Comments on Sandira - through the looking glass: ShopSavvy and mobile barcoding, what about Scanbuy...

Nice posts William!From the case study:"During ree...

2009-02-26T12:59:00.000-08:00

Nice posts William!

From the case study:

"During reexamination, NeoMedia clarified that (1) the bar code resolution database resides on a remote server computer, (2) the database stores predetermined relationships that link bar code data to a pointer (e.g. a URL) and (3) the pointer is returned from the database to the user device to enable that user device to communicate with the remote information computer directly (such as with a browser redirect command). Further according to Dennis Priddy, NeoMedia is unaware of any instance in commercial use today where the resolution database resides anywhere but a remote server computer. From a practical commercial standpoint the '048 patent has clarified and strengthened, not narrowed."

It appears browser redirects are covered by the '048 patent!

:-)

Maybe this helps answer that question:CASE STUDY -...

2009-02-26T11:31:00.000-08:00

Maybe this helps answer that question:

CASE STUDY - REEXAMINATION OF US PATENT NO. 6,199,048

http://www.barkume.com/Site/IP_News/Entries/2009/2/25_CASE_STUDY_-_REEXAMINATION_OF_US_PATENT_NO._6%2C199%2C048.html

I wasn't asking for a legal ruling, just your pers...

2009-02-26T09:10:00.000-08:00

I wasn't asking for a legal ruling, just your personal reasoning on the question. Yes, it is merely a thought exercise in this forum, but can anyone can even guess at an argument in favor?

Above you seemed comfortable enough with this area to talk about who might infringe on what; now you completely 'dunno'. It's OK, Street can't answer it either, nor anyone else it seems.

Alexander: First, I am an investor in Neomedia. No...

2009-02-26T09:04:00.000-08:00

Alexander: First, I am an investor in Neomedia. Nothing more. Second, if Neomedia has told ShopSavvy that its app does not infringe, that's good enough for me. They are in a far far better position than I am to make that call.

Alex here from the ShopSavvy team. Anyway, I have...

2009-02-26T08:58:00.000-08:00

Alex here from the ShopSavvy team. Anyway, I have reached out to the NeoMedia team several times since last year. I even emailed and called their investors. Not a single person I talked to indicated they felt our application infringed on their patents. They indicated they were aware of us and our application, but that they did not think we used their technology as they claim ScanBuy has. I am happy to discuss this further with NeoMedia. FYI - NeoMedia claims that streetstylz is not an employee, contractor, officer or director of their company and that he does not speak for the company.

srowen: One more thing; you seem to believe that t...

2009-02-26T08:54:00.000-08:00

srowen: One more thing; you seem to believe that the USPTO did not consider the issue of "obviousness". But I am pretty certoian they did.

That is the very point of the prior art review.

"While there are many different grounds on which a patent can be invalidated, the most common one is that the invention is found to be not novel or obvious in the light of the prior art."

http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/

srowen: I am not schooled in the tech sufficiently...

2009-02-26T08:45:00.000-08:00

srowen: I am not schooled in the tech sufficiently to even venture an answer to that question. That does not mean it can't be answered, it just means I'm not the guy.

And I doubt that anyone who is in a position to answer that question (either Neomedia's lawyers or engineers) would agree to answer that question outside of a legal proceeding leading to a legally binding decison on the issue. Otherwise, it's just an argument. Whether a claimed invention is "obvious" or not is a fact-dependent legal determination; and that determination cannot be made without a strong professional understanding of the applicable legal standards.

The fact remains that the patent is entitled, right now , to a presumption of legal validity.

No, or else I would not have asked it, right?The r...

2009-02-26T08:14:00.000-08:00

No, or else I would not have asked it, right?

The re-exam answered the question, does the new prior art form a basis to invalidate the patent claims? Unfortunately the USPTO only amended the claims.

The re-exam did not comment on the more interesting question of whether this isn't all obvious in the first place. The patent's existence implies the USPTO didn't find it obvious, but this is the same organization that allowed a patent on buying with a click.

I, at least, have never found the USPTO reasoning on non-obviousness, and would like to see it.

But William the question was directed at you (and Street again) -- if you believe the patent is valid, what is non-obvious, novel or unexpected about combining a UPC code, a lookup, and URLs this way?

" would again love to hear someone advance an argu...

2009-02-26T08:06:00.000-08:00

" would again love to hear someone advance an argument that the result of the system described was not what they would expect. There has been curious silence on this question... tough one isn't it!"

Don't you think that that question was asked and answered during the reexamination?

Agree, we live within the law whether right or wro...

