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.
1. 10Q appears to reflect positive continuing operation -- notwithstanding YA's investments, NEOM appears to be generating increasing revenue. Am I getting this wrong?
2. do you or anyone else on this board know how many non-YA shareholders there are, and of that number how many are individuals whose interests are substantial enough to justify making a gift to NEOM for the company to continue operations without YA involvement? A gift and not a loan -- no reason to ask YA or even "run it by them"!
Could you or CLAWMANN post a "public" link where I can read the entire complaint?
Claw must either be asleep or working. Anyone want to venture a guess how the Bilski case, currently up for review by the Supreme Ct this week, might affect NEOMs patents?
Thank you for your clearly well-thought out response. On another note, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the Bilski case sometime this week -- do you think the outcome of that review could affect NEOMs patents deleteriously?
Clawdude, I am here but have been a mere observer/listener. Besides, I am in awe of your mastery of the variety of subjects being discussed on this board. I wonder if you would answer a couple of questions -- (1) Is a sale of NEOM good for the shareholders -- beyond (hopefully) a good pps? (2) Is there any chance IM would forego a sale to stay on for the rest of his working life as captain of a resurrected ship? (3) If sold, do you think NEOM would remain a viable stand-alone NASDAQ business with shareholders? (4) when would YOU consider getting out?
Can anyone explain the meaning/significance of Neomedia's CAMPAIGN MANAGER or CODE MANAGEMENT platforms referred to in and excluded from Section 4.3 of its license with Neustar? And on another note, this does NOT appear to be an exclusive license!!
So Clawmann: (1) is there a fixed float? (2) does NEOM issue YA more shares than are traded publicly so that, in the end after YA sells its (converted?) shares, the total # of outstanding shares increases? (3) who buys YA's sold shares? (4) if the # of shares is fixed, why don't we all sell into the run up and then buy more than our original holding when the share price falls back -- perhaps collectively we could (band together and) have a say in the ongoings of the company (of course, someone would have to be the spokesman)?
Clawmann...so is the pps dropping because of the dilution, the shares being sold, or both? On another note, I am confused -- on the one hand, I am thinking that YA could hold the price down forever with constant conversions and share sales, yet on the other hand I am also thinking YA would want the pps to go up since they would reap that much more in proceeds. What am I missing?
Clawmann and any others that can answer, I ask...(1) where does YA get its never-ending supply of shares to sell? Convertible shares? Warrants? Options? (2) how many shares are at YA's disposal to sell? (3) if YA is selling millions of shares, who is buying those millions of shares?
Jonesie -- Do you believe NEOM has a future for its shareholders? Are you a shareholder? If so, why do you still hold shares with this sentiment? If not, why haven't you been able to convince others to sell? WHY IS EVERYONE HANGING ONTO THEIR SHARES IF YA IS JUST GONNA PUT NEOM OUT OF BUSINESS? Isn't it better to get SOMETHING for your shares than nothing?
Everyone -- all this grousing and conjecture is very confusing. Could your interpretation of what has transpired recently be off the mark? If the events of this week look so bad, why isn't anyone advocating just getting rid of our shares? And in the process perhaps driving the pps down to make things worse for YA? Who of you is getting out of NEOM now?
Has anyone seen the Skymark report? What does it say?
RE: ARTICLE ONE PARTNERS If you read the literature on their site, the "members" are persons like you or me, or law firms, or corporate entities. My understanding of the Article One business model is that it is hired by someone who is seeking to find prior art, presumably for the purpose of invalidating an issued patent. It appears that the members are given the task of finding such art with (often substantial) monetary rewards, if the newly found art can be used either alone or in combination with other art to establish anticipation or to render the patent obvious. That is my view of Article One Partners.
Zacked -- What is the significance of the 27th?
JP: responding to your "enigmatic" comment, that is why NEOM absolutely MUST go forward with this lawsuit, and avoid settlement at all costs UNLESS SB pays the license fee and royalties that NEOM determines is justified. NEOM must establish, for SB as well as any and all current and future infringers, that the NEOM IP must be respected, and the use of such IP comes at a dear price.
