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.
Pop: So who are the two companies currently using indirect? Are you able to disclose? Scanbuy, correct? And who else?
So, the building of the app, then integrating into the clearinghouse, and integrating into the enterprise software....these occur sequentially or can they be done in parallel? Do you have a sense of the timeline and the anticipated deliverable date?
Also, wondering with regard to the share holders meeting if there might be a compromise regarding the authorization of 5bil shares of common stock. Can this be written differently such that there is a staggered approach? Performance based over time. So, if after 3 months, if revenue is not at a set amount then there is a right to increase shares of common stock but not immediately up to 5 bil.
Pop: You said "I think they taking the obvious step of finding a brand name for "indirect." That word should never be seen by a client. " I do not understand what you mean???? What word should not be seen by the client? Why?
What are the two companies doing indirect?
And, to make certain I understand, you are saying that each of these two companies has their own clearing house and registry that that buit out on their own?
Pop-
So, trying to understand. Scanbuy has their own capabilities to handle indirect efforts and control campaigns? Have they teamed up with a third party? Neustar is necessary for NEOM because they have such "capabilities".? What are these "capabilities" precisely, sorry I do not know the lingo? And what does it cost to build them on our own?
I was unaware that NEOM could only do direct right now. Is that what you are saying? So who is developing the indirect apps to be utilized with Neustar, NEOM? I guess I was somewhat presumptuous thinking Neustar had the ability right off the go.
Can you explain all of this a bit more for the technically challenged?
Looking on Scanbuy site.....it appears they utilize EZcode. My take away is the EZcode is inherently indirect. So, are all Scanbuy campaigns indirect?
I am not saying Scanbuy will only use DIRECT. I agree with you, I am happy if they do business especially if it is indirect........as we should get our cut. But, how do we police the environment? Which campaigns are indirect?...not just for Scanbuy but across the environment. And again, as I stated in a previous post, NEOM need to do a better job touting the benefits of indirect. They need to make certain that the customers of Scanbuy (as well as other Scanbuy types) appreciate the difference in methods and request INDIRECT.
So what are the real benefits? Can NEOM management describe what they perceive to be the benefits of indirect? If they exist can they clearly be articulated and diagramed ....this is our leverage to influence the environment and our patent is the enforcement tool. Even amongst ourselves on this site, I think there is a difference of opinion of the value of indirect. This fog needs to be lifted. For me, the case studies on their site do not speak to the value of indirect.
What I think you are not seeing is if the campaign is "direct" or "indirect". This is the heart of the issue for NEOM. So, many posters place on this site share the many initiatives underway with bar codes. That is great, but are these efforts strictly direct? Can someone share how I can actually check if an effort is direct or indirect?
Consumers will not care or notice which method is used. Marketers are the drivers of potentially appreciating the difference in value between the two methods. Frankly, I am not certain that I appreciate the difference and I am going to go back and read the white paper. Consumers will be pissed if they see a code, scan it, and it does not resolve because it was not pre-loaded on their phone. Even if companies create priority codes (and there may be some jockeying to make that happen to take control...kind of like apple and how they captured apps) that does not mean that they may use indirect methods. So, it again seems important to me to identify indirect efforts and call them on the IP.
And which of the case studies on the NEOM web site are "indirect" method?
Why is the shareholder meeting not posted on their site?
Revenue is necessary for success. Until the ecosystem is in place, NEOM sits passively on the sidelines apparently dependent upon Neustar efforts. Why? Having the patents in hand, it is IMO that infringers need to be identified. Are there current infringers? How does one identify if they are indeed using "indirect" methods? What is the magnitude of the problem? If substantial, then I suggest legal action be initiated. I don't care if it is labeled patent trolling....it is intellectual property that needs to be defended. It is an initial source of revenue that will allow this company to broaden its scope.
NEOM needs to educate the environment about the benefits "indirect" vs "direct". If there are benefits then they should outline those benefits on their web site in language that the lay person can understand and appreciate. So, in this regard, they should have a model displayed on their site targeted to marketers with examples of reports and the unique relationships they can be established with consumers. In addition, contrast with "direct" methods demonstrating its limitations. They have to sell the environment. I do not see them putting forth that effort. If I have a patent, it is not going to find its way automatically to the market. I am going to have to generate interest and convey the need for my idea. Right now..NEOM is all about the patent.
Who is Cian? Relationship to GOMO news?
