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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
$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.”
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
not trying. You see what you see. Old friend.
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.
That's brutal! I almost hopped onboard about 10 years ago. So glad I didn't.
.. 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.
Since Kay lied to my face twice, I made it my mission to watch and then call out his scam!
LOL. I lost $10,000 when I believed Pinocchio.
LOL. I lost $10,000 when I believed Pinocchio.
I listened to Kay blabber in the recent video. If I'm not mistaken, Zerify Meet allows the meeting organizer to assign an individual username (email address??) and unique password for each invitee. Those credentials need to be typed in by an attendee before they can join a meeting. If someone passes their unique credentials to someone who then "bombs" the meeting, there would be a way to trace the "bomber" back to the invitee's.
On the flip side, conducting virtual meetings can be clumsy enough as it is. Requiring that each attendee type in their ID/password will only make the process even more fraught with potential failure.
Cracks me up how the pumpers still pump this. Well, they're only pumping to try and get the price up so they don't lose so much.
Just look at the PPS of the "new" great company! Same ol!
There is nothing stopping someone from giving out the code. Once inside, even if discovered it may be too late.
And as I stated, they can take a picture of something on the screen or even record the meeting.
Kay as usual is FOS!
There is one way and one way only, to fully protect your computer 100%... and that is to NOT connect it to the Internet. Leave it in the box! :o)
You are correct, your two IT VPs are correct. Every and anything attached to the Internet can be hacked.
Thanks for clarifying
What I saw was a recording of the interview. There was no indication that others could watch/listen live and there certainly weren't any "callers" who were invited to ask questions. Do you believe otherwise?
Because if it was just a one-on-one being recorded for posting on a web site then there is no reason that Zerify Meet could not have been used for the interview.
They all have Zoom or another well-known platforms.
Which is excellent. Plus my discussions with two IT VP's revealed they already have enterprise wide safety measures. Not just for video conferencing.
They both agreed that no matter how good any system is, someone can always take a picture of the screen!
ZOOM
Encryption: Protecting your event content by encrypting the session’s video, audio, and screen sharing. This content is protected during transit with 256-bit Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) using a one-time key for that specific session when all participants use a Zoom client.
End-to-end Encryption, when enabled, ensures that communication between all meeting participants in a given meeting is encrypted using cryptographic keys known only to the devices of those participants. This ensures that no third party -- including Zoom -- has access to the meeting’s private keys.
Advanced Chat Encryption, when enabled, allows for a secured communication where only the intended recipient can read the secured message. Zoom uses both asymmetric and symmetric algorithms to encrypt the chat session. Private keys are generated on the device and not shared. This ensures that the session cannot be eavesdropped on or tampered with.
Zoom Phone Voicemail recordings are processed and stored in Zoom’s cloud and can be managed through the secured Zoom client.
Recordings can be stored on the host’s local device with the local recording option or on Zoom’s cloud with the Cloud Recording option (available to paying customers).
Local Recording Storage: Recordings stored locally on the host’s device can be encrypted if desired using various free or commercially available tools.
Cloud Recording Storage: Cloud recordings are processed and stored in Zoom’s cloud after the meeting has ended; account owners control whether these recordings are passcode-protected. The recordings are stored in both video/audio format and audio only format.
If a meeting host enables cloud recording and audio transcripts, both will be stored encrypted. The account owner and people and apps they approve can access encrypted content stored in ZoomCloud (and Zoom can access stored content for troubleshooting if requested by the account owner).
If a meeting host enables file transfer through in-meeting chat, those shared files will be stored encrypted and will be deleted within 31 days of the meeting.
Audio Signature embeds a user's personal information into the audio as an inaudible watermark if they record during a meeting. If the audio file is shared without permission, Zoom can help identify which participant recorded the meeting.
Watermark Screenshot superimposes an image, consisting of a portion of a meeting participant’s own email address, onto the shared content they are viewing and the video of the person who is sharing their screen.
Not to be defending Kay.... he can't use his own product because all the others who want to see the interview, or whatever it was, don't have it. They all have Zoom or another well-known platform.
