Bypass Neomedia Patent for Indirect Resolution of Barcodes
Neomedia holds the patent 6,199,048 for indirect resolution of barcodes :
1.) the user initiates the code scan on his device and the scanner software retrieves the Identifier encoded in the barcode
2.) the scanner sends the Identifier to a online service to retrieve the associated URL
3.) the scanner is handing the URL to the browser or a different app to display the content
How about the following:
1.) the user initiates the code scan on his device and the scanner software retrieves the Identifier encoded in the barcode
2.) scanner uses the Identifier to assemble a URL like “http://www.online-db.com/resolve?id=[identifier]” and hands it *directly* to the browser
3.) the online service does a HTTP redirect to the content associated with the Identifier
That would turn indirect resolution into direct resolution insofar as the network triggers the final content URL and not the software on the device.
For the user the result is the same. It saves one network request from the scanner at the cost of one more redirect.
Would that bypass the neomedia patent? I am of course a big supporter of the QR code based direct encoding, but if you want to i.e. write a reader/browser based service that make use of the billions and billions of UPC Barcodes out there then you might run into patent issues if you go the first route, that why i hope that the second route might bypass the patent. Would be great if somebody could confirm that!
August 10th, 2009 at 11:11 am
I agree with your reading, and you’ve described what just about anybody who needs an extra level of ‘indirection’, for analytics or otherwise, would do. This is just plain old HTTP mechanics, which well predate this patent.
The patent language clearly distinguishes an “ID” from a “URL”, so, one can’t argue that encoding such a URL is the same as encoding an ID. It also restricts its claims to situations in which there is a database of *predefined” ID->URL mappings on the remote server. That is, the ID had to be previously, explicitly mapped to that URL.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:26 am
@sean: Thanks so much for your confirmation Sean, appreciate that.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Your proposal is covered under the OMA published docs for the indirect process.
http://www.openmobilealliance.org/Technical/PublicMaterial.aspx
August 10th, 2009 at 11:46 am
@jon: Thanks for confirming, wasn’t aware of that. Can you point me to the specific URL of the document rather then the index? Are you confirming as well that the approach is not covered by the NeoMedia patent?
August 10th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Start here www.openmobilealliance.org/Technical/rel…Codes-20081024-A.pdf. Then do some searches for OMA barcode.
While you are at, you might just want to sit down with NeoMedia. If you negotiate well, you could pick a license for a song. The advantage is you don’t have to build the infrastructure from scratch. In addition, you put the burden of funding IP on someone else. You will notice OMA speaks to two different indirect methods - but is yet to endorse a single one. It could be very likely the second method is owned by Scanbuy.
If you try to reinvent the system, you are going to run into carriers issues. Essentially, you have to convince them your process will provide them enough revenue to build the middleware.
August 10th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Sorry - but this is NOT a bypass.
The infringing operation is the resolution of an index sent through any protocoll to a remote server with a predefined database.
It is a normal way that the index has to be sent through an protocoll like e.g. in your example a http request with an attached index to a remote server.
There is no other way than sending the index through a defined protocoll to a server.
All know indirect reader applications are composing such an http resolution request “internaly” in the application.
This is definitely covered by the patent.
Compare also the above mentionded OMA document for indirect resolution describing this IP protected process.
Maybe a work around could be localy on the handset stored database for doing the resolution of the index.
August 10th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Frank: Under the re-examination, the patent was narrowed so it no longer includes your first description. Under the new claims, a user device must transmit an index to a remote server and the remote server returns a text of the URL to the user device. This new process was not included in the original patent and all former processes were cancelled or amended. I think you can find a copy of the amendment on the EFF website.
Your last description is also a work around since these exact claims were removed from the patent during the reexamination. It is also a nice solution since it reduces the number of outbound calls to one, and streamlines the user experience.
