Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer - Myth? Monster? or Mere Mortal? From Celebrity to Fire and Rise from the ASHES!

Who is Jovan Hutton Pulitzer?
(clips from news and interviews)
Transcription of Interview between Technology Writer Tech-head, Blogger and Web Producer- Mark Kerstiens and Jovan Pulitzer:
Question 1: Everybody seems to ask the same question of you over and over. I see it everywhere when there are post on discussion groups about you. The question is: Are you JOVAN or are you HUTTON?
ANSWER 1: Mark, The simple answer is I am both. My Legal name is Jovan Hutton Pulitzer.
People that have known me for years call me Jovan and people who I am not on a
real close personal basis with call me Hutton. It helps keep business and
personal lives distinct and apart.
Question 2: When I asked if you were Jovan or Hutton, that’s not what I meant. Most people know you had a different birth name. That’s what I was asking about.
Most people forget I was know in the media world long before the technology
world, and as with most media people or movie people, there are birth names and
assumed names. Like if I asked you if you knew Thomas Mapother IV or Marion
Michael Morrison or even Allen Konigsberg would you even know who I was
speaking about?
ANSWER MARK: No, I don’ think I know those names.
ANSWER 2 Continued: Yes, Mark I am sure you know who these three people are. In the
order I gave them. Thomas Mapother is Tom Cruise, Marion Michael Morrison is
John Wayne and Allen Konigsberg is Woody Allen. Those are birth names compared
to assumed names.
MARK: Continue
ANSWER 2 Continued: So, back when I was on television in almost every broadcast and
cable television market in the United States, people only saw the name JOVAN. I
basically went by a one-word-moniker like Cher or Sting. People knew me as JOVAN
and some knew that my last name started with a P. Then in the mid 90′s after I
had done a live broadcast of my television series Net Talk Live! in the Dallas
West End Marketplace, we had over 44,000 people show up to watch and
participate with the show.
Well, during that broadcast, about halfway through of our two-hour live show, from
across the crowd, and as a matter of fact you can see this in taped versions of
the broadcast, someone pointed a red sighting laser right at my forehead. It
was freaky and frankly had me worried. It happened right as we were headed to a
commercial break.
MARK: That would of scared the crap out of me. Your talking the red lasers that are on pistols and
ANSWER 2 Continued: Yes, and it was unnerving. Soon as we went to break, my security
guards swept in, scooped my off the stage and got me inside the mall where some
of our other cast members were broadcasting from. Another detachment of the
security team went after the individual, since I was able to see exactly where
the beam came from. They did not catch him but several of us got a good look at
MARK: But I asked about your name.
ANSWER 2 Continued: You want a freaking answer or you want to cut me off?
MARK: I want an answer, but I want you to get to the answer. Please.
ANSWER 2 Continued: (looking a little tweaked) Anyway, that situation unnerved me. Then
about two weeks later the same individual, or what I thought was the same
individual, starting hanging around our offices and places we would go with
employees for lunch. I noticed he would try to watch all of our cars and I
tried to avoid him, but eventually he spotted me in my car, and pulled up next
to me and waived as he passed me on the Dallas North Toll Road.
MARK: Very same guy? He was stalking you for some reason?
ANSWER 2 Continued: Same guy, yes stalking, but I did not know the extent until a month
or so later.
MARK: DO tell…
ANSWER 2 Continued: About this time, I moved my family from one house to a secured gated
community. All the time, since I was in the public and being part of a
technology show – my email was out there, I started getting emails from the guy
commenting on what I had for dinner or lunch or who I met and so on. You know,
really detailed stuff and I never knew anyone was watching and even cared. it
was a little too close to home for me.
MARK: But I asked about your name?
ANSWER 2 Continued: Knock it off! ANYWAY… few weeks later, first the live broadcast
with 44,000 screaming fans of Net Talk Live and the red laser, then the guy
being around the office and where we went, then the emails and finally, this
guy shows up AT MY NEW HOME. WITH FLOWERS no less. Now since my wife was my
co-host, I thought naturally he was after her, but come to find out HE WANTED
Mark: He wanted YOU. How do you mean that? He was after you?
ANSWER 2 Continued: I mean it in the way he W A N T E D Me. To share his MAN-LOVE with
me in a serious, whether I want to share it with him or not, way. NOW, don’t
get me wrong, I have nothing against man to man love. To each his own, but its got
to be free-will don’t you think?
Mark: LOL, yep, it’s got to be free-will. LOL
ANSWER 2 Continued: LOL, yep free-will plays a part and he was not at all my type. I am
not homophobic and you could not even call me straight as an arrow, but this
guy was out to OWN ME. LOL So, after having a face to face, his nose to the
barrel of a .45 conversation he agreed to back off. He did share with me, he
saw me driving my car, took down my license plate and then got online, found my
home address and decided to pay me a LOVE VISIT.
Mark: You never saw him again?
ANSWER 2 Continued: Nope, never saw him again and then I began the process of changing
my name and protecting my public records as best I could. So, I was born with
the first name Jeffry. Named that by my mother after German cousin of hers. My
birth middle name was Jovan. Given by my father and in honor of his deceased
brother and a name that has been around in the family since the Third Roman
Emperor – Jovan. And my last name was Philyaw. Me and all my brothers DO NOT
carry my father’s last name and we all have our reasons. Mine is my father
chose women over his children and dropped me on the side of a highway to fend
for myself at 15 and that moment sealed the fate of carrying on the family last
name for me.
So, as you may or may not know, for a MAN to change his name is quite different than a
woman getting married. You have to go through the courts, have various
background checks, local, state and federal and then you are approved and then
you go to court to get it done. You can’t really just randomly change your
So I started the process and by this time my wife and I were going to have a son and we
talked about it openly on our television show. In fact, no one in our viewing
or listening audience even knew we were married, until we announced we were
having a son. So, we had already chosen the first name Baron for my son, since
ONE JOVAN is enough. And we had his middle name selected as Hutton. A name that
was not in either of his mothers or my family lines.
Mark: Now why Pulitzer?
ANSWER 2 Continued: Hang tight man, it gets better. I chose Pulitzer because most people
knew my name started with a P, and it was about as odd as my birth name, but
come on, I am a marketing guy and name remembrance or memory ability is the
key. But wait there’s more. LOL
As I am getting ready to get all the paperwork completed and make the change over,
during that last year of getting everything ready, I happened to of started
DigitalConvergence and now I had dozens of bankers and lawyers and handlers
swarming all around me all hours of the day and they asked me to “hold off”
and not cause confusion with a name change since we were targeting an IPO and
they did not want to confuse the markets. So, I agreed to complete the process
after the IPO and I took stronger security measures with my family and home to
protect us from unwanted “visitors”.
Mark: So the name change came before cuecat and DigitalConvergence?
ANSWER 2 Continued: Yes, I started it a few years before and held off as not to confuse
the IPO, and then after the IPO, the lawyers, bankers and handlers all agreed I
could call myself what ever I wanted since I would be “The Next Bill Gates”.
Mark: Yes, the next Bill Gates, your book, we’ll get to that later.
ANSWER 2 Continued: So, I am JOVAN, will always be called Jovan and that’s what my
friends and family call me. JOVAN.