Clawmann: I am most grateful for your well thought out responses and hope I can assist you sometime(s). Are you an IP attorney? I am not able to send private messages -- for the record, though, I am a shareholder; have been for MANY years. I was originally quite impressed with the technology with its many applications and potential uses, and still am. I have been a part of the IP community since about 1970 when I became a US Patent Examiner. I entered US IP law practice in the late 70's as an Attorney, and have been involved as a practicing IP attorney ever since. While I don't have the ability to send private posts, are there any proscriptions against giving one another private emails?
Clawmann: Unless I am missing the point, I cannot understand what the fuss is over the NEOM PR -- even if it could be interpretted as a threat to SB, so what? What is SB going to do? Challenge the validity of the NEOM patent(s)? What better place to do that than in the currently pending infringement case (but they better have REAL good prior art)? And I would be very surprised if that is not one of SB's defenses. Frankly, if SB were really smart, it would have engaged Article One Partners to help them find invalidating prior art.
NeilPeart makes a great point (see his post #179845) when he says "NeoMedia might want more than Scanbuy is willing to pay".
I have recently been involved in a similar situation as part of a plaintiff's suit for patent infringement. It appears to me that Scanbuy is thumbing its nose at NEOM, perhaps hoping NEOM's lack of, or diminishing, finances will cause it to buckle, or at least soften.
But frankly, if the defendant/SCANBUY is cutting deals with new partners but hasn't made a committed effort to get on board with a licensing arrangement, like other players in the same technology space, and basically is just paying lip service to the notion of taking a license, I would say "the heck with the defendant" -- NEOM has contingency attorneys (who by the way are most likely pushing a resolution by way of settlement, along with the court), so let's make the contingent fee attorneys earn their keep and tell them to press on with the lawsuit.
Once the plaintiff's case is made, if Scanbuy's defense is anything like their defense in their copyright infringement case, you can be darn sure they will be clamoring for a license.
And at that point, NEOM can put the screws to SB (royalties for all deals -- licenses, joint venture agreements, sublicenses, etc. -- SB has made to date, and into the future).
If SB does not make a deal before trial, NEOM should go for the kill. Put SB out of business (wonder how long SB has been infringing with notice from NEOM, how much $$ SB has made as a result thereof, and how much punitive (treble) damages NEOM might be entitled to obtain). Perhaps if SB's actions are viewed as extremely aggregious by the court, there will also be exemplary damages levied against SB.
Poptech -- have you even bothered to read the information in the link? Note that Eolas v Microsoft, 399 F. 3rd 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005) -- a software case -- is discussed in pertinent part.
Clawmann and Poptech
please see my post #179771
But that may not be the entire basis for IM's statement...35 USC 271(f) may support damages and other remedies for actions or activities of "infringing" entities outside of US borders.
Take a look at
http://www.wptn.com/wptn-in/Mailing/Mar_15/details/Patent/how_3.html
Is this new information or a repeat?
I spotted this article:
http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/commerce/2962.html,
and after reading it, I better understood this:
http://www.gomonews.com/visa-connects-to-operators-worldwide-through-neustar-for-mobile-payments/
and the potential revenue stream for NEOMEDIA.
This could be one of the huge developments that were disclosed in the recent interview by Bena, and that will be impacting the NEOM pps in the near term.
Relative to your statement (in Post #167392) that "if they use our tech (a method covered by one or more of our patents) they owe us money just the same", I would suggest that two major considerations in determining whether "they" owe money, and if so how much, are the notions of PATENT MISUSE and ANTI-TRUST.
I am sure alot of us here on this board are wondering why ScanBuy doesn't just "get on with it" -- take the darn license already!! Maybe that is/was one of their defenses, and maybe that defense has some teeth to it.
Maybe the NEOMEDIA/SCANBUY case should be litigated -- that way the issue and any possible defense based on it could be resolved once and for all.