I sat in that conference room years ago when Kay said no R/S. Then after the R/S I sat there again and he said no R/S.
The fly would hear lies!
Pinocchio was in the office along with a tech in the server room which was not impressive at all.
Not using his own product is very telling.
Hey WBC, how you been?
Yup, same old same old here. And, over on the Yahoo board too.
There are a few hardcore pumpers there. One of them makes you think he's actually Kay!
Wow, I see SFOR has tried a rebranding.....
I also see that it is still a money stealing scheme from investors, and see some of the same ole pumpers here.....
The gift that keeps on, scamming
Oh, to be a fly on the wall of that conference room.
I think it's doubtful that Kay or Waller even leave their respective homes on any given work day. When they do meet the hot topic of conversation is what restaurant will provide lunch (paid by the company, of course).
I forgot to mention that the recent remote interview that Kay did was NOT done over Zerify Meet. You might that Mark would insist on using the company's own product for that interview.
And that's the point. The spots have nothing to do with drumming up sales. It has to do with Kay and Waller showing potential stockholders that they are pulling out all the stops to boost revenue.
Never mind that those ads ran at 1:30am when no one will see them. The boys won't mention that part.
What a joke!
Zerify's galactic headquarters in New Jersey
And a reminder:
The paid-for-TV programming platforms...
The Street's syndicated and sponsored TV networks, Newsmax TV, Fox Business Network, and Bloomberg TV
How much will this cost investors?
https://sports.yahoo.com/street-tv-signs-12-part-133000714.html
That's when all their "spots" run!!! No way in the world they could ever afford Prime-Time.
You are damn close.
From this link: https://newtothestreet.com/upcoming-airings
New to the Street appears on...
Fox Business Network Every Monday and Tuesday at 1030 PM PST | Bloomberg every other Saturday at 6 PM
Translating to Eastern Time (which sync with Zerify's galactic headquarters in New Jersey) the broadcast on FBN will be Tuesdays and Wednesday at 1:30am and on Bloomberg Saturday evening (no indication if the 6pm is also Pacific time or some other time zone.
This is Kay and Waller just trying to show that they are doing SOMETHING to justify their 6 figure salaries.
NBC-ABC-CBS?????
The paid-for-TV programming platforms...
The Street's syndicated and sponsored TV networks, Newsmax TV, Fox Business Network, and Bloomberg TV
How much will this cost investors?
https://sports.yahoo.com/street-tv-signs-12-part-133000714.html
Probably at 1AM Eastern.
Would anyone here please join me in requesting iHub Admin to post ZRFY NEWS on the News tab for this board, instead of the old SFOR message board? I have asked 4 times, and they say “all set”, but it isn’t.
Time on NBC-ABC-CBS-FOX-BLOOM B- AND OTHERS.
Three to one sells to buys! Kay and krew must have a big party planned for the three day weekend.
Here it comes, Surfkast.
Not happening with this dilution machine.
There is no reason to buy any stock. In the end you are in it to just make a profit and sell it.
Because there is no reason to buy this failure of a company!
Why don’t we just run this to $1?
Like to see this back at .08-.10.
The Good Ole Days...
Indeed, it was more of a rhetorical question. These guys are shameless thieves of shareholder value. They borrow the money, pay themselves, and we pay off the debt.
Where did the money actually go? Again.
Easy one to answer: paychecks and benefits for Kay and his band of thieves.
Wow, they signed on to repaying $7.5M, plus future royalties, as repayment for a $1.5M loan?
ZRFY has no incentive to actually litigate this, other than giving it lip service, since the money is repaid "only in the event that the company achieves recoveries.....". I seem to remember another $1M loan to pursue patent litigation a few years ago, but maybe it was this one and I misremember the amount.
Regardless, having to repay 5X + on a loan is sheer desperation and the terms indicate an implicit unwillingness to act in good faith by the company. Which should surprise no one who follows this company and makes one wonder how the lenders could possibly have made the loan.
