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.
I'm betting the NT for their 10K being late will be out tomorrow.
Two to one sells to buys with an $8 buy EOD to close this up! Now that is too funny!
This one's Next!!! Bulish Weekly Stochatics Divergence and daily stoch buy signal today says READY!!!!!!
Thanks for sharing that.
Where is Fartmaster with his 60 million shares? LOL
The Supreme Court has never quite grasped the distinction between patent eligibility and patentability. Eligibility involves entire subject matter categories or fields of inventive enterprise, like the categories “process, machine, [article of] manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. 101. Ascertaining eligibility should therefore require little more than checking the patent title and ensuring that, in the words of the venerable Judge Giles Rich, “[the invention] produces a useful, concrete and tangible result.” State Street Bank v. Signature Fin. Group, 149 F. 3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In simple terms, Section 101 requires little more for eligibility than a showing that an invention has applied natural principles to achieve a concrete purpose within the expansive categories articulated by Thomas Jefferson in 1793. Patentability, on the other hand, proceeds as a detailed claim-by-claim, feature-by-feature examination of “the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. 101. Ironically this fundamental distinction that eludes the Supreme Court is explicit in the statutory language of 35 U.S.C. 101 itself.
When the U.S. Government asked the Supreme Court to honor this statutory language and design, the Court gave a ludicrous response: “[We] decline the Government’s invitation to substitute §§102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under §101.” Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012) [emphasis supplied]. In the first place, the reference to the “conditions and requirements” of Sections 102, 103, and 112 is already part of Section 101. The Supreme Court’s statement, however, is ludicrous because the only place in the world where eligibility is “better established” than the vast jurisprudence for validity is in U.S. Supreme Court cases alone. And, of course, that jurisprudence does not “establish” any “better” decisional analysis at all. In other words, the Supreme Court justifies its blatant mistake of ignoring the language of the statute by referring to its earlier mistakes! To be clear, the Court’s mistake goes beyond disregarding the statute to virtually replacing the written law with wholly unnecessary judge-made exceptions. See Part 1 of this Eligibility Overview.
The Court’s Long History of Ignoring the Patent Act
Because the Court does not follow the statute, the distinction between patent eligibility and patentability evaporates with damaging consequences. The Patent Act has repeatedly tried to clarify the distinction. In the early 1950s, then-New York patent attorney, Giles S. Rich (later Circuit Judge Rich), and a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) scholar, P. J. Federico, came together to propose amendments to the Patent Act to make sure eligibility was not confused with basic patentability — the claim-by-claim measure of technological advance necessary to deserve a patent. For that reason, the 1952 Act added Section 100 (b) to expressly define a “process” in terms broad enough to ensure that “any new and useful process,” often computer software, would remain eligible in light of quixotic Supreme Court rulings. 35 U.S.C. 101 [emphasis supplied].
For the same reason, the 1952 Act gave life to the word “discovery” from Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 8, of the U. S. Constitution by putting “or discovered” into Section 101. Without much regard for the statute’s direct approval of discoveries, the Supreme Court in A.M.P. v. Myriad Genetics, 569 U.S. 576 (2013), examined DNA fragments removed from their natural setting and presented for diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Again, that molecular structure had never before existed in that isolated form. The Court dismissively declared that the inventor “created nothing,” while conceding that Myriad’s advance was a “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, . . . [and] brilliant discovery.” Id. [emphasis supplied]. In a glaring oversight, the Court did not bother to explain that both the U.S. Constitution (“Inventors [enjoy] the exclusive right to their . . . discoveries”) and the Patent Act (“whoever invents or discovers”) equate invention and discovery. Indeed, this equation makes sense. The U.S. public does not care how it acquires technology, as long as it benefits from the continual “progress of science and useful arts.” See, U.S. Constitution, Article 1. In sum, the Patent Act bristles with terminology to prevent the courts from conflating eligibility and patentability.
The drafters of the 1952 Act were aware that predictability would be a casualty if the two rules lost touch with their separate statutory anchors. Already, the memorable words of Judge Learned Hand had issued a plaintive warning: “[Patentability has become] as fugitive, impalpable, wayward, and vague a phantom as exists in the whole paraphernalia of legal concepts.” Harries v. Air King, 183 F.2d 158 (2d Cir. 1950) [emphasis supplied]. Moreover, Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson cautioned, “[T]he only patent that is valid is one which this [the Supreme] Court has not been able to get its hands on.” Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co., 335 U.S. 560 (1949).