2009-02-26T07:05:00.000-08:00

Agree, we live within the law whether right or wrong. Issued patents must be presumed valid until reason suggests otherwise.

I am repudiating the broad suggestion that somehow this patent -- bad or not -- applies to, in particular, my project, Google, or ShopSavvy.

Your last statement is a logical fallacy -- "Airclic doesn't infringe because it has X" does *not* imply "ShopSavvy infringes because it doesn't have X". There are more direct reasons it does not seem this patent applies.

The narrowing from the reexam seems to clearly restrict this to situations where the system has established "predetermined relationships" between code and URL. That doesn't seem to describe a proxy for comparison shopping results. The patent is also restricted to situations where the client receives a URL or pointer to information -- not where the server accesses the information.

We aren't lawyers I guess, but you'd have to even make a layman's argument that this applies to get started here.

As for Google or my project, well, nobody's backed up that claim with any actual specific reason they think there is an infringement, which is as I expect.

It's not disputed that the elements involved in the patent claims were pre-existing -- URLs, barcodes, servers, etc. The patent hinges on a novel and unexpected result from the combination of these.

I would again love to hear someone advance an argument that the result of the system described was not what they would expect. There has been curious silence on this question... tough one isn't it!

I have learned not to trust or rely on the EFF's P...

2009-02-26T04:44:00.000-08:00

I have learned not to trust or rely on the EFF's PR's regarding the success of its patent-busting project.

Clearly, the EFF was way off base last summer when it claimed it had achieved a victory against Neomedia as a result of the USPTO issuance of an explicitly "non-final" rejection of all 95 claims in Neomedia's 048 patent.

From those premature PR's to the words the EFF uses (like "bogus" and "lame") the organization comes off as emotional and immature. One has to wonder how sophisticated the EFF really is.

Anyone remotely familiar with the detailed mechanics of USPTO's ex parte review process would/should know that a "non-final" rejection of all the claims in the challenged patent is very often the initial outcome. The process is set up in such a way as to discourage the patent holder from responding to the challenge at the first stage.

Indeed, many experienced patent lawyers advise their clients not to respond to the challenge itself, but to wait for the "non-final" rejection and then to challenge that. This "waiting" strategy has the advantage of locking the original ex parte challeger (in this case, the EFF) out of the process once the initial non-final rejection has been issued.

This is s very solid legal strategy for a patent holder that is interested in the best ultimate outcome; the disadvantage is that -by not responding to the initial chllenge - the USPTO has to make its initial "non-final" decision solely on the basis of what the challenger has submitted. Therefore, the patent-holder must often endure an initial "non-final" rejection.

Kudos to Neomedia's lawyers for their professional conduct of this process.

Also, as for EFF's recent spin PR that the patents were somehow "narrrowed": well, that "narrowing" had - in practice - already occurred some years ago as a result of the Neomedia/Airclic litigation. The new consolidation of the 95 claims into 89 claims with some modification is - in essence - an incorporation into the patent of the results of that litigation. Bottom line: the patent now more clearly covers what Neomedia wants and intended it to cover.

To srowen: You of course are entitled to your opinion that this is a "bad patent". Nevertheless, as you seem to accept, the patent does enjoy a presumption of legal validity unless and until a court holds otherwise. And that prospect just became somehat less likely as a result of the UPTO's review and reissuance.

To BiginJapan: I have now read several reviews of Shopsavvy and, it appears to me at least that ou tech does indeed use a camera-enabled hand-held device to take a picture of a barcode and to indirectly connect over the internet to a server. That does not strike me as a closed system that, ala Airclic, would be outside the scope of the patent. Perhaps you need to run this issue past Shpsavvy's legal counsel for his/her opinion.

According to NeoMedia's new CEO Iain McCready:"We ...

2009-02-24T12:52:00.000-08:00

According to NeoMedia's new CEO Iain McCready:

"We are committed to open and reasonable licensing of our patents, but that doesn't mean companies can just ignore us and go ahead anyway."

Comparison shopping via UPC codes is explicitly covered by the following NeoMedia patent:

Patent #6,651,053 — Interactive system for investigating products on a network

An interactive search system for use with a global computer network, e.g., the Internet, using a search identifying barcode to rapidly and effectively obtain a supply of related information for presentation to a user. A computer, either landline based or mobile, may be used to input a UPC code, taken from a package or advertisement or prestored in the computer, to an implementing server on the network. The server contains a database of product and manufacturer identifying UPC codes and uses the input UPC code and the database to identify the manufacturer and is programmed to then perform a search of the network to locate sites relating to or operated by the manufacturer. Also, the server may search the network on a product basis to locate other sites containing the UPC under search. Using “parsing” technology, the server “pulls out” the product description, transmits it to and places it in a random access memory (RAM) or storage of the computer, and proceeds to perform further searching relying on the product description to uncover relevant information. Accordingly, using a single input, a collection of product-related and manufacturer information is quickly assembled in the computer available for a user’s consideration all at once at any time.

