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.
Yes, in fact I had imagined a company like Scanbuy had suggested this one to the EFF; I imagine the EFF was aware of it anyway. While I don't know that anyone at Google ever spoke to the EFF about this one, it's possible; it would make sense, since Google has publicly voiced concerns about bad patents, and supported the EFF's attempts to bring them to the USPTO for review.
Who cares who "put the EFF up to it?"
You are talking about a reverse stock split. In theory, it has no effect on your investment, because while you trade x shares for 1 new share, the value of each share is x times larger.
A reverse stock split usually occurs to keep a troubled stock listed on a major exchange on the NASDAQ, which have minimum per-share prices ($1 on NASDAQ IIRC). But this stock is already on the pink sheets, past that point, so I don't believe there is any impetus for a reverse split there. It could happen if there were a plan to re-list on a major exchange.
I don't think you got the question: assume for a second that Google explicitly prompted the EFF to fight this patent. This would be within their right. They don't get to decide the outcome; neither does the EFF. The USPTO does. Both organizations have every right to petition the USPTO though. There is nothing wrong with that. You can't say nobody but your company has a right to talk to the USPTO.
But, do think about the story you're positing. So this guy has a career as a corporate lawyer in-house, when he's called up by some shadowy board and 'sent on a mission.' They make him give up his current job, send him on a permanent trek to the EFF. Why would this guy agree? OK, I guess he got a big payment or something. So why can't Google just do this in-house if they care so much, use this guy who is already working for them directly? bring their whole counsel to bear? if there are such billions on the line?
OK, so I guess it was to disguise intentions? but then you get back to the above... there is just no point in that. Google itself would have been welcome to petition the USPTO. Why didn't they?
Compare this to the alternate explanation, that these things simply aren't connected.
Yes, you mean Michael Kwun? I don't see why you believe he went to the EFF because of this one patent? what a weird career move.
What would it matter if he had? or if Google itself had asked the EFF to challenge this?
I'm not clear what the point is. I smell a conspiracy theory.
Thank you, I'm aware of most of this. I personally am concerned about specious claims against my work regarding the 048 patent, and I don't have anything new to say there, so won't repeat myself.
The rest is interesting -- seems to mostly concern Neomedia and Scanbuy though. I am not aware of anything that would concern my work, nor has anyone made such claim. Hence, while I'm happy to discuss it (offline?) I don't think I will subject the board to more posts on that topic here since I have real dog in that hunt.
I think your tone in those posts is a bit unprofessional, and I don't agree with conspiracy theories about Google or any other organization. I had always imagined the EFF folks were aware of this notorious patent, and were probably requested to look at it by an organization like Scanbuy, so proceeded. While at Google I sure had nothing to do with that, nor did anyone I know of contact the EFF. I do think the consensus at Google was with the EFF on that one, that it was a bad patent.
Am I short or long NEOM? Neither. I have no position whatsoever.
To reiterate, I accept the USPTO position on this, while I disagree with it. The question is, do *you* agree with the USPTO or not? Set the USPTO aside. It's just two laymen shooting the breeze. None of what we think will matter to the courts.
You call my objection laughable, therefore you disagree with me, and agree with the USPTO decision. As you just learned from me, for the USPTO to accept a patent, their policy is that it needs to be non-obvious in light of prior art, among other things. So you believe the patent subject is non-obvious. I pointed out that the QR Code standard predates the 048 patent, and defines extremely similar concepts. You are therefore arguing that an engineer familiar with QR Codes would not have found the 048 patent material obvious in 1995? This is where I can't get you to continue the conversation, to explain why you think this is a reasonable position. If you can answer this, we can keep talking.
I am not encouraging anyone to sell or buy stock. As I pointed out, I think there is a rich business in barcode marketing campaign services that Neomedia stands ready to capitalize on. I have taken issue only with claims that Neomedia will capitalize on the 'fact' that it owns patent claims on the only viable model in that market. Invest according to your own belief.
(I had mentioned my position in GOOG only as a matter of disclosure. I did not purchase it; it was compensation. Therefore it should likewise not be considered any kind of recommendation.)
frac, I think calling me a 'slime ball' on the other message board only makes you and the company you are supporting look bad. I'll ignore it.
