply with FRCP 26(a)(2) by 3/15/04. Any
rebuttal expert by 4/12/04. Discovery cut-off and filing of
dispositive motions with supporting memoranda set on
5/14/04. Joint final pretrial order with agreed pattern jury
instructions submission set on 6/3/04 at 9:00 a.m. ;
proponents drafts to be submitted to opponents by 5/27/04.
Case is placed on the June 2004 trial calendar. Firm Dates.
Mailed notice (eav) [Entry date 09/24/03]
11/3/03 62 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff by Rebecca Weinstein
Bacon and Adam K. Mortara. (jmp) [Entry date 12/03/03]
11/12/03 61 APPLICATION for leave to appear pro hac vice for plaintiff
Pinpoint Inc by Adam K. Mortara; Order entered granting
leave by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon (eav) [Entry date 11/12/03]
11/12/03 -- MAILED Rule 83.16 letter and appearance form to Adam K.
Mortara (eav) [Entry date 11/12/03]
12/5/03 64 AGREED MOTION by plaintiff Pinpoint Inc for leave to amend
complaint a second time ; Notice of agreed motion (eav)
[Entry date 12/11/03]
12/5/03 65 JOINT STIPULATION in support of plaintiff's second time
amended complaint [64-1] (eav) [Entry date 12/11/03]
12/8/03 63 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants Amazon.Com Inc,
Babiesrus Com LLC, Borders Inc, Toys R Us Inc, Toysrus Com
Inc, Virgin Grp Ltd, Walden Books Inc, Borders Grp Inc by
Laura K McNally; Notice of filing (eav)
[Entry date 12/09/03]
12/10/03 66 MINUTE ORDER of 12/10/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon :
Plaintiff's agreed motion for leave to amend complaint a
second time is granted. [64-1] Plaintiff is granted leave
to file its second amended complaint instanter. Defendants
shall answer or otherwise plead to the second amended
complaint by 12/17/03. Mailed notice by judge's staff (eav)
[Entry date 12/11/03]
12/10/03 67 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff Pinpoint Inc; jury
demand; adding BeMusic Inc, Borders Grp Inc, Toysrus.com
Inc, Virgin Entertainment, Walden Book Co Inc (eav)
[Entry date 12/11/03]
12/17/03 68 ANSWER by defendant Toysrus.com Inc to second amended
complaint [67-1]; jury demand; Notice. (yp)
[Entry date 12/18/03]
12/17/03 69 ANSWER by defendant Toys R Us Inc to second amended
complaint [67-1]; jury demand; Notice. (yp)
[Entry date 12/18/03]
12/17/03 70 ANSWER by defendant Borders Inc to second amended complaint
[67-1]; jury demand; Notice. (yp) [Entry date 12/18/03]
12/17/03 71 ANSWER by defendant Borders Grp Inc to second amended
complaint [67-1]; jury demand; Notice. (yp)
[Entry date 12/18/03]
12/17/03 72 ANSWER by defendant Walden Books Inc to second amended
complaint [67-1]; jury demand; Notice. (yp)
[Entry date 12/19/03]
12/17/03 73 ANSWER by defendant Target Corp to seond amended complaint
[67-1]; jury demand; Notice. (yp) [Entry date 12/19/03]
12/17/03 74 ANSWER by defendant BeMusic Inc to second amended complaint
[67-1]; jury demand; Notice. (yp) [Entry date 12/19/03]
12/17/03 75 ANSWER by defendant Babiesrus Com LLC to second amended
complaint [67-1]; jury demand; Notice. (yp)
[Entry date 12/19/03]
12/17/03 76 LOCAL RULE 3.2 AND FED. R. CIV. P. 7.1(A) disclosure
statement by defendant Virgin Entertainment; Notice. (yp)
[Entry date 12/19/03]
12/17/03 77 ANSWER to complaint [67-1] and COUNTERCLAIMS; jury demand
by defendant Amazon.Com Inc against plaintiff Pinpoint Inc;
Notice. (yp) [Entry date 12/19/03]
12/17/03 78 ANSWER by defendant and counterclaimant Virgin
Entertainment Group, Inc. to second amended complaint
[67-1]; jury demand; Notice. (yp) [Entry date 12/19/03]
1/12/04 79 AGREED MOTION by plaintiff to amend scheduling order ;
Notice of agreed motion (eav) [Entry date 01/16/04]
1/14/04 81 CONSENT Revised Notice by defendant Amazon.Com Inc of
Agreed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (eav)
[Entry date 01/20/04]
1/15/04 80 MINUTE ORDER of 1/15/04 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon :
Parties' agreed motion to amend scheduling order is
granted. [79-1] Proponent's compliance with FRCP 26(a)(2)
extended to 3/30/04. Opponents' compliance with FRCP
26(a)(2) extended to 5/15/04. Any rebuttal expert by
6/12/04. Discovery cut-off and filing of dispositive
motions with supporting memoranda extended to 7/14/04.
