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.
They are going to use Qode for football clips. And thats after their trial I presume, so I would hardly call that a launch of QODE when its going to only have a specific purpose and a targeted audience that will be using it.
I would much rather see a big vendor thats selling a product announced, now that will attract all audiences and not just sports fans in the UK.
I know some of you will say the article say the product COULD ALSO BE USED FOR ADVERTISERS. But thats apparently not on the table at this time, although I hope they do adopt it for such down the road.
""""""The News of the World will mainly use Qode for football clips, since News Group has won the rights to broadcast English Premier League Football to mobiles in a joint bid with BSkyB. """""
They didnt learn from their mistakes. The actions of the past few weeks were out of necessity. They didnt sell back the companies because they learned from their mistakes, they sold them back because they had no other options. Dont forget they have 2 more they have to deal with and very soon and dont have the 20 million to settle with them either, so you might see them sold back as well, unless someone comes up with 20 million real quick, and the sale of the paint isnt gonna cover that.
So its not that they learned a thing in my opinion, these moves are desperation moves to stay alive.
LOL..its not Chas thats out. He is now the new interim CEO, so if he was given a retirement package he better give it back. Its Chuck Jensen thats out and his contract I believe does call for a nice salary for 12 months I believe and then all the other perks.
Now lets see if he exercises any of his options, because once he is no longer employed those options have to be converted in 12 months I believe or he loses them. Dont quote me on that, but I think it is 12 months.
Its a double edged sword. Its good since Jensen wasnt an effective manager and should not of been the CEO to begin with, especially with no investment in the company. At least someone like Fritz has invested and stands to lose.
Its bad, because if the CEO is stepping down, right on the brink of what so many here said is about to happen, then it dont look like those things will be happening. The CEO dont leave just before a major launch of a product, especially someone like Jensen that you couldnt pry out of his seat. I expect there is more crisis coming, and when they start lowering the salaries of the other executives you might see them walking as well.
Where are all those posters at that were saying the subs knew something and wanted in. Apparently the CEO wants out, or was forced out. Either way, its something that should of happened a couple years ago when he announced the first launch, yet the software wasnt even developed to work on any of the cell phone platforms yet.
If I remember correctly the CEO Jenson owns even less then that in actual shares of common stock, and not options. That was one of the first debates I had here was on that topic and how the header was misleading, because it showed options as shares owned, when in fact the top internal officers all held very little actual shares at the time. Some even argued that the BOD members held more then I was claiming, when I was talking about internal officers who run the company day to day.
Gee why dont we just say the month of December then? When you specify a date and the weekend following that date, its safe to assume that the author is implying by that weekend. We all know in the next couple of weeks there will be some news, because the company promised a launch in the UK and promised BREW to be operating before the beginning of the new year. And after next week most companies shift to a shortened holiday schedule for their workers of one sort or another, so I expect we will here the news on these two issues and the paint before the end of next week.
But when those comments were made by that poster it was in the midst of the discusion of how big things were gonna be happening on the 9th by many posters here.
Funny how some will jump out to defend someone who has been wrong about every prediction made for the past year since I have been here. I am still waiting on a definition of QUICKER THEN YOU THINK almost a year after that remark was made.
There were several different discussions about several different things that were supposed to happen on the 8th or 9th.WII was only one of them. So I dont believe that leaves room for give or take a few days. Those here were certain things were to happen by then.
Its sms related and its free except for the download fees charged by the carrier. so their is no revenue in it for 12snap it appears.
can we throw a kitchen sink in with this to make it complete? What has any of these articles you posted have to do with NEOM? Talk about board clutter.
How do you figure thats traversing. Its cell phone advertising, which contains a link to a specific web site displayed in the advertisement, and when the consumer clicks on that link they are taken to that web site, through their phones web browser.
That dont have a thing to do with NEOM. Neoms patents involve taking a picture orf a symbol which is then sent to a server and changed into a link, which is then sent to your phone. A lot different then advertisements that you click on and go to a web site.
Yes, the news was supposed to be in conjunction with the Nintendo launch on the 9th which has come and gone.