Mark: Can I call you Jovan?
ANSWER 2 Continued: Nice try! But you and I are not friends and lets see how this gos
for your 98 other questions first. Then maybe.
Question 3: Why invent a product that has been as ridiculed as your CueCat? I mean, it has caught alot of flack, is part of pop culture and still 11 years later get flamed all over the Net. I would
guess you would of heard the saying “Well at least YOU didn’t invent CueCat!”
ANSWER 3 : I actually LOVE that saying and I will tell you why later, but let me answer
the initial question. The company was NOT about CUECAT, and my famous invention
was NOT CUECAT. It was creating “Scan to Connect” and
“ScanCommerce”. But in inventing this new form of commerce and
communication I had a big hurdle to overcome. CONSUMERS DID NOT HAVE SCANNERS.
It was like creating this wonderful TV show, but no one owned TV’s, so IF I
wanted them to watch my show, I needed to get them TV’s first. I was about
scanning to shop, save, share and connect. CUECAT was just the device that had
to be created to turn consumers on to Scanning as something they did for
themselves, not something they watched happen at the grocery store.
Question 4: CueCat, the device, and thus you, have suffered some very critical press and comments, and many times outright ugliness. What do you attribute that to?
ANSWER 4: I can and will answer that, but first let me share a key Investors point of view. I met just a few short days ago with Roberth Dechert, the Chairman A. H. Belo (Dallas Morning News). It was the first time in 11 years that the two of us met face to face. As the record shows, Belo invested $40 million in CueCat and thus with the dot com crash and the subsequent closure of DigitalConvercence, Belo ended up writing off their $40 million dollar investment in Digital.
At our meeting he showed me great wisdom and insight to “why cuecat attracted such venom from its detractors”. He said, “Jovan you have to realize, you were the first individual, company and technology that actually FORCED old school media companies like us to “enter fully the digital age and become interactive and keep up with the times”. “CueCat, with the millions of devices that we being manufactured and the 1,000,000 installed devices and users we had in 30 days, forced a newspaper and broadcasting companies like ours to adapt and adapt now”. “And you know in newspapers, we were used to doing things the same old way they had always been done, and along come CueCat and your technology, and the writers, editors and such were FORCED to adapt and evolve” “We gave them no choice and you know writers and editors have very strong opinions, and when the dot com bust happened and DigitalConvergence was boarded up, all those people, those writers, critics and editors lashed out with the power of the pen and gave all of us Executives and Investors a huge “I told you so!”. “But now, 11 years later, you, I and everyone knows, CueCat was right, you were right, our investment was right and now it cool to be part and immersed in technology”.
Question 5: So you are saying they did not regret losing their $40 million dollar investment in DigitalConvergence?
ANSWER 5: No, that’s not what I said. I said, the stated they were right in their decision to invest and they believed then and now in the technology. Of course, from a financial standpoint they would rather of had their $40 million not be a write off. But even more than that, they would of rather had their $40 million turn into $10 billion. Either way, as the Belo Chairman and others close to the deal and the technology have said “No one could of predicted the turn of financial and technology events in late 2000 and in 2001 and certainly no one could of predicted the events of 9/11 and the total market crash and the drying up of the capital markets”.
Question 6: I am going to come back to other investors later on, but for now, lets talk about regrets and the achievements. Take either topic you want first.
ANSWER 6: I’ll take REGRETS Alex for $1000! LOL, just like a quiz show. My first regret? I was a practicing ASSaholic?
Mark interrupting: You were an alcoholic? Boy that would explain the rumors of mood swings!
ANSWER 7: LOL, NO not alcoholic I SAID , ASS – aholic!
Mark: LOL, that’s very funny. I ‘m going to have to use that.
ANSWER 6: Feel free to use it. I was a practicing Assaholic and now I am a recovering Assaholic. In my intensity and passion for what I do and my tendency to drive hard and expect the maximum best out of people , I crushed and hurt people and test them to their wits end. I hurt and crushed people that were loyal and I truly loved them and never wanted to hurt them. But I could not see I was actually being that way. Looking back I have no idea how people who loved and cared for me like, Brad Smith, Kozette Hedger, Brandon Brown, Jeff Harris, Mike Simeon, Bill Hunt, Jack Turpin and Luis Valecillo ( the real people who helped get Digital started and launch) ever put up with me. I can truly say it was not intentional, but intentions don’t matter. I did it, I was brutal at time and I was a total ass. Sometimes more ASS than visionary. I know now that style plagued many a great innovator and company creators, Steve Jobs most notably. In fact, my PR person was Steve Job’s person and she would always tell me “You’re just like Steve”. Now I know that was both a compliment and a warning. I did not possess a filter to understand how my energy, words and forceful nature impacted people, or most people I should say. Steve Jobs was legendary for abusing people close to him verbally, but I understand the pain he had and why he had it. He with no father connection, me with no mother connection. But, I may of even surpassed Steve Jobs in aloofness and arrogance when I was creating DigitalConvergence. I was young, inexperienced and over eager and forceful. Now I am different.
Question 7: I do want to know how you are different today than you were 11-15 years ago, but first lets stay on regrets and accomplishments with CueCat.
ANSWER 7: How about I just fire some regrets off rapid fire and of course HINDSIGHT is 20/20.
A. The day I had to show up at the Courthouse for the declaration of bankruptcy for DigitalConvergence and sign the final papers of my company vaporizing was tough. First, the press was there and of course they took even more shots at me in the newspapers and such, and then, after having a very intimate morning with my wife and she professing her love for me and saying “I know today is going to be tough but I love you and you are strong“; a process server served me with DIVORCE PAPERS just 4 short hours after the final Bankruptcy hearing. Talk about a devastating day. And at the moment, I don’t want to delve off into that too much more at the moment or I will end up in tears. So, moving on…
B. We manufactured 1,000,000 P/s2 CueCats and 2,000,0000 USB Cuecats. Looking back, I regret NOT limiting the use of funds to the FIRST 1,000,000 CueCats and then immediately rolling of the key fob, key chain, cell phone, PDA and wireless CueCat devices. We were holding back and never got to launch the wireless, unconnected to the desktop versions before we tanked.
C. I made THREE specific judgment errors in Executive Positions within DigitalConvergence, that my gut told me were wrong but I went with the flash Wall Street desires and did not trust my instincts., and I kept one Legacy employee that had charisma and talent, but that talent could never be focused fully and made to be productive for DigitalConvergence and ultimately that individual who we elevated from cell phone sales tech, to tech guru to an attempt to turn into a productive Executive, turned out in the end to cost the company Tens of Millions in losses and 5 key patents that would be worth hundreds of millions, if not billions today.
D. and , of course, on top of all that I was a certified Assaholic and the Microsoft deal .
Question 8: I do want to go over your patents and the patents legacy, but lets go on to accomplishments you are proud of with CueCat and DigitalConvergence. And, lets cover later this Microsoft deal you regret.
ANSWER 8: Again, I will do some rapid fire answers on our accomplishments.