Joint final pretrial order with agreed pattern jury
instructions submission on 6/3/04 is reset on 8/3/04 at
9:00 a.m.; propoent's draft to be submitted to opponents
by 7/27/04. Case is placed on the August 2004 trial
calendar. No further extensions. Mailed notice by judge's
staff (eav) [Entry date 01/16/04]
1/26/04 82 AGREED MOTION by plaintiff, defendants for entry of
protective order governing disclosure of the parties'
confidential information (Attachment); Notice of motion (eav)
[Entry date 01/30/04]
1/29/04 83 MINUTE ORDER of 1/29/04 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon :
Parties' agreed motion for entry of protective order
governing disclosure of the parties' confidential
information is granted. [82-1] (Entered Stipulated
Protective Order) Mailed notice (eav) [Entry date 01/30/04]
2/5/04 84 NOTICE OF MOTION by plaintiff Pinpoint Inc for leave to
file an additional appearance of attorney Peter B.
Bensinger, Jr. ; (eav) [Entry date 02/11/04]
2/10/04 85 MINUTE ORDER of 2/10/04 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon :
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an additional
appearance is granted. [84-1] Counsel Peter R. Bensinger,
Jr. is granted leave to file his appearance for plaintiff.
Mailed notice (eav) [Entry date 02/11/04]
2/10/04 86 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff Pinpoint Inc by Peter
Benjamin Bensinger Jr. (eav) [Entry date 02/11/04]
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 04-CV-566
Neomedia Tech Inc v. Airclic Inc, et al
Filed: 01/23/04
Assigned to: Hon. Charles P. Kocoras
Demand: $0,000
Nature of Suit: 830
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 28:1338 Patent Infringement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Michael Joseph H. Baniak
Delaware corporation [COR LD NTC A]
plaintiff Jeffrey A Pine
[COR]
Baniak, Pine & Gannon
150 N. Wacker Drive
Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60606-1606
(312) 673-0360
v.
AIRCLIC INC., a Delaware
corporation
defendant
SCANBUY INC., a New York
corporation
defendant
LSCAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation
defendant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCKET PROCEEDINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE # DOCKET ENTRY
1/23/04 1 COMPLAINT (Attachments) - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s)
of Michael Joseph H. Baniak, Jeffrey A. Pine as attorney(s)
for plaintiff (Three original and three copies summons(es)
issued.) (Documents: 1-1 through 1-3) (hp)
[Entry date 01/26/04]
1/23/04 -- RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 1/23/04 in
the amount of $150.00, receipt #10214021. (hp)
[Entry date 01/26/04]
1/23/04 2 NOTICE by plaintiff of claims involving patents or
trademarks (hp) [Entry date 01/26/04]
1/23/04 3 LOCAL RULE 3.2 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by plaintiff (hp)
[Entry date 01/26/04]
1/26/04 -- MAILED Patent report to Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks, Washington, D.C. (hp) [Entry date 01/26/04]
2/10/04 -- SCHEDULE set on 2/10/04 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras :
Status hearing set to 9:30 3/17/04. At the initial
hearing, parties to report on the following: 1. Possibility
of settlement. 2. If no possibility of settlement exists,
the nature and length of discovery necessary to prepare the
case for resolution. Plaintiff is directed to advise all
other parties of the Court's action herein. Lead counsel
for each party is required to attend the initial hearing.
Mailed notice (st) [Entry date 02/10/04]
Docket as of January 29, 2004 8:56 pm Web PACER (v2.4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 04-CV-21
Neomedia Tech Inc v. Virgin Entertainment, et al
Filed: 01/02/04
Assigned to: Hon. Blanche M. Manning
Jury demand: Plaintiff
Demand: $0,000
Nature of Suit: 830
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Michael Joseph H. Baniak
Delaware corporation [COR LD NTC A]
plaintiff Jeffrey A Pine
[COR]
Baniak, Pine & Gannon
150 N. Wacker Drive
Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60606-1606
(312) 673-0360
v.