In the period leading up to the 1952 Act, the Court had disturbingly jumbled doctrines of eligibility and patentability. See, Funk Brothers v. Kalo Inoculant, 333 U.S. 127 (1948) (Justice Douglas calls the new bacteria combination a “work of nature”; Justice Frankfurter saw the issue as patentability). And even after the 1952 Act, the Court continued to introduce new “phantom” validity tests. Those unpredictable claim-by-claim validity tests proceeded in two steps: First, the Court looked for the “gist” of the invention; Second, the Court examined that gist for a “flash of genius” or an undefined “synergism.” See, Black Rock v. Pavement, 396 U.S. 57 (1969); Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc.,425 U.S. 273 (1976). The second step was achieved by observing the invention and assessing the Court’s own visceral “gee whizz” reaction to its merits.
A New Two-Step That is Hopelessly Off-Beat
Ironically, despite the express terms of the 1952 Act, the Supreme Court repeated its pattern of returning to confusion. The Court followed the familiar path of its earlier mistakes (Benson, Flook, Funk Bros.) to make them again in Mayo, Myriad, and Alice. And, no surprise here, this renewed modern conflation of eligibility and patentability still performs a two-step dance. The lower courts and the USPTO describe the Supreme Court’s two-step in somewhat misleading terms. According to the lower courts and USPTO, step one asks if the claim is “directed to” one of the three judge-made exceptions; step two then asks if the claim recites “additional elements that amount to significantly more” than those unnecessary exceptions.
Because every invention must use natural laws and phenomena and abstractness remains an undefined “phantom,” it is often not difficult to find some element of a claim within the grasp of the non-statutory exceptions. Therefore, the real decisive two-step examination starts with identifying the “inventive concept” in the claims — not in the claim as a whole, but in any element of the claim. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (“We have described . . . this analysis as a search for an ‘”inventive concept—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligibility exception] itself.’”). This search for a modern inventive concept is almost identical to the search for the “gist” of the invention before the 1952 Act.
Then, as noted above, the second step is a search for “something significantly more” than the expansive judge-made exceptions that have swallowed the statutory rule. The second part of this modern test is again practically identical to the search for some undefined “flash of genius” or “synergism” which judges simply recognize by their reaction (in vast disregard of the dangers of hindsight) upon observation of the invention. The Court says that this “something more” must transcend the “well-known, routine, or conventional,” see, e,g, Mayo, but that inquiry proceeds without reference to prior art to define those generalizations. Again, the courts are seeking some visceral reaction akin to an undefined “flash of genius” to account for an indeterminate “something more” that impresses enough to survive the claim-by-claim eligibility/patentability test. Tragically, the Court’s conflation of eligibility and patentability has thus largely revived the vague validity tests supposedly outlawed in the 1952 Act.
The Impact is Impossible to Fully Quantify
It is perhaps impossible to quantify the full impact of the modern eligibility/patentability crisis on U.S. innovation policy. A 2022 Report from the USPTO confirmed: “ . . . the current jurisprudence has altered the landscape for determining patent subject matter eligibility.” USPTO Report to Congress: Patent Eligible Subject Matter: Public views on the current jurisprudence in the United States, June 2022. Even lagging and incomplete statistics will not fully document the shift to trade secrets, the declining availability of financial investment for important areas of R&D, and the patent applications that were not filed or abandoned due to the chilling climate of Mayo, Myriad, and Alice. One account five years after Alice reported: “Over 1,000 patents have been invalidated by the federal courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), while over 60,000 patent applications have been abandoned before the USPTO following rejections for patent ineligible subject matter.” Sachs, Robert, Alice: Benevolent Despot or Tyrant, IP Watchdog, August 29, 2019. That report also noted that “the Federal Circuit affirms 89% of lower court decisions invalidating patents” with district courts upholding 57% of motions to invalidate in whole or part under 101. Id.
Next Up: The CAFC Strikes Out
In sum, the Supreme Court has revived a claim-by-claim eligibility/patentability test that has harmed a whole generation of invention. Of course, the Supreme Court has not been alone in this endeavor. The next installment in these ruminations on eligibility will show that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has repeatedly struck out when facing softball eligibility/patentability pitches. One simple bit of advice would bring more certainty to judicial efforts to interpret and apply patent law: When all else fails, consult the statute.
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Author: trekandshoot
Image ID: 21374219
SHARE
Almost 9mill 3's here so far for me! This one looks ready to get FIRED-UP!!!
Go spread your bullshit on another board. This has not gone lower than .0003 for a long time. You are full of shit claiming you bought @.0003. Plus this has not gone over .00045 for a long time.
Nice close at 4's!!! I'm up $882, that was easy!
2021 was a great year for me and my DD!
Case is SEC’s First Involving Regulation Crowdfunding
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2021-182
Washington D.C., Sept. 20, 2021 —
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged three individuals and one issuer with conducting a fraudulent scheme to sell nearly $2 million of unregistered securities through two crowdfunding offerings. The SEC also charged the registered funding portal and its CEO, who placed the offerings on the portal’s platform.