August 10th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
i found a pdf on the oma site http://www.openmobilealliance.org/document/oma_mmf-mc_final_presentation%5B2%5D.pdf, on page 18 it describes a variant which is exactly what i proposed. i am sure that the patent cannot register claims for that. assume you have a bit.ly/[id] URL in a barcode: the URL is passed directly to the browser and it opens the URL. the server redirects to the intended destination. the only difference to what i described is that the reader takes the [id] and appends it to the base URL before handing it to the browser. then it opens it directly. very simple. actually some QR Code readers never call a URL directly but pass them through a proxy for analysis purposes. i can’t see that violating the patent.
August 10th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
You just described a direct method with a redirect. It works, does not violate the NeoMedia patent, and provides click-through data for your clients. Just remember, what you put on a barcode can have a long life and the redirect here is tough to refresh. You have to refresh the content in the long URL destination.
August 10th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
This blog has been forwarded to NeoMedia’s Attorney for review.
August 10th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
That’s great Jeff. I would love to hear counsel write down a staement on this topic. It will either confirm some arguments already advanced or put them in some awkward legal trouble.
August 10th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Jeff:
I have a couple of great ideas for you. It might get you a new client.
1. Post your counsel’s name and number and Sean and I will follow-up. We can then post what they advise. Is your in-house counsel in Atllanta or the EU office?
2. Have your in-house counsel or sales team comment on here.
We will then know if we need to license or not.
Thanks,
Jon
August 10th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Hi all,
Neomedia has been working long and hard in this space, winning at almost every turn, although it’s been a long hard battle, definately. But factually, those times are over…forever. Go ahead and develop your redirect…hahahah…..and spend time trying to circumvent. Whatever you accomplish, the power (force, etc.), just does NOT appear to be with you, regardless of the redirect. Definately a second best workaround of an established winner(Neomedia Technologies, Inc.). Best of luck trying, brothers (and sisters).
Jeffrey A Brodwin
Solution Consultant - Enterprise network sales, research and development, design, configuration, deployment and full 24/7 cutting edge support and training.
August 11th, 2009 at 6:02 am
There are several work arounds, such as the http protocol redirect mentioned.
Another effective work around is to have the data base stored on the user device.
As we know, you do not need a smart phone now days to expand your memory to 8 gig or more. As anyone who owns a pc knows, unless you store a ton of music and video files, you seldom use 8 gigs of memory even on a personal computer.
So how about an application that downloads the database to your device, so the matching service is on your device and not a remote server somewhere.
Each time you use the app to click a bar code, it will ask if you want to update the data base files, similar to what anti-virus software does on a pc. People send in new codes they have found to the data base web site, where a library is created and expanded as the tech evolves.
Now with your updated index stored on your device, any of these codes you click on are instantly recognized, and you are taken directly to the web site of that code, whether it contained a URL or an ID of some sort.
Such a list of IDs and their URL would be quite small in file size, especially at this stage of the technology development, and the average user with a memory smart card, would not even realize that its on their device, as it would not effect the operation of the device in any way.
August 11th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Why worry about this? Indirect barcodes are perhaps the stupidest idea on the planet as it provides a centralised point of failure.
QR codes with *fully resolved* URLs please.
August 11th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Its not about worry. QR codes with fully resolved URLs are great, we use them in all our projects. And I don’t think the indirect codes as put forward by Neomedia and Scanbuy are progress, they manifest an approach to earn money and control the very lucrative market with proprietary standards.
But as I said initially, the by far largest group of barcodes out there are UPC. So if you want to make a game that resolves around people scanning UPC using ZXING or others you might run into the NeoMedia patent. A game might be that you have to scan something similar what your game partner just scanned. Or that you always have to scan something that is more expensive. What I tried to highlight was a way to bypass the patent which might keep some people from developing those apps.
Also never forget RFID which contain IDs as well. Phones using the RFID variant NFC are widespread in South East Asia and are entering the market in Europe. They present enormous opportunities.
August 11th, 2009 at 11:07 am
This entire discussion is pointless in the long run. The US carriers want an indirect mobile code ecosystem in order to monetize this space. CTIA wants proprietary and indirect. Microsoft wants proprietary and indirect. There are greater forces at work here and none of you matter in the grand scheme of things.
