Zerify Inc (ZRFY)

[surfkast]

Based on Kay's history I would not be surprised if he did.

[surfkast]

Based on Kay's history I would not be surprised if he did.

[Cartmontster]

Do you think, if/when they don't maintain the $.01 level, will Kay do another reverse to bump it up to stay on OTCQB?

[surfkast]

. Bid Price Deficiency. Companies are granted a cure period of 90 calendar days for
failure to maintain the minimum bid price set forth in Section 2.3(2). In the event that the
minimum closing bid price for the Company’s common stock falls below $0.01 per share
for 30 consecutive days, a cure period of 90 calendar days to regain compliance shall
begin, during which the minimum closing bid price for the Company’s common stock
must be $0.01 or greater for ten consecutive trading days. In the event that the
Company’s closing bid price falls below $0.001 at any time for five consecutive trading
days, the Company will be immediately removed from OTCQB.

[Anvil]

At least, Zerify will save money not being on OTC’s upper tier which requires a minimum $0.01. That’s $20k per year.

[carusso]

Outperformed the markets, on Friday...

[Cartmontster]

Very true

[dounome]

SLOW

[surfkast]

Anytime.
I wonder how sales are going?

[dounome]

Thank you.

[dounome]

It's a FOX station.

[surfkast]

Former Newsmax Host Speaks at White Nationalist Conferencehttps://www.splcenter.org › hatewatch › 2021/12/17 › f...
Dec 17, 2021 — Former Newsmax host and longtime conservative pundit Michelle Malkin spoke alongside a former Klan lawyer and several prominent white ...

Conservative Newsmax host Greg Kelly is being investigated ...https://sports.yahoo.com › conservative-newsmax-host-...
50
Jun 16, 2021 — On Sunday, Mr Kelly shared several racist tweets before they were deleted. But The Washington Post reported on several of the tweets before the ...

[Cartmontster]

I don't know Newsmax... what makes them racist?

[surfkast]

Only Mark can answer that question.

[carusso]

Is 7 months enough time?

[dukeb]

I've never heard the term Revenue Positive. Do you mean cash flow positive?

[carusso]

That’s a fair point, alright.

I’ve called for The Big Three to suspend their paychecks until “Revenue positive”, again and again. And again. Will anyone join me in this mantra on every Social
Media site?

[carusso]

Never... thanks anyway...

[Canna-Biz-Invest]

Still using the product and enjoy it. too bad the stock cant represent that.

[dukeb]

Yes, but if you look at the chart: At the IPO you could have put $500 BILLION dollars into this company and now have a share worth less than a penny.

Mark Kay has a special talent for destroying shareholders all the while he has never missed a 6 figure paycheck.

[Cartmontster]

Been ugly like that for some time now.

[dukeb]

Wanna see something ugly?

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/ZRFY:OTCMKTS?window=MAX

[carusso]

Nice going Mr. Kay, Mr. Waller:
Your stock is now trading at a pre-split adjusted price of .000018

Is that even a thing??

[dounome]

Lol

[surfkast]

So?

[surfkast]

Just trying to post reality.

[dounome]

Researching ay.

[surfkast]

Stoll next asked the panelists whether Senator Thom Tillis’ “Patent Eligibility Restoration Act,” introduced in August, or other legislation to address Section 101 reform, has any chance of passing in the next five years. Both Knowles and Jones agreed probably not. “Always bet against legislation,” Jones said. Knowles noted that the bill was introduced by Tillis without any cosponsors, which doesn’t bode well. “I’d like to see a cosponsor,” she said. However, Jones said it may be Tillis’ intention to simply set the stage for his agenda for next year by quickly introducing the bill, or to pressure the Supreme Court to finally act so that the bill becomes moot.

[dounome]

The post is not coming from Zerify news.

[Cartmontster]

I watched this garbage years ago. Wanted to get rich just like you and all the others.
When I was looking at it, they were using a MLM to sell their GuardedID. It was then that I knew this company was a joke. So no, I have no skin in the game other than to try and dispute pumpers so others don't get taken in by all the BS.

[dounome]

Is it yours.

[dounome]

Is it yours.

[Cartmontster]

Is this your only hope to make money with these clowns?

[dounome]

4

SHARE

“Knowles said the senators’ June letter [on patent thickets] is confusing, as it seemingly demonstrates ‘a complete lack of understanding about how law is made.’”