According to the SEC's complaint, Robert Shumake, alongside associates Nicole Birch and Willard Jackson, conducted fraudulent and unregistered crowdfunding offerings through two cannabis and hemp companies, Transatlantic Real Estate LLC and 420 Real Estate LLC. Shumake, with assistance from Birch and Jackson, allegedly hid his involvement in the offerings from the public out of concern that his prior criminal conviction could deter prospective investors. The complaint alleges that Shumake and Birch raised $1,020,100 from retail investors through Transatlantic Real Estate, and Shumake and Jackson raised $888,180 through 420 Real Estate. Shumake, Birch, and Jackson allegedly diverted investor funds for personal use rather than using the funds for the purposes disclosed to investors. As alleged, TruCrowd Inc., a registered funding portal, and its CEO, Vincent Petrescu, hosted the Transatlantic Real Estate and 420 Real Estate offerings on TruCrowd's platform. Petrescu allegedly failed to address red flags including Shumake's criminal history and involvement in the crowdfunding offerings, and otherwise failed to reduce the risk of fraud to investors.
Sold 177, now back in, so what's ur point? How did the DD work for you in 2021? Hmmm? If ur counting on DD then OTC is not the place you want to be!
I see your DD skills are lacking. I was tipped off to buy IGPK @.016. The next week it dropped 82%. on the 19th!
Now here are your quotes! LOL
03/17/2024 01:42:52 PM I'm a seller .028
03/18/2024 12:12:53 PM Open gap at 168-170 will have to fill b4 further gains imo
Now when did you claim to sell? LOL
What’s with all the trades for $3 and less?
Actually you're the one who got laughed at on all boards you post on, IGPK comes to mind while I made $9k you sat and bashed like the coward that you are! Lol! Lmao!!! Hahahaha!!!!
Do you enjoy making a fool out of yourself with meaningless charts and bushit claims? You have been laughed off of many boards and this will be the next.
Sure Dumb Ass! Must be why there's 220mill shares bidding for 3's here today right?
Go back under your rock. Kay and ZRFY are a 20 year scam with nothing going on.
3 more fills at 3's for me today! I'm all loaded now with 3's! And there are 251mill bidding for 3's means 4's, 5's, 6's coming
I haven’t look real closely at the filings, but it appears to me that only the 13 billion of warrants were converted to prefshares. The number of warrants is staggering, and must go back many years. I guess many of those warrants were under water, so gave them a profitable reset. I do agree with your statement, regarding not having enough A/s to handle the warrant exercise. That should have noted by the auditors.
Read my last post, then add "Ditto"
They have a ton of convertible debt and if you linkback they have an active 1 A and just issued more convertible shares.
Are you a comedy writer? Based on the 20 years of history here, Kay and the three amigos will keep diluting. There is no reason for anyone to invest here. A chart is meaningless.
They have an active 1 A and just issued new convertible preferred with no conversion restrictions.
The conversion price of the Series C Preferred Stock shall be $0.00025 per share of common stock
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=17357007&guid=Lvd-knmv0E2mB3h
Are you saying, it is merely Convertible Debt in other words?
Don't know bout all that...but chart looks like it wants to run to 12's and soon!
The only move is Kay shitting on investors. Glad you claim to have bought this ongoing scam today! LOL
More 3's for me here today! Big move coming!
The conversion rate for the B Preferred is a 40% of market discount. But I don't see any conversions. What I see is the convertible notes being cashed in.
I was amazed to hear about “getting rid of 13 billion warrants”, since they never had an AS sufficient to satisfy the conversion of so many shares…
No, they covert the pref to common, haven't see the conversion rate of 1 pref=how many common
I wonder where they sell the preferred stock: does it have a symbol?
Thanks for the explanation. I heard the ZZ Top dude mention Rule 144 restrictions on sales and Mark corrected him to state that the shares were free trading. So Mark only lies 99 44/100% of the time.
The "out of our hair" comment was a gem. I don't suppose that debt ended up on the balance sheet by some miraculous event. Rather, it was Mark going to a lender asking for money to make payroll. That money went directly into Mark's pocket.
I won't be the least bit surprised if Mark manages to borrow more money, loading up the balance sheet with debt once again. Gotta keep the money train moving.
I think what he was suggesting: 1. Those warrants/shares that converted in pref's improved the balance sheet; 2. He stated they are free trading now; and 3. The pref's want to wait for a higher price to sell, but they could convert now into free trading shares.
I did also notice that he said one large holder has been a paid. He said "it's nice to get one large holder out of our hair"
Thank you. Fortunately, the market is not impressed by the performance. The share price continues to slide and is almost back to the 52 week low.
BTW, in the video Mark seemed to suggest that the stock price being in "the trips" was somehow beneficial to the company. I wasn't quite following his logic, but I believe he was suggesting that the holders of the preferred stock aren't able to easily convert into common shares because the stock price is so low so that means less dilution? Not sure what he meant.