VIRGIN ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC, Gary Melchior Ropski
a California corporation [COR]
defendant Meredith Martin Addy
[COR]
Adam David Airhart
[COR]
Brinks, Hofer, Gilson & Lione
455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive
Suite 3600
Chicago, IL 60611-5599
(312) 321-4200
Laura Beth Miller
[COR LD NTC A]
Brinks, Hofer, Gilson & Lione
455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive
Suite 3600
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 321-4200
VIRGIN MEGASTORE ONLINE (US), Gary Melchior Ropski
INC., a Delaware corporation (See above)
defendant [COR]
Meredith Martin Addy
(See above)
[COR]
Adam David Airhart
(See above)
[COR]
Laura Beth Miller
(See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
VIRGIN MEGASTORE, a Delaware Gary Melchior Ropski
corporation (See above)
defendant [COR]
Meredith Martin Addy
(See above)
[COR]
Adam David Airhart
(See above)
[COR]
Laura Beth Miller
(See above)
[COR LD NTC A]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCKET PROCEEDINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE # DOCKET ENTRY
1/2/04 1 COMPLAINT (Attachments); jury demand - Civil cover sheet -
Appearance(s) of Jeffrey A Pine, Michael Joseph H. Baniak
as attorney(s) for plaintiff (three originals and three
copies summons(es) issued.) (Documents: (1-1 through 1-3)).
(jxm) [Entry date 01/05/04]
1/2/04 -- RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 1/2/04 in
the amount of $ 150.00, receipt # 1091014. (jxm)
[Entry date 01/05/04]
1/2/04 2 NOTICE by plaintiff of claims involving patents or
trademarks. (jxm) [Entry date 01/05/04]
1/5/04 -- MAILED patent report to Washington, D.C. (jxm)
[Entry date 01/05/04]
1/9/04 -- SCHEDULE set on 1/9/04 by Hon. Blanche M. Manning : Status
hearing set to 10:00 4/23/04. Plaintiff's counsel should be
prepared to advise the court regarding the progress of
efforts to serve the defendants. Mailed notice (rs)
[Entry date 01/09/04]
1/20/04 4 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendants Virgin
Entertainment, Virgin Megastore Inc, and Virgin Megastore
on 01/05/04. (jmp) [Entry date 01/28/04]
1/22/04 3 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants Virgin Entertainment,
Virgin Megastore Online (US) Inc, Virgin Megastore by Laura
Beth Miller, Gary Melchior Ropski, Meredith Martin Addy,
Adam David Airhart. (gma) [Entry date 01/23/04]
1/22/04 5 AGREED MOTION by defendants for an extension of time until
03/01/04 to answer or otherwise plead in response to
plaintiff's complaint ; Notice. (lxs) [Entry date 01/28/04]
1/27/04 6 MINUTE ORDER of 1/27/04 by Hon. Blanche M. Manning :
Defendant's agreed motion for an extension of time until
03/01/04 to answer or otherwise plead in response to
plaintiff's complaint is granted [5-1]. Further request for
extensions shall be disfavored. Mailed notice (lxs)
[Entry date 01/28/04]
Wow,
4.2m trade just went through
and it wasn't mine!
I'll take a 25 year old "The MaCallan", room temp and served neat. To follow later in the evening with some Louis XIII.
Very expensive liquor, but with the profits from Neom, he'll be able to afford it!
I'll buy the second round!
Cingular's $41 Billion Offer Wins Bidding for AT&T Wireless
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
Published: February 17, 2004
Cingular Wireless, the second-largest wireless telephone operator in the United States, made a stunning $41 billion last-minute bid in the middle of the night to win an auction for AT&T Wireless. The deal creates the largest wireless carrier in the United States and reshapes the ferociously competitive wireless telephone market.
The outcome is a dramatic turn of events because it had appeared only hours earlier late on Monday night that AT&T Wireless, the third-largest wireless operator in the United States, was near a deal with the Vodafone Group of Britain.
Vodafone had indicated last evening that it was willing to raise its $38 billion bid and was planning to meet this morning to approve a new bid. Cingular had steadfastly refused to increase its offer, privately calling a higher bid “fiscally irresponsible,” and by late Monday had sent its executives and advisers home thinking that they had lost.
But in a daring game of brinksmanship, Cingular's parent companies, BellSouth Corporation and SBC Communications, hastily convened board meetings by conference call at 1:30 A.M. in New York and decided to approve the submission of a final knockout offer for AT&T Wireless while most of Vodafone's management and board were still sleeping.
