Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
No confirmation there! SFOR sells through its fully vetted Federal distributors ACS and Alverez Associates.
Once contract specific discussions are held between a vendor for goods or services with a contracting officer parerwork is updated/ accomplished. No big deal! Sales presentations are not forbidden by rules/regs. End of story. If THAT can be found in the regs cite it. Nodody can because they are allowed.
The big question is just who has been paying them because SFOR can't affort to have done so. Also, according to the latest Q they haven't paid for all the expensive hours of all thoe R&G lawyers.
Let's see. ACS, fully vetted "value addded reseller" of SFOR products check! Intel "a large Defense Contractor" C.J. the ACS webinar briefer mentioned they are working with, check! Now an announcement by Intel of Authenticate's general availability according to ZPaul's post #16525. You'll recall this industry first hardware as the trusted platform module (TPM). It is the only: encrypted, MFA, dual-band, OOBA, cyber security solution for both desktop and mobile devices, check. Can you say right company with the right product at the right time? You'll also recall the Russian cyber attacks on NATO forces deployed in Eastern Europe according to the 2/23/17 BBC article. Why do I see the potential for Intel meeting this critical COMSEC need on the near horizon? Do you want to get EUCOM Lt/General Ben Hodges' troops Authenticate enabled, 7th generation, Intel chips in their mobile devices? I do. Please consider writing the Sec/Def at your earliest convenience. Time is running out! He must submit the DoD cyber defense plan to the POTUS NLT 6/30. Thank you for supporting our troops.
2 weeks left to get OOBA/MFA/encryption mentioned in the DoD Cyber Defense Plan. It must be on the desk of the POTUS 6/30. It takes 2 weeks on average for a letter to clear Force Protection's safety screening and be delivered to your Senator, Representative or the Sec/Def. Every letter counts in helping our troops get what they need to secure their mobile devices from exploitation by hostile intelligence services. Ask any combat vet, COMSEC/OPSEC saves lives. Now I want you to get up out of your seat. Open a window and shout. Mobile Trust can help save soldier's lives! Then, you'll know what to do.
SFOR patent & technology built in (TPM)? If not then just what is ACS doing? They are SFOR product vendors! Thank you for finding and posting this recent Intel announcement regarding their new product
AUTHENTICATE using MFA/OOBA/encryption. I look forward to their webinar to raise product awareness. This was the most encouraging post of the day!
Please define what a Government "value added reseller" (of various suppliers's products) is and how it quite legally, operates within the the DoD and other Agency or Departmental procurement cycles. Thank you.
WRONG about "Nobody is here to save the day". Why do you think the best IP defense law firm, Ropes and Gray are here, to lose? With their last year's record of legal victories of 43 to zero I don't think so!
Now, with Markman Hearing initiated they have brought out the heavy guns. You'll recall Microsoft settled soon after Blank Rome initiated a Markman Hearing.
Uncle Sam doesn't knowingly deal with thieves. You're right, "It won't be a pretty sight!" Long and Strong SFOR.
Some people lose sight of this fact. Thank you for reminding them!
Perhaps. I believe they are waiting for significant pps appreciation before exercising their options.
"Denial of why the pps is a penny rather than that of a $8 Billion Co." Not denial, reality of stocks listed on the OTC pinks. Not many $8 Billion companies there that I can see. Wait for the second half of the year s Mark Kay has mentioned for progress. Then based on that progress an appropriate uplisting perhaps to the NAZ.
Yeah, I thought EPA Director Scott Pruitt would have to be in the loop. I guess the cat's out of the bag on this!
They have employee stock purchase options they can exercise at their discretion. What's the problem with them doing that at a time of their choosing?
"No evidence there at all to link SFOR" I beg to differ! The evidence was presented in the last Q. There were no payments to R&G lawyers for their hourly rates nor was there a line entry detailing the (between $300K to $500K) R&G retainer fee. Simply because given the Q's revenue figures there is no way SFOR could afford expenditures of that magnitude! When asked how the R&G legal bills were being paid for by another poster here, Mark said "No comment".
As far insider trading is concerned "in those companies" individuals would be doing that at their peril particularly the lawyers who could risk disbarment.
I read it, but won't believe it, until I see the PR that ACS paid SFOR the full nine million dollars it owes in full!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about July. They make sense. You asked "Why are we not trading on a higher tier?" The only reason I can think of is fourteen thousand dollars. That is (to the best of my knowledge) how much it costs a company to upgrade to higher tier. At this point, that might be an imprudent thing to do expenditure wise. Particularly if the next upgrade logically should leapfrog into the NAZ. I write that base on the delopments Mark outlined for the second half of the year. Why do a OTC uptier for only 1/2 a yr at most?