And for the record I have been here a year now posting and the only thing thats changed is the PPS is now down 80 percent from where it was a year ago, and some here where hooting and hollering about the 33 percent gain the other day. Keep in mind a 33 percent gain off the low, is nothing like a 33 percent loss off the high. Its easy for a 6 cent stock to gain 33 percent in a day, but how many 33 percents will it take to recover the 80 percent we are down over the past year. I think by my calculations we need about 16 more of those 2 cent gain days to get back to where we were at.
Thats not true. The company pumped its own launch multiple times for both the EU and the US, so dont try to state it was TS pumping the launch. They got their information from public sources just as I and many others did, and this launch has been pumped ruthlessly by the company and its CEO for 3 years now, and yet never occurred.
And didnt you all state here that the CEO did state in the shareholders meeting they were talking with MSFT? Well then font blame TS again for that info that was put out by the company and TS and others ran with it.
So now you supposed information from Cornell did not come from Cornell. TS more then likely got it from the same place we investors got it, the company heafquarters.
I doubt that very seriously. Did you read the details of the license agreement?
Mobot gets a PERMENANT, NON ROYALTY, license from NEOM for NEOMs technology, and yet there are all kinds of restrictions placed on NEOMs license of Mobots technology. Even if one of NEOMs clients is using their bar code software in a restricted area NEOM is obligated to end the behavior by what ever means possible.
(b) Licensee shall cooperate with Mobot in developing the Developed Handset Technology to facilitate the use of Mobot Technology via Mobile Camera Devices. To the extent that such Developed Handset Technology is not owned by Mobot, Licensee agrees to, and hereby does, grant Mobot a permanent, irrevocable, royalty-free, unlimited license to use the Developed Handset Technology as part of, and in connection with, the Mobot Technology. Upon request from time to time, Licensee shall provide Developed Handset Technology source code to Mobot.
yes Bodreaux you are missing something. The shares will not be registered under the SEC act or any state laws according to that paragraph. WILL NOT BE is the key words.
Remember how we were told that we were getting pups shares once that company registered them. Then later we found out in an SEC filing by NEOM that the shares are not registered and there is no provisions to make them register them, so our dividends sit in limbo and are worthless. These shares of NEWCO fall in that same catagory, because there is no provision for NEWCO to ever have to register them either by State or by the SEC so they can be traded or sold without restriction.
So watch down the road for NEOM to tell its shareholders its giving them a dividend of NEWCO shares, LOL. Like the IPOINT and PUPS thats they cant force the companies to register, but many a shareholder will be jumping for glee, not realizing the shares are worthless if they cant get and trade them.
The point was they state that they WILL NEVER BE listed or registered. Gee does the company have to stay private forever? I imagine at some time they like most all companies including NEOM will attempt to become a public company, since raising capital is so much easier, because you can print shares like they were water to raise funds. Just ask NEOM about that.
They have no voting interest in NEWCO, and they surely arent in any position to drive them to push their product QODE.
And in my last post to YJ I stated I stand corrected, but technically speaking I was right all along.
NEOM now owns 18000 shares of NEWCO, which is the parent company of MOBOT. NEOM now holds 100 shares of MOBOT, which technically is a subsidiary of NEWCO. So NEOM has no power of MOBOT, and has no power over their parent company NEWCO, since their NEWCO shares are non voting, and have 2 stamps on the certificates, one stating they are non transferrable, and the second stating they have restrictions on voting.
What would be ironic is for NEWCO to resell MOBOT, which I dont see any prohibitions from them doing so
"""""""“The shares represented by this certificate have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and may not be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of in the absence of an effective registration statement under such Act or an opinion of counsel satisfactory to the corporation to the effect that such registration is not required.”
“The shares represented by this certificate are subject to restrictions on transfer and agreements with respect to repurchase and voting, a copy of which will be furnished by the Company to the holder of this certificate upon written request and without charge.”""""""""
And NEOM lost a potential business partner in the deal as well, since they cant approach this party for at least 2 years.......
