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.
That's a very interesting development.
Is NEOM involved?
BTW, I thought I've read an opinion here that financial transactions would never be done via a QR Code..not secure.
Apparently, that's not the case.
Official where?
vero,
IMO, that's an amazing synopsis/analysis of this long, winding journey, and also IMO, could be (and hopefully for all of us stalwart longs) prophetic.
I've saved your post, and may it come to fruition soon.
Very insightful IMO.
Anyone new here, who wants to know what's the story, could start with your post, and follow up with digging into the details for themselves.
Agreed; those are statements (ie "facts" as they've yet disproved by ANY sort of link showing otherwise)
Facts, among those that could support the allegations in the lawsuit.
I'd imagine these could be among the facts that NeoMedia and their attorneys could wield, that support those allegations and many others.
None here either.
Very interesting that "Indirect QR Codes" is used 30 times in the lawsuit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/223867057/NeoMedia-Technologies-v-Scanbuy
I believe the post needs no further clarification, and I suggest all read the lawsuit if they have not done so already:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/223867057/NeoMedia-Technologies-v-Scanbuy
It's very clear that what my "observations" point out are significant, and so significant that on the same sort of "observations" that NeoMedia and attorneys have filed suit against ScanBuy. hello.
Thanks though for replying to that post so that more people see its contents, good stuff!
I believe the court will recognize the "significance" too; where they will strip away obfuscations The court will not be susceptible to obfuscating, and won't look favorably at the continued blatant disregard by Scanbuy for the court's prior decisions.
I really like the fact that NeoMedia let Scanbuy's actions play out, giving them enough rope, as the saying goes, to hang themselves with.
hi wilma,
yes, and NeoMedia probably thought Scanbuy would abide by the legal decision(!) also, as detailed in the new lawsuit, they probably thought they would not provide inaccurate financial statements(!) nor disparage them in public and private(!) to shared prospects.
Now, not only does NeoMedia know differently, so will the court (and the jury).
I like BeConfident's idea for requesting summary judgement,also.
Yup, no such links exist.
ie Nowhere does Scanbuy call MFR a patent troll.
Nowhere does MFR refer to themselves as a patent troll.
Love it.
On the other hand, Scanbuy uses terms like
"frivolous" lawsuit by patent trolls,
ie "How to stop frivolous QR code patent attacks"
and "Don't become another victim of patent troll tactics"
blah blah blech. Sounds derogatory eh.
All real NEOM shareholders will enjoy seeing the progress of the lawsuit against Scanbuy.
That term "patent troll" doesn't apply to NeoMedia. It does apply to MFR, it seems, from their own descriptions.
I would ask; where are the links to where MFR calls their own business "patent troll" (or patent trolling if you prefer)?? if it is such a benign name, and a recognized business model, surely MFR would embrace it and use that term abundantly on their own website and press releases.
Also, where are links to where ScanBuy calls MFR a "patent troll"??
Why would MFR, a patent troll, be critiquing NeoMedia's alleged (without support) business model if it is one they (MFR) themselves utilize?
Many questions all along about those inconsistencies.
Not directed toward your post, but into the thread on the topic.
Thumbs up!
None of that applies to NeoMedia for sure.
Now, the ironic part is, all of that that ScanBuy put out there about NeoMedia seems to exactly describe ScanBuy's corporate friend, Marshall Feature Resolution.
Perhaps this is their second chance to do so.
This time, they seem to have demonstrated their opinion that they are above the law, by not complying with prior agreements and court decisions. Perhaps we will be very pleased with the outcome this time around. We'll see
Enjoy, indeed. Thanks for the link AlfonszyD.
Let's hope that THIS TIME, ScumBuy gets exactly what they deserve:
Cease and desist, pay up for what was owed before and additional for all the additional itemized damages. - let's see it happen this time.
Not just say they will, let's see them actually perform as the legal decision requires this time.
Does this March 25th Tweet relate to the Wendy's mobile payment functionality?
It says this:
NeoMedia ?@neomediainc Mar 25
Want the best in-app barcode scanning? #NeoReader SDK seamlessly integrates into your existing app Free 30-day trial: http://bit.ly/VvThKI
and links to this:
http://www.neom.com/solutions/neoreader/SDK
That is the same link where the language implies that ScanBuy paid for the Microsoft Tag tech/customers, as someone commented on earlier - which you pointed out wasn't accurate, so you are saying that link is right when it agrees with your satisfaction, but it is wrong when it doesn't?
And if accurate, why omit Microsoft from the list on their site? As you commented yourself, why would you want to leave a company off if they are an observer on your board?
I think that about sums it up, thank you anyway.
Have a great day, Poptech.
No, Pop, the point is Google is not an observer on ScanBuy's board, Motorola Mobility is - which is being sold off by Google.