A. There was no need for a consumer scanning anything on their own and it certainly there was no scan to connect to the Internet until CueCat and DigitalConvergence. So, we were the first consumer scanner, and we created the multi-billion dollar commerce sector that is now “Scan to Connect” and “ScanCommerce”. That’s a huge one I am proud of
B. 1,000,000 CueCat devices installed and put in use within the first 30 days. That was huge. At the time, it was the single fastest adoption to the threshold of 1,000,000 users ever of a single technology or device. Cell Phones, PDA, PC’s, Internet Dial-Up, ISP members, VCR’s, satellite dishes and many others, took years and years to get to the 1,000,000 user mark, yet CueCat the device and CRQ the software platform took only 30 days to reach that mark. That’s saying something about how much people really liked “scanning to connect”, CueCat created the market sector and industry around it and paved the way for the over 150,000,000 scan to connect users today.
Question 9: I have read and know there are over 150,000,000 scan to connect app users today. How does that make you feel?
ANSWER 9: Great, acknowledged, proven right and proud. Back 11 years ago at CueCat launch there was NO NEED to scan to connect or no need for a consumer to scan . Scanning was for retail and store clerks. DigitalConvergence and CueCat taught consumers scanning could mean something valuable and useful to them and now that devices are wireless, since there was almost none back in 1998-99, look at how many people use scanning apps. Actually the number may be as high as 166,000,000 users at the moment and some new apps like FaceBook Co-Founder’s gig, ShopSavvy, I hear they are doing 54 million connects a month. Even 11 years ago we did a little over 5,000,000 scans the first three weeks. It was huge then and its even bigger now, but we became the poster child for dog piling on and flaming as a technology.
Question 10: You talked earlier about the ugliness and vile that came out and amazingly still clings on today in some areas and how you attribute some of that to being a change catalyst in forcing change of old media to the new media experience. But, you took some direct hits by huge players in the Industry like Mark Cuban and Walt Mossberg.
ANSWER 10: Yes, Mark and Mossberg.
Mark continues: Comments on those two and others?
ANSWER 10 Continued: I will tackle Walt Mossberg first. I respected Walt Mossberg and his technology angle, but when I met him he was not what I expected and his actions surprised me.
My COO and I went to visit Walt and do a face to face demonstration and interview. At that time, no one knew that Forbes was about to spring it on the world and that all of the Belo Newspapers were going to be simultaneously releasing interactive newspaper with our scan to link and scan to connect technology and the CueCat device. We set the demo and encouraged Walt to scan any item in his office or on his desk and see that the bar code could be a link between the physical world and the virtual world. I think he scanned an Altoids, a sticky note pad and a canned beverage on his desk. He did it and you could see his face light up. He got it and was duly impressed. So, then he started to ask what we are doing with it and where do we see it going. We started sharing our deals and our database of 16 million connected bar codes and such, and as we lifted the curtain, the man became unglued and shot up out of his seat and started stomping around the room.
Mark comments: What did you do? Unveil some of your Assaholic nature to Walt?
ANSWER 10: No quite the opposite. Actually, if you knew me then, as I do now, I actually record every single meeting I ever had pitching CueCat and DigitalConvergence and I have copies of every single email or correspondence ever generated, which I did because I knew we were about to unleash something huge, impact full and meaningful on the world. So I wanted accurate records. I have gone back and listened to this meeting several times over and was at first pissed and now I just laugh at the arrogance of Walt. I have always been a great documenter since sometimes you talk sensitive subjects and you need to be able to recall facts and people if your Intellectual Property are ever compromised.
Anyway, as we were sharing with Walt what we had accomplished and where we were headed as a technology company, we told him about Forbes Magazine and others about to launch and that was what he came unglued over. He jumped up, paced his small office and pumped his fist stating “I am Technology”, “I am Technology in America, I am the voice of technology and NO TECHNOLOGY gets introduced with out me being the first to see it”. He went on to rant., “I should have been the first to talk about CueCat and DigitalConvergence, and the Wall Street Journal should have been the first Interactive Newspaper not the Dallas Morning News. We are national and they are just, just a local paper.” “Why did you not come to ME FIRST? Why did you not offer this to the Wall Street Journal first? “I , Walt Mossberg, AM technology in America!”. His faced was flushed and his pitted pores flared open and I was not only shocked but absolutely sure he was so mad he would have security throw us out right away. All I or my COO could respond to was “Belo is a huge investor in the technology and we felt you would want us to prove it worked first before you covered an untested product on a large scale.” That was it meeting over and he was boiling and not happy. We were shocked. Especially since he was amazed at how it worked and then made an about face when he heard we were already down the road with the launch.
The rest you know, he wrote something like “poorly designed, and no one would ever want to scan something to connect to a website and it’s such a bad idea that even if it’s free it won’t work”. Thus the dog pile started. I realized then that having media partners as investors was both good and bad. Good they can introduce your technology to their subscribers, but horribly bad, since the media world is cut throat competitive and all the others that did not have the technology would shoot it down at all cost to make a tremendous company like Belo look like fools. And the war of words and barbs began.
Question 11: Now what about Mark Cuban’s views of CueCat?
ANSWER 11: First, the only views and reviews that matter with any product are that of the actual users. Users define a product. Not competition for the same press space from companies trying to enter the same space as you, not other millionaires or billionaires or tech superstars. Only USERS matter.
So, the first answer is 1,000,000 users Installed and used Cuecat within the first 30 days and that beat the growth curve of PC’s, Cell Phones, Internet Usage and all most every other tech device entry. That speaks for itself.
Now for Marks comment. I have known Mark for decades and still communicate with him to this day. Mark is talented and has a blessed life and family. Kudos for him, he parlayed his technology platform into a huge cash out and now he follows his passions. That is a gifted life to live. But gifted life does not make someone a seer of the future or able to correctly predict the future. Conventional wisdom would tell Mark, that since over 150,000,000 people use scanning to connect or to conduct commerce now via their connected devices, that he was wrong.
Back when I was building what became the single largest ISP in any city in the US, Mark has started Audionet.com . At the same time I had launched the first TV program about the Internet and how to use it, Net Talk Live! And Mark was our very first on- air Guest. Back then Mark was just Mark, a dynamic guy with big vision and charisma. Todd Wagner, his partner was the operator and a rock solid great guy. I admire Todd tremendously. Shortly thereafter, Mark and Todd offered me a top key position with their team at AudioNet.com. The deal was I would join AudioNet, handle all marketing, they would take a 50% interest in my broadcast and Production Company and I would work for Audionet, soon to be Broadcast.com.
I did not take the opportunity, and yes, granted I passed up millions in the cash in with the Yahoo buy out, but even then I was perfecting my technology patents and ideas and I wanted to walk my own walk and pursue my own ideas of technology on the Internet. I believe Mark has never forgiven me for not taking his offer – in some weird rejection of Mark and his vision way, but that was not the case. I just wanted to pursue my own dreams. When I started DigitalConvergence I even called Todd and asked if he or Mark or both would join my Board and help me, but they were tied up (understandably) with Yahoo.