""""""""6.7 Joint Venture Transaction. NeoMedia agrees that the proposed joint venture transaction initially contemplated among NeoMedia, Mobot and a third party with respect to the CPG market, which transaction was described in a letter of intent among such parties entered into in March 2006 and was subsequently negotiated by such parties using a proposed name for the joint venture entity of “Ilumena,” is a business opportunity of Mobot and not of NeoMedia. NeoMedia agrees that during the period of two (2) years following the date of this Agreement it will not solicit such third party with respect to any similar transaction and will not interfere in any way with efforts by Mobot to enter into such transaction with such third party.
"""""""""
I stand corrected but now see why you didnt offer the doocument when I first requested it from you, since none of the specifics were in the 8k I was referencing.
The shares of common stock are non voting shares, they ARE NOT and WILL NOT be registerd with the SEC and are FOR INVESTMENT ONLY and NOT REDISTRIBUTION and the shares have no LIQUIDITY VALUE. So NEOM is stuck with the shares basically.
"""""""(e) Investment. NeoMedia (i) understands that NeoMedia Held Newco Shares have not been, and will not be, registered under the Securities Act, or under any state securities laws, and are being offered and sold in reliance upon federal and state exemptions for transactions not involving any public offering, (ii) is acquiring NeoMedia Held Newco Shares solely for its own account for investment purposes, and not with a view to the distribution thereof, (iii) is a sophisticated investor with knowledge and experience in business and financial matters, (iv) has received certain information concerning Newco and has had the opportunity to obtain additional information as desired in order to evaluate the merits and the risks inherent in holding the NeoMedia Held Newco Shares, (v) is able to bear the economic risk and lack of liquidity inherent in holding the NeoMedia Held Newco Shares, and (vi) is an Accredited Investor.
"""""""
""""""(f) Dilution. NeoMedia acknowledges that Newco has advised it that Newco will need to raise capital to implement its business plan, that it intends to do so through the sale of shares of capital stock or other securities that may be converted into or exchanged for shares of capital stock, that it intends to issue restricted stock and stock options to persons who become employed by or associated with the Company, and that the sale of such shares of capital stock or other securities and the issuance of such restricted stock and stock options will dilute NeoMedia’s position in Newco. NeoMedia further understands that it has no right to acquire additional shares of capital stock or other securities of Newco.""""""""""
In addition the 18 percent represents the amount of the current outstanding shares of the new company, and they have informed NEOM they intend to dilute those shares by selling shares to raise capitol in this new company and with 1 million shares outstanding NEOM will own 1.8 percent if they ONLY sell the now authorized shares. But that dont mean they cant raise the authorized level to 5 million or more in the near future, and NEOM has no voting power to stop them.
But on a lighter note NEOM does retain 100 shares of MOBOT itself.........
""""""""(g) Mobot Shares. NeoMedia holds of record and owns beneficially 100 Mobot Shares, free and clear of any restrictions on transfer (other than any restrictions under the Securities Act and state securities laws), Taxes, Security Interests, options, warrants, purchase rights, contracts, commitments, equities, claims, and demands. NeoMedia is not a party to any option, warrant, purchase right, or other contract or commitment that could require NeoMedia to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of any capital stock of Mobot (other than this Agreement). NeoMedia is not a party to any voting trust, proxy, or other agreement or understanding with respect to the voting of any capital stock of Mobot.
""""""""
But then it gets ugly again. The agreement stipulates NEOM can not attempt to transfer the shares or sell them to anyone, without the premission of NEWCO, and then NEWCO has the right to buy them back at a price of .01 a share, so let me see the 18000 shares of NEWCO are worth 180.00 regardless of what NEWCO shares are trading at.
If however NEWCO decides they want to buy the shares back from NEOM they then must pay fair market value which will be determined by the NEWCO board of directors.
The agreement also states that if neom has any voting powers in respect to any of the shares, that vote must be made as directed by the Board of NEWCO.
Man what a mess.
and your point is? You stated that NEOM owned 18 percent of MOBOT and the preferred shares of FMS, and I asked you to show us in the agreement where it states that? They own 18 percent total which is the preferred stock of FMS, so your statement that I was wrong was innacurate. Funny how now you are trying to make it appear that the discrepency between our two posts is the abreviation of FMS and whether they are mobot or not. Of course they are Mobot, but under a new corporate name since technically MOBOT was disbanded when it was acquired by NEOM. But the fact remains NEOM only owns 18 percent of FMS, not 18 percent of MOBOT and 16 thousand shares of FMS as you stated was the case. The 16 thousand shares are all NEOM owns, whether you want to call it MOBOT or FMS or both, and if they want their 16 million shares of NEOM back that they gave MOBOT they have to trade their FMS shares for those 16 million shares back, and then would own ZERO of MOBOT and FMS.