Cingular submitted its final bid of $15 a share -- far higher than anybody ever expected the auction would go -- to AT&T Wireless at 2 A.M. The take-it-or-leave-it offer was accepted and approved by AT&T Wireless at near 3 A.M., blindsiding Vodafone just as its was about to begin its own board meeting this morning in Britain.
Cingular's bold maneuver hinged in large part on using the five-hour time difference between the United States and Britain to catch Vodafone's executives while they were literally asleep.
The sale to Cingular is the first sign of long promised consolidation in an industry that has suffered from overcrowding. While the deal will likely help the profitability of industry -- Cingular estimates the combination will save them as much as $15 billion -- it may mean higher prices for consumers in the long term and thousands of layoffs of overlapping positions at both AT&T Wireless and Cingular.
Still, the intensity of the ultra competitive landscape has been a mixed blessing for consumers. They have gotten lower prices and rich incentives for signing up with a wireless provider. But the effort by competitors to rapidly deploy their networks to fulfill the demand has often led to poor service quality and shoddy customer care.
The transaction is expected to put even more pressure on rivals to merge, triggering a rash of more deal making. Vodafone, in particular, is expected to make a deal in the United States, where it currently has a 45 percent stake in Verizon Wireless but has long sought control of its own carrier.
The auction of AT&T Wireless, with its 22 million customers across the country, comes at a time of intense competition for the wireless phone industry, which has been engaged in heavy price wars and marketing campaigns.
The battle is over billions of dollars in annual subscription fees. And the business is expected to grow more lucrative over the next five years as wireless providers roll out high-speed data access, allowing them to charge fees for providing Internet service.
In addition, the United States market is considered less saturated than many markets in Europe and Asia, offering strong growth potential.
But intense price-cutting has made an already difficult business that much more so. The competition heightened late in November, when federal rules went into effect that allow mobile phone customers to take their phone numbers with them when they switch providers. Some market researchers projected a flood of defections from carriers, but the effect has been somewhat muted, with roughly a million people switching, analysts said.
Still, the so-called portability rules gave some sense of the company's relative strengths. Analysts said Verizon Wireless and Nextel Communications fared particularly well. Notably, AT&T Wireless appeared to falter, losing more customers than its rivals, industry analysts said.
Last quarter, the company added 128,000 subscribers. That compared with 642,000 for Cingular, and 390,000 for Sprint. Verizon Wireless added 1.5 million.
The troubles exacerbated the struggles of AT&T Wireless, once the industry's strongest brand name. Over the last year, it has had technical and operations problems, though company executives maintained that the problems were isolated cases and not caused by systemic problems.
Executives also said the recent lapses were not the reason AT&T Wireless was put up for sale. Rather, they said, because of changing dynamics in the market, the time seemed right to gain an optimum price, and, in turn, to recapture some of the tens of billions of dollars in equity the company has lost in recent years.
AT&T Wireless went public in April 2000. Its stock price briefly rose into the mid-30's and then dived along with much of the market, including its wireless competitors.
Among the tricky dynamics now facing AT&T Wireless is that it has been a stand-alone company, splitting off from AT&T in 2001.
Around the same period, other wireless competitors found themselves becoming part of larger telecommunications conglomerates. Bell Atlantic and what was then Vodafone AirTouch merged and, in 2000, renamed the company Verizon Wireless. The same year, SBC Communications and BellSouth merged their wireless operations into Cingular Wireless.
In each case, the mobile providers had parent companies with deep pockets, and the parents wound up with the ability to use their newfound scale to cut costs and squeeze equipment suppliers into selling to them at lower prices.
The merged companies leapfrogged AT&T Wireless, leaving it in third place measured by subscribers, and struggling to retain brand-name prominence.
Wall Street analysts have had mixed views in attributing blame for the recent problems of AT&T Wireless. Some have blamed the company's management, and its chief executive, John D. Zeglis. But others have said that these can be worked out, leaving a fundamentally sound company.
Wando: Symbian has not put a "stamp of approval" on who has the patents, only on the ability of the product to demonstrate the tech.
JP: With Chas mentioning VIN numbers, my assumptions are being justified.
Take another look at my posts:
445
432
331
329
With CSI closing, Neom has some deals done and or revenue from SST (how else did they get the total purchase money without the O/S moving up accordingly) and several deals on the table for execution (Dupont, MSFT, Big Gig...Pelagon/Flight Store...SST, SRP).