I understand the value and importance of doing my own DD. I do like to use this medium as a sounding board to solicit opinions. I am not trying to mislead anyone. I am trying to get at a fundamental question....that is: at this point in time, does anyone know for certain if the NEOM patent is being infringed upon? There appear to be many others here with the technical knowledge base to answer this question. However when posed, no one seems to know for certain. Is there no infringement at this point in time because the "indirect" environment or the environment in general is still being built or defined? To try and get a sense of infringement, I was curious as to what was unique about Scanbuy and why only they were named in the lawsuit if indeed other are infringing too. Having a thorough understanding and a means to determine who is infringing is a fundamental key piece of information for me before I add further to my current stock position.
mmtg
What kind of volume are you able to unload with the spikes? How large does the trading volume need to be to sell off quickly?
mmtg
Are there other "readers" that can read all the same or more codes as NeoReader?
In response to:
2. What kind of codes can I read with NeoReader?
Data Matrix, QR code, Aztec code, EAN, UPC and Code 128 can be read easily and promptly by the NeoReader mobile application.
Sorry if this has been addressed before.....but appreciate if someone can respond or point me in the right direction to ascertain on my own.
mmtg
INFRINGING....interesting concept???? Who is infringing...exactly! As poptech explained in a previous post, Scanbuy was the target of the NEOM patent effort because they (Scanbuy) had established a clearinging house. A clearing house pushes the environment toward the indirect method for which we have IP space. So.....who indeed is really infringing? Are there still learnings that need to occur before indirect is appreciated?
mmtg
With all due respect......given the conditions around this penny stock I find it really difficult that charting applies. I can only imagine that there is some pattern around the dilutive effort of YA...such that they have time restrictions about their effort or the O/S drive dictate when they can dilute. If these are built into your chart effort then perhaps there is value. It is about patterns. JMO. This stock is so volatile that it is difficult for me to imagine that any consistent patterns have evolved. God bless those that can trade this stock. With the bid and ask being potentially wide, and the value so small, the volume being relatively small, I wonder really how much can be made?? I would imagine someone gifted in trading has much better opportunities to explore. I like this stock given my limited understanding.....but there is risk. If charting has provided opportunities then I apologize. For me, I would expect to see $200+ days for a trading effort. I frankly do not see how you are unable to get rid of that amount of shares to realize such a gain.
mmtg
Around the patents and the term obviousness...I come from the pharmaceutical industry. Some molecules can have the same molecular formula but either be righthanded or lefthanded. One may confer more benefit than the other. A US strategy in the past has to identify the associated activity with each "hand" and ascertain if there is any medical benefit. Typically, there would be equal amounts of each hand. To get rid of the inactive hand or the hand that causes side effects has allowed patents to be captured around existing approved compounds and extend the their patent life. That is the basic concept. However....I believe such a strategy OUS is more challenging because it is claimed that it is obvious that each hand may have different activity. The hurdle is higher.
Just wondering if this is the case in this IP space.
Finally.....I think there are some dynamic challenges.....but there are some static issues that commonly reoccur. Taking out the investment bias may be the greater challenge.....not certain how to best get at that. Certainly, opposing views are worthy if substantiated appropriately as all responses should be.
Same issues seem to come up repeatedly. Kudos to you guys that take the time to repeatedly respond and keep the site's integrity, especially with regard to the "basher" types that provide a one sided view. In that regard, does it make sense to have on this site standard responses that can be kept readily available? So, what are the top 5-10 issues? And what are the responses....and fair counter response that can be based on fact. I am suggesting some live document that can be edited and agreed to collectively.
I have to admit my motivation is self serving. I do not have the time to track the site as well as many here. Just throwing it out there.......is this "doable"? Would it be of value? If not, I still think it would be interesting to create a top 10 list of "perceived" (those that bashers may frequently point to only because lack of DD) and what the longs see as real challenges.
For me, issue number #1 is the patents given this is the potential primary revenue generator. I come to appreciate indirect vs direct. I was also curious why Scanbuy was the focus of the most recent IP effort.....which apparently they set up a clearinghouse. The US space looks good...but I do have some concerns outside the US (OUS) as obviousness in that environment may be a greater challenge.
mmtg
I agree NeilPeart...this is nothing new.
Poptech-
Thank you for the explanation. Sounds like the environment still needs to ferment a bit more before there is wine.
Do you know how many clearinghouses there are for the common short codes? Is Neustar the only one? I am going to explore the clearinghouse concept more on my own but if you have time or anything to offer that would be appreciated.
mmtg
There are repeated post on this board pointing to the fact that barcodes are starting to play a greater role in the environment. Fine, but can we please point to the impact that has on NEOM. Unless infringers are identified and pursued then use of barcodes has no significance to NEOM. What is the strategy for NEOM to back its IP position? Scanbuy>>>that was the strategy? Why only Scanbuy?????
sorry..do not understand your reasoning. neustar is a potential clearing house, they are going to defend our patents?