And to Success, dont start that silly game again. I went through that back when you were moderating or dont you remember, when KOKO asked me to post 10 reasons I liked NEOM and he couldnt do the same with 10 reasons why he disliked NEOM. By the way isnt your post focusing on me?
One of the MOBOT share holders brought a suit against NEOM for not registering the shares in the time required in the acquisition agreement, so that they would become sellable shares. That has been mentioned in the past 2 quarters 10Q filings, and I have commented on it here in the past. NEOM was supposed to register the shares sometime mid year and they didnt. They even had a preliminary hearing on the matter, where NEOM the day before the hearing filed to register the shares, then pulled the registration once the hearing was over.
No the news post is misworded. Its clear in the SEC filing the 18 percent pertains to the new owners company, which will in turn run MOBOT. The filing with the SEC takes precedent over what is misstated in the PR. The PR says nothing about any ownership in the new company(FMS) formed by the old owners....
"""""and in return received 18% ownership in FMS, which will operate the Mobot business; """""""
And where does it state that in the agreement. The agreement states the lawsuits brought by the original MOBOT shareholders are dismissed. They have no authority to dismiss any third party suits brought against NEOM by a third party, for fees that third party claims NEOM owes them. The only way that could occur is if the third party agrees to allow MOBOT owners to settle on their behalf. And with a 5 million bonus that might have occurred but we dont know that based on the agreement. And if the third party did agree to such a stipulation, then I am sure MOBOT agreed to pay them out of that 5 million windfall, so why do you think they would not like the news? I see it the exact opposite.
you are wrong...NEOM owns zero percent of MOBOT. They own 18 percent of FMS which is the 16 thousand shares of FMS they recieved. Please show us where in the agreement it says NEOM still owns 18 percent of MOBOT, plus the 16,000 shares of FMS preferred stock. Its not in there anywhere. What is in there is the phrase below that states NEOM owns zero percent of MOBOT.
""""""""NeoMedia transferred 100% of its ownership interest in Mobot to FMS, and in return received 18% ownership in FMS, which will operate the Mobot business;""""""""""
It means that NEOM was given 16,000 shares of the new owners of MOBOT which happens to be the old owners under a new name now. That is the 18 percent ownership NEOM has in MOBOT. However, NEOM has to trade those shares back to MOBOT at a rate of 1x1000 to get their shares back that they originally gave the MOBOT owners in the acquisition. So if NEOM wants their 16 million shares back that MOBOT still owns, they have to give mobot back their 16,000 shares. They have 15 months to trade the shares back. So technically speaking NEOM only owns the 18 percent if they decide not to trade back the shares for the 16 million they gave MOBOT. MOBOT after 15 onths can force NEOM to redeem the shares back to MOBOT either for the NEOM stock they hold or the actual cash value of the MOBOT shares at that time, thus taking away NEOMs 18 percent ownership.
""""""""""NeoMedia received 16,931 preference shares in FMS that can be redeemed to reacquire the 16,931,493 original consideration shares originally issued by NeoMedia to acquire Mobot. Each preference share can be redeemed for 1,000 shares of the NeoMedia common stock at NeoMedia’s discretion within 15 months of the closing of this transaction. After 15 months, the preference shares can be redeemed upon a liquidation event of FMS, for either 1,000 shares of NeoMedia common stock each, or for the current cash equivalent of the shares, at FMS’ discretion; """""""""""
I will help you.........page 10 of the link.
And by the way anyone notice that NEOM only got an exclusive license for the Americas, Europe and Australia, and to keep that
exclusivity they have to meet certain goals or make minimum cash payments?