And, also everyone's other point is, Microsoft is not listed as observer nor otherwise on the list which as you pointed out, lists board observers.
Since Google decided to sell Motorola Mobility,
can one really say Google is even an observer at ScanBuy?
Isn't it more accurate to now say Motorola Mobility is an observer?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-sells-motorola-mobility-to-lenovo-for-291-billion/2014/01/29/92836bce-8932-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html
And, they are really observers because they are venture capitalists, they have an investment in ScanBuy - that's why they are observing.
ie
http://www.dypadvisors.com/2010/12/01/venture-capitalist-board-observers-entrepreneurs-guide/
What is the difference between board member and observer?
It seems observers can't vote, for one.
This would be a great sticky.
1. Factual
2. Reference
3. Posts to the contrary seem to happen often.
"...provided however that Scanbuy shall take no action to terminate the Exclusive Patent License Agreement solely in order to terminate the sublicense granted to NeoMedia herein. The sublicense to NeoMedia granted in this section shall subsist so long as Scanbuy has a license to MFR Licensed Patents,..."
Exactly. Irrevocable: the key word here.
"irrevocable"
NeoMedia's license of Scanbuy/MFR patents is irrevocable.
Thanks Woven for the link and the reminder.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1022701/000114420409053757/v163276_ex10-1.htm
2.2. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and for the consideration recited herein, Scanbuy grants to NeoMedia (a) a paid-up, irrevocable, non-exclusive license under the Scanbuy Licensed Patents within the Territory and (b) a paid-up, non-exclusive sublicense under the MFR Asserted Patent as well all of the patents of MFR licensed to Scanbuy (collectively, “MFR Licensed Patents”), for all systems and methods, in whole or in part, made, used, offered for sale, sold or imported in the United States by which a cellular/mobile device is used or can be used to read or enter bar codes or other machine readable codes to access content or information or trigger phone functionalities. There is no right to sublicense granted herein, except that it is understood that parties contracting with NeoMedia to operate in the Territory and within the Field of Use under the rights granted herein to NeoMedia (“NeoMedia Clients”) will fall within the license and sublicense granted to NeoMedia, but such NeoMedia Clients have no rights separate and apart from those extended to NeoMedia herein.
It's pretty obvious why.
Someone can pull out the quotes from ScanBye's PRs, etc, right.
Excellent post, lesnshawn.
Great points.
ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Microsoft put a tombstone on it. Good enough.
Hehehe. Well, we shall see if indeed the NEOM-MSFT agreement would have any sort of loophole such that some entity that was previously covered by a direct license agreement could somehow try to violate said direct license agreement and try to claim to be later covered by a subsequent agreement.
We shall see.
Who's bringing the popcorn for the show?!
Precisely! Thank you for supporting the first part of my statement.
As for the rest, I would not be at all surprised if ScamBye did not compensate Microsoft (not the other way around) for taking over this obsolete, defunct business that Microsoft was clearly ready to be rid of.
And, as you supported and confirmed, there is no government requirement for ScamBye to disclose any of that.
Since ScamBye is a privately held company and needn't disclose this, and it's such a minor transaction to Microsoft that it wouldn't show up in THEIR public filings, but...
How do we know that ScamBye didn't pay for the "privilege" of servicing Microsoft's client's of an obsolete code such as Microsoft TAG?
SO how would that be a positive for ScamBye to announce it as such anyway? and what sort of government guidelines are there that apply to a privately held company for PR announcements? Meh.
Be Confident: Thanks for keeping us updated on licensed (ie relvant) ie legal partners of NeoMedia.
It sure is.
No, that's Maryann.
RIP. Such a great lady.
Thanks for the link, canuck, showing that YA did hire a former SEC lawyer (ironically, he used to investigate PIPE deals in the New York division.)
Could be; as nothing is available publicly that is unredacted. Strange.
Has anyone been able to find a link to the unredacted version of the arbitration agreement? I can't seem to find this information publicly available anywhere....
Thanks in advance all.
NeoMedia is not a patent troll. In fact, ScanBuy has partnered with a poster child for patent trolls if you look into them: Marshall Feature Recognition MFR.
Thanks Personalizit,
maybe you should clarify by asking for links showing that the entire contents of the 95 claims were not consolidated into the 89 claims. Which the reply you received does not do.
lesnshawn, 5 Star Post, with facts and links no less.
Indeed; great chart set up and short squeeze.
Gotta love the irony of MFR putting out white papers etc about "patent trolls", and then within weeks file 4 patent infringement lawsuits themselves.
I guess patent infringement lawsuits - protecting your OWN patent rights - is only considered "frivolous" by MFR and ScanBuy if they aren't the ones doing it.
LOL. Not a very compelling campaign, IMO, when they have to try to explain (unsuccessfully) why they themselves aren't a patent troll as they try to describe in their papers.