Why was Scanbuy such a major effort on the IP front? There seemed to be a lot energy put forth in defeating Scanbuy, but putting forth any other effort against infringers of IP appears to be secondary. I want IM to identify the potential number of infringers of the IP. And if possible, name the infringers. Or is there anyone on this board that can name the infringers? At a minimum, how many infringers are out there? Finally, what is the effort moving forward to challenge infringers of the IP space? Revenue around the IP is essential to build NEOM out beyond the current business model and become something other than a "parasite" of the IP. The term "parasite" sounds negative but is not intended. NEOM went to great lengths to capture the IP, deservedly. But, they need to build the business model beyond this initiative. I want to see pressure on infringers!!!! I think IM is trying to be reasonable with regard to NEOM payoff and fostering the environment moving forward.....i.e., he does not expect to overcharge. Still, I want some aggressiveness and assert our IP position.
mobilemantogo
I've seen settlements like this before...and only a few tend to benefit.
robot can you point to specific examples? Trying to get an understanding of the circumstances in which settlements are not beneficial. So, are there learnings from the other settlements you are aware of? In advance of additional news from NEOM about the settlement......what news would be suspect and not particularly beneficial? What news would you want to see vs. not see?
mmtogo
So, an ecosystem defines infringers? Then why is it easy to point Scanbuy as an infringer? Who else is operating in the same manner as Scanbuy?
It is about the IP. That is what drove up the pps. It is about the potential click thru potential. If that cannot be supported, validated then this company needs to align with a marketing company or put forth their own marketing effort. That is the difference between us and Scanbuy.....they are offering a marketing element, message that is easier for their customers to understand. We cannot put forth this effort because of limited money to support such an effort. We are a behind the scenes entity that is difficult to comprehend.
I agree there might be some sensitivity around naming companies. Still, let's get a sense of the magnitude of the infringement......what percent of the companies might be infringing? What is IM's perception? With the current business model is this a moderate, major, or no concern. How important is the IP to the success of NEOM?
With regard to public opinion and NEOM being perceived as "patent troll"......frankly, I do not care. Let them have their perceptions, we are running a business and if we own IP then as a capitalist society others need to respect it. The problem is that financial sound companies will let this play out. They will infringe and deal with it at a later date. It sounds as though IM is sensitive to the environment and willing to be reasonable to foster good relations. There has got to be a impetus where others are respectful and do not dis NEOM. Without a strong financial support, NEOM has no leverage. I think that is part of the problem.
I am not a "radical vigilant". It is an aggressive environment and we need to push back to protect our interests. I would agree that a single lawsuit rather than many, if favorable sets a precedent that allows us the opportunity to start to name other infringers. If we were cash rich, I would imagine we would be naming other violators. We have no power...it costs too much to follow thru on the IP front.
We need leverage......I am not trying to damage the share price. Conversely, I want to put us in a position of power. I want to explore what buttons management can push to grain greater credibility.
Well, from the CC, it sounds like there is some reluctance for potential deals to occur because of the lack of financial backing. Do VCs want to support small companies just because they are tapping into NEOM IP>>> I don't think so. Still, I would like to know which companies IM thinks are infringing. What is the mechanism to put this information out there in a political correct manner as not to hinder potential business? So, what percent of businesses are potentially infringing........does IM have a sense of this? I still have to question the power of the IP if some other player has decided not to get behind NEOM to push this IP envelope.
Agree, the ecosystem is still being defined. I am not certain that marketers understand the value of indirect. Nonetheless, companies playing in the space just do not seem to be knocking on NEOM's door .......why? Are they adverse to legalities and the monetary effort that might be involved? Is it that risky that it can't be justified from a revenue perspective? If we all see value in the IP then why isn't another recognizing the value???? I really struggle with this.
Agree, play in the fragmented market. What is the Scanbuy business model? Are they more of a marketing company. Why can't NEOM get these deals?
Let's get a press already identifying potential infringers on the patent space. What is the infatuation of only focusing on Scanbuy? Can we get aggressive already around the IP!!! Get another lawsuit going naming other parties that are infringing. I am beginning to wonder about the value of the IP.
Slide Share presentation. Someone posted a link to a slide share mobile marketing presentation and made specific mention of a page in the presentation. If anyone recalls this link or if the original poster could post again that would be appreciated.
Also, I think a good question for IM during the cc would have been "How many companies do you feel are infringing on the current patent?" or better "What percent of the companies are potentially infringing on NEOM IP space." He would not have to disclose names thereby making this question answerable. This IMO is important information. If the percent is low then the follow-up question is "Then what is the value of the IP?" If the percent is high then the question is " What is NEOM going to do to further protect itself?" If there is value in the IP then lets get more aggressive. For me, the value of this company is potentially in the IP.
