Replies to post #192888 on NeoMedia Technologies, Inc (NEOM)

[Poptech]

Howard: This obviously is a very emotional issue for some, but I am not sure I see the negative, or the reason for the deep-felt sentiment.

I missed about 10,000 posts and just don't have the background to understand the board's consensus. Maybe Clawmann is right and it was an intangible payment, and not an asset, but why does this matter?

I also think you misunderstand my opinion. I do not believe there are any future payments as JCG suggested. However, if there were no consideration, it should read "royalty-free." The missing words jumped off the page when I read the PR.

I am done discussing this one word.

Best of luck.

[Poptech]

Howard:

Maybe this will help you understand my very common point of view. It just occurred to me to look it up:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_fully_paid_up_license_mean_in_patent_settlement

"A 'fully paid up' license in a patent settlement means that the licensee is free to operate under that patent without the payment of any additional money. In essence, all royalties have been paid in advance. There may or may not be additional obligations that continue to run despite the absence of ongoing monetary obligations."

The bolded portion was exactly my point of view - seemingly shared by other people not associated with this deal and therefore probably not trying to irritate you.

A "fully paid up" license is very common today. This is now the basis of IBM's licensing program and most technology transfer centers.