"All the talk here about R&G and Intel/TPG connections, they are all nonsense LOL" O.K. PD then just for laughs, can you inform us just what entity is picking up all those expensive R&G lawyers hourly fees for four IP infringment cases? Granted, it is kind of funny that multi-billion dollar Intel and Texas Pacific Group share the same law firm, Ropes and Gray, that small cap SFOR does. It's also absolutely hysterical what that TPG partner said on Bloomberg last month about this year "We will be acquiring small computer software companies in the cyber defense landscape." So, just for a chuckle, tell us if SFOR meets that target acquisition criteria or not. Lastly, since we'll be rolling on the floor in hysterics by then, inform us what is the critical deficiency in the stand-alone, cyber security, pure play company's product, (McAfee anti-virus software) Intel & TPG just spun off with the help of R&G? Hint Hint-keylogger protection!
Sounds like a reasonable estimate to me. I also agree that the first to settle will be able to do so for a smaller outlay of funds as long as they agree to license SFORs IP and pay continuing royalities from then on like you wrote. But watchout if you are the last infringer to settle, you definitely won't get off so lightly!
Yeah, that's what I caught also when I listened, one deal which is better than none! Progress is being made.
I was stationed in the UK in the mid 90s. I developed a respect for the quality of BBC journalism then. I watch it on PBS today for good reporting particularly in areas often overlooked by other news outlets. I believe what they said about the President still making his mind up about Paris to be objective reporting.
Why do you say July when a settlement offer will be tendered June 5th and SFOR will decide to accept or reject and state so in the court 6/6? Are you saying July because of administrative reasons before that settlement would appear in accounts recievables or what? Thank you for sharing your reasoning on this matter.
Is that because you believe the SFOR IP infringer will attempt a lowball settlement offer?
Agreed. I believe on 6/6 that action may start in a courtroom with the possible acceptance by SFOR of a tendered settlement offer by one of the infringers. What do you think?
"Good luck making a mountain out of a mole hill." Yeah, like believing updating a vendor registration to to do business with the Fed Gov't is a Mount Everest size roadblock instead of the speedbump it is!
What odds do you believe that could happen the 6th of June?
Guess it all depends what news source you put stock in. I believe the BBC article that his final decision has not been made public. You do not according to your news source. It's as simple as that.
Sorry but no news on Trump's Paris decision for right now. Please read the today's (5/28/17) BBC homepage article titled "Trump keeps world waiting on climate". He said he will decide sometime next week so standby to standby for a carefully worded PR done in coordination with his new head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt.
Please review the DART/Citgo note's legally binding provision that restricts massive dilution from happening. The note holder could take legal steps to prevent their position from being diminished.
Why did you write "next week should be interesting?" I understand the WY Mining Conference may be VERY interesting. I don't understand why next week should be. Thank you for an explanation.
good point did not consider that in my irrational exuberance
The heck with trying to generate "corporate gravitas". Show me the money! Unless substantial funding is announced at the WY Mining Conference CCTC is DOA IMHO.
You're right about not reporting pending grant monies in the 10-Q. I hope you're also right about that 8-K mid-week reporting it. GLTA!
I hear ya but that is exactly what I think is going on. In fact, I believe it is a rare combination of an NDA from a commercial/investing entity (for the skin in the game the Feds insist on for matching grant funds) AND a Federal Government Confidentiality Agreement from the DOE. At this point, beggers can't be choosers so IMHO CCTC has to keep its yap shut or it could endanger whatever deal and/or funding that might have been tendered.
Sorry Gold49er. I should have referenced this previous well illustrated post of yours when I cited the 30 month figure in an answer I posted here. The main point was then made by another poster that SFOR is well along that timeline! My question for you is about the Singapore Telecom dragon's legal exposure to international patent provisions. Didn't Sing/Tel get in under the wire when they rolled out MFA/OOBA for all their Asian mobile banking customers in October? I haven't a clue about international patent law and think you do! Thanks for sharing your insight on this matter.
How long in the "forseeable future"? My crystal ball is a little cloudy right now. However, those clouds dissipate after the R&G court "D" day of the 6th of June when a settlement may be forthcomming (if SFOR accepts the offer) in accordance with the court's scheduling order. So, I should be able to update that "forseeable future" forecast sometime after the 6th of June. Until then GLTA all SFOR longs!
You asked so here's my guess. Radio silence will remain in effect for CCTC due to an NDA or Government Confidentiality Statement. All will be revealed in the professional forum of the WY Mining Conference and not until then IMHO.
Appreciate that great update! Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't obtaining an international patent take 30 months on average?
What do you mean they can't sell it here? Sales are ongoing. The HSN sale started as he product listed as a "Show Stopper" and ended as a "Best Seller" on it's first night!
Drag out that old chestnut again! The R/S rumor even after Mark Kay the CEO stated none needed for the "forseeable future". Thanks but I'll put my trust in the CEO who is privy to information the common SH is not.