Back then, in 2017, BlankRome was representing SFOR on contingency. Ropes & Gray did charge for the miserable job they did at Appeals Court, but there's no way it came to $1.5M. Where did the money actually go? Again.
Hard to watch this stock at these prices.
StrikeForce Technologies
This information found below is from different Mods. It can not be removed without their permission. Any additions must go below the last entry.
WARNING: PLEASE USE THE SYMBOL SFOR OR COMPANY NAME WHEN POSTING-USE OF ABBREVIATIONS SUCH AS "SF" WILL BE DELETED!
This board is to be used to discuss SFOR(D) the company, its officers and its stock. Messages about other posters or intentions, the mods, name calling, profanity, deletions etc. are off topic at the very least.
To answer some of your questions regarding posts, please read the following, that you should have known already, taken from the Ihub FAQ section of the Ihub handbook. So you can stop with the moronic conspiracy theories about the Mods and Admins on this board!
Regarding libel and slander suspected posts:
"Libel can only become a fact if a judge says it is. Nobody else, including Moderators or Site Admins, can nor will determine that Member posted content is libelous. Members are often of the opinion that a post is libelous, but no Moderator should act based on that opinion. Libel is decided by a judge in a court of law after conducting proper evidentiary hearings. If such a judgment is issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, iHub will abide by that ruling. Otherwise, it is not a matter that Site Admin or Mods can decide. Our only role here is to ensure adherence to the Terms of Use. Anecdotally, quite often the information that some Members allege to be libelous ends up being accurate, which is why neither Site Admins nor Moderators remove posts on the basis of being allegedly false or libelous."
Regarding posting lies (or what some posters feel are lies):
"Mods or Admin do not make decisions about the veracity of information posted. "Truth" is a very subjective term and neither Site Admin nor Mods remove posts based on judgments of this type. Each reader has both the right and obligation to decide for themselves if they feel a post is accurate and its author credible. As a participant on the board, the Moderators' recourse is the same as any other Member; to debate the information contained in the post without attacking the Member, or to ignore it. Attack the message, not the messenger."
Regarding a good DD post with a personal attack lumped in:
If a post is 99% on topic and 1% personal attack it still needs to be removed. Personal attacks in any form are disrespectful of others and are unwelcome on the site. These types of gratuitous comments also create noise and dilute the quality of the board. When a Member attacks another poster, other participants inevitably feel the need to respond, either agreeing or defending. Then others feel the need to respond to these…and so on and so on ad nauseam. Pretty soon the board has devolved into personal attacks and discussion about other Members, i.e., noise and no signal. There are plenty of other sites that allow these types of posts and it is difficult to find any meaningful content on such sites. The goal at iHub is to have all information, whether positive, neutral or negative, discussed in a civil manner, free of personal attacks.
Regarding proof of member post content:
Members do not have to provide "proof" when offering their opinions. There is no requirement for Members to substantiate their posts. Veracity of posts and credibility of the author is determined by the reader.
http://www.strikeforcetech.com/index.aspx
SFOR Security Details Outstanding Shares confirmed unchanged as of 8/19/2016
|
Market Value1 | $9,497,134 | a/o Aug 19, 2016 | |
Authorized Shares | 5,000,000,000 | a/o May 16, 2016 | |
Outstanding Shares | 2,282,964,907 | a/o May 16, 2016 | |
-Restricted | Not Available | ||
-Unrestricted | Not Available | ||
Held at DTC | Not Available | ||
Float | 2,282,934,907 | a/o May 16, 2016 |
Leadership Team:
http://www.guardedid.com/about_leadership.aspx
Advisory Board:
http://www.guardedid.com/about_advisory.aspx
StrikeForce Technologies' IR Contact
Mark L. Kay
CEO
(732) 661-9641
marklkay@strikeforcetech.com
NOW SOLD IN TARGET
http://www.target.com/p/mobile-trust-keystroke-encryption-software-2-mobile-devices/-/A-50575250#prodSlot=medium_1_1&term=mobiletrust
http://www.target.com/p/guarded-id-21-keystroke-encryption-software-2-pcs/-/A-50568581#prodSlot=medium_1_1&term=guarded+id
http://anti-keylogger-software-review.toptenreviews.com/?full_site=true
StrikeForce Technologies is a leading provider that Specializes in Identity Theft Online solutions for consumers, industry and government. By leveraging StrikeForce's breakthrough technologies, consumers and organizations can finally secure their electronic assets while protecting their employees, business partners, suppliers and customers from malicious hacking and theft.