""""""NeoMedia and FMS entered into a license agreement, pursuant to which NeoMedia received a license to use the Mobot image recognition service for barcode-related applications. The license is exclusive in the Americas, Europe and Australia, restricted in Japan, Korea, and Singapore, and non-exclusive in other areas of the world. The exclusivity is subject to NeoMedia meeting certain minimum transaction volume requirements or making minimum cash payments; and"""""""""
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?dcn=0001144204-06-046364&Type=HTML
After further reviewing the details Beacon, heres another company that got a wonderful christmas bonus. We originally bought MOBOT for around 12 million, and technically just paid them over 5 million for an 18 percent stake.
Obviously they keep the 3.5 million, and we owe them another 200,000.00 by the end of year, and we forgave a debt they owed us of 1.5 million for money loaned before the acquisition. So it adds up to over 5 million we paid for the 18 percent stake, in a company we intially bought for around 12 million, which included the 1.5 million debt they owqed us at the time.
Technically speaking if 18 percent is worth over 5 million that puts mobots value at over 25 million.
Beacon.........I think what is missing and why the numbers dont make sense, is everyone is forgetting that NEOM paid MOBOT 3.5 million cash in the buy out. And based on this PR it appears mobot keeps the 3.5 million and also gets an additional 200,000.00 as agreed in the promissory note. Will have to wait until the agreement gets filed to verify, but obviously MOBOT owners arent paying NEOM back the 3.5 million if NEOM has to sign a promissory note to them. So it appears the 18 percent cost NEOM 3,750,000.00 when all is said and done, plus all the costs that were associated initially.
Signing a promissory note is the same thing as borrowing money, and NEOM did sign a 200,000.00 promissory note did they not? Thats a loan regardless of what the terms are, so they have in fact borrowed the money even if for only a short term. By the way whats the original deal have to do with anything. NEOM signed the note plain and simple.
Beacon.........in short its all just nice speculation. Any one can put together a so called 5 star post, using any of the giants in this arena and using their contacts somehow tie them back to NEOMs technology. But think about it. If Motorola was so agressively trying to get ahold of NEOMs patents or technology for all these years they would have made a move already.
I can go into more detail with my opinion but see there is news out about the sale of mobot so want to study that before the board gets carried away. Looks like I have about 50 posts to go through already.
But I will say that its ironic to see NEOM borrowing money from MOBOT as it initially appears is the case but will comment further after I read the other posts and read the pr in more detail.
That PR that was referenced here was based on the old case filed in Illinois that the judge there threw out basically due to jurisdiction issues. You need to look up the new case that was filed in NY to see what allegations were raised in that suit. I thought I read somewhere that in the NY case NEOM modified its claims.
""""""I had to have Mr Copus being quoted again. At least this time it's not in a NeoMedia PR. But it's an unbiased writer quoting him.""""""
I will ask the question again, where are the quotes made by Martin Copus in the article you provided? I dont see a single quote in there and it appears that the article is the writers own commentary. But in your post you state the writer of the article is QUOTING COPUS DIRECTLY? Please show us where those DIRECT quotes appear in that article?
maybe you should read the pr again.....these are statements by Copus, not the company they signed the agreement with. And the agreement apparently spells out these parameters as agreed upon by NEOM or they wouldnt be the one PRing the details of how the plan will work. Yes the end result is that the other company running the website will probably be the one collecting the per click revenue and then giving NEOM their share, but thats semantics. NEOM is the one that offered free codes etc apparently. And notice that Copus says NEOMEDIA will implement its launch, not the other company implementing the launch. HMMMMMMM, thats interesting.
""""""""NeoMedia, Mr. Copus said, will implement its launch of qode for Cyber Century and GBQ in two stages:
* First offering members a "GBQ smart code" to encourage them to sign up as a "VIP GBQ Code Holder," and
* Then inviting VIP GBQ Code Holders to special free events, offering discounts, etc.
Revenue with Every Click
Mr. Copus said "every click by a VIP GBQ Code Holder will generate revenues," with per-click and monthly plans available to users."""""""""
and maybe you missed those discussions because they do in fact intend to bill the end user in the last campaign announced for china with the boy/girl deal.
Thats why no one has a clue what to heck the model is, because as you state, management said one thing and then says the exact opposite in their first campaign announced in the Chinese world.
you state you have seen hundreds but when I asked you to post just a couple as examples you stated you could not.