For what it's worth, I entirely agree. I think either format is fine, but QR Code is somewhat preferable. I can add maybe a little technical depth to the reasoning:
QR Code was definitely designed for this application, for reading from consumer phones. Data Matrix was designed for a slightly different application: optical recognition, yes, but typically in industrial applications.
The main difference that makes, in my view, is that QR Code is better designed to deal with perspective distortion and rotation. The finder patterns make it pretty simple (though it also makes the encoding somewhat less efficient). From reading the spec, I can confirm that it is not really designed for more than small rotation or perspective distortion -- that is, it seems to be oriented towards applications where the scanner can expect the target to be in a fairly known location, fairly upright orientation, etc. This is true in industrial applications.
So I think the scanning experience will generally be better for QR Codes and that will make enough difference in adoption to continue to tip towards this format.
Also, from a marketing perspective, those funny finder patterns are an advantage. Anyone that sees those three squares immediately recognizes it as a scannable code. Data Matrix is somehow more plain and less recognizable as a 'brand' of barcode.
I don't know of any case where I misrepresented myself, and am happy to repeat facts here. In fact Street posted a mini-bio of me early on in this exchange. I am currently a student and do not have an employer, since August 2008.
The attribution in the AUTHORS file is correct, as I explained. Much of the reason I am here is because certain people are making claims about what Google is doing with barcodes, which refers mostly to work I did while an employee. It would be strange to hide that connection, no?
I applaud your willingness to stand up for the little guy, but I think you're projecting some grand fight here that may not exist. Be careful, not every big guy is Goliath; not every small guy is David. Really, I am the person you are 'fighting' and I'm one little guy too.
Google's action here was to give away services, create technology and then give it away freely. This is not the action of a big company attempting to control anything. The strategy is to prevent *anyone* from controlling the ecosystem, in fact, since that is in Google's interest.
Google does not own a format, method or process. The standards they back are, frankly, far more widely used than what you guys are talking about. Japan alone has a population of 127M and penetration of QR Code readers of 90%, and Neomedia has no presence. I wonder how people here rationalize that... I mean reality check, go look for '2D barcode' in a search engine and you tell me what you see out there.
(Trying not to reply now unless people specifically ask for one.)
If I had "invented" this particular approach? I myself would not have patented it, as I said, since I do not find it patentable material myself.
Let's say I had patented something else though. Of course I would work to defend my patent right. I and every other law-abiding citizen accept the need to respect intellectual property systems -- even when we don't agree with them.
Now, say someone is walk around saying *they* have patented *my* work, and I know it's wrong. Would it upset you? would you post 90 messages to a message board in one day as a result?
I don't know the reference about Vint and the 048 patent. In general, Google is a big target because it is a big pile of money. It has more to lose than gain from bad patents. So, there is certainly a desire to have bad patents go away. If Vint did make a comment against the 048 patent, it is because he agrees with me and others that it seems obvious.
But, Google like anyone must respect the rule of law. Google patents things too, and has every interest in supporting a functional patent system. This doesn't mean they can't have an opinion and lobby for the 'right' outcome.
You ask a good question: why isn't everyone using direct then? I will give my answer for your consideration.
Here are outcomes, ordered by desirability, if I am a small barcodes-related firm:
1. I dominate the barcodes market, and I control the ecosystem
2. I dominate the market, and don't control the ecosystem
3. I don't dominate the market
I think these various firms have been shooting for #1 for years, and rightly so. You can't have #1 unless you also control the ecosystem, and this requires some degree of closed-ness -- which is what the indirect model gets you, since nobody can use the codes without going through you.
I don't think #1 is going to happen, but, not everyone has fallen back on #2 yet. That is, you could be the premier barcode market service firm without an indirect model. I think using the direct model is an advantage. Therefore I expect a firm that admits #1 isn't feasible anymore and falls back to #2 stands to win -- but #2 is a smaller prize.
The psychological investment in strategy #1 is a powerful force. I understand why one is reluctant to give it up. Because, once you get to #2, you're simply competing on service, with any number of large, established advertising and marketing service providers.
(I can also turn this around: if indirect is so much better... well why can't one come up with one technical reason in its defense?)
To your point about monopoly: Google is the one pushing for completely open systems. How can they monopolize the market while also pushing to make sure nobody controls the ecosystem?