August 11th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Mr Anonymous, I have to admit to get a great pleasure out of proving opinions like yours wrong. There are grander schemes of things then the institutions you refer to, much grander. And the market is simply too heterogeneous to just enforce technologies. But please lets stay on topic here. I am eagerly awaiting to hear what the Neomedia legal council has to say.
August 11th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Admin: The request for assistance from NeoMedia is ” is awaiting moderation.”
August 11th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Scanning a plain vanilla UPC code cannot possibly be covered by the Neomedia patent. UPC codes have been in use since 1974, for one. I’d also point out that the patent claims require a predefined mapping between IDs and URLs. That is, if you merely construct a URL from an ID, rather than look up in a mapping, it does not pertain to the claims of the patent. The examples you give — indeed, just about use case I can imagine, does not involve a predefined and explicit mapping between IDs and URLs.
What I am worried about is exactly this: you know your stuff, and even you have uncertainty due to the actions of some scurrilous investors. This is not OK. This is allowing the patent to have more force than it is entitled to. It is stifling innovation needlessly.
I can say that never in a conversation with someone from Neomedia itself have I ever heard anything but support for innovative apps based on plain old barcode scanning as we know it, of the form enabled by the zebra crossing library.
August 11th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Sorry but only the local stored database could be a workaround. NO URL workaround. NO bypass with this “no brainer” approach.
August 11th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Jon: please can you explain how the index is sent in the narrowed patent version to the remote database?
Thanks - maybe I’m wrong - but can’t understand your argument.
August 11th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
1. (Currently amended) A method of connecting a user computing device to one of a plurality of remote information computers available for communication over a network comprising:
a) reading with a user computing device a data carrier modulated with an index;
b) transmitting the index to a remote server computer over the network;
c) accessing a database in the remote server computer with the index, the database comprising a plurality of records comprising predetermined relationships that link an index to a pointer which identifies a remote information computer on the network;
d) extracting a pointer from the database as a function of the index;
e) returning the pointer to the user computing device over the network; and
f) the user computing device using the pointer to establish communication directly with the remote information computer identified thereby.
August 11th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
@frank,@jeff: No brainers workarounds are the best. You are weak on your argument side, just saying NO, WE ARE THE WINNER, THOSE TIMES ARE OVER doesn’t make it so. Where exactly in the patent does it describe the assemblage of an URL? I can’t find anything related to that. The real beauty of the approach is that it even works without a db since the assembled URL can simply be self sufficient like: www.barcodegame.com/[UPC_CODE] what the site itself does is out of reach for the patent, it might just use a webservice to get information, no DB at all or serve up flat files.
August 11th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
@jon: thanks. That make it all clear.
August 11th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Sean Owen:
“This is allowing the patent to have more force than it is entitled to. It is stifling innovation needlessly.”
That’s your opinion. Not the PTOs. Since this has been an ex parte reexamination process, EFF has no right to appeal the PTO’s decision. Take care.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
I love the recent news !!
Neustar and NeoMedia Speed Up Widespread Implementation of Mobile 2D Barcodes
http://neom.com/press-detail.php?id=47
NeoMedia & Scanbuy Reach Settlement & License Agreement
http://neom.com/press-detail.php?id=50
Huge wins for NeoMedia
:-)
November 19th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Thank you for this wonderful article.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:31 am
I love this thread which I just found.
Months ago I posted on my blog about how weak the ‘048 patent was. Their investors, which are fanatics, went ballistics. They post on blogs as anonymous and fake names and few seem to have the guts to use their names. One of the investors even accused me of being Scanbuy’s CEO!!! Ha! What an idiot (my initials are CEO).
Now I see the same patter here.
Those investors (not all of them but the majority) are fanatics. I understand, they just want a return to their investments… BTW their stock is right now around $ 0.0119; they are desperate!
My recommendation to NeoMedia is simple –> diversify! Create new IP and products vs. mainly trying to milk this cow until nothing else is possible. Even if you can milk this baby, it really is a short/mid-term solution to running a business!