To be clear, the USPTO did not actually restore 95...

2009-02-24T12:39:00.000-08:00

To be clear, the USPTO did not actually restore 95 claims. It restored many, with modification. The modifications clarify and narrow the scope of the patent.

In particular the patent is more narrowly restricted, it appears, to systems wherein a remote server has pre-established mappings between identifiers and URLs.

Street in answer to your question, it seems that anything that does not resolve a UPC against a remote server is not in question here. (I think you agree the 'direct encoding' method is certainly not covered, based on several earlier emails).

That seems to rule out anything Google has done, or anyone using QR Codes or Data Matrix in the natural 'direct' way. For UPC, if I construct a URL like 'http://google.com/product?upc=2385923855' from a UPC code, that also seems out of scope since no remote server is involved.

If I send the UPC code to a server, which then returns information or a URL, that also seems out of scope since there was no specific, predefined mapping for that UPC. This is, at best, what comparison shopping apps do.

So there are two answers to your question.

I don't think this patent -- bogus or otherwise -- pertains to much of anything people are doing in the real world with barcodes, if it pertains to anything at all. This is in part due to the narrowing of its claims from the re-exam.

Street, separately, I'd be advised that we have already had conversations with Neomedia in the past, and it appears they don't agree with you. It would be hard for them to reverse this position. I just note it so you can gauge how much hope you want to pin on your investee shaking down deep pockets for money.

Is this really a company you want to be a volunteer cheerleader for? they managed to lose your money so far.

@ Sean OwenI'm sure RIM didn't beleive that they w...

2009-02-24T10:31:00.000-08:00

@ Sean Owen

I'm sure RIM didn't beleive that they were infringing any of NTP's patents either. $612.5 Million dollars later..... I think you catch my drift.

I strongly believe that the Google backed ShopSavvy & CompareEverywhere applications are infringing upon multiple NeoMedia patents.

I'd be curious to know how you directly encode a URL within an already existing UPC barcode without resolving an identifier to a URL on a remote server.

Either way, this will be for NeoMedia's and Google's legal teams to hash out and/or the courts if it goes that far. Not you.

Street the EFF requested the reexam in 2007 (which...

2009-02-24T03:31:00.000-08:00

Street the EFF requested the reexam in 2007 (which is < 2008), so maybe that is the most direct way to answer whatever odd conspiracy theory you're positing. I don't think anyone was "sent" to the EFF, and this is, honestly, a small-time issue in the scheme of things anyway.

I am sure Google, like most every company, has an interest in seeing bad patents invalidated. I think this is one of them. Unfortunately the right thing does not always happen in the world.

Street to think there is any kind of settlement coming, you have to think someone is infringing on a valid patent. You've already said yourself you don't think Google infringes on any Neomedia patent, for what that's worth. More importantly, we have heard the same from Neomedia itself. Last we spoke with the CEO they indicated they are not interested in "patent trolling" anymore. If nothing we've done infringes, that seems to rule out ShopSavvy, and others.

So I don't think Neomedia itself even agrees with you here. I'm just saying, maybe you could save yourself time and trouble by not throwing good time after a bad investment.

@ Sean OwenYou state:"I suppose one could blame th...

2009-02-23T22:43:00.000-08:00

@ Sean Owen

You state:

"I suppose one could blame the EFF for not making a better case, but, they don't have the resources."

It should be noted that Senior Staff Attorney for the EFF, Michael Kwun, used to represent Google.

Mr. Kwun came to the EFF from Google in June 2008:
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/06/09

Did Google have a vested interest in challenging NeoMedia’s patent via the EFF? Did Google send one of their top lawyers to the EFF to help Paul Grewal and James Czaja of Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder? Now that Michael Kwun and the EFF have failed in their attempts to invalidate one of NeoMedia’s core patents, will we see Scanbuy step up to the settlement table? What about a multi million dollar licensing agreement with Google & Big In Japan (ShopSavvy)? Will NeoMedia be enlisting the services of Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP? Keep in mind that Wiley Rein & Fielding represented NTP on contingency in their $612.5 Million patent infringement victory against RIM (BlackBerry).

Sean you asked me, "You must believe that the patent in question is valid. I ask you, do you really believe in this patent? honestly? can you really say you think this is a nonobvious idea -- putting aside your financial interest in Neomedia?"