I... don't really want to get into a discussion about the standards body, since I've said too much already. These standards efforts are, frankly, small-time, and mostly participated in by companies who already have an interest in standardizing this stuff. To say indirect is important because there are standards bodies run by companies who think indirect is important is to say little. There is a reason Google declined to join any of them.
Lest you think I am taking a shot at these particular organizations... let me say I have seen this phenomenon repeatedly in my work at the W3C. It does some great things, but, some standardization efforts are really little more than one company looking for attention. Who *else* is really expending time and energy on this?
I am still co-owner and primary developer of the project, with Daniel Switkin. The project itself is open source, and not internal to Google. This is why I am still part of the project, while not an employee. In fact, most of the project members you see are not employees.
Indeed, as you may have noticed, code.google.com does not host internal Google code, but, hosts open source projects for third parties outside of Google.
http://code.google.com/p/zxing
... which is the 2D barcode scanner for Android too.
This too in a sense, but it has been discontinued:
www.accuracast.com/search-daily-news/mobile-7471/google-tests-print-ads-with-2d-barcodes-for-mobile/
I am tired of persons posting all over the internet claiming this infringes on a Neomedia patent... when nobody can quite say why. This is why I am bothering you here.
Anything the client can transmit in the indirect model can be transmitted in the direct model, as URL parameters. GPS location, locale, whatever you like. These are both just means of moving bytes; how can they have such different capability?
I do not understand how a model that requires your clicks and information to necessarily go to a third party is more privacy friendly than one that doesn't. You'd have to explain that.
Two different phones scan the barcode. Each sends a request to the URL. The redirector on the other end can just as easily return a different result based on the information it was sent, like phone model (User-Agent). Sure.
Yes, please don't share any idea you believe is confidential. I have no intention of developing any analytics product, though I know people who are. With respect... I would be surprised if what you have in mind is not already known to me anyway, since this is my primary area of expertise.
I did mistakenly call the Aztec format "Qode", that was wrong. Really, in retrospect, this wasn't a strong point for the reason you give. As you say, I can use QR Codes with an indirect model too if I wanted. I do think it's obvious the vast majority of use of QR Codes is just simple direct-model encoding, but my statement was not a good support of that.
I still don't understand why people think the indirect model has some advantage in reporting. I can track clicks just as easily with direct + 301 redirect. In fact, with this mechanism, I could employ a standard web analytics tool if I wanted. This, I don't think you can say I am not quite familiar with.
(Me saying the indirect model isn't preferable doesn't mean, for example, it doesn't work. Like I said... they're pretty equivalent. I think my ultimate point is, you could make either model work, so, what leads you to expect any marketers must license and use an indirect model?)
You can supply a reason why the indirect model is the way forward. I claim it has an advantage in encoding size, but that otherwise it is pretty equivalent functionally to the direct model. If you can tell me a use case where the indirect model works significantly better, I'll eat a shoe.
But I'm not going to otherwise repeat myself to people just saying "COME ON MAN IT'S THE FUTURE LOL".
If you can't give a reason... well, that is pretty telling isn't it, about your agenda?
Again I am here to defend myself from a campaign of what I perceive as misinformation directed at my work across the internet. I am proud of it, and so will not tolerate this indefinitely. It is really streetstylz that is doing this, but, wanted to take this to the entire community that seems to be fomenting these positions.
(I am definitely Sean Owen, but I worked in New York City, not the UK, if it matters to you. Why would someone impersonate little ol me.)
You are welcome to forward, copy, print, frame my comments. I would not post them if I did not want it so and stand by them.
I wonder if I could get a reference on the comment from Chip where he claims Google is using an indirect model? That is a serious statement, and I'd like to forward that to a colleague.
Well, that is false. I can only hope he meant to refer to '1D and 2D barcodes'. This makes sense since well I don't think Chip lies or is misinformed, and it makes even less sense to say Google uses this link-to-shop business either.
If anyone can show this to be wrong I will eat my shoe.
I am not sure I designed a new anything - we implemented existing open standards. The patent had no bearing on this. Later when we became aware of the patent it was evaluated and determined it was not related to any initiatives being pursued. So, ino, the approach was not influenced by 048. It was chosen since it appeared to be the best approach given our goals and interests.
Direct method + redirect URL is functionally similar to what the 048 patent describes but not covered by it. Read the patent to confirm.
What do you mean by dynamic? I can also update my redirector to point anywhere I like. Seems the same (unless I misunderstand you).
I think we agree then that employing an open format is good. There is no value in a proprietary format. So, good for Scanbuy that they finally agree and are hence more competitive. It may well have been a direct response to the events you cite.
I don't understand your second comment. Sounds like you are saying I am devious or manipulative, but without any specific explanation.
I was honestly asking for clarification, and my understanding of your message was correct. Good.
I was looking for the format name that I typically see in connection with Neomedia, and you are right, it is not Qode, it is Aztec isn't it? and Aztec is indeed public domain. After I see mCode, shotcode, NextCode, EZCode, Qode, I start to lose track. :(
I think that is one thing we all seem to agree on -- the actual format itself isn't so important. *Something* that works well is just fine. Nobody needs to own the formats or pay for use of them per se.
I am confident that I have plenty of knowledge in this area, while not pretending I know everything. I hope you have learned a few things from me too. I am happy to accept everyone's judgment about my knowledge.
The patent clearly pertains to applications in which an ID is mapped to a URL remotely. If you send an ID to reserve a seat - no, seems different. If you send an ID to get a URL then forward to that URL to reserve a seat - seems like there is an argument it applies.
If the latter, you might ask, why have an ID to URL involved in this flow - what does it add?
In a sense you are right - similar mechanisms that achieve a similar effect. This is why I suggest the two models are functionally similar. You could describe them both with the English word 'indirect'
But when we speak of the topic of the 048 patent, with the term 'indirect model', it refers to something specific. The language of the patent clearly refers only to systems wherein an ID is looked up remotely and a URL is returned to the client. This does not describe the direct model - even when it links to a URL redirector.
Therefore yes it is a 'workaround' for the patent. Hope this helps.
I don't really get the significance. Good, but these are two small companies already involved in an indirect model. Does it constitute some signal of big adoption of an indirect model? All you are saying is that MobileTag is less of an independent third party, which cuts the wrong way if that was your argument.
I suppose I might combine and flip around these arguments - why did Chip leave Neomedia if it is in such a good position? I think there is not much to read into this either way.
Would you explain why you think 048 infringes? I have not seen you do so before, though you have advanced this claim, which is a serious one (which could even have repercussions for Neomedia). For example, what do you say when I point out that there is no reason this system would have any ID to URL mapping?
The 053 patent is more relevant to your point. Well, my guess is that SS does not 'search' for product info. AFAIK they receive feeds. They also don't seem to collect info from manufacturer sites, but rather merchants. What is your theory? I would honestly like to hear anyone debate this, as laymen.
Why do I seem to always argue these things don't infringe? Patent infringement is rare, because patents are specific. They cover one particular solution, not a family of general approaches. It is designed to prevent people from pretty much exactly copying your idea. The chance that two parties legitimately independently come up with the same specific solution is relatively small. And I believe of course that people almopst always act in good faith and don't set out to copy others. Ergo, infringement is rare.
As others have noted, you may wish to be careful about posting these claims. It could even land Neomedia in trouble.
I am referring to a conversation maybe a year ago with Chip Hoffman. These issues never came up at all to my recollection. You would think he would have at least mentioned licensing? You can conclude what you like, but, it is clear he does not think the same way as some posters here.
We have never spoken to anyone else affiliated Neomedia that I know of.
I am having trouble digging up a message where the guy from ShopSavvy suggested he'd also spoken to Neomedia. He did say as of last September nobody had contacted him, and they'd already conducted a review of relevant patents anyway:
http://www.sandira.com/blog/2008/09/shopsavvy-and-mobile-barcoding-what.htm
It's excessive, but this is important to me to engage this group once. Since I'm not saying much new I won't post more unless something really merits a response.
I have no news for you. As I explained I have long been concerned by comments about my work and relation to patents here. I had hoped to reason with 'the source'. I was pushed over the top by comments on the Google Product Search + barcode integration a few days ago.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. These decisions are delegated to the USPTO. There is no question of civil law here.
I have never even disputed that we all must abide by USPTO rulings no matter what we think... much less suggested that someone would or should or could somehow 'overrule' them.
I am arguing it *should not* have been a patent while accepting that it is -- and debating what this patent covers anyway.
You want to post this one more time? that's four now.
I don't get your point. What has been reversed, what 'cat would I put back in the bag'? I fully support my action and statement. If I wanted to hide it... would I have brought it up?