Then as Digital started getting all the huge press, it happened that Mark via the Dallas Mavericks’ were in an advertising war with Belo. Of course, Belo was one of my key investors. They were battling over how much coverage the Belo was giving the Dallas Mavericks versus Mark spending dollars on adds in the Dallas Morning News. It was a huge war and I think that part of Mark’s unfiltered comment that “CueCat was the stupidest invention ever” was a direct shot at Beloto hurt Belo and it was a shot picked up in newspapers around the globe. So, with Mark taking a shot at Belo, it helped other papers take their shot at Belo as well, and in turn it took shots at CueCat, our technology, our company, our vision, our employees and me. It did hurt, but if you understand who and just how HUGE my partners were, then you can understand why that took on a life of its own.
But I do find it interesting that Mark has used that very same comment “The Stupidest Ever” with many things he has commented on over the last two decades. So, I try not to take it personal and understand, as Todd Wagner told me, that Mark does not have a comment filter and can say some very hurtful and degrading things that affect peoples’ lives negatively. And, it is easy to sit atop a perch from on high and take shots at individuals trying to live their dreams. But Mark can’t be all that bad can he? He has a great partner in Todd Wagner and that says something. He has a wonderful wife and precious daughter and that says allot about a man was well. I am happy for him he is living his sports dream and has made Dallas basketball fans proud.
Question 12: You don’t sound bitter that a Billionaire called your invention stupid and took a direct shot at you and caused you great pain?
ANSWER 12: Why should I be bitter? I am not even a spec in the scope of the world. There are more important things then me going on and, I for one KNOW, you cannot control what people say about you. People and the press thrive off dirty laundry and cluster mucks. People are the way they are and most people have a difficult time with other people succeeding and doing big things. That’s why you will always encounter statements like “You can’t do that” or “That won’t work”. It takes far less personal effort to bitch, moan and complain than to compliment. It takes great concerted effort and wisdom to find the merit in the work of others. But, once again, at the end of the day, we created the new industry of scan to connect and scan commerce and have over 120 patents to show it and 150,000,000 users and growing daily, using our vision and new idea. That’s the real story. That’s the legacy chapter.
The most serious way Mark’s comment hurt me was, when my wife divorced me, she told me “I had embarrassed her and was the most hated man in Texas” and then quoted a D magazine article and their publishing Mark’s “Stupidest Invention” comment. She told me, since she knew Mark as well, “See even people who know you hate you” then she went on to tell me I ruined HER reputation. That was when the effects of Mark’s unfiltered comment hit home with me. It added to the loss of my family, right in the middle of a tech meltdown. Kinda a one-two punch combo. Lost my business, the dreams for my employees, my family and my home and in many ways for a long time my health as well.
Question 13: Microsoft, you mentioned earlier that was a regret, how did you mean that?
ANSWER 13: Microsoft was a large sponsor of my Television show. In fact, they even went against their huge ad agencies advice and sponsored Net Talk Live anyways. We helped them win the global browser war, when we started with them in our TV show. Back then, Netscape had 90% of the browser market and the rest was Microsoft and Mosaic. We did a great campaign with them and in just a few weeks turned that table and they had 85% of the marketplace in our base DMA and it exploded from there.
That gave us some inside connections with Microsoft, so once I knew the adoption curve of our technology I went to Microsoft. One of my investors was Warren Buffet’s Bridge Partner and of course Bill Gates was the other Partner. You should have seen me running around trying to prepare for meeting Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. I was a mess. It was tons of all kinds of pressures to know you were going to lay it all out for TWO of the richest men in the world. That was stressful. The actual pitch was delivered in Buffett’s jet headed to a Bridge match. Then Microsoft opened their doors for us. We were assigned an inside champion to guide the project and the negotiation began. Microsoft agreed with our vision that the software and the ability to connect was the real golden egg and that we did not care what device did it and that the cues (or special bar codes) should be available to all.
They also knew CueCat was a free promo device only used to evangelize consumers to scanning to connect. CueCat was never the final device, it was the get it jumped started device. They could see the future of scan to connect and of linking the physical world to the virtual world. By that time, all the Wall Street guys were introducing me as “the Next Bill Gates” in all these huge technology and financial meetings. Wall Street was pushing for me to get Bill and or Microsoft to invest. They were telling me “Jovan, you get Bill Gates of Microsoft to invest and your $1 billion in personal stock will be $30 Billion opening day of the IPO”. They were playing me hard, but all I wanted was Microsoft to include our software engine in Internet Explorer. In doing that you could enter either a product code (bar code number) in the address bar or a website address as usual and get information or a web site. Microsoft agreed, but my bankers COO and others pushed and pushed for an investment and convinced me that Microsoft should not have our software engine unless they invested. I took the advice of those around me and the deal tanked.
Microsoft rolled out the new Internet Explorer and there were some 36 million installs right way. Our software engine and CRQ would have been on 36 million desktops ready to start using, but I trusted my bankers and advisors and it did not come to pass. Back then, in late 90’s and early 2000 bankers did not care about doing the best or wisest business, they only wanted IPO run up and huge commissions and they had tons of sway and influence. I was lead to believe I needed to get an investment and only an investment from Microsoft in order to make my IPO. That was just crap advice. In fact, this type of discussion went on many times, being at odds with bankers versus common sense business. But then again, what happened to all those Wall Street types and Executives just a few years later, speaks for loudly.
Question 14: You already had some strong ties with Microsoft, due to your Television Show Net Talk Live! correct?
Answer 14: Yes, I had a great existing relationship with Micorosoft and will ciover that later.
Question 15: So we are not jumping around with history, start from the beginning exactly how did you come up with CueCat?
Answer 15: In reality I didn’t come up with CueCat, what I developed was what I called “an operating system for the Internet”. It was basically a way to connect to the Internet, deep into the pages of the Internet, by just developing an operating system that works the reverse of a traditional DNS server or domain name server.
Question 15 continued: How was that? Explain what you mean that you came up with an operating system for the Internet.
Answer 15 continued: The way the Internet was developed and what made easy was, users didn’t have to remember all the difficult numbers that actually were the addresses on the Internet. The technical information, or the number mumbo-jumbo, was hidden or should we say masked under names. For example, you didn’t have to remember, all you had to remember was Yahoo, all you had to do was type in Yahoo.com and you would open up the website. So basically as long as you knew the name of the company you probably knew the name of their Internet address because the Internet masked the underneath by helping you remember words, names or sayings and brands. Conversely, I realized numbers were the underbelly of the Internet, then I thought if you can do numbers covered by words, then you could do that in reverse as well?
Meaning take an established number, in this case a barcode, and make that number mean the brand word and automatically transport you to the appropriate website. That was the technology created. Think of our technology as being GPS for the Internet.
So let me ask you a question mark, what are your own individual unique numeric identifiers?
Reply by Mark: I thought I was the one asking the questions but to humor you I would guess my unique identifiers would be like to say my Social Security number?
Answer 15 continued: Mark you’re correct. Everybody has unique identifiers. Your birth date, your Social Security number, your driver’s license number, your student ID, your phone number and the numbers go on and on. We all have unique identifiers. And since we have unique identifiers and those numbers that are assigned uniquely to each of u, then those numbers can in turn be pointed back to an address or a website on the Internet.
Now the understand that human beings have unique numeric identifiers, it’s not such a stretch to understand that products and brands all have unique identifiers as well. So what we did is create technology to link the physical world to the virtual world. In order to do this we took physical product systems of numbers and made the point to websites.
Question 16: What is physical product systems?
Answer 16: Physical product system, or the numbers that mean “articles of commerce”, in short, is everything you buy or everything that is manufactured.
If you buy a box of cereal then on it there is a unique numeric identifier for that product on that box. Most people know that unique numeric identifier as a barcode. Everything around you in the physical world has a unique code. A product, a manufactured item, or even a particular item that’s part of a complex product, somewhere along the line it is identified or has its very own unique product identifier. It is that unique identifier that tells some system somewhere what this product is or where this product comes from and specifically, what is its purpose or where is it headed. The simplest way to describe these unique identifiers is, of course, the term barcode.
The idea was really a rather simple one. If the Internet is about numbers covered over with words to make them easy to remember so you can enter them into a web browser; then could the same would work for code on the box of cereal.
Thus, then couldn’t we then use a similar technology to make that box of cereal talk to the Internet by using its own unique code to direct the user, meaning the person with the box in their hand, to the specific location for product information on that product on the Internet? That’s why the connecting of codes was not only monumental but also a very simplistic and obvious conclusion.
Question 17: You’re right that seems very simple and straightforward, but aren’t there way too many codes to actually route them to places on the Internet? How would you know all the codes and how would you even make all the codes work?
Answer 17: It was a huge undertaking to link all of the known codes in the universe. But even if we linked every code known to mankind, we still had to make it easy for the Internet user to input the codes. Let’s face it, it is difficult for most people to enter a stream of numbers from 9 to 27 digits long and not make a mistake. So secondarily, what we had to create is a way for people to enter in all these long strings of numbers and not make a mistake.
So actually I was forced to create the device that became known as CueCat.
Question 18: What do you mean “you were forced” to create CueCat? And, by the way, wasn’t it originally called something else?
Answer 18: Yes, I was forced to create CueCat. You know the old saying is “Necessity is the mother of invention”. That’s actually a true phenomenon. First we had to solve the database issues and the number collision issues (and I’ll get into the number collision issue later) and then we had to create an easier way for people to access the database of information. With so many different numbers and so many different types of character sets, we had to find a way to make it less difficult and less time-consuming to enter in all these numbers into a browser address bar and not have continual errors and create user frustration. Thus, CueCat was born or actually K. A. T. was born.
Question 19: So CueCat was called the K. A. T., initially?
Answer 19: Since “necessity is the mother of invention”, we had to figure out how to create a consumer scanner for the very first time in history. Consumers had seen scanning at the grocery store level, and they understood that by swiping the code it would pull up price information or product information; so fundamentally consumers already were trained to understand how scanning work.
Since we were dealing with numbers, which were essentially barcode or product codes, the most obvious and easiest choice to get consumers to understand the technology was to put a simple scanner in their hands that would talk to their computer. CueCat was the third thing we had to figure out. First was database. Second was getting the numbers in the database and linked. And third was to create a consumer-based scanner. But even then these were not our original inventions.
Question 20: What was the first technology and what did it do?
Answer 20: The first product we created was our software product. The original name of the software product was called Concerto. The second product we created was a software product and it was called Maestro. Concerto was the database software that did the reverse lookups of making numbers mean brands or WebPages.
Maestro was the software product whereby we could control a television or radio broadcast signal and send a computer listening in the same room to a website that was being talked about either on the television or the radio.
Question 21: Where did CueCat, which you are famous for, come in?
Answer 21: Since we developed the technology database to work with anything in the physical world and linking it with anything in the virtual world, we started working with the types of technology that were the hottest technologies the time. Back in those days, 16-18 years ago, what was exciting was thinking about linking the television set to the Internet. All the major networks were scrambling trying to figure out what would be television and radio’s role in this new media called the Internet.
So when creating a new technology to talk through television sets or radio stations we found that those too needed to be unique codes. Our database work kept growing and growing and growing. But what we realized is the massive amount existing codes already in play, meaning barcodes, was where the largest universe of codes existed. Basically, instead of creating new codes, how could we turn on all known codes? It became obvious to us that the leading product for company was not going to be the television technology but was going to be the unique product identification code business. So we changed course realizing we had to focus on codes first.
The original product known as Concerto is what became our product called CRQ. CRQ, was the new rebranding and it was based on this saying “see our cue”. We called any code that you could visually see in the physical world a cue. But we still hadn’t named the device yet. In fact, the first name for the CueCat, was actually The WWWand. Yes, wand with 3W’s. How amateur is that
Question 22: I think I read somewhere that it was actually the chairman of Sears that coined the phrase “ CueCat”.
Answer 22: You’re right. I was introduced to the Chairman of Sears and we went to a meeting in Chicago at the Sears Tower. We demonstrated the technology and we wanted them to be the first retailer to use it since they had both retail and catalog sales. After we’d done the demo and we explained what it cue was, meaning our unique code, we explained the device was a K.A.T. meaning “keystroke automation technology”. The chairman of Sears then suggested why we don’t just make it all look the same and use the same stylized “:C” that was already our icon, and call it CueCat. So you’re right the Chairman of Sears is the one that actually coined the phrase and ended up naming the product CueCat.
Question 23: If Sears the first company to see you new technology, who else had seen your demonstration?
Answer 23: Actually, th very first company to see my technology and to get a chance to test it out was Frito-Lay. I had been introduced to the Chairman of Frito-Lay and we were contemplating putting our software technology into every bag of Doritos for their Super Bowl commercial launch. We went all the way through the development stage learning how to put a miniature cd ROM inside a Doritos bag, only to run up against the timeline where we could not manufacturer 50 million CDs in time for the Super Bowl launch. Our initial launch was going to be our broadcast technology. Frito-Lay was an exciting company to see working from the inside. We learned a lot about product introductions and how to tie in major brands to new software technology. So the Chairman of Frito-Lay was the very first individual to lay eyes on my technology. The second company was actually Belo.
Question 24: Tell me about the Belo meeting.
Answer 24: To explain how the Belo meeting came about I need to go a little further back in the timeline first to set up what was going on and what I was working on at the time.
I had the great experience of helping to build the single largest Internet service provider in any city in the United States. During that time I was the first person to start selling the Internet and Internet dial-up services using television commercials. It was a huge success. I took what I learned selling Internet dial-up services and I recognized that this invention called the Internet was going to be a monstrous success. So I created a television talk show teaching people what the Internet was and how to use it. It was the first television show ever dedicated solely to technology and the Internet. It was called Net Talk Live!
The fan following of our television show was huge! We started out as a radio show and then we turned the radio show into a television show which was broadcasting at the same time. During that time there was a company called Audionet. Audionet.com was the company of Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner, that later on became known as broadcast.com. So we merged television, radio and Internet into one LIVE simultaneous broadcasting event called a TRIPLECAST.
From the very first broadcast we knew we had a hit on her hands. The first time we went into the field and did a live show where viewers could come watch us in person, we had almost 10,000 people show up. A few months later we did another live show where our fans could come watch us in person and we had over 44,000 people show up.
