Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Here's a great link:
SFOR products being used at the federal level.
https://fed360encrypt.securecyberid.com/
I haven't posted here in a while, so appologies if this has been posted.
Back when I did post, a few said SFOR products would never qualify for anything Federal... Huh!
IMO
GLTA
Mark just tweeted:
For the product we discussed they must use the product Gallagher provides which is only our products.
— marklkay (@marklkay2) November 17, 2018
We have said all we can and the deal we just closed with AJ Gallagher is huge and will ramp up. It is definitely a reason to remain a shareholder or become one.
— marklkay (@marklkay2) November 17, 2018
Thank You
I post in hopes others will post their opinions and links (dots). Good or bad, I like to read peoples thoughts, but the dots are important to connect. Some dots lead to no where (IMO) and other dots may lead somewhere. And finally, an image is coming together, as some of the dots appear to be relevant.
But there is no image yet from the dots, it can only be seen in the filings. The image should look a little like the following "$".
The Gallagher deal is only 1 week old (+/-). So, there cant possably be anything in this filing. But, I will be looking for a trace of something in the following Q.
FYI, I don't care if people buy, sell, hold, long, short, flip, flop, put their left foot in and take their left foot out and shake it all about. People believe what they want with what I post and I do the same with every post I read.
Anyone that didnt learn anything from Enron (I lost nothing but did gain knowledge from that terrible scam) is only fooling themselves. There is BS everywhere. Say la vie.
To me SFOR is as good as any other equity. Just look at GE. 12-24 month chart. Stay away, Must be a scam.
ANY HOW, THANKS AGAIN
IMO
Truly mean it GLTA
GOOD WEEKEND
I try to post links of what is happening.
Your opinion is understood and respected.
I posted nothing in regards to revs. (as you and others took from that and most of my posts in the past).
I'm simply showing a factual connection to deals (by reponding and adding to another post). This is something I have not seen happen before. This is the first and others are expected as SFOR has repeatedly said in the past.
This only came out a week ago, so i'm not expecting anything out of the ordinary in this Q.
But it appears the deal wheel have started to roll. Finally.
as always IMO
GLTA!!!
Links provided by UVS, Hateliars, CyberC:
https://nsba.biz/membership/nsba-sponsors-partners/gallagher/
65,000 small business members- https://nsba.biz/membership/
https://www.nawbo.org/partners/affinity/360-coverage-pros
https://www.picpa.org/belong-engage/benefits-of-membership/discounts/arthur-j-gallagher-co-insurance
http://www.gbsaffinity.com/picpa/Business-Account-Package.aspx
https://www.achca.org/assets/docs/press-release/360%20Insurance%20Program%20Press%20Release.pdf
Finally, deals appearing!
These came as a result of one deal (Gallagher- 4th largest insurer in the world) and 1 channel partner (Secure CyberID)!!!
Now looking for ACS deals to start rolling in.
Hopefully many more coming together.
IMO
GLTA
How was it?
ALSO ON...
https://www.nasdaq.com/article/crypto-wallet-protection-app-wants-to-secure-your-wallets-against-malware-cm1023996/amp?__twitter_impression=true
Blocksafe Pre STO in about a week and the exchange that is offering their BSAFE token is testing their products on their exchange.
A MORE SECURE BITCOIN (and all other crypto currancies) will make more people feel secure getting involved in bitcoin and drive demand. Hopefully!
GLTA
CRYPTO WALLETS ABOUT TO BECOME MORE SECURE THAN EVER... the only crypto wallet security for mobile devices.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/crypto-wallet-protection-app-wants-secure-your-wallets-against-malware/
Blocksafe technologies a subsidiary of $SFOR$$ just put out CRYPTO DEFENDER and has two other products about to come out that protects exchanges and the private blockchain.
Why is this important to Bitcoin? Better security brings more investors and makes people more comfortable having cryptocurrency in their portfolio.
IMO
GLTA here!!!
Received email from TA. a few hours ago.
Current share structure for SFOR:
A/S: 5,000,000,000
O/S: 2,335,843,241
Restricted: 1,075,280
Float: 2,300,567,553
All the best,
Ryan J. Giblin
Worldwide Stock Transfer, LLC
One University Plaza, Suite 505
Hackensack, NJ. 07601
(201) 820-2008
rgiblin@wwstr.com
worldwidestocktransfer.com
http://www.blocksafetech.com/
Kay is not the CEO of the new company, to me this creates a whole different dynamic. The security features are not just MT, PID and GID. I would like to see what this CEO is capable of. Could it be that after the ICO is completed that Kay is bought out/replaced by Blocksafe Tech's CEO?
Yes, I did watch the lecture.
My point is there are security issues around Blockchain that present opportunity. Nothing is full proof. Except Death, this is guaranteed to happen to all of us.
Therefore there is a need for security companies in and around Blockchain.
So why wouldnt a security company sell it's own tokens and have a wallet that secures crypto currency. I would love to see what happens (good or bad).
This creates opportunity for traders. SFOR shares and/or BSAFE tokens will make things much more interesting OVER the next 1-2 years. Note: I didnt say in the next 1-2 years.
GLTA
IMO
While many here talk about how secure block chain is, you should email this guy and tell him he doesnt know what he's talkig about. Just watch his lecture first.
Thanks for the lesson. I'm sooo glad, my savior.
You must be making $$ posting because you certainly arent trading. And the Calif. guy is moneym8ker, he sold 7-8 milly over 2-3 days.
I can assure you two guys did not cause this. I' m sure many sold and the same shares where bought. And many will be back in when the price finds bottom.
SFOR wins the appeal this will skyrocket.
SFOR loses the appeal this will crash.
I play odds.
This ticker has plenty of life to it yet.
IMO
Please educate everyone, what is an quity when referring to stocks?
http://www.investinganswers.com/financial-dictionary/stock-market/equity-5038
Zata sold. Who was te second big long.
FYI: I HOLD 10's of millions as a long core and I've made $100k's from trading SFOR over the 1.5 years.
Pinks with no liquidity are plentiful. SFOR is not one of them.
Its funny how some show up only when the price drops.
IMO
Must be new to equities.
Hundreds of billions per day. Traded, buyers and sellers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Stock_Exchange
So liquidity is welcome to make a market by all who have or want shares.
GL with whatever.
IMO
No, if it was over, there wouldn't be an appeal.
"The decisions of the Federal Circuit, particularly in regard to patent cases, are unique in that they are binding precedent throughout the U.S. within the bounds of the court's subject-matter jurisdiction."
Furthermore, Calif. has been one of the most reversed in the country.
If SFOR succeeds with the appeal... everyone look out!
If they lose, there may be volotility for this ticker.
R&G won every Supreme court case in 2016.
FYI, I have a good feeling R&G will be submitting the PTAB decission to the Federal Circuit as part of their appeal.
I like SFOR's chances in Federal as opposed to the Calif. Courts that have a history of poor decission making (this judge reversed his own decision once, tha shows how certain he is about his rulings).
GLTA
IT was tweeted. So a select everyone was told.
I would like everyone to read through what I found and provide feedback and discuss my finding.
"The Federal Circuit will not change the standard of review for appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings—leaving PTAB findings of fact with greater finality than findings of fact made by a district court.1 The effect is realized on appeal, where invalidity determinations in IPR proceedings are stronger and less likely to be reversed or vacated. Thus, the PTAB may be a more attractive venue for challenging validity of a patent because a decision by the PTAB will likely carry more weight on appeal to the Federal Circuit than one made by the district court. After a primer on fact finding at the PTAB, a recent decision and its rationale are discussed, followed by some practical implications."
Also:
"Therefore, unless and until Congress or the Supreme Court aligns the “court reviewing court” and “court reviewing agency” appellate standards of review with respect to IPR proceedings, findings of fact on the record during IPR are afforded greater finality than those on the record of district court litigation."
PLEASE READ ENTIRE ARTICLE:
http://www.ptabblog.law/?p=286#page=1
I would like feed back (good or bad). TIA.
IMO
Thanks Moosetuck. I am not an attorney, but that i how I also interpreted it. Not too many post here anymore and we have been picking apart the judges determination. I appears to be done and the only thing left is to figure out a settlement and to figureout "the intent to infringe" part.
The word moot is key to interpreting what is going on.
GL
IMO
The connection is ACS is SFOR's channel partner.
It appears they have deals done.
Lets see if something gets announced soon!!
IMO
Here's some positive SFOR news!!!
"From Sidewalk to Cyberspace…
Bo continues to succeed by staying at the forefront of evolving corporate and security advances to ensure all new challenges are met. Bo’s cyber division, Advance Cyber Solutions (ACS) is always one step ahead of hackers and security systems most companies are using. His advanced security suite, developed by head Cyber Intelligence Specialists is state of the art technology for anti-hacking. They also have developed a patented “Keystroke Encryption” application that is now being utilized by various law enforcement agencies, insurance carriers, and other agencies."
From this link:
https://www.investigations.com/team/richard-bo-dietl/
This confirms there are deals done. But maybe not large enough to anounce individually.
This must be what Kay was referring to when he said there would be an 8-k for a few or for individual large deals.
LOVE THAT LAST SENTANCE IN THE QUOTES!
IMO
Your initial post about TPG and intel was... "TPG is getting UNINVOLVED with McAfee."
Really? Then you post that TPG purchased 51% of Mcafee.
Do you see how that can be mis informing cant be taken seriously.
And FYI, your late to the party by many months. Most on this board already knew about this deal.
In other words, thanks for the history lesson.
IMO
With other ongoing litigation, why the hell would any one show their cards.
I dont care if its $0 or $1B settlement with Entrust. Never give more info than needed unless required by law.
So many here are not sure what your point is about Entrust, unless its for pure manipulation on your part.
I personally do not want to know any of the settlement amounts or deals until it is absolutely necessary to deisclose. But thats me. I've been in business for 30 years and I always tell everybody I "could be doing better", an I've made millions.