I don't for some reason blindly disagree with everything related to Neomedia -- hardly. I don't like the 048 patent, I don't believe in their proprietary format or indirect model, and have some beefs with certain non-employees comments about patents. But otherwise, peachy. Sounds like we all agree about cooperating to standardize infrastructure. Great!
I'll add one: Google Print Ads. The barcode project was an attempt to promote use of free/open standards, as part of a strategy to increase use of barcodes in print marketing. But, Print Ads was shut down earlier this year.
.. but I am not sure why you are posting this? I completely agree the company does not always succeed. Remember, I speak for myself and not Google. I am not even an employee. I don't see what it has to say about the rest of the conversation here -- is this a red herring?
Nobody told me to do anything. We were contacted by MobileTag to see if we wanted to be involved. It made sense to express some support by trying out an implementation, because standards are generally a good thing. Google is not a member of these consortiums or working groups though.
Nobody has ever asked me for MobileTag support, so you could argue it was dumb to build it. But I like MobileTag since it is *an* attempt to standardize what goes in barcodes. There is not enough of that. It is mostly about the 'direct' model, with a provision for indirect.
I don't see the backtracking here? I still would not recommend the indirect model to anyone, since I think it has net disadvantages. I'm not going to walk around half-implementing someone's spec, which would be disruptive, just because of that.
(and the support was like 50 lines of code, easy!)
I myself am not using MobileTag, nor is any organization I know. I said I implemented support for it based on an early draft, and it has never been enabled or used. I suppose I brought it up in order to maybe suggest I don't have some deep agenda against this mechanism -- and that I do have some knowledge of standards work here. If Neomedia believes they have a claim against MobileTag, they should take it up with them. If MobileTag says, yep, you have to pay to use this, I'll simply remove it from the code base.
Indeed, I have no problem with Neomedia itself, or efforts to promote standardization, even of a mechanism I don't particularly believe in. I brought up my actions to maybe demonstrate that.
Yes the claim concerns the ID in the barcode, resolving remotely to a URL. If nobody had ever before done anything like combining barcodes an URLs, I think I'd agree this is nonobvious. But QR Code's ability to encode numbers and URLs (yes the format itself is not what matters) predates the patent. In light of that, I argue, any engineer could come up with this.
I totally agree about operator incentives and interests (though I think they want people to use more bandwidth, since they get paid by end users for that!), and do not argue a direct model is in their interests. It is in the interests of marketers and consumers. And, somehow the operator stranglehold on access to the user is loosening with Android, iPhone, etc. I agree they don't like it. And I agree, do we know they won't 'revolt'? Apparently not... seems to be spreading to more operators.
Nothing is free -- yes. Yeah you 'pay' for Android, and Google service in general, by looking at ads. I suppose that paid for my 'free' project too. ShopSavvy makes money from merchants who want to be included in search results. I hear your arguments but they're managing to do just fine, which is good news.
But yeah it's all kinda beside the point since end users will never pay to scan barcodes or get a reader in either model.
So, I think the money and business model in barcodes comes from services. The 'price' of barcode encoding and decoding has already been pushed to zero; I think it's futile to fight that. No closed or proprietary format or system was able to achieve enough critical mass to dominate QR Code and Data Matrix as the de facto standard. It made sense 10 years ago to try to win this race and many companies tried, but I just don't see that it worked out.
No problem -- just saying there is no money to be made in controlling the ecosystem. If you're a business that's actually offering services, you're in good shape though. So to the extent Neomedia is offering barcode campaign management service for instance, good. People will pay for that if it adds value for the same reason they pay for analytics and ad agencies.
I personally think they could add as much value with QR Codes and direct model; if I were one of these companies I'd probably start offering that too (er, well, this is exactly why Google chose these). It becomes hard to explain why your customer should pay extra to use your proprietary format which few phones can read (relative to QR codes) and why they should pay extra for an indirect model. I just don't see how long that can last.
Some competitors really have nothing to offer but a proprietary format and I don't think they can survive. It sounds like Neomedia has diversified into services. There will be profit there. I am not sure how much to expect from licensing.
Standards work -- yeah, I suppose this can only be good to stay relevant, and attempt to un-fragment the indirect model ecosystem. I personally always look favorably on effort to standardize, open up an industry. (I already implemented the MobileTag standard draft for our project which includes provision for a sort of 'open' indirect model -- I personally don't want to use it but support people trying to standardize it.)