In our show fans could e-mail us questions and get to know us through e-mail and an e-mail from an individual by the name of Brad Smith came across my desk. Brad is well known within television circles as being a very successful producer, director and syndicator of television products. He felt our show, Net Talk Live! would be an incredible hit across the nation. So he joined up with us to help us expand our broadcast from a single city broadcast into a coast to coast broadcast.
The show was answering what was basically live tech support for the viewing audience and had created a huge cult following. Brad used his contacts and immediately we started expanding our show to eventually we were hitting millions of homes daily around the globe. At the same time as doing my television show I had already been experimenting for years with my ideas about Internet and broadcasting convergence, so naturally I used my very own broadcast resources to test out some of my technology theories.
After working with Brad for about a year, I finally decided to show him all of the technology ideas that I had been working on. Specifically, I shared with Brad how we learned to control a TV viewers computer through the watching of our broadcast television show.
Additionally, I showed Brad how my technology would link anything in the physical world with any site in the virtual world. I even showed him how I could place my unique codes or cues into any printed matter and now make that piece of paper or newspaper talk to the Internet and pull up a website. I explained to Brad that I’d been testing this all along but now I really needed to find a large venue to test out the technology with and see if our servers could handle huge user loads at the same time.
So Brad agreed to come on board now in the new technology company not just a TV show, and help us find the correct partners. With a single phone call he set up a meeting for me with the board of the Dallas Morning News. I was amazed at how quick Brad moved, and I gathered up my technology demo and went down to meet with the Dallas Morning News with Brad. And of course you know, the Dallas Morning News was, at the time, owned by the Belo Corporation.
Question 25: Most people don’t get a peek inside these high-powered meetings that start famous companies, so tell me about the Belo meeting.
Answer 25: Brad Smith arranged a meeting with the board of Belo for our company. In attendance was Ward Huey, Chairman of the Board and Burl Osborne, Publisher of the Dallas Morning News. From our company it was me and Brad Smith.
Belo already had an idea that the meeting was about a new technology because our television show was running on the big powerhouse ABC affiliate in Dallas, which their company owned. We started off showing them some statistics and facts we learned during the several years of broadcasting Net Talk Live! We explained people used their computer at the same time as they watched TV. Then we did a demonstration for them using our own television show, and we let our television show control the computer that was in their boardroom.
What they saw was: when our show talked about a particular website, the computer in the board room would actually pull up the websites we were talking about on the broadcast. Basically, their computer in their board room was being remote-controlled by our broadcast. Needless to say they were amazed.
We explained that over the last few years we have been perfecting and testing the technology all around the United States. Our broadcast was in virtually every city in the US thus we had tested our technology on ABC, CBS, NBC, UPN, WB, PBS, Fox and various independent broadcasters and cable television with USA Network, Comedy Central, E Entertainment Television, Lifetime Television, Discovery Channel, Syfi Channel, and even small regional cable companies. We knew when we walked in the door that our technology was perfected and was a great answer to the convergence of broadcasting and the Internet.
I can truly say they were amazed and dumbfounded at the technology we had created and they were also pleased that it was not just an idea but it we actually had been practicing it, top secretly, for several years. But, we still had the coup de grace in our pocket to show them.
I explained to Burl and Ward, what we had done was taught the television to talk to the computer in the room and the computer to listen to commands from the television. They understood the concept. Then I went on to explain that not only had we taught the computer to hear the TV broadcast, but we had also taught computers to actually “look at items in the physical world”. I explained that we had a second technology that could actually link anything in the physical world to the virtual world, just like our broadcast technology had linked anything on the broadcast airwaves with a computer in the same room with either listeners or watchers of the programs.
Then I asked Ward to grab any item in the room with a bar code on it and hand it to me. It just so happened that Ward picked up a Coke can that was sitting on the conference room table. I took the Coke can and our prototype scanner and I scanned the can, and the website for Coke appeared on the boardroom PC. Now as you can imagine they were amazed because it was an item they randomly chose in their own boardroom. Their response proved to be the exact same response we, in the future, would get with every presentation of the technology we made. Once someone in a meeting scanned one item of their choosing; it automatically became a feeding frenzy and they looked for anything in the board room, conference room, or any attaching offices that had a barcode and they went to town scanning.
It was like children at Christmas time. They could not wait to find items to scan and their faces just showed amazement when any code they could put their hands on delivered them to a web address. They were experiencing the magic firsthand of something in the physical world linking to a website in the virtual world. In those meetings they saw the vision and dream of everything in the world being able to communicate on an electronic level.
At that point the meeting went silent and I was a little bit worried and then Burrell Osborne spoke up and asked “Well, what is it you want exactly from Belo?”
I explained I needed to test my codes being printed in the paper medium a great test would be putting our unique codes or cues in the newspaper forma. I asked for an agreement between their company and our company to test out our codes and find out if they would really work on a mass-produced scale in newspaper print.
Ward looked over at Burl and Burl responded “I think we can do that”. Then Burl surprised me and said “As the Publisher of the Dallas Morning News the only way we would do that was if you allow Belo to invest in your company”. He went on to explain he wanted to make sure if they helped perfect the technology that they had a stake in the technology and besides, it was well known that Belo, as far as a traditional media company went, was a company not afraid of taking risks in new ventures.
I asked Burrell what kind of investment he was talking about and he immediately replied “We would want to invest at least $1 million into the venture”. I didn’t think that would be a problem but said I would have to talk to my board and we adjourned the meeting and went on our way.
Of course we tried to not let Belo know we were walking on air as we headed out of the building. To get a major publishing company and broadcaster to agree to test our technologies on a large scale was what we were after; but to get them to solicit us for the right to invest in our company was monumental. Everyone back in our small offices was excited and beside themselves.
Question 26: What was the size of your company then?
Answer 26: We only had a handful of people in our company at that time. I ran it very lean and most of our people who didn’t get paid it all, but new in short order we would have the funds to put them on as regular employees. Those key people that made this dream happen were Kozette Hedger, Brad Smith, Luis Vallecillo, Brandon Brown, Jeff Harris, Brandon White and Mike Simeone.
Kozette, Brandon B., Jeff, Mike and Brandon W. all worked on just bare bones wages, just so we could get the project going, and Brad and Luis were NOT paid it all. They knew the company would be big and their salaries would be made up later. These were the people that took the big jump to leave their normal jobs or stick it out without getting paid because they believed in our dream. Of course over time we grew to other people, and one person tightly associated with our television show came on board, but that was only after we had the funds to pay them first because they were not willing to take the risk on the company and the idea otherwise.
There are two types of people in any start-up dream of any kind: #1 – the people who take risk to make dreams happen and that risk of no pay for a while is their sweat equity, and; #2 those you have to “buy” to come on board. Just like any start-up, the real key people were the ones that put in the sweat equity to get everything done and to build the dream, and of course as you can tell from the story Brad Smith was the linchpin of the whole deal.
Question 27: I know that Belo invested more than $1 million in your technology, so I know there’s more to the story; but I noticed that you didn’t mention the name of Dave Mathews in your small company profile to help you build this, why is that?