When the stock price to falls below .0001 then Mark will tell us what good news that is.
Watched it too. Excellent Summary!
I watched the video and boy it is packed full of typical Mark (and George) B.S.
1) In the teaser intro George says that he sees the prospect of ZRFY being profitable in 2024. LOL. Sure, George.
2) This would have been a golden opportunity for ZRFY to showcase the Zerify Meet product by having the ZZ-Top bearded pumper clown at SmallCapVoice talk to Mark and George using...Zerify Meet. Presumably the interview was conducted over Zoom or some other stable video platform. They ain't using Zerify Meet or they would have said so.
3) Look at the whiteboard behind Mark. They scribbled "AI Initiative." Like any good OTC scammers they are jumping on the latest buzz words (remember how ZRFY was going to get into the crypto security business?) When the white labelling fails, stay tuned for the next carrot: "Zerify is securing Artificial Intelligence."
4) Mark talks about his career at JP Morgan and then says someone asked him to head up a cyber security company and then "like a fool I said 'yes' unfortunately. And here I am 23 years later and still trying to get this to work." As George laughs....yes, George, it's hilarious that you, Mark and Raj have taken MILLIONS from shareholders over the last 23 years and you have nothing to show for it. A big freakin' joke, you jackass.
5) George's mentions the white label launch, which is expected within the next couple of weeks, but he also says that he can't name the white label partner because...reasons. "They expect to bring in hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of partners..." and he mentions how shareholders will benefit when "revenue starts coming in from this stuff." Nothing says you are professional like referring to your flagship products as STUFF.
6) Mark says "This year it all goes live. Finally."
7) Mark says they are "talking to companies" about leveraging their patent portfolio. Sure, Mark. George follows up mentioning the $1+ million plus licensing they did in 2017 (to Microsoft, IIRC). Conveniently George never mentions that the money that came in from that license went right into the pockets of the 3 amigos. George says that Mark is "interviewing" law firms to represent ZRFY in that litigation. Yeah, but there's still a liability based on the last supposed licensing effort that remains outstanding. Gotta pay that off first, boys.
tldr; more B.S. from Mark and George on a paid-to-appear scamming OTC video. Mark is the bumbling CEO (who whips out a handkerchief and blows his nose while George is speaking) and George is the silver tonged front man who blathers with the details.
The screengrab for the video is telling...they look like mug shots.
I went to Zerify's Twitter feed and there is a link to a YouTube video on SmallCapVoice where Mark and George are interviewed.
can u provide link to interview?
I think we can agree that when Mark isn't outright lying, he is misleading.
To me a "white label" version just removes the Zerify logo and inserts "ABC Company" instead. If you are ABC Company there may be some appeal to have your company name show instead of Zerify, but that still doesn't mean anyone is going to buy it.
It also means that if ABC Company sells the product to one of their customers, that it's ABC Company's reputation on the line when the product fails to meet expectations.
Anyone who puts their company name on the line for anything Zerify related is a fool.
Correction: “White Label”…
Their “interview” yesterday hinted that the “Whitel Label” company is due to launch in a couple weeks.
I'm referring to this gem from July 20, 2023:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/zerify-signs-multi-million-dollar-115700629.html
And... you don't see Zerify on TD Synnex website anywhere as a vendor.
https://www.techdata.com/us/en/vendors.html
I think this is the one you're referencing. Thought it was for TD Synnex of which the TD is Tech Data.
They even put out an 8K for it. But, as we see on the crap financials... nothing.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1285543/000147793223005430/zrfy_ex991.htm
I noticed how he stopped issuing the PRs about the 1 or 2 person companies that purchased subscriptions to ZerifyMeet.
The revenue numbers may show whether any of those "customers" continued their subscriptions after a couple of months had elapsed. Dollars to donuts says those people went back to Zoom, Google Meet or MS Teams.
If nothing else Mark should do a demo of Zerify Meet on a live webcast. Let Mark sit in his comfy Pennsylvania den and send invites to Raj and George. Let' see what the meeting setup looks like and witness how the product performs. If you search for "Zerify Meet" on YouTube 0 videos come up.
Curiously, one of the supposed "big resellers" of Zerify Meet does come up as a suggestion...323Link. Remember them? The video 323Link posted a year ago has 97 views. They are a true powerhouse in the virtual meeting space.
What a bunch of clowns...from top to bottom.
I am thinking that sice Kay has not had a real deal since inception, as usual, he is full of shit!
Mark's PR would suggest that big revenues should have started last fall.
Can't wait to see what excuse the lying thief will use when the K reports 2023 revenues below the virtually non-existent 2022 revenues.
And when will we learn the name of the big "partner" that was supposed to be revealed in October of 2023. Perhaps that deal fell apart?
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: |