MM
Is anybody on here following recently? Trial result are expected soon in IBS.
r
So..if i recall there was supposed to be other significant announcements over the the next 6-8 weeks from the original Bena "press release". Sept 8 is the deadline I marked on my calendar. Can we expect new info this upcoming week? Is all the "big" news out?
I agree. Who are this cast of characters? (What is the grammatically correct way to state that?) Laura seemed to be very high profile with her public MMA effort. Why would she throw her name in with the likes of NEOM? Do we have her resume? And Iain, do we have his CV? What are his past success stories? It really is time for the individuals to be held accountable!!!
Not a frequent poster....been following. I got drawn in with the patent decision. The per click was enticing, that is where I saw value. I was hopeful that someone with deep pockets.also saw value in the environment and would get behind NEOM and challenge the smaller players. To me, that kind of support is necessary to turn tables and put the burden on others coming into the space. I would not to want to get in to a legal war with the likes of Microsoft if I was starting up.
I will hang with my modest 1mil shares thru mid-Sept, waiting for additional news that has been somewhat promised by management. It is unfortunate that an innovator that has captured IP space can have their effort be simply pushed aside because of the "system". The play and wait and whoever has more money wins. The deals are great but if they can't be linked back to the IP then I struggle. I frankly hate to post this view point since I am a share holder.....and do not want to decrease value.
Standards for the environment were posted a couple of weeks ago.....and it appears the progress is being made but it could be end of year or early next year before the environment is defined. Without the patents, what value can NEOM provide to shareholders?
Just hangin, trying to be positive.
after searching I do believe it has remained the same
Press release on NEOM site
I know the press release was down on NEOM site earlier today. Did the language stay the same now that it is up again? Perhaps I am confusing with Bena interview but it appears different???
MM
Everyone......we continue to have repeated posts about scenarios where barcodes are being introduced into the environment. That is great and underscores that indeed this effort is maturing and ultimately will be common place. But, what is the impact on NEOM?
NEOM continues to move into pilot partnerships. What is the outcome of these partnerships? And what is being tested? NEOM should design these pilots such that at their conclusion, they can point to the benefit of "indirect" vs "direct". Are all their ongoing collaborative efforts "indirect" in nature? Highlighting the differences between "indirect" and "direct", in practical terms that can be easily understood by the masses, should be one of NEOM's objectives in their PR effort. People need to be able to differentiate the "uniqueness" of NEOM. This is where they potentially have the greatest leverage.
Again....I asked yesterday, does it require an "indirect" method to be be able to track the number of hits associated with a specific bar code? e.g., Microsoft Tags provides such a report.
Sorry for so many questions? I struggle with fully understanding the technology. Others here seem to be more closely associated with the environment on a daily basis. Just trying to stimulate some new conversation.
I agree.....do we have the "goods" (IP)? and what is going to take to stop infringing? For me the value in NEOM lies in these patents, the per click revenue is what i find exciting. "Indirect" does seem to offer advantage over "direct".
I continue to see many posts with the introduction of bar code campaigns. Creating bar codes in and of itself does not appear to be unique and not necessarily infringement. Is the Microsft tags effort infringing on NEOM patents? As I posted yesterday, they offer a status report that specifically tracks customer traffic to a web site that has occurred via bar code utilization. Is that service an infringement on NEOM patents?
So, my challenge to the board is, who do we believe is currently infringing? Can we get a list? How can i determine what competitor efforts are "indirect"?
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CONTACT THE MODERATOR ON MY BEHALF AND GET ME OFF THE SINGLE DAILY POST LIMIT. I had a breakdown several weeks ago, with the assistance of a couple of drinks, that pushed me to limited postings. SOMEONE PLEASE HELP. My apologies....just frustrated!
Agree about the patents, where is the value? Really surprised that some of the "major" players in the space have not approached NEOM. How much time is left on them?
And the Microsoft tags....I like their site. I think it is a lot more user friendly then NEOM's site. Did you notice that you are able to view a report that allows you to specifically ascertain traffic flow related to a unique bar code. To be able to provide that information are they using an "indirect" method.
Finally, because I get one post (which by the way, how do i get out of this hell), how can we help Bena ask the right questions? She said she was going to circle back with NEOM at the end of the month. If they are still unable to disclose the "big" deal then I hope she communicates that and does not go into silence mode leaving us wonder.
MM
What is the "$5 billion under management" mean? Outstanding shares is 1.8 billion with the float being nearly the same.
This is my single allowed post for the day.