Answer 27: Ah, yes Dave Mathews. After our television show had become a huge success I had lost to key personalities on the show to a sponsor. Those two individuals were Doug Davis and John Stewart. When our television show parted ways with one of our sponsors, Internet America, Doug Davis who was our “Super Geek” personality on the show; and John Stewart who was our PC Man Personality on the show, were no longer able to be on the broadcast because they worked full-time for Internet America.
Our show was up against a hard deadline. I needed to find a new banner sponsor and I needed to replace two key personalities on the show. I went to a new retail company in Dallas called Communication Expo. Communication Expo had a reputation of being the “new retailer” and of being an aggressive advertiser, so I went to see them about being a sponsor of my broadcast.
They had seen our television show Net Talk Live, and were very happy that we asked them to be a banner sponsor, but for them to sponsor the show meant a large diversion of their traditional advertising budget would go into this growing television show. Up until that point they’d only done newspaper ads, direct mail, and a little radio. But they really liked what we were doing with the show and thought it would be a good relationship. During that pitch an agreement to sponsor the show, knowing that I needed to put some sort of technical help guy in the seat vacated by Doug and John, I asked the executives at Communication Expo if they happened to know of any good “geeks” that would be just goofy enough but knowledgeable enough to fit in with our broadcast. They replied that they happen to have a young guy that was one of their cellular phone salesmen that could possibly fit the bill.
They explained that they were about to shake up that department and that this one fellow, although he was not effective as a salesperson, he did have a pretty good knowledge of various kinds of technology and that his ego was larger than their store so he might be a perfect fit for our television broadcast.
They told me that this guy was probably on a short list to fired from their company in the near future but if we needed a showboat personality for our show and in somebody who could deliver techno-babble and BS then we might take a look at this guy, and besides, if we really liked him at some point we could put them on our payroll and do them a favor of not having to fire him. That guy was Dave Matthews.
Question 27 continued: That explains where Dave Matthews came from, but I have seen Dave Matthews out there calling himself the inventor of Digital Convergence and CueCat. What’s the story behind that?
Answer 27 continued: Dave joined the show, and me not wanting to use the same show character names I had developed before of Super Geek and PC Man, I came up with a new character name for Dave, and that was Gadget Guy. So I put Dave on the air as Gadget Guy. We retired the name of Super Geek in honor of Doug Davis, and retired the name of PC Man in honor of John Stewart, and we promoted a freelance web developer who was helping out on the show, up to the position of WebHead, and his name was Mark Markham.
Now we had a title sponsor again and we had the two vacant positions filled. We all got along well and rocked and rolled on the air, and our broadcast only kept growing from there.
Over the next year we lost Mark Markham in the broadcast to do to a self-acknowledged addiction problem. About this time Luis Vallecillo had already joined the broadcast, earned his stripes, and we promoted him to a key position on the broadcast. The team at that point was a phenomenal team together.
Part of my time was growing this radio, television, Internet broadcast and the other part of my time was developing a new company and technologies. Anyone that knows me knows that I don’t write code. I am the vision and inspiration guy, not the code writer. However, because of my relationship with Dave (and he’s not a code writer or developer either), Dave could help me find someone that could write the actual code that I dreamed up out of through his network of other geek oriented friends. It just happened that Dave Matthews knew somebody that could write the code we needed.
At this point, the actual company planning our future of our company and technology were Brad, Kozette, Luis and myself.
Pulitzer, currently is one of THE MOST GRANTED and REFERENCED PATENT AUTHORS. FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS, Pulitzer’s Patents have been granted at the ASTONISHING RATE OF ONE EVERY TWO WEEKS. Pulitzer’s Patent Portfolio spans applications and systems for Internet Communications, Internet Marketing, Internet Commerce,Transactional Media, Interactive Media, Broadcasting, Communications, Manufacturing, Content Distribution, Social Media, Transactional Analysis, Computer Interface and Systems, Customer Identification, Security Identification,Environmental Systems, Mining Systems, Environmental Applications and Research and Data Analysis (to name a brief few).
Pulitzer currently has over 500 NEW patents in different stages of being granted.Pulitzer’s Life’s Work and Technology are currently available for Case Study at over 134 Universities and Institutions, including Harvard University, Yale University, New York University, USC, UCLA and many others.
Pulitzer Patents is arguably one of the MOST IMPORTANT patent portfolios developed within the Digital Age. Pulitzer’s Core Internet Patents have spawned an ASTOUNDING 1476 Forward Citations. The forward citation count shows the influence of a particular patent on the further development of the industry as a whole. The more the citation counts, the larger the impact is on the industry development. The normal USPTO average for a Patent of worth is a measure of 1.0, meaning 1 patent and 1 forward reference within 5 years (one patent begets a future patent). Pulitzer’s Core Patents have a measure of 49.0, meaning ONE Pulitzer Patent begets 49 NEW Industry patents or an astonishing growth impact of 4900%. Pulitzer’s current Forward Citation Matrix shows 49.2 average core citations, 1870 total citations and an estimated 5 year 5684 citations.
A darling of Wall Street; Digital Convergence was controversial from the beginning. Pulitzer says, “It was a great time, a hard time, a $200 Million Dollar PhD in ‘What TO do and what NOT to do’; the thing that almost killed me and the press was and still is brutal. But the patents prevailed and they are now one of the most seminal patent portfolios ever developed.”
Steven Speilberg said of Pulitzer “It’s not about money; it’s about doing innovative things. I knew technology would link all media and make it better, I just did not know it would be YOU, out of Dallas, who created it; this looks like fun!”
Digital’s myth was added to by Pulitzers direct nature and being not willing to do interviews. MYTHS sprung up about his “NEW SECRET COMPANY” and then Pulitzer sprang the idea on the world, with one million of users signing up in just 30 days. Internet users lined up Coast to Coast at RadioShack to get a free CueCat. $200 million was raised attracting investors like Steven Spielberg, Steve Forbes, Coke, Y&R, NBC, and others. CueCat instantly-directly linked UPC, EAN, ISBN and unique :CRQ Cue codes to web sites. Used in publications like Wired, Forbes, Ad-Age, Time, Parade and Coast to Coast daily newspapers, Pulitzer’s technology shook the scanning industry to its core.
Scanning is now part of numerous platforms. The Portfolio pioneered by Pulitzer achieved the ultimate goal – linking the physical world to virtual, and now unique codes are found to link physical to virtual around the globe. The dream and the Life Work of Pulitzer have now come full circle and is part of everyday life. Pulitzer the man, has been heralded, studied, reviled, and vilified beyond compare, but most of all, his Patent Strategy and Visionary style have been copied and emulated. Pulitzer is a lighten rod for critical press due to his direct and reclusive nature and his former print media involvement. 2000 apps on the net use Pulitzer’s Technology -CueCats. CueCats are HUGE sellers on eBay!
J. Hutton Pulitzer, is one of the most granted and referenced patent authors in the United States. For the last two years he his patents have been granted at a rate of one every two weeks. His patent Portfolio spans applications and systems for Internet Communications, Internet Marketing, Internet Commerce,Transactional Media, Interactive Media, Broadcasting, Communications, Manufacturing, Content Distribution, Social Media, Transactional Analysis, Computer Interface and Systems, Customer Identification, Security Identification, Environmental Systems, Mining Systems, Environmental Applications and Research and Data Analysis (to name a brief few).