I for one have not seen hundreds as you claim, and have only seen royalties basically in co marketing agreements and partnerships. Usually its more prevelent in partnerships, such as small biomed companies that develope a drug but are too small to manufacture and market it. So they license their product to the big players and in return collect royalties.
I asked for some examples because as I have stated I havent seen this as general practice, and am curious for my own educational purposes.
If you are talking about co marketing then yes royalties are a factor. But royalties typically are not a part of a licensing fee.
Did you just read the post about NOKIA buying a paid in full license that was posted ironically after we started this discussion. And did you read the post by LEN about the Foote Cone co marleting agreement ironically just posted as well. One stipulates paid in full and is the purchase of a license and the other says revenue will be shared and is a co marketing agreement.
And typically the co marketers keeps the lions share since they are the one drumming up the clients, so of course all their expenses are deducted and then any royalty is based on the profit.
I have not seen one example of a license bought that included profit sharing in all my research, unless there was a third party involved.
please provide us with some of these since you state as fact many if not most are tied to revenues. My experience is that most are not tied to revenues and I can back up my statement with actual examples. And based on NEOMs own record, they have been known to sell the licenses in the past, regardless of revenue generation. Thats the whole reason why a company like Airclick or Virgin buys a license. So they can use the technology to market their products. Is NEOM collecting fees from either of these 2 companies based on the revenue they generate using PC or Qode? No they are not.
As to the co-marketing aspect, I believe that is open ended as you suggest, but the license is just that a license, and typically there are no ties to future revenue generated. Thats why companies typically sell a one year license, because if they see the company is generating huge revenue of their technology they can up the renewal fee the next year.
thats right Boknows........They sold them a license to use and co market Qode, plain and simple. And at this stage of the game that license was probably pretty cheap, like the Airclick and Virgin licenses.
Had they partnered with this group and shared the revenue that would be a different story. And yes it will give NEOM some much needed cash, but I expect it will be minimal. And a license agreement is a flat rate price, not a continual revenue generator, unless it has to be renewed yearly, so this will appear one time on the financials more then likely.
It is possible they agreed to some type of revenue generated licensing agreement, but thats usually not the case in any license. The company buying the license has the use of the technology for a flat annual fee.
And when I spoke above about non revenue generating and showing up as a one time fee, thats not technically correct. If they purchased a 1 year license, I believe NEOM has to prorate the revenue on a monthly basis as the agreement is being used.
""""""With Symbian, Java and Brew's OS's certified by the OEM's and catagorized by the respective Carriers in all targeted major markets, both in the UK and Australia (with China close behind), qode is now available on 75-85% of all cell phones worldwide and readied for launch.""""""""
Where did you read that BREW is even operational, let alone certified? I havent seen any PR yet that stated they finally had the BREW platform working. Last I recall from the CEO in the CC they were still working on it.
These are the kind of statements stated as facts that some here know to be false, and this is not an opinion, its stated as a fact, and misleading to new investors. These are the kind of factual statements the SEC frowns upon, when one knows they are false, and its just not a misunderstanding.
That agreement that the news pr was released on was just fluff for the shareholders up in arms.
The agreement dont mean squat at this time so why the release came out when it did is puzzling, unless it was only to sooth the shareholders.
NEOM has already stated in the last pr out, the QODE is not yet operating in the Chinese language, so any contracts or agreements signed are worthless until it is operating in their language.
Well not worthless, but you all know what I mean, NON REVENUE GENERATING.
here are the kind of returns i like to see
Last Trade Change
2:06PM ET 0.10 0.08 400.00%
No kidding. I said i was writing code back then, and I bet you dont even know what a commodore 64 looked like do you?
Yes I have worked with the newer codes as well and self taught myself to write programs and scripts using peral and other languages. I also wrote all my own code for the web pages i put up on the web and self taught myself how to do that as well, which included music and sounds and pictures etc. And no I didnt use the web page design programs that are now so available, i wrote it from scratch and troubleshot it till it worked right. I bet you dont even remember 7 years ago your web pages had to be coded for the two different browsers, or it wouldnt display in one or the other.
Therefore its not a stretch for me to conclude a college educated programmer should have no trouble putting together even 1 of the platforms at least 2 years ago, yet none were done until late this year.