Even as a publicly traded company, that would be in the best interest of the company and shareholderds.
Before you respond. Show me and the other posters a press release or 8-k from MSFT that reflects the settlement between SFOR & MSFT. Maybe MSFT is hiding things from their shareholders!
GL
IMO
There is possably some truth to what you posted. Except the part about dilution.
As per all the 10Q's for at least the last 1-2 years (I didnt check beyond that) including the latest filing, SFOR is not allowed to dilute as per agreement with Dart.
"Under the terms of the secured debentures, the Company is restricted in its ability to issue additional securities as long as any portion of the principal or interest on the secured debentures remains outstanding."
IMO
Once again. Misleading info.
SFOR is the only company (as per filings, and nobody here here has posted any proof otherwise) that has a series of servers to seperate the bands. They actually have an access band and a completely seperate authentication band. This is truely "out of band" and they apply mutiple factors to it (hense MFOOBA). Others are claiming "OOB" when actually they are using the same access channel as the authentication channel (hackers can see the back and forth and can intercept the info (even if multiple factors are used).
Dont get me wrong, they do not have the patents for biometric or multifactor (as far as I can see). Its how its applied (the process).
Its the combination of their OOBA and also the keystroke encryption rolled into it (Cygate) that ACS and Mcafee are now advertising and pushing that no one can even touch as far as security.
IMO
How many are OOB?
I'd like to see one.
Its still not a true OOBA patent. From what I read and interpreted was that Entrust authenticates within multiple layers of servers. SFOR does something similar, but close enough that its not worth litigating any more.
The problem here is peole read an 8-k and know the whole story.
It's similar to watching a movie trailer and acting like you know all the details of the movie.
Everyone should read the patents and get the entire story.
And Within SFOR's patents they name other "OOBA" patents to describe the flaws and even how they really aren't OOB. Hense why in the court filings R&G will use that term "True OOBA".
IMO
Repeating it will not make you understand it better.
beating a dead horse.
Read the patents for both companies, that were named in each lawsuit and then you will understand that Entrust has a patent for multiple servers to authenticate (not OOB) and SFOR has OOBA patents that touch up on some of that patent (understandable, because i read it). AND Entrust apears to be infringing on the OOBA patents. Who was more at fault? Who knows and who cares. They settled on something because both SFOR and Entrust worked things out quickly. The focus is now on everything else that has not changed.
look back a MRDRIFTER's earlier repost of mine from a different site I post on.
IT truely amazes me.
IMO
More typical spin here.
Where in my post did I say anything about only ihubbers?
The only way tha would happen is if balls were grown!
IMO OF COARSE
Typical spin. When did they lose?
please post for all to see.
TIA
Like an echo.
thats been said for the past year ans a half.
Whats even funnier is when it was in the trips. many anti SFOR said it would never get out of the trips.
Please!
Thats a false staement.
The share price reflects sentiment due to the Entrust case ambiguity.
Nothing else has changed.
IPR denial alone should be screaming higher price. But unfortunately, not many understand what that meant.
Some actually posted, thinking the IPR denial was SFOR being denied their patents. That alone says alot about share holders at this level.
GL.
IMO
Dont mind. Thats why we post. To discuss openly.
Already have my ticket thanks.
Thanks for reporting about what happened at the meeting. Always appreciated.
As far as the "push" is concerened, this is what I have found:
Google "out of band patent" SFOR's 599 patent with priority date of Sept. 5, 2000 comes up.
here is the link:
https://www.google.com/patents/US7870599
"Push" on steroids:
The web server 334 sends the USER ID to the security system 340, also referred to as the centralized out-of-band authentication system (COBAS). COBAS 340 proceeds with authenticating the user through the user's cellular telephone over an authentication channel. The security system 340 calls the access-seeking user at the cellular telephone 326. The user answers the phone and is prompted to enter a password for password verification and to enter a biometric identifier, such as a fingerprint.
I did a quick search but will look deeper. But court docs have always made claims of OOBA and "push"
IMO.
It will come out in the annual fins. That is required.
IMO
For the period ended Sept. 30, 2017.
This is the reporting period being extended.
Nothing material was expected in the 3Q that I know of... am I wrong?
And if all of these redundant posts about "nothing material" to report is insinuating the settlement... FYI, that occurred in the 4th quarter and has nothing to do with the period being reported as the settlement numbers are NOT part of the 3Q financials.
IMO
Great posts.
They appear to be affraid of their own shadow.
No dilution. just the same ole crap cries "the sky is falling".
a few sellers scare each other into selling.
Under 9MM shares exchanged hands today.
Anyone want to see a train wreck, look at General Electric today, $4.3Billion traded hands today after the divy got cut 50% and the PPS ended down 7.5%. That will be a buy soon.
SFOR is holding stronger than most think.
IMO
Hahaha!!
Its funny when people start to say or insinuate there is dilution and they are selling.
500k X just 8 peeps = the volume up to now "ish".
unbelievable
GLTA.
IMO
Please post a link or an email from the TA that shows dilution. . TIA.