Policy
From far left: Bob Stoll, Sherry Knowles and David Jones

During a session titled “Politics, Policy and Legislation” on Monday at IPWatchdog LIVE 2022, three panelists who have each played a role in shaping patent law over the years discussed recent developments in patent eligibility reform, and congressional interest in so-called patent thickets being fueled by continuation patents and other topics.

On the latter point, Sherry Knowles of Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies recalled the headline-grabbing 2007 case she brought against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) while in her former role as GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Chief Patent Counsel to enjoin the Office from promulgating substantive rules concerning claims and continuations practice. In June, Knowles authored an article for IPWatchdog reminding Senators Leahy, Blumenthal, Klobuchar, Cornyn, Collins and Braun, who sent a letter to USPTO Director Kathi Vidal on June 8, that the Office remains under a permanent injunction as a result of the en banc decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that found in favor of GSK and independent inventor, Triantafyllos Tafas. The senators’ letter asked Vidal to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking or request for comments by September 1, 2022, addressing the issue of patent thickets, particularly in the drug industry. However, the Office has not yet delivered.

Knowles said the senators’ June letter is confusing as it seemingly demonstrates “a complete lack of understanding about how law is made.” She added: “How does Congress not understand that it’s their job to create law in the area of patents and to be the watchdog in this area?”

David Jones of the High-Tech Inventors Alliance (HTIA) addressed the issue of Section 101 reform, in which the HTIA has been actively involved. Jones said that, while he agreed with former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu’s take on a previous panel that every other country has figured out how to get eligibility right and there is a clear path to making Section 101 work, it ultimately doesn’t matter much in cases like American Axle because the result was correct as it was a bad patent in his opinion. Many in the audience and on the panel strongly disagreed with this view, explaining that improperly using a Section 101 analysis to address issues more appropriate for Sections 103 and 112, for instance, creates confusion for all patent owners and practitioners and creates a body of ambiguous law.

While the USPTO has taken steps to make the eligibility analysis easier for examiners through its guidance under former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu and through the “Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response (DSMER) pilot program, for instance, the courts remain muddled, said panelists. While some disagreed on whether eligibility rejections are still a problem in prosecution, Bob Stoll of Faegre Drinker, who moderated the panel, and others said at least the tools are there for the Office to avoid granting bad patents without having to rely so heavily on Section 101. However, that doesn’t much matter if the courts simply overturn those decisions. “If you look at the evolution of the European Patent Office, they tool what they used to do on the eligibility side and put it into inventive step—if we did that in the United States there would be a lot less pressure on 101,” Jones suggested.

Stoll next asked the panelists whether Senator Thom Tillis’ “Patent Eligibility Restoration Act,” introduced in August, or other legislation to address Section 101 reform, has any chance of passing in the next five years. Both Knowles and Jones agreed probably not. “Always bet against legislation,” Jones said. Knowles noted that the bill was introduced by Tillis without any cosponsors, which doesn’t bode well. “I’d like to see a cosponsor,” she said. However, Jones said it may be Tillis’ intention to simply set the stage for his agenda for next year by quickly introducing the bill, or to pressure the Supreme Court to finally act so that the bill becomes moot.

Knowles pointed attendees to an article she and her colleague, Anthony Prosser, authored in 2018, titled “Unconstitutional Application of 35 U.S.C. §101 by the U.S. Supreme Court”, 18 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 144 (2018) that analyzed every iteration of the eligibility statute since 1790. She said the conclusion was that it could not be clearer that the U.S. Supreme Court is unconstitutionally applying the law, because “there are no exceptions” in the statute, and never have been.

With the Court and Congress seemingly stymied, “all the action [on 101] will be at the USPTO,” Jones said.

[carusso]

Good stuff. Thanks for posting this.

But is it not “too late” for ZRFY to benefit from any breakthroughs in the legal arena?

[dukeb]

Lots of "IFs" here including:

1) Whether the discussion results in any meaningful change to patent law and its enforcement.

2) Whether Zerify will even exist when/if new laws exist and can continue to exist through the infringement litigation and pay for said litigation.

I suggest that #2 is entirely unlikely. They can only borrow so much and issue so much stock before lenders and investors say "enough already."

Selling the patents is a possibility, but that's a long shot too.

