Which leads to this piece of crap recycled PR fluff
"which allows barcodes from any advertiser or brand to be linked to web content independently of the barcode reader or service provider being used."
What baloney.
"Direct barcodes have the URL of the associated content embedded in the code. With indirect barcodes, the URL is of an intermediate web site where the code is looked up in a database and the corresponding content URL is returned. This means that the content URL is dynamic and can be updated."
Yes folks step right up, this is what Neomedia have patented and now are demanding Patent payments in order to do and what Neustar and the carriers are setting up to demand payments from content publishers to use.
"For example, it prevents counterfeit barcodes associated with the brand being used to execute fraud or copyright infringement"
Rofl
"and it means advertisers can customize and update the content associated with a barcode"
You mean like they couldn't change the content on their own server that the URL leade to before? hmm please speak more about these amazing powers you have.
"Neustar will charge a transaction fee per scan for use of the clearinghouse".
Ah yes now i see it.....
My comment that i posted on the article if they dont get deleted were.
Neustar clearinghouse is crap, it's a scam by certain people in the industry to make money from 2D Codes under the guise of "greasing the ecosystem means this thing will move forward".
You dont need to "grease" anything.
Any camera equipped smartphone can download a QR reader, regardless of what your carrier pre-loads.
Denso Wave the inventors of QR codes do not charge patent payments for the publishing or reading of QR codes.
Any content publisher can create QR codes for free without payment to anyone, regardless of what some scam artists say.
- QR codes dont need a clearhouse.
- Consumers dont need to pay.
Reporters need to do more research than simply quoting PR baloney.
Cheers,
Dean Collins
www.Cognation.net/QR
BTW- notice to @PopTechnology, because i cant post on your neom scam site, I'm posting a reply here.
ReplyDeleteMy point is NOT what value is Neustar adding but what value is Neomedia adding! Their patent on the back of denso waves development is what i have the most issue with.
Hi Dean,
ReplyDeleteHow is it possible that Neomedia use QR Code and make money on it ?
Thks
JA
They want to charge people for each transaction people use via their clearinghouse.
ReplyDeleteSo if Ford implement a QR code that goes via the Neomedia clearinghouse they want to charge Ford each time a consumer clicks on a QR link.
That would be ok but they are thretening people with a patent that they say everyone using QR codes should pay, it's on the back of this that Neustar is getting involved.
The issue here is that if Denso dont charge to use QR codes how can neomedia say they invented the way to implement QR codes.
Like i said i just tell people publish away and lets see if the neomedia patents are enforceable in court. I think it's all a PR scam to keep up their stock price.
@Cloud3 - Yep i do like to through the word scam around whenever another company claims to have IP that couldn't have existed without Denso first implementing QR codes in the first place.
ReplyDeleteLets see what happenes when Neomedia goes to sue someone who says "See you in court". (note i said see you in court, not someone who just rolls over and pays a pittance for "perpetual license rights").
If Neomedia are so worried about their current financial situation/stock price they should go out and sue Microsoft for their implementation of Microsoft tags which is a direct violation of the Neomedia patents.
I guess Neomedia dont want to lose their glorified "IP" as you'll then see the emporer is wearing no clothes and the PR BS being sprouted is a scam.
What doesn't make sense to me, they've actually patented lookup url indirection? On top of the free-to-use QR standard? WTH? This can be accomplished with standard web technologies right now, I'm using url redirects for my QR based service, but not with the intent of charging per transaction, that's BS. yeesh.
ReplyDeleteSo what is the current view on this IPR issue.
ReplyDeleteHi Peter, i havent been keeping up, needless to say i think it died a bastards death.
ReplyDeleteI certainly havent heard of them suing anyone successfully.
I also havent heard of CTIA proceeding with their clearinghouse concept - think people woke up and smelt the BS.
lol reading the typo mistakes here eek.
ReplyDeletei guess i was steamed up that morning and was typing with a fury.
in retrospect good to see the whole thing just died like the bad idea it was.