The answer to your question in YES. As a NeoMedia shareholder I have believed in NeoMedia's IP since day one, and have never wavered in that belief. I bet the farm on NeoMedia. And while my losses are simply paper losses -- haven't sold any stock -- I strongly believe that NeoMedia has a very bright future.

With former MMA president Laura Marriott joining NeoMedia's board and one of NeoMedia's core patents being upheld and validated by the USPTO, NeoMedia is now in the proverbial drivers seat and is anxious to license it's IP to those companies currently infringing on it's patented technology.

Cheers!

That's disgusting. Confusing too -- quite a 180 fo...

2009-02-23T18:02:00.000-08:00

That's disgusting. Confusing too -- quite a 180 for the USPTO. The reasoning in this statement still beggars belief, if like us you understand that QR Code and DNS and HTTP surely predated this patent. I suppose one could blame the EFF for not making a better case, but, they don't have the resources. It's a mistake, but one the world has to live with.

Street, your 'game on' comment confirms to me that you're looking at this as a simple contest, rather than considering what is actually correct here. From prior conversation I understand you lost a fair bit of money investing in Neomedia. I don't think that money is ever coming back. Look at NEOM's staggering balance sheet. Or for more fun, see how many decimal places the stock price has gone to now on the pink sheets. I think if you separated yourself from that concern, you'd agree this patent is not only obvious, but fails the prior art test. I am sad to see the USPTO got this wrong. You are in the unenviable position of having to argue this patent makes any sense!

Barkume & Associates Wins Reexamination Proceeding...

2009-02-23T17:41:00.000-08:00

Barkume & Associates Wins Reexamination Proceeding For NeoMedia

http://www.barkume.com/Site/Reexam_Win.html

Game on !!

:-)

Classic FUD at work. Neomedia seems to have used t...

2009-02-18T18:01:00.000-08:00

Classic FUD at work. Neomedia seems to have used their patent portfolio against Scanbuy as a competitive weapon. Another case of patent trolling: lawyers instead of innovation.

I find it odd that Neomedia thinks that proprietary standards and solutions have a place in today's, let alone tomorrow's, marketplace given the undeniable trend towards open standards and open source. How one hopes to achieve market share through closed solutions is beyond me. "Pay me or don't dare to enter this space."

The U.S. market needs barcodes tied to URLs. Japan has 'em, Europe has 'em, almost everyone else does too to some degree or another. To try to leverage questionable IP against competitors is the work of a cowardly, bullying intellectual midget.

Denso Wave put the QR patents out there, Symbol put the PDF 417 patents out there. Come on Neomedia, step to the plate. If your mobile phone ad model is so good come out and compete on a level playing field. I dare ya!

You lay claim to the concept of UPC barcode lookup in a database returning a web page. Does Google or Amazon give you licensing fees for that? Are you going to start bullying little guys, build up a warchest and move up the food chain? Or are you going to go after Amazon & Google, and then intimidate everyone else into paying inflated fees?

I know. You'll copy the RIAA and go after individual web surfers who scan barcodes and land on web pages from their cell phones.

Inquiring minds want to know...

In the spirit of open disclosure, I own Azalea Software, own both a G1 and an iPhone, and am the guy behind barcodes.azalea.com. Yep, we used ZXing and there's more where that came from!

Jerry Whiting
azalea.com/about
JetCityOrange.com/barcodes/tattoos
BarcodeNerds.blogspot.com
and all the rest of my sites

I'll add to that that I've spoken to Chip, the for...

2008-12-24T05:41:00.000-08:00

I'll add to that that I've spoken to Chip, the former CEO of Neomedia, and he never mentioned anything about patents, and was only supportive of Google / Barcode Scanner. I understand street is claiming that Barcode Scanner is OK because it does something different to ShopSavvy or CompareEverywhere in this regard, but I don't see the difference myself. Therefore I take this as an indication that actual employees of Neomedia do not obviously agree with street. Which is good, because I don't either.

@chadWe had two different IP litigation firms revi...

2008-12-23T21:03:00.000-08:00

@chad

We had two different IP litigation firms review NeoMedia's method patents as well as our own (i.e. ShopSavvy) methods. Without even commenting on whether or not NeoMedia's patents are worth the paper they are written on - both lawyers, working independently, could not find a single method that we used that NeoMedia claims in its various patents. No one from NeoMedia has EVER contacted our company. The only people who suggest our methods infringe on the methods claimed by NeoMedia are people like streetstylz and yourself (chad).

srowen "I similarly assert, myself, that ShopSavvy...

2008-12-23T18:51:00.000-08:00

srowen "I similarly assert, myself, that ShopSavvy infringes no valid patents that I know of."

I disagree, Scanlife and ShopSavvy both infringe on Neomedia patents.

NeoMedia's CEO Iain McCready, "Our willingness to share our expertise and license our IP are important factors in helping the industry gain momentum right now. We have developed flexible and creative IP licensing models that respond to the varying needs in the marketplace."

The USPTO will rule soon enough.

Coming in late to say I agree with BiginJapan.Stre...

2008-11-25T15:50:00.000-08:00

Coming in late to say I agree with BiginJapan.

Street you should be clearer about your affiliation with Neomedia. You originally suggested to me you work for them, but I think you are just an investor? Either should be acknowledged. If you are an employee you should be careful about posting claims of infringement all over the web, as you are not a lawyer. This could land Neomedia in legal trouble.

All of one of Neomedia's key patents have been rejected. You can note that there is an appeals process, yes, but until anyone hears further the patent no longer exists. Unless you can suggest a reason to believe the USPTO will reverse itself again, I think it is disingenuous to continue posting this same message all over the web.

As a layman, I will say what everyone is thinking, that the Neomedia patent you cite is plainly obvious, and therefore invalid. The USPTO is signaling to the community that all Neomedia's claims in this area are quite questionable at best. Neomedia would therefore have an incredibly hard time pursuing patent claims against anyone at this time. I think a court would find that anyone has reason to believe these patents are invalid. This is just a personal suggestion from me to you to give up on this.

I will assert again that the project I work on (zxing) has absolutely no reason to think anything it is doing, including the simple scanning of barcodes and linking to Google services, infringes on patents (or else we wouldn't do it.) I similarly assert, myself, that ShopSavvy infringes no valid patents that I know of.

To draw the final analogy you make, you must believe that the patent in question is valid. I ask you, do you really believe in this patent? honestly? can you really say you think this is a nonobvious idea -- putting aside your financial interest in Neomedia? I rather suspect you don't.

In which case... please stop posting this same old message all over the web.

@ biginjapanOn the surface, ShopSavvy really isn't...

2008-10-01T23:56:00.000-07:00

@ biginjapan

On the surface, ShopSavvy really isn't much different than the now defunct Scanbuy Shopper application.

http://www.scanbuyshopper.com

Scanbuy Shopper was found to be infringing on NeoMedia's patents. Unfortunately Scanbuy did not want to license NeoMedia's IP so Scanbuy is no longer developing the mobile Shopping application.

There's a new movie opening this Friday called, Flash of Genius. It's a about a man who in 1960 invented and patented the modern day windshield wiper. However, the automobile industry refused to acknowledge his contribution and actually stole his invention claiming it as their own. So Robert Kearns embarked on a quest for recognition.

He started legal actions against Ford in 1978 and Chrysler in 1982. By 1995, after many court battles reaching to the Supreme Court, he had received approximately $30 million in compensation for their "non-deliberate" patent infringement.

You may also find NeoMedia's European patents of interest:

http://v3.espacenet.com/results?IA=neomedia&sf=q&FIRST=1&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPODOC

Regards

@ biginjapanYou state: "We don't take a picture of...

2008-10-01T19:13:00.000-07:00

@ biginjapan

You state: "We don't take a picture of a barcode. We don't send that picture or data to a URL."

I never stated that you do. What you've just described is Mobile Visual Search. This is the type of technology and process that Mobot uses.

NeoMedia's patents do not cover that process. Instead, NeoMedia's patented process (Indirect encoding) entails linking the target information to an index in a 1D UPC/EAN or 2D barcode. The code reader on the mobile phone scans the barcode and sends the code data over the Internet to a central resolution server that will tell the mobile phone what action is associated with the index, i.e. access a URL, price compare, download media, initiate a phone call, ect.

Patent #6,651,053 — Interactive system for investigating products on a network

An interactive search system for use with a global computer network, e.g., the Internet, using a search identifying barcode to rapidly and effectively obtain a supply of related information for presentation to a user. A computer, either landline based or mobile, may be used to input a UPC code, taken from a package or advertisement or prestored in the computer, to an implementing server on the network. The server contains a database of product and manufacturer identifying UPC codes and uses the input UPC code and the database to identify the manufacturer and is programmed to then perform a search of the network to locate sites relating to or operated by the manufacturer. Also, the server may search the network on a product basis to locate other sites containing the UPC under search. Using “parsing” technology, the server “pulls out” the product description, transmits it to and places it in a random access memory (RAM) or storage of the computer, and proceeds to perform further searching relying on the product description to uncover relevant information. Accordingly, using a single input, a collection of product-related and manufacturer information is quickly assembled in the computer available for a user’s consideration all at once at any time.