StrikeForce's revolutionary technologies are represented by a proprietary software product suite that guards both businesses and consumers from keylogging, phishing, malware, spyware and other identity attacks and scams.
For more on StrikeForce Technologies, see our corporate web site.
RECENT CYBER BREACHES ALL POSITIVE FOR SFOR (Thanks TradeSlinger)
The threat from cybercrime? 'You ain't seen nothing yet"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100959481
August 29,2013
Telecoms companies now subject to new personal data breach notification rules
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2013/august/telecoms-companies-now-subject-to-new-personal-data-breach-notification-rules/
August 28, 2013
Phishing email grants hackers access to DNS records of major websites
http://www.scmagazine.com//phishing-email-grants-hackers-access-to-dns-records-of-major-websites/article/309274/#
August 2013 CyberBreaches...
Infosec 2013: Cost of cyber breaches rises three-fold, research shows
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240182218/Infosec-2013-Cost-of-cyber-breaches-rises-three-fold-research-shows
C/Net News:League of Legends is hacked,
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57599450-83/league-of-legends-is-hacked-with-crucial-user-info-accessed/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57599646-83/cybercrooks-use-ddos-attacks-to-mask-theft-of-banks-millions/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57600336-83/syrian-electronic-army-implicated-in-twitter-new-york-times-attacks/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57598603-83/google-confirms-android-flaw-that-led-to-bitcoin-theft/
Nasdaq outage resembles hacker attacks
http://www.usatoday.com/story/cybertruth/2013/08/22/nasdaq-outage-aligns-with--denial-of-service-attacks/2687323/
August 2013 global threats
http://www.scmagazine.com//august-2013-global-threats/slideshow/1502/#0
LivingSocial
http://www.scmagazine.com/top-five-data-breaches-in-2013so-far/slideshow/1387/
Daily-deal website LivingSocial confirmed that its computer systems were hacked, resulting in “unauthorized access.”
The company updated its password encryption method after the breach impacted more than 50 million users. Names, email addresses, dates of birth, and salted passwords were stolen.
1-15 June 2013 Cyber Attacks Timeline
http://hackmageddon.com/2013/07/01/1-15-june-2013-cyber-attacks-timeline/
http://www.strikeforcetech.com |
IDGenie Mobile Security
|
|
OTCQB (as if that means anything)
SFOR now on OTCQB Benefits of uplisting to OTCQB per OTCMarkets website as follows:
"The OTCQB is considered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as an "established public market" for the purpose of determining the public market price when registering securities for resale with the SEC. The OTC Pink is not considered as such and most broker dealers will not trade or recommend OTC Pink stocks. Because the OTCQB dramatically increases transparency, reporting standards, management certification and compliance requirements, the majority of broker dealers trade stocks on the OTCQB. Historically this has resulted in greater liquidity and awareness for companies that reach the OTCQB tier.
Key elements and benefits of uplisting to the OTCQB include:
?Companies must remain current and compliant in their reporting to the SEC
?Minimum bid price test of $0.01 removes companies that are most likely to be the subject of dilutive stock fraud schemes and promotion
?Improved investor confidence through verified information, confirming that the Company Profile displayed on www.otcmarkets.com is current and complete
?Annual management certification process to verify officers, directors, controlling shareholders, and shares outstanding
?Greater information availability for investors through the OTC Disclosure & News Service
?Transparent prices for investors through full-depth of book with Real Time Level 2 quotes"
NEXT QUARTER
500 to 1 Reverse Split Coming, end of April, 2020
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=14077781&guid=v5zHUFJLzJ56Ayh
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |