Replies to post #50431 on NeoMedia Technologies, Inc (NEOM)

[brewskih]

Dont forget they signed the LOI to purchase BSDS in 2003. Thats 2 full years and then some, and many here want to put the blame on the SEC for holding this deal up. It hasnt been the SEC that held the deal up, it was NEOMs management. Even this latest supposed hold up by the SEC was created by NEOM management releasing MOBOT news, if you want to believe thats what the hold up really is. I personally doubt thats the reason for the hold up, but thats my opinion and I am sticking to it.

[AirPocketDrop___YES]

How many press releases has the company issued since the so-called "quiet period" went into effect?

Answer: Like most P&Ds, volumes.

The "quiet period" is a red herring; smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that the company is making little, if any, material progress in the mobile marketing space.

Review some of my earlier notes on the "quiet period" issue -- not only is a "quiet period" self-enacted, the SEC actually encourages companies to keep shareholders and the general marketplace abreast of developments.

IMO, any success NEOM has in the mobile marketing space will be attributable to the company’s patent portfolio. If, and mind you it is a big IF, the patents cannot be circumvented by competitors, it is likely that revenue generated from the intellectual property will be derived by NEOM becoming a “patent squatter” – basically a company that never develops a operating model based on a in-house patent portfolio but uses the legal system in an attempt to extort capital from the companies that successfully do develop operating models.

Not only are “patent squatters” loathed within the business community, they have sparked debate amongst business ethicists.