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.
I stop posting the 2nd wk of June about the potential SFOR solution to the military mobile device COMSEC problem. The DoD's Cyber Defense Plan must be on the desk of the POTUS 6/30. So, the second week of June will be the last time I ask you to consider writing your Senator, Representative, or Pentagon officials about it. Force Protection must safety screen all letters, delaying their arrival, and the info cutoff date for the DoD Plan will most likely be early in the last week of June. The second week of June I stand down and go South with my wife to bring our refitted sailboat North for hurricane season. Consequently, my contributions to this message board will be rare. Know I am not selling my position and will remain long & strong SFOR.
In you dreams Peg!
Agree about the one going to trial, a year or two.
My only point of reference is the MSFT case. Once BR went for a Markman Hearing they settled in a few months. Now R&G has initiated the Markman Hearing process. This is a high risk/high payoff legal tactic that puts a gun to the head of the infringers. So I conclude it will be all over in a matter of months, not years one way or the other.
You're welcome Gold49er' "256 bit Military Grade encryption" That couts for something in the military's search to find a solution to their mobile device COMSEC problem.
What do you mean not even close? That's the way the system works. You know this! What got to the DOD/CIOs office in a week from the West Wing was my letter to the boss of that O-10, the POTUS. (original response on letterhead with watermark also in Mark Kay's file) that's what broke the ice at the Pentagon which helped get ACS a briefing slot on the potential SFOR solution to the military mobile device COMSEC problem. That fact can also be verified by CEO Mark Kay. No, I do not know the results of that sales presentation except that the ACS briefer stated on the webinar working with both DISA and DARPA which evaluate IT. I should also add that according to the USCG response I got (that ZPaul put up for me on the MB) both US Cyber Command and Coast Guard Cyber were evaluating Mobile Trust. Thank you for providing me this opportunity to review all that for potential new SFOR investors!
Funny, what I read at the US Patent Office is what convinced me. Have you checked out Ram's patents? In particular the one relating to MFA/OOBA for mobile devices? I've read every word in particular the info on date of filing. Ram was the first to obtain a patent on what is a foundation stone of cyber security. "Wrong horse" hardly, that IP is invaluable!
And you know 1 retired Major who is not stopping until 6/10 (cutoff date for mailing input for inclusion into the DoD Cyber Defense Plan)
to raise the issue here of SFOR's potential solution to the military mobile device COMSEC problem, Mobile Trust's MFA/OOBA and encyption. Why? Because I've got skin in the game! My old unit, EUCOM, was cyber attacked by the Russians. My close kin will deploy again. When they do I must be able to look them in the eye and say I did my best to get them the world's best defensive software on their and their battle buddies' mobile devices. So a targets intel officer, like I was, only wearing a Russian or Chinese uniform can't use the (U) take from their mobile devices to help find & kill them and destroy their equipment & facilities. I am also a proud SH and have divulged that in full disclosure in my letters to senior decision makers and my having to freeze my position IAW the honor code at 2 million shares since I used my rank and speciality in contacting them! If that's "riding the coat tails of my career" so be it!
Actually it was a Lt/Col.
The last R/S was well over a year ago before funds from the Microsoft settlement were paid! After that Mark Kay stated there is no need for a reverse split in the "forseeable" future. As far as the massive dilution you allude to is concerned the legally binding provision of the DART/Citgo note restricts that.
You know as well as I they keep track of issues of concern raised by citizens. So every letter counts! That response was written and signed by a field grade officer. You also know that only flag grade have autopenned signatures at the Bureau of Engraving.
Thanks for finding and sharing those facts with us Gold49er'. That should clear the air of the misinformation on this issue.
That's funny, I got a nice response on behalf of the Army Chief of Staff to who the Chairman had directed my letter (Since Lt/Gen Hodges is USA). Call Mark Kay, he told me he would verify to any that call that the original, on letterhead, is in his corrospondence file.
To contact the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph F. Dunford Jr. you can write him at the following address:
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, DC
20318-9999
As a professional courtesy, USMC General Dunford deserves at least an info copy of the letter you write to his civilian boss (retired USMC General) Jim Mattis, about the potential SFOR solution to the military mobile device COMSEC problem, MFA/OOBA and encryption.
Please note, NSA as an advisory member of DISA which as the ACS briefer mentioned in the webinar, they are working with (also DARPA).
Current market value doesn't concern me in light of this fact. Multi billion dollar market value Intel & Texas Pacific Group amazingly share something in common with small cap SFOR, the same law firm, Ropes and Gray. Now I can see how little SFOR paid their retainer fee with that whopping $800K expense on the recent Q. Ropes & Gray retainer fees are between $300K and half amillion dollars so let's say SFOR paid in them mid range, $400K. What I can't understand is how SFOR has been paying the expensive hourly rates for all those lawyers working on 4 IP defense cases. Can you? I sure didn't see it in the Q and when a boardmember asked CEO Mark Kay he clamed right up with a firm "No comment". Some entity, with deep pockets, is picking up SFOR's legal tab for a good reason known only to them IMHO. That's why I'm not concerned and I continue to be long & strong SFOR!
Strongly agree! It takes money to make money.
