NeoMedia Technologies, Inc (NEOM)

[jonesieatl]

cjzak , are you talking about my question to B.E. ....

.... which is the post of mine you are replying to?

That was a different subject entirely from your "this patent update" , but a valid subject , as that has to be a concern discussed/addressed at least briefly , at least one time , when you have an otcbb company for which 'patents' have been a significant factor and for which no good has come of them to shareholders other than some free 'licensing' or whatever that was to Virgin who took the easy way out ... free , and whatever little we got out of any other patent litigation.

I'm sorry that my asking B.E. for his 'inside' former-NEOM-employee opinion on the subject , and his subsequent 'clearing of that air' , causes any discomfort but that doesn't invalidate it as a bona fide topic of discussion , especially when it is asked of someone who could well have intimate and detailed knowledge of the subject matter.

Or are you talking about the fact that I was the first person to post the USPTO's most recent action and I have voiced my opinion on the meaning of it?

"It seems pretty clear that this is more procedural stuff than any big deal at this point"

My opinion differs from yours on that subject , but that doesn't mean you don't have the perfect right to express your opinion , just as I do to express mine.

IMO it is a VERY big deal.

Every one of those 95 claims was REJECTED by the USPTO upon reexamination.

If every one of those claims had been upheld this would have been touted as a GREAT thing to the high heavens! Logically then , if they are REJECTED , even in a non-final action , it has to be a BAD thing ... IMO.

Some are of the opinion that it is merely a procedural thing , or SOP , or USPTO 'rubber stamping EFF's reexam request' ... personally I think those are illogical interpretations of what just happened.

If the USPTO was going to 'rubber stamp' anything and if that was really what this was all about ... they could have done that long ago , months ago in fact. I for one don't think the USPTO is in the business of 'rubber stamping' anyone's re-exam requests.

It looks to me like Anjan Deb spent a LOT more time than just cursory 'procedural stuff' here , he provided very detailed and logical rationale for the rejection of each and every one of those 95 claims. But that's just my opinion.

As to 'hashing this to death' , have you ever thought that if I didn't receive so many contrary responses to my statements of my opinions on this subject , like the one I am replying to , statements in which I provide my substantiations of why I said what I said in each of my posts on the subject ... that there would be less of an opportunity for any 'hashing'?

Just because I am a shareholder doesn't mean I am going to 'post to my position' as I believe it is called. What's the point of that? I prefer to engage in logical debate on issues/events as they arise. Whether the logical / rational discussion takes things to a positive note or a negative note is immaterial ... in my opinion.

I hope this helps , and thanks for your input.

regards,

jonesie