Also, there seems to be new info that us longs are getting all at the same time. In other words, things are heating up and the pot is beginning to boil over. Info just can't be contained when things are getting done on a number of fronts.
1stQ 2004 looks like "the beginning of an exciting chapter for NeoMedia and our shareholders"(Jenson; from the last PR on CSI acquisition).
Touché! eom
They own several bridges!:>)
Guys, let's not embark on McCarthyism!
When someone starts really bashing, you won't have to analyze their posts, it will be obvious.
And subtle bashing doesn't work on this board. That's designed to work on newbies.
We have gotten away from RB's blatant and obnoxious bashers who post false statements and one liners, non stop. That's what's important to me.
I for one, don't want to discourage new posters here because of creating an atmosphere of McCarthyism.
I see no problems with the posts that have been reviewed.
Microsoft doesn't always do their homework on Patents and it can cost them big and they know it. The big boys are not always right or victorious. Maybe this time, they want to be in business with Neom and avoid trouble. The fact that the article posted by Smartbiz had no reference to the lucrative music industry (and we know with their involvement with Virgin's Megascan they know what's going on) and instead referenced Cue Cat (which to me is like referencing Neom), Book scanning and VIN numbers they may very well be in discussions/negotiations with us.
The following article you might find interesting:
Microsoft loses round in display patent case
Last modified: January 29, 2004, 11:34 AM PST
By Reuters
An Arizona judge has ruled that Microsoft infringed on display and printing technology patents, which could result in a jury decision amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, according to court documents obtained by Reuters.
Research Corporation Technologies, based in Tucson, Ariz., had alleged that Microsoft was using its patented technologies in its Windows and Office software products.
The technology in question involve halftones, which are used to display images on computer screens and to print them without distortion.
Senior U.S. District Judge William Browning ruled on Tuesday that Microsoft had infringed on four of RCT's patents. He granted a request for summary judgment by RCT, paving the way for jury trial. Microsoft had opposed the summary judgment motion.
The world's largest software maker, a frequent target of litigation, said that it would fight the case in court.
"We are disappointed in the ruling and believe there was no infringement of the technology in question, which was developed by Microsoft engineers," said Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler. "We will continue to contend that the patents are invalid."
No trial date has been set.
Coming full circle:
From the Digital PR:
"It affirms our IP position in this space - which we believe has enormous potential, and rewards our shareholders for their patience and trust during our development years. Furthermore, we continue to pursue our goal of interoperability to afford consumers a seamless experience in this emerging market."
We may be getting another conference call announcement with all that could be going on!
NeoMedia Signs $100 + Million Patent Licensing Contract With Digital:Convergence
Deal Includes License Fees and Equity
FT. MYERS, FL - October 19, 2000 NeoMedia Technologies, Inc., (NASDAQ: NEOM) the international leader in print-to-Internet technology, today announced an agreement with Digital:Convergence granting it a worldwide non-exclusive license of NeoMedia's extensive patent portfolio for directly linking documents, objects and transactions to the Internet.
The agreement calls for minimum annual license fees over a period of ten (10) years in excess of $100 Million through a combination of cash and equity.
The two companies are discussing cooperative efforts to assure that the consumer experience in this emerging space is positive and seamless through interoperability between Digital:Convergence's system and NeoMedia's PaperClick system. NeoMedia has also issued Digital:Convergence warrants to purchase 1.4 Million shares of NeoMedia stock.
"This agreement is a win, win, win situation for NeoMedia, Digital:Convergence and the consumer," said Charles W. Fritz, Chairman and CEO of NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. "It affirms our IP position in this space - which we believe has enormous potential, and rewards our shareholders for their patience and trust during our development years. Furthermore, we continue to pursue our goal of interoperability to afford consumers a seamless experience in this emerging market."
An investor/stockholder conference call will be conducted today, Thursday, October 19, 2000 at 2:00 PM EDT. Interested parties may join the conference by calling 800-767-8281 (domestically) or 847-413-3751 (international) and ask for the NeoMedia conference. A replay of this conference call will be available for 24 hours by calling 888-843-8996 (domestically) or 630-652-3044 (international) and entering security code 2995908
Are they.....?
A link from an old post of mine you might find interesting:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_provider/casestudies/virgin/default.aspx
Smartbiz: nice post! Did you notice that they referenced Cue Cat; Scanning books and VIN numbers. They are all Neom related if you count my post about VIN #'s and Dupont.