Pulitzer currently has over 500 new patents in different stages of being granted. Pulitzer’s Life work and technology are currently available for Case Study at over 134 Universities and Institutions, including Harvard University, Yale University, New York University, USC, UCLA and many others.[1]
Pulitzer’s Technology and Life’s Work has been preserved as Case Study and Historic Business Data. In 2000, Pulitzer won the coveted Smithsonian Honors and Laureate Award as “The Individual and Technology Most Likely to Change the World as we know it” within the MEDIA, ARTS and ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.
To date, 134 institutions are actively engaged in the preservation, protection and dissemination of these materials and have been designated Members of the Honors Global Archives and Academic Council. Accordingly, in the year 2000, the Honors Program, in consultation with its Chairmen and Laureates, its friends and advisors from academia and the IT industry, and with invaluable assistance from friends in the diplomatic corps, began to disseminate its annual collection of primary source materials to National Archives, State and University Libraries, Research Institutions and similar repositories around the world.
The following are the Institutions and Universities that actively teach and house the Pulitzer’s work.
  • Commonwealth Science and
    Industry ResearchOrganisation
  • National Library of Australia
  • National Museum of
    Australia, Research Library
    University of New South Wales
  • Vienna University
  • University of Ghent
  • Biblioteca Nacional Centro
  • Ministerio da Ciencia e
  • Programa Comunidade
    Solidaria-Unidade de
    Gerencia do Programa
  • Universidade de Sao Paulo
  • University of Toronto
  • University of Waterloo
  • University of Chile, Santiago
  • Chinese Academy of
  • Institute of Science and Technology Information of China
  • Tsinghua University
  • Colombian Institute for the Development of Science & Technology
Czech Republic
  • Academy of Science of the Czech Republic
  • Technical University of Denmark
  • Banco Central del Ecuador
  • American University in Cairo
  • Helsinki University of Technology
  • Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers
  • La Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie
  • National Institute for Research in Computer Science and Control
  • Deutsches Museum, Munich
  • Frankfurt Museum of
    Applied Arts
  • Heinz Nixdorf Museum
  • Secretaria de Planificacion y Programacion
Hong Kong
  • Hong Kong Baptist University Library
  • Cognizant Corporate Library
  • Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad
  • Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow
  • Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
  • Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology
  • University of Madras
  • Bandung Insitute of Technology
  • Trinity College Dublin
  • Centro Cefriel
  • Himeji Institute of Technology
  • Kenyatta University
  • Universiti Teknologi MARA
  • National Research Institute for Mathematics &
    Computer Science
  • University of Amsterdam Computer Museum
New Zealand
  • University of Auckland
  • University of Lagos
  • Norwegian University of Technology and Science
  • Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia
  • University of the Philippines Manila
  • Russian Academy of Science
  • St. Petersburg State Technical University
  • Singapore Polytechnic University
South Africa
  • Castle of Good Hope
  • Royal Institute of Technology
  • Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
  • ICARE Research Institute in Computing and Telematics
  • University of Zurich, Z-Link
  • National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
  • King Mongkut’s University Technology Thonburi
  • Middle East Technical University
United Kingdom
  • Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
  • Museum of the History of Science
  • The British Library
  • The Royal Society
  • University College London
  • University of Cambridge, Whipple Collection
  • University of Oxford, Bodleian Library
  • University of Sussex
United States
  • Arizona State University
  • Brown University, John D. Rockefeller Library
  • California Institute of Technology
  • Carnegie Museum
  • Case Western Reserve University
  • Computer History Museum, California
  • DePauw University
  • Duke University
  • Emory University
  • Georgia Institute of Technology
  • Harvard University,
  • Technology and Entrepreneurship Center
  • Howard University
  • Institute for Operations Research and the
    Management Sciences
  • Internet Public Library
  • Louisiana State University
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Michigan State University
  • Minnesota State University
  • Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago
  • Museum of Science, Boston
  • New Jersey Institute of Technology
  • New York Hall of Science
  • New York Institute of Technology
  • Northern Michigan University
  • Ohio State University
  • Pepperdine University
  • Princeton University
  • Purdue University
  • Rice University
  • Rutgers University
  • St. John’s University
  • St. Mary’s Episcopal School, Memphis
  • Smithsonian Institute National Museum of
    American History
  • Smithsonian Institution National Air and Space
  • South Dakota StateUniversity
  • Stanford University
  • State of Florida Library
  • Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Jefferson
  • University of California at Berkeley
  • University of Cincinnati
  • University of Colorado
  • University of Connecticut
  • University of Dayton
  • University of Florida
  • University of Georgia
  • University of Houston, College of Technology
  • University of Kentucky
  • University of Michigan
  • University of Minnesota
  • University of Missouri
  • University of North Carolina
  • University of North Carolina, Kenan-Flager Business School
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • University of San Diego
  • University of South Carolina
  • University of Virginia
  • University of Washington
  • University of Wisconsin
  • University of Wyoming
  • Virginia Tech University
  • Washington State University
  • Wesleyan University
  • Western Carolina University
  • Yale University
  • Universidad Simon Bolivar
Pulitzer’s has developed arguably one of the most important patent portfolios within the Digital Age. Pulitzer’s Core Internet Patents have spawned 1476 Forward Citations. The forward citation count shows the influence of a particular patent on the further development of the industry as a whole. The more the citation counts, the larger the impact is on the industry development. The normal USPTO average for a Patent of worth is a measure of 1.0, meaning 1 patent and 1 forward reference within 5 years (one patent begets a future patent). Pulitzer’s Core Patents have a measure of 49.0, meaning one Pulitzer Patent begets 49 new Industry patents or an astonishing growth impact of 4900%. Pulitzer’s current Forward Citation Matrix shows 49.2 average core citations, 1870 total citations and an estimated 5 year 5684 citations.[2]
Cue Cat
Scanning is now part of numerous platforms and when Pulitzer helped market the “Cue Cat” $200 million was raised attracting investors like Steven Spielberg, Steve Forbes, Coke, Y&R, NBC, and others. Internet users lined up Coast to Coast at RadioShack to get a free CueCat. The CueCat instantly-directly linked UPC, EAN, ISBN and unique :CRQ Cue codes to web sites. Used in publications like Wired, Forbes, Ad-Age, Time, Parade and Coast to Coast daily newspapers, and today 2000 apps on the net use Pulitzer’s Technology.
Net Talk Live
From August 1996 – July 4, 2001 Pulitzer hosted a hit two hour weekly syndicated talk show called NetTalkLive which was hybrid “Triplecast” broadcasting on the radio, television and the internet.[3]
Pulitzers’ European Patents. Cover 42 countries and upon tally, country by country, each country has granted an average of 68 currently, making Pulitzer’s European patent count exceed the 2850 patent mark. Another famous inventor, Thomas Edison has a patent count of 1093. The Contries which have granted Pulitzers Patents are:
Pulitzers’ European Patents. Cover 42 countries and upon tally, country by country, each country has granted an average of 68 currently, making Pulitzer’s European patent count exceed the 2850 patent mark. Another famous inventor, Thomas Edison has a patent count of 1093. The Contries which have granted Pulitzers Patents are: