One Voice Technologies, Inc. (fka OVOE)

[hans_gts]

The redeming value of this post, and the relevant predecessors, is that you have gone "on record" with a comprehensive description of your "best effort" understanding of not only ONEV's speech recognition as it pertains to NLP (Natural Language Processing, but also your comprehension of patents in general.

The misinformation and errors are so pervasive that a corrective coherrent response requires parsing:

"Ugo22, you truly have no idea what you are talking about."

That line should probably be moved to the end in order for the full effect of its irony to be realized.

ONEV's so called "patents" are of the most generic variety as to make them nearly worthless in my opinion.

They are not "so called", they are in fact patents, several of them, all vetted, approved and granted. The disingenuous reference to them being "so called" has nothing to do with the content, only who they were granted to. If the name had said NUANCE, the "so called" prefix would not be there.

Here is where it goes woefully astray:

Google basically built their own state-of-the-art speech interface for phones and indexing audio text with the ability to improve exponentially because interactive data trains the algorithms over time,

That must be copied and pasted out of context, you are confusing the keyword based searching that used the free 411 service to improve keyword recognition. That is different from contextual natural language processing. Improving keyword searching relates to correctly recognizing "Colorado", "Denver" "restaurant" "Denny's" no matter how many times it is said in different accents and pronouncations, Different ballpark, Chief!.

"There is nothing exceptionally novel about ONEV's patents. In my opinion Weber did no more than try to generically "patent" a basic template for a speech interface program back in 1999. The industrial equivalent of an individual attempting to patent the generic "shovel" or "rake" at the turn of the 20th century. Now you can call it a "fourth generation shovel" and decorate it with some fairly useless bells and whistles in ongoing patent claims, but at the end of the day, it's a shovel. A device to dig dirt."

Really !! So why did Google waste all that time and money trying to patent for themselves that same "basic template", "fourth generation shovel"?.

"And patent courts and patent attorneys see this type of deal a mile away. There are literally millions of these type of generic patents cluttering up governement archives across the country and no matter what type of innovative tech you create you will inevitably stumble across dozens of them on your way to bringing it to market. It's a simple part of the process."

Right you are.. just ask RIM about that "simple part of the process" .... a few years and nearly a Billion Dollars later...

"Google looked at all existing tech before they started development and found nothing that was suitable."

Suitable for what?

LOL!! you called and spoke to Sergey Brin. How can you make such an absolute statement?. They told you in confidence of this?. Perhaps that sentence is "out of context" Or, this is imagined, just pure speculation.

"That means ONEV in case you are wondering as an initial patent search would have revealed their supposed "claims".

You routinely sit on the BOD of GOOG?

"They could have had ONEV's tech for practically nothing at that time, but went through the exceptionally more expensive and time consuming process of inventing and patenting their own instead. Care to guess why? Now you are trying to claim Google needs something ONEV has. What? They could have had the whole company for practically nothing if what you claim they "need" truly existed."

He is not trying to claim Google needs something ONEV has. He is merely stating the obvious, Google made several attempts to include in their patents what ONEV had already patented. While I would like to applaud "UGO22"'s leading edge intuitive skills, unfortunately, he was not the first to make that observation. The US patent office beat him to it, and rejected it, it was an existing and approved patent.

"Instead they went forward, spent a LOT more money than ONEV would have cost to buy outright and trampled over their patents."

Wrong, the subject and entire article was about how they were prevented by the patent office from "trampling" over existing patents. In fact, should there be any subsequent patent infringement tort, the initial rejections by the Government, and subsequent corrections may well serve as prima facia evidence. Would certainly be a lot less complex than Verizon versus Vonage, or NTP versus Research in Motion.

Google's commitment to speech search is striking and will give MSFT and other real players a run for their money in other areas down the road.

What other areas ? They are focusing on searching via voice keywords, nothing new, they have been for years. Where have you been at:

Crica 2004:
----------------------------------
Internet company Google has been working on speech and multimedia content search on the Internet, but believes that text search will continue to be dominant in future.

"We believe text will remain dominant for many, many years," Google co-founder and President (products) Larry Page told reporters on Wednesday at the company's India R&D centre in Bangalore.
----------------------------------

"Nothing that ONEV does at this point is likely to earn them really significant, life altering revenue in this field in my opinion."

I believe that statement is superseded by the 1875 prior ones that states the same for "all" fields.

Their patents in which you have placed all your faith and money got hung out to dry and shriveled in the wind like a cheap suit. And it may not be the last time, who knows? To add to your misery, Google has been in India since 2004 working on introducing phone voice search and retrival engines in a variety of fields besides 411. The have a huge office in Bangalore staffed with East Indians engineers working to improve the various dialect recognition and VR personal information retrival integration.

They are just now perfecting and beginning to market tech that will coincide with ONEV's MV.

Watch Mantec and MTNL carefully once the free trial ONEV party is over and it's time to get serious. Google could crush them in a day if it looked like there was any significant revenue to be earned. Of course if there were, they'd already be there trying wouldn't they?


----------------------------------
Every once in a while I'm really surprised the response to a particular article. In this case, I quoted Dean Weber, President and CEO of One Voice Technologies, on the prediction of 90 million MIDs in 2012 (based on research from ABI Research). And I got an email the next day from Mr. Weber himself.

Over the next two years the size of the MID will become about the size of a current smartphone. This is about as small as they will probably go while keeping a reasonable screen size for full Internet browsing. One thing to keep in mind regarding the ABI Research prediction is that Apple has already shown the demand for a small fully functional web browser in their current iPhone. The iPhone is very much like a MID although the iPhone lacks WiMAX, video camera, etc. - I'm sure Apple has this in the works. You will see an overlap soon between the iPhone and MIDs and people will demand more functionality from their devices - like the functionality in a MID.

I was thinking about his statements when I posted about Intel's Silverthorne processor a few minutes ago and thought I should share his wisdom. I think he's on to something. One thing I hear consistently from my friends with iPhones is that they loving having a full browser. Maybe MIDs will bring that to me too, and 90 million will sell by 2012. And if One Voice Technologies has their way, all 90 million will be voice-controllable.
----------------------------------
http://www.gottabemobile.com/A+Word+From+One+Voice+Technologies.aspx


.."You want to research a real patent? Not some one size fits all, generic wild card stab at catching a chunk of change down the road from a patent infringment suit? Here:

United States Patent #7,027,987, which details voice interface for a search engine. Google co-founder Sergey Brin has his name on the patent, along with other Google employees and inventors Alexander Mark Franz, Monika H. Henzinger, and Brian Christopher Milch. While the patent is replete with arcane vocabulary and schematics concerning voice-processing technology, it also has sections that clearly discuss the future: "The client devices may include devices such as mainframes, minicomputers, personal computers, laptops, personal digital assistants, telephones, or the like, (read MIDs, big guy) capable of connecting to the network. The client devices may transmit data over the network or receive data from the network via a wired, wireless, or optical connection.

"or the like, (read MIDs, big guy)" So "or the like" equals MIDS

Which essentially claims, converting a voice search query to text:

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to information retrieval systems and, more particularly, to a system and method for supporting voice queries in information
retrieval systems.

----------------------------------
1. A method for providing search results, comprising:

receiving a voice search query from a user;

deriving one or more recognition hypotheses from the voice search query, each recognition hypothesis being associated with a weight and including one or more terms
----------------------------------
Nice try chief, but ONEV missed the bus and Google's trampling of their generic patents and rapid spread to ALL fields of VR proves it.

Cite references to "rapid spread" to ALL fields of of VR You may omit the current Google 411 FREE search, that does not generate profits.

"That and the fact they are already earning a TON of money at it despite"

Cite references that can be verified, that show Google is earning a "TON" of money from voice searches.


...ONEV supposedly "beating them to the punch" by nearly four entire years. Last guy to leave, turn out the lights. Party's over dude.

I am parking that in bin G, row 7, in between:

One Voice apparently NOT, repeat NOT in CompUSA stores anywhere.
And
But if it were to lead to a temporary cease and desist on the issue of shares in the form of convertible debentures or otherwise for any length of time, it could be fiscally catastrophic for the company...

and next to:

ONEV has NOTHING more to do with MCC. One shot. It's over.

Ya think:
..All the "super duper DD" above in my opinion. Have a nice day.

due diligence
Function: noun

1 : the care that a reasonable person exercises under the circumstances to avoid harm to other persons or their property
2 : research and analysis of a company or organization done in preparation for a business transaction (as a corporate merger or purchase of securities)