The truth is the PTO made a mistake which is how I starting writing about the 048 as an example of a weak patent. In my opinion the EFF had good intentions challenging this patent but wasn’t able (due to $?) to go all the way — and that was a mistake, as NeoMedia went back and amended things.
But it is not the end. This patent can be worked around. Companies with large pockets, if they really wanted, could challenge and win this regardless of its current status. And there are other and newer technologies…
ceo
http://CEnriqueOrtiz.com/weblog
ceo
January 20th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Hi All,
It’s now 2010 and I have read with much interest the comments on this blog and am interested to find out who else other than ScanBuy has had to license from Neo ? Have Neo released any material into the public domain on licensing fees and structures, and who needs to license ?
In prior posts it seems that the Direct method of resolution is outside the scope of Neo’s patents although there seems to be some debate on this. For example a QRcode containing http://www.mydomain.com/mypage.php?id=12345 whereby a server at www.mydomain.com returns the HTTP content for record ID 12345 appears from what I’m reading to be outside the patent scope. If www.mydomain.com then returned a URL to the browser via HTTP redirect and the content was served from another domain this would be covered by the patent.
Can anybody confirm with some authority that the first “Direct” method is or is not treading on any of Neo’s or anybody elses IP ? I can’t see that Neo ever responded to the thread, and there is very little available on their web site pertaining to licensing. Links anyone ??
We see codes every day in public places containing direct links to URL’s for marketing purposes (not necessarily for products either), are these advertisers treading on patents by doing this or would all these codes be being managed by a license holding code clearing house ? These links obvioulsy have nothing to do with UPC’s.
Does anybody know for which countries these patents are held ?
Comments please.
Thanks
Andrew
March 28th, 2010 at 9:11 am
@Andrew: Neither of these are covered by the patent. Just go read it — it’s not long or hard to follow. It concerns barcodes that encode an “ID”, which is explicitly not a “URL”. So both these are already not covered because they contain a URL. It also refers to a predefined ID - URL mapping, which again your examples lack.
Apart from vendor-sponsored examples, I have never seen anyone use indirect in the real world. The reason is that 99.99% of readers would just scan it and show a number. That’s it. End users say, huh? and think the code and marketing campaign and brand are busted. There is no bigger way to fail as a call to action.
As a matter of practice, the topic of this patent is long since obsolete. It remains on the radar only insofar as certain interested individuals act in their self interest to suggest otherwise, and it’s exactly this kind of misinformation I’d like to combat by simply directing people to read the patent and see what it really says, rather than be a victim of FUD.
June 1st, 2010 at 2:11 pm
I love this news……..
June 17th, 2010 at 6:04 am
What I am worried about is exactly this: you know your stuff, and even you have uncertainty due to the actions of some scurrilous investors. This is not OK. This is allowing the patent to have more force than it is entitled to. It is stifling innovation needlessly.
June 17th, 2010 at 6:04 am
As a matter of practice, the topic of this patent is long since obsolete. It remains on the radar only insofar as certain interested individuals act in their self interest to suggest otherwise, and it’s exactly this kind of misinformation I’d like to combat by simply directing people to read the patent and see what it really says, rather than be a victim of FUD.
June 30th, 2010 at 5:14 am
Safe, Faste, billig, gold wow
August 3rd, 2010 at 2:04 am
Vintage-Inspired: Magnificent Jewelry Believe it or not, discount shoulder bags is My Mother’s Favorite!
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Summer’s Most Lovely cricket bats Fashion Style General Knowledge about your Attractive Hurlling Hockey bat
August 10th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
CR123A cree flashlight , The Best Anniversaries Choices for Matron The Unknown Mistakes of screen protectors . Here’s the Answer.
August 10th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
What’s In Fashion now?leather bags Are on Exhibition
September 6th, 2010 at 10:12 am
As a matter of practice, the topic of this patent is long since obsolete. It remains on the radar only insofar as certain interested individuals act in their self interest to suggest otherwise, and it’s exactly this kind of misinformation I’d like to combat by simply directing people to read the patent and see what it really says, rather than be a victim of FUD.