No one should quit their day jobs.

[dounome]

yep, for OOB.

[dounome]

yep

[Cartmontster]

What is your play here?
Are you thinking they will be able to come back and sue someone else for any
patent infringements and make a ton of money?

[dounome]

HOME
NEWS
COURTS
The Path Forward from American Axle: Discussing Legislative and Agency Rulemaking Fixes to Section 101
Steve Brachmann image
STEVE BRACHMANN
18 HOURS AGO 5

SHARE

“The brilliance of the 1952 Patent Act was to separate the bases of invalidity into their own lanes, each with a separate standard of analysis… [Recent] Section 101 cases move us backward, mushing up patent eligibility again.” – Andrei Iancu, Irell & Manella

American Axle
From left: Benjamin Cappel, Wen Xie, Andrei Iancu and Brandon Helms

Last year, there was a great amount of confidence among those in intellectual property circles that the U.S. Supreme Court might finally provide some much-needed clarity to Section 101 subject matter patentability after a petition for writ of certiorari was filed in American Axle v. Neapco Holdings. On the second day of IPWatchdog LIVE 2022, panelists at the breakout session titled “Where Do We Go From Here on Patent Eligibility After American Axle” discussed what opportunities were left for fixing patent eligibility law after the Supreme Court denied cert in that case.

Must Inventors Defy the Laws of Physics to Obtain a Valid Patent?
Benjamin Cappel, Partner at AddyHart P.C. and moderator of this panel, began by asking panelist Andrei Iancu, former Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and currently Partner at Irell & Manella, whether the Federal Circuit’s majority decision in American Axle requires an inventor to defy the laws of physics in order to obtain a patent valid under Section 101. Though seemingly absurd, many have argued that this would be the result of the Federal Circuit’s reasoning that the use of Hooke’s law in a patented method of manufacture directed the patent claims toward an unpatentable law of nature. Iancu cautioned that the logical conclusion of American Axle swallows all of patent law in just the way that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas warned against in his authored opinion in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014). “The real question is, what’s the overall broad-based implication of American Axle?” Iancu asked, adding that the answer to that question won’t become clear until lower courts start applying the Federal Circuit’s decision in other cases.

The panelists at this IPWatchdog LIVE session largely agreed that the Supreme Court’s denial of cert in American Axle suggested that the nation’s highest court was signaling an end to its interest in Section 101 issues, a subject into which the Court has waded numerous times over the past 15 years. Panelist Brandon Helms, Partner at AddyHart, opined that the Supreme Court is probably not going to be the avenue through which Section 101 will be fixed. As Iancu noted, recent Supreme Court case law is eliding different statutory sections of patentability in a way that drags the United States’ patent system back by about 70 years:

“The brilliance of the 1952 Patent Act was to separate the bases of invalidity into their own lanes, each with a separate standard of analysis. That has done great work to clarify patent law… The Section 101 cases move us backward, mushing up patent eligibility again. If a patent is claimed broadly or vaguely, that’s a Section 112 issue and people know how to do a Section 112 analysis. Let’s keep the statutes in their own lanes, then we could have a better way to perform these analyses.”

Mixed Reactions on Tillis’ Patent Eligibility Bill From Panelists and Attendees
Wen Xie, another panelist and Partner at Global IP Counselors, pointed out one salient issue with the patent eligibility framework left behind by Alice, specifically Step 2 of the Alice test in which a court looks to whether a patent’s claims are directed to subject matter that is well-understood, routine or conventional. “The problem is that Section 101 is silent as to how to establish that a claimed invention is well-understood, routine or conventional,” she said. As a result, Section 101 invalidity determinations are entirely discretionary and allow for opinion-based decisions that incorporate none of the evidentiary tests required for other statutory patentability requirements.

Some heated discussion from the panel’s attendees began to develop as the panel’s discussion veered in the direction of potential legislative fixes to Section 101, especially the recent patent eligibility bill proposed by Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC). While panelists, especially Iancu, felt that Tillis should be lauded for wading into those difficult waters, Paul Morinville of inventor advocacy group US Inventor told the panel that the current language of Tillis’ bill, which includes patentability exceptions, is drafted in such a way that it likely excludes artificial intelligence and other critical emerging areas of technology from patentability. Xie agreed that the bill’s language was problematic for those technology sectors by creating a test similar to the Federal Circuit’s machine-or-transformation test rejected by the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos (2009). If the test in Tillis’ bill is construed as requiring a machine to execute behaviors to meet Section 101 patentability, then Xie agreed that many AI systems would fail the patentability standard.

Can Strategic Amicus Filing Get the CAFC to Defer to USPTO Guidelines?
One of the panel’s most intriguing ideas came from attendee Susan Braden, former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Although the Federal Circuit has proven itself impervious to USPTO guidelines on subject matter eligibility, especially in Cleveland Clinic, Judge Braden noted that, in other contexts, federal courts have voluntarily subjected themselves to agency guidance in resolving legal disputes. She pointed out that, within the antitrust context, federal courts regularly defer to horizontal merger guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice without performing any further analysis beyond those guidelines. While Judge Braden disagreed that more amicus briefing overall might push the Federal Circuit in the proper direction on Section 101 law, she felt as though some strategic amicus briefing on this point could encourage the Federal Circuit toward deference to the USPTO’s patent eligibility guidelines. Judge Braden also encouraged the room to read a recent Wall Street Journal article by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey speaking on the national security implications of the uncertain state of patent eligibility law. “Our argument to Congress should focus on that and what we need to do to straighten out the law for the sake of national security,” she said.

“If I were advising the USPTO, I’d tell them not to try to fix Alice by talking about Alice,” Xie said on the subject of updating the agency’s patent eligibility guidelines. She suggested that the creation of special examination procedures for applications in areas that are particularly susceptible to Section 101 rejections, such as cloud computing. Bob Stoll, another session attendee and Partner at Faegre Drinker, countered that such agency rulemaking likely runs afoul of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of IP Rights (TRIPS), which could put U.S. corporations at risk of international intervention in technology sectors where the nation is trying to achieve global dominance.

Iancu: Other Patent Systems Have Developed a Workable Eligibility Framework
Though there was some dissension from the inventor advocates attending this particular session, especially on the subject of Tillis’ bill, Helms noted that their words were not lost on the panelists and other lawyers in attendance, many of whom work with independent inventors. Inventor and IP owner Doug Pittman urged those in attendance to instead support the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act introduced last year by Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY).

Perhaps the session’s most encouraging words came from Iancu, who argued that a workable framework on the subject matter eligibility question has already been developed by many countries that have implemented a national patent system. At a high level, these national frameworks include a broad statement on patentability akin to the traditional construction of Section 101 within the U.S. prior to recent patent eligibility case law. Those permissive statutes are then qualified by a series of exceptions for unpatentable subject matter like mathematical formulas or products found in nature. However, Iancu underscored the critical nature of these exceptions as per se exceptions, at which point courts in those foreign jurisdictions look at whether the claimed patent makes a practical use of those per se exceptions. Such a framework would support patent eligibility for critical segments of technology like cryptography, which makes heavy use of mathematical formulas, without running afoul of Federal Circuit case law on Section 101. “We’re the oldest modern patent system in the world, but the last to figure out a working patent subject matter eligibility framework,” Iancu said.

[Cartmontster]

Spot on... no "Executive" took this survey. Top Executives at big companies don't even read their own email much less take a survey.

Unless their Senior IT Executives were with a company of say... 10 end-users. I managed four companies with about 200 users and I would never think of taking time from my day for a BS survey like this.

[dukeb]

I'm more baffled by the fact that 1,000 senior IT executives took the time away from their day to take a vanilla survey like this. I get solicitations regularly offering me an Amazon, Starbucks, Subway gift card in return for proving my opinion about industry trends, my impressions of a specific manufacturer or product, etc.

I've never taken one of those surveys and I'd be very suspicious of anyone who does have the time to do so.

[surfkast]

What a pile of horse shit.
Give Kay the big DUH award!
If an upper level IT professional is not concerned about enterprise wide security, only video conferencing, they had better start looking for a new job.

The results of this survey indicates broad awareness of Zero Trust cybersecurity among IT professionals,

To address external security threats, big companies deploy and regularly update basic measures such as two-factor authentication, firewalls and antimalware solutions. They also go further by implementing more advanced strategies such as Trusted Platform Module (TPM) capabilities and adopting Zero Trust architecture.

https://www.endpointprotector.com/blog/5-ways-big-companies-protect-their-data/

[AveragePenny]

$ZRFY Zerify Survey indicates video conferencing security is a growing concern amid increasing cyber threats and fear of nation-state attacks

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2022/09/07/2511437/0/en/Zerify-Survey-indicates-video-conferencing-security-is-a-growing-concern-amid-increasing-cyber-threats-and-fear-of-nation-state-attacks.html

EDISON, N.J., Sept. 07, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Zerify, Inc., (OTCQB: ZRFY), the 21-year-old cyber security company focused on secure video conferencing solutions, today announced the findings of a survey that indicate that IT professionals are becoming increasingly concerned about the growing number of cyber threats and foreign attacks capable of impacting video conferencing. The survey, commissioned by Zerify and executed by market research firm Propeller Insights in July of 2022, involved 1,000 IT professionals - most of whom are at the director or C-Level (83.8%).

With the White House’s executive order on improving the nation’s cybersecurity, video conferencing still has not been given the specific, individualized focus it deserves despite a notable increase in virtual meetings among remote and hybrid workers across critical industries. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) developed guidelines to ensure security in video conferencing that are in accordance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) recommendations.

NIST developed a framework for Zero Trust architecture that should be considered for video conferencing. This is something that’s especially important to George Waller, EVP and co-founder of Zerify, who explains that Zero Trust in video conferencing involves important steps to elevate security, such as locking down microphones and speakers, and authorizing and authenticating every single user prior to entering a specific conference. His own early concerns and forethought about video conferencing security - and his desire to implement specific preventative measures - were mirrored by 97% of survey respondents who said they would want to know about a solution for enhanced video conferencing security.

Highlights of the survey include:

97% of respondents said they were concerned about protecting privacy and video conferencing data
92% reported that they are aware of security vulnerabilities in video conferencing platforms
Nation-state cyber threats have increased at most (81.8%) companies
The majority of IT professionals (89%) are concerned about foreign attacks as they see a rise in threats
79% of respondents reported that they were very knowledgeable about the concept and framework of Zero Trust cybersecurity, with 86% stating that their company had Zero Trust cybersecurity policies. Zero Trust is a “strategic approach to cybersecurity that secures an organization by eliminating implicit trust and continuously validating every stage of a digital interaction.”
69% believe cyber attackers could breach their video conferencing platforms and 84% stated that if they were breached, they believed attackers could steal intellectual property, sensitive company data and trade secrets.
“The results of this survey indicates broad awareness of Zero Trust cybersecurity among IT professionals, and underscore the need for video conferencing platforms to guarantee that same level of privacy and protection of proprietary data,” said Waller. “Collaborative communications is an area of heightened vulnerability as more work is conducted remotely. Video conferencing threats are increasing and decision-makers are concerned about nation-state threats as these platforms can be compromised by attackers trying to steal IP information and other valuable data. The increase in foreign attacks exacerbates security concerns for IT professionals, illustrating why it’s so important to authenticate and authorize every single video conference participant prior to their admittance into a meeting. Individualized authentication is essential to ensuring Zero Trust for the most secure types of video conferences.”

[surfkast]

Two to one sells to buys. After 10:30 a few small buys* and then all sells!

* an interesting buy at 12:30 of 380,000

[dounome]

not trying. You see what you see. Old friend.

[surfkast]

Nice try.

[dounome]

Eliminating the Jargon: An Alternative Proposal for Section 101 Reform
On August 3, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022, S.4734, which would amend the U.S. Patent Act to clarify the patent eligibility of certain technologies under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. Few would disagree that the current state of eligibility jurisprudence is in “abysmal shambles”, and recognizing that U.S. eligibility law needs changing comes from both side of the aisle, as Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) has long questioned the court-made exceptions to patent eligibility….. I have extensively followed the developments of 101 jurisprudence in the courts and the efforts of those in Congress to enact statutory changes to Section 101. In so doing, I have contemplated how Section 101 could be improved, and thus my proposal regarding how to revise the statutory language follows.

[Cartmontster]

That's brutal! I almost hopped onboard about 10 years ago. So glad I didn't.

[dounome]

.. I have extensively followed the developments of 101 jurisprudence in the courts and the efforts of those in Congress to enact statutory changes to Section 101. In so doing, I have contemplated how Section 101 could be improved, and thus my proposal regarding how to revise the statutory language follows.