Sure, I did read that post:
"Movieguy: I'm a marketer and run an ad agency. You are spot on. At this point, if we can't source and count the leads, we're just not interested. And we want to be able to target to redheads who buy salad on alternate Tuesdays (the desire to customize messages is strong). Anyone who can give me a way to customize a message and then count and source the leads that message generates gets my full attention..."
This is exactly what I referenced in my last post in fact. Midlife is saying marketers need tracking (this is what source and count leads in?) and ability to behave differently to different customers.
In respect of indirect vs. direct encoding, both can meet this goals.
Neither is trivial -- it doesn't just happen. You probably wish to hire a company, maybe Neomedia, to operate all this for you. There is a real business model there!
But my point is that one can accomplish this, and many will, in an indirect model too. Therefore, not everyone who wants to do barcode-related marketing effectively needs an indirect model. I think this is something investors should consider.
No cloud, that is exactly not what the patent system allows! You would have to argue that, to a stool-maker, the leap from three- to four-legged stools is nonobvious in order to obtain a patent.
That is not some change I am lobbying for; it is how US patent law works now.
Maybe my point is clearer now? If in 1994 a technology exists to store numbers, or URLs in a barcode, and you turn around and patent a technology that stores numbers in a barcode which are supposed to map to a URL somewhere... have you 'invented' a four-legged stool in a three-legged world? This is the debate.
I agree that it is time to stop bothering the readers of this board since I've posted way too much and am repeating myself. Some of it was a useful discussion. I will try to wind it down while still replying where important.
I would ask street return the favor and stop posting about my work across the universe but you're correct that it's his actions. You do understand I couldn't take this forever without trying to approach the community that seems to be promoting these claims I don't agree with, to engage in some dialog.
Again, QR Codes, 1994. See my last post then tell me what you think.
You make an argument that the patent wasn't useful at the time, which would be a second reason it should not have been granted. I don't agree with that. Again, 1994, QR Codes. Put text, numbers, or URLs in a barcode. 1995: 048 patent. Put a number in a barcode, which maps to a URL. If you can live with thinking of this as a nonobvious variant... remember, the standard is not "would Joe Schmoe who scans cans of soup at the grocery store find it obvious"? It's "would someone of reasonable skill and knowledge of the art find it obvious?" like an engineer.
To be clear: 2D barcodes containing data existed before Neomedia. It is not as if it was all just cash registers and red lasers before 1995.
You say, in the past, the indirect model efficiency was more important. I agree, and think it's not as important today. But, this is not an argument that the subject is a nonobvious variant. You are merely arguing it is a possibly useful variant. I agree (though you argued the opposite in your opening line.)
I agree that one should be held accountable for patent infringement, but the crucial question is, what infringes?
Yes, I totally agree why it makes sense for a carrier! The carrier wants to get paid, of course. So to get your barcode app on phones, you have to be paid somehow too. To be paid, you have to charge customers. To charge customers, you have to control everything. To control decoding, the barcode/reader must use an indirect model.
But that's not an argument that it makes sense for anyone else. You can say, fine, but, how're you getting your app out there without cooperating with carriers? This is why Android and the iPhone app systems are a big deal. Once that calculus is removed... who again benefits from the indirect model?
ShopSavvy doesn't pay operators. People using the direct method don't pay anyone anything. That's the point. You could scratch your head and say, why would anyone provide free services or provide a free open format? well, for whatever reason, we have QR Code and plenty of free decoders, etc.
It is really hard to compete with free and open, which is why I have my doubts about the future of an indirect model.
What I don't doubt is that companies like Neomedia can and do offer value-add campaign management services. They get paid for this and rightfully so. But this can be offered without proprietary formats and closed systems. I would not, therefore, be surprised to see these firms *also* offer QR Code-based campaigns as well.
I hear people saying things like, yes, I need to be able to track which barcodes were scanned. I hear some people mistakenly say, oh, you can only do that with the indirect model. I have chimed in to point out this is untrue.
What am I ignoring? maybe I missed something.
Maybe you can help me. What is one thing the indirect model does that makes it more suitable for marketers?
If you can't come up with a good reply, I think it will show something about your understanding of the industry compared to mine.