NEWBIE
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.
Don't worry about me, I have my buy orders in already.
And SFOR has had that patent since 2000. That is why we are suing them.
That is also not a patent. It is a article and the only time it say patent is "we originally invented this patent-pending technology over three years ago". Once again, it is as good as a resume. If you find the patent number I would love to see it.
WBCTrader. No I am not a lawyer of any type. But I can read and comprehend. Read the appeal response. It is all in there on the differences in the patents.
Sorry, I am out of post for the day.
Sorry, I stopped reading at the 3rd paragraph.
This is easy to determine. If the two factor authentication process sends an notification to the 2nd factor and you reply back to the security server on the 2nd factor. That is what SFORs patent is for.
If the two factor authentication process sends an notification to the 2nd factor and you have to type something into something other than the 2nd factor, that is NOT SFOR.
Look at Okta Verify. From my PC I connect to a Okta, I then receive a popup on my cell phone that I just click "Accept". Then the Okta app lets me in. I don't have to do anything on the PC to respond to the 2 factor request.
The appeal also talks about these steps and the difference from "prior art".
I have no idea. WW owns that company (I did not verify that) and he bought land for a house (google earth shows an empty lot). That is all I know. If you are concerned, keep digging.
I will agree that if they lose the patent cases they are done. I just don't see how they are going to lose looking at the patent and the appeal documents.
Yes they did not know that Trustware rebranded Duo's product, but then again, how would they know? Duo will pay for Trustwave.
Entrust happened to have a patent on another part of OOB (the security server to 2nd factor). SFOR saw it and they both agreed to call it even. - Tie
Yes because you made claims without support of the claims.
If I said the DUO settlement will be between $600M and $2.3B plus 20% Royalties from Cisco and didn't have support for that I would be laughed at.
Support your claim or be ready to be questioned.
I am blushing that you care about me. What did I do to deserve your care and attention?
/Sarcasm OFF
Whew, done. Thanks for your AMAZING DD and saving me.
There are many different implementation of 2FA/OOB. SFOR just owns the most secure (unless you can think of one better?).
1 = User Computer
2 = System 1 wants access to. (like a website)
3 = Security Server
4 = 2nd factor device. (cell phone)
1 and 2 can talk
2 and 3 can talk
3 and 4 can talk
1 and 3 CANNOT talk to each other
1 and 4 CANNOT talk to each other
2 and 4 CANNOT talk to each other
_____________________________________
SFOR (Full 2 Channel MF/OOB):
1 connects to 2 and enters username and password
2 contacts 3 and requests verification
3 sends request to 4
user responds on 4
4 sends confirmation to 3
3 tells 2 the user is ok
2 lets 1 into 2
Half 2 Channel MF/OOB:
1 connects to 2 and enters username and password
2 contacts 3 and requests verification
3 sends request to 4
1 responds to 2 with text from 4
2 lets 1 into 2
Full 1 Channel MF/OOB?:
1 connects to 2 and enters username and password
2 sends request to 4
1 responds to 2 with text from 4
2 lets 1 into 2
RSA Token (2 factor ONLY / No OOB):
1 connects to 2 and enters username and password
2 ask 1 for code from fob or software
1 enters code
2 lets 1 into 2
OH NO, what should I do? I believe you now. HELP ME.
Sorry to break the news to you. Some of us don't think you are correct.
Agreed. Eventually it will be insanely higher.
http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/assessor/Pages/RecordSearch.aspx
Search for 17829414064
783 GLISTENING LIGHT CT HENDERSON.
0.17 Acres
20.110 - Single Family Residential
I am guessing he is building a house.
Are you referring to the $7,858 for the three months ended June 30, 2018 for consulting services performed by Newport Commercial Advisors?
https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=78073309
"During the nine and three months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, the Company incurred total expenses of $100,000 and $7,858 and $114,317 and $35,530, respectively, for management consulting services performed by Newport Commercial Advisors"
I don't see anything about "car allowances". Please let me know where you are getting that from or at least tell us how much it was so we can verify.
"Why so much salary, huge car allowances, second and third companiee being run and used to charge EVIO" - How much? Can you also post links for your numbers?
yes, I know how to look it up, but you should post the links to the facts that you are claiming. Also, how does it "compete against EVIO"? Does it do cannabis testing?
Did anyone notice this?
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/EVIO/news/EVIO-Inc-Provides-Shareholder-Update?id=201093
"One element of our previous plan that has changed because of new state regulations not allowing for sub-contracting or intra-lab transfers, is that we must operate multiple stand-alone laboratory facilities instead of a traditional hub and spoke model. As such we will be focused on deploying four full analytical labs this year instead of the two hub labs and six cannabis collection labs."
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=12917878&guid=DmuEUKt5C5YX5yh
Says we have 8 labs and only two in CA in it, so is that 10?
So is it 10 of 14 labs now and 4 more by year end? Then again, non of the franchises are shown (Florida (2 labs), Nevada, Colorado)
I would be fine with whatever we have now. Just a thought.
I was only posting the information. I gave no opinion.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=142935074
"Wws consulting company what is the name? Location? How much in fees payable to WWs consulting company?"
Points taken.
I am here till the end, one way or the other.
So only based on the guy leaving (with no ill will as stated in the release) you think there is a conspiracy to hide information from the stockholders and/or the government?
You don't think training up from the outside might have been necessary to get the labs ready for certification quickly?
Sincerely, farewell and sorry for your lose. At least keep a little.
Well, with all the expansion, I can see them needing outside help to train all of the new labs techs to certification levels. That is a lot of people to train and they could easily been short staffed.
I have no idea, but I do not flip stock, so this will not mean anything as long as they stay on target. The end goal is what I am here for. "Quest Diagnostics of Cannabis" I love that idea.
I was just posting the information. I didn't state an opinion.
From the 10Q:
During the nine and three months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, the Company incurred total expenses of $100,000 and $7,858 and $114,317 and $35,530, respectively, for management consulting services performed by Newport Commercial Advisors, an entity fully owned and controlled by our Chief Executive Officer. There was not a balance payable to Newport Commercial Advisors as of June 30, 2018 or September 30, 2017.
Please produce the actual Loan Agreement and not the coversheet. A coversheet would not contain the entire deal, it is a summary.
They were not the OWNER, they were a SECURITY INTEREST.
Why did they only get about 2% (about $200k) of the 9.7 settlement if they were the OWNER? You had asked about the $200k additional interest before. To me that is what it was for. If you have a better idea please let me know.
I am done talking abut HGroup. Other than the guys old resume you cant show anything saying they still have any connection to SFOR.
Yes, it is a legal document. It is a contract for a loan and that contract ended when they paid the debt. After you pay off your house, the bank does not have ANY rights to your house after that. This is no different.
I am asking for you to show me where it say in the COVERSHEET the "past, present, and future" applies after the contract ends. ie. after the debt is paid.
"So you acknowledge the fact that Mark Kay isn't truthful in his "statements".?" - Objection, leading the witness.
No, I did not say that. I said I don't rely on any information that isn't legally binding.
I do believe Mr Kay really thought 2017 was going to be the year, but the SA Judge delayed that outcome. Read what that "Judge" claimed. Completely wrong verdict and it will be overturned on appeal.
Or when they are born. In this case re-born. 17 year gestation was brutal for SFOR.
I have made my stance clear on emails, tweets, web articles, interviews, etc. If it is not in a legal document, I only keep them in the back of my head for reference.
I have read the 10K, 10Q, and 8K. I guess I just understand them better.
I don't care about publicly stated. If it is not a legal document I do not trust it and it is not legally binding.
How about you show me where it says the "patent assignment coversheet" last forever. Heck, is a coversheet even a contract.
http://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-pat-35556-346.pdf
Are any of those in legal documents? If so, can you please share a link to them?
"they don’t owe anything to the litigation financiers as well" - there is very specific contract with them that states exactly how much they will get paid based on the settlement numbers.
"HGroup gave SFOR money to just HOLD the patents until they got paid back" - No, they got the principle + interest plus about 2% of the $9.7million settlement. I think it was in the $200K range.
"I have a document with Mark L Kay’s signature on it saying this is not the case." - and once they paid that loan off that document (which is not the loan agreement) ended. Void. Over. Finished. The "past, present, and future" was only for while the loan agreement was still in effect. Once HGroup was removed as a "SECURITY INTEREST" that deal ended.
Note: SECURITY INTEREST does not mean they owned the patent, it only means they would own it if SFOR defaulted on the loan.
There is no argument. Yes, SFOR got a loan from HGroup and used the patents as collateral. SFOR has paid that loan back, so the patents are no longer collateral. They are fully SFORs.
If you can find any legal document (8K, 10K, 10Q, pacer, USPTO, etc.) stating there is still a connecting between SFOR and HGroup, please let us know. I have not found anything.
Note: Resumes are not legal documents.
Then consider everything I say as an opinion and then show me why I am specifically wrong about something. Not just "look at the fins" or "because they never have made money".
I have posted many links to what I am seeing and what they mean to me. Show me where I was wrong and I will admit to was wrong.
A while back I_AM_RAM proved me wrong and I admitted it.
We don't know what will be in the fins. We can only speculate. I post what my speculations are. I also question other poster speculations when I see something differently.
(I have one post left for the day, so I will not be responding until tomorrow if you reply to this.)
"I believe they would not " - yes, as noted by the word "believe", this is speculation.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe
"to hold an opinion"
What supporting DD would you like to see about a claim that I have made?
Yes, that is a possibility. If you believe that, then adjust your position in SFOR to use that to your advantage. Just be prepared if you are not correct.
Remember when I said there were two possible reasons for uplisting. That was one of them.