To contact Sec/Def Jim Mattis write him at the following address:
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC
20301-1000
Express your concern for the troops' COMSEC in light of the Russian cyber attack on Lt/Gen Ben Hodges' NATO forces deployed in E. Europe
(2/23/17 BBC homepage article). Inform him they need MFA/OOBA and encryption on their mobile devices. Mention the little company that holds the US patent on that. You'll be helping plug the chink in their armor that hostile intelligence services can exploit. Consider doing this at you earliest convenience since the DoD Cyber Security Plan must be on the desk of the POTUS NLT 6/30. Bear in mind, it takes a couple weeks for letters to be fully safety inspected by Force Protection. So, time is of the essence. Thank you for supporting the troops!
Nah, even better, I'm ignoring you from now on. Goodbye!
Strongly agree. "We are just flat until things change" The 9 catalysts for that change were well described by ZPaul. SFOR has those all those irons in the fire. We just have to have patience for them to start heating up one by one. Until then, the pps will most likely continue to trade in a tight channel, awaiting news, since like you wrote "many investors are clearly on the sidelines".
Agree "I have a feeling me and you "respect" two different types of people." You follow your respected analysts, I follow mine. We'll see just which analysts are right in Q3 and Q4 that SFOR CEO Mark Kay has stated will be good.
Funny, those respected analysts cited a 40% growth rate for SFOR year over year. I guess your changing your high opinion of stock analysts now.
Agree. The 1yr chart ascending triangle is a comfort to me. A 40% growth rate is good for any company IMHO Progress is being made!
Something else conveniently ignored is what the ACS briefer stated in the webinar about working with both DISA and DARPA. I'm fairly confident the Russian owned and based Kaspersky lab would not be working with DISA and DARPA. Check out who sends representatives to their meetings to see what I'm writing about.
The SFOR CEO is privy to information the common share holder is not.
There was one posted on the message board at one point. However,I do not have the date time group of it. I should have written it down but since it was discussed at length I thought most saw he mentioned that exact figure. There was enough ridicule of it back then also!
Since the $8 billion figure came from Mark directly in answer to an inquiry why don't you ask him yourself and share his most current estimate with us here. I have found him responsive to share holder questions. Thank you!
"Everyone" eh? CEO Mark Kay seems to think SFOR is worth $8 Billion. You think a company's CEO might just have more and better information than anyone else including the analysts who are sometimes wrong? I do!
What could be the financial impact on us common share holders if that reverse merger between SFOR and ACS happens? I don't know since I have never been through one as a SH. Thanks for an explanation!
A distinct possibility IMHO!
Intel? You mean the same Intel that with TPG spun off a pure play cyber defense company with R&G's M&A office? The same Ropes and Gray that for some strange reason represents small cap SFOR which is somehow, mysteriously, paying their many lawyers hourly rates in 4 IP defense cases.
A "New approach that utilizes both Intel and Microsoft in tandem, perhaps we then will have a secure approach for Consumers, Govt's, DoD and for every enterprise & consumer around the world (OOBaaS)" Oh no ZPaul you are so mistaken! Not the DoD. You see there is this absolutely insurmountable Mount Everest of paperwork preventing that!
Sadly Lt/General Ben Hodges's COMSEC problem of Russian cyber attacks (late Feb. BBC report) must be ignored. His NATO forces must continue to be exposed to exploitation by hostile intelligence services. So sad the paper pushers have taken over the Pentagon from the operators. I honestly was unaware this took place. I guess I must harden myself to the fact America will no longer prevail in the various battlespaces, including cyber, because of this. So sad!
Bear in mind NSA is no stranger to SFOR's IP. You'll recall from the ACS webinar the briefer mentioned their working with both DISA and DARPA. Now, google the DISA board membership and ta da, NSA is there!
Thanks Gold49er for clearing the air on this SFOR registration issue once again!
LOL, Really, read alrox's post # 165458 dated 2/22/17 at 12:09 and Gold49er's post 165490 dated 5/22/17 at 1:19 to clear up any confusion regarding the speedbump paperwork presents to the troops getting MFA/OOBA on their mil-issue I-Phones to fill this chink in their COMSEC armor. Oh, which company has the US patent on MFA/OOBA for mobile devices? That's right! SFOR! I'll "shut up" on this issue on June 10th. That allows enough time for Force Protection screening and final input (via letters to the Sec Def & Congress) into DoD's Cyber Protetion Plan. Until then I will do all I can to get my kin & their battle buddies the world's best defensive software on their mobile devices. End of discussion.
So SFOR is a strategic partner with RSA which on May 22nd initiated IP infringment cases against both Apple and Visa. You've got to ask yourself if this RSA strategic partner, will be any part of this.
Agree. By my limited grasp on the Queen's English "conclude" means finish, as in done with those negotiations. It will be most interesting to see just what happens a week from now!
The one problem is the suspense date for DoD. Their report must be on the desk of the POTUS NLT 6/30. Now bear in mind that if you write the SEC/Def or your Senator or Representative about MFA/OOBA for DoD there is a quickly closing window. Force Protection takes at least 2 (sometimes 3 when really busy) weeks to safety screen all letters to high goverment officials. The bottom line is this. If you want consideration of the potential SFOR MFA/OOBA solution to the the mil-issue I-Phone COMSEC problem you have until the 6/10 to write. Please consider doing so in support of the troops at your earliest convenience. Thank you!
That then is FANTASTIC news! MFA/OOBA is in the final. I hope this document is signed off and disrtributed widely throughout the Federal Government ASAP. I believe once it is, GS types will be looking into just what company holds the US patent and has this highly recommended defensive software.
O.K. so the protective order is just to safeguard other documents of both SFOR and the defendants not needed for discovery. Thanks for that explanation as to the protective order impact.