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.
Progress on OOBA use in US Government guidelines is being made even if this is a draft. Can't wait for the final version. Great catch!
The Kibuki theater continues until May 31st for these defendants. Not being a lawyer what could be the impact of a "protective order" ?
Our CEO is quietly, competently, executing on all four prongs of the company growth plan he articulated. You only stumble upon his team's accomplishments by doing research. Thank you Gold49er and others for generously sharing your discoveries with us!
Massive dilution can't happen! Read the legally binding provision of the DART/Citgo note which restricts this. Do you think the note holder is going to sit by and permit the massive dilution you allude to which would greatly diminish the value of their note?
Makes perfect sense to me in light of the fact Cyber Safety has to pay SFOR $9 million to exercise that option to purchase.
Thanks. After my 20 years another generation in my family took my place. Although I do not stand shoulder to shoulder with them on the frontiers of democracy I will do my best to support them. I appreciate those like you who support the troops and also want them to have what they need like SFOR's defensive software on their mobiles.
Any future dilution is restricted by the legally binding provisions of the DART/Citgo note. CEO Mark Kay stated no R/split is needed for the "forseeable future". Who should we believe? Decisions, decisions.
What if SFOR's sales team brings home the bacon and closes a big deal or a settlement from just one of the 7 companies being sued for IP infringment occures?
Clear and concise explanation of SFOR data protection. Well done!
SFOR is not a scam company! It is a real company, with a real office, not a household address, and real, not ghost employees, that has real IP and is selling real products.
I am not a paid pumper! But, I do have a not so hidden agenda. That is to get my close kin and their battle buddies the world's best cyber defensive software on their mil-issue I-Phones. I will not cease my efforts until they do!
It takes money to make money. I believe what Mark Kay said about the second half of the year. Time will tell which of us is right!
So Mark Kay, who retired out of the conservative banking industry, would have done nothing to conserve cash flow from 3/31 forward?
So you know just what came in accounts receivables from 3/31 (the info cutoff of the Q) until now?
Thanks for doing that. It is absolutely critical information! I look forward to your post this evening with the details.
OMG! RSA filed suit against Apple & Visa today in a Delaware court. I hope it is the same court that SFOR sued Microsoft in. If I'm reading ZPaul's post # 165445 correctly ACS/SFOR products are being used by RSA. Blessed be the tie that binds! The implications here are interesting indeed. Any thoughts?
"former JP Morgan Chase Co-COO Frank Bisignano" Do you think he knows the former JP Morgan Chase CIO Mark Kay? I do! Connections like that can't hurt.
As Warren Buffett said "When it rains money (as you so well illustrated!) put out buckets, not thimbles!"
The 2,000 units sold was only part of the picture. Raising product awareness was the more important part of it IMHO.
In like flint IMHO!
Correct. SFOR started the weekend as a HSN "Show Stoper" and ended it having attained "Best Seller" status. The 2,000 units sold wasn't as important as the product awareness that well done HSN spot created IMHO.
That's O.K., SFOR does not meet the classic definition of patent trolls which have no products to sell and survive solely on litigation.
A 40% year to year growth rate for any company is more than respectable, it's good! I have patient capital invested here and will wait for the fins from the second half of the year to make any decision. Being a long term investor (having taken my initial position at .0009) I take comfort in the rock solid ascending triangle I see on the yearly chart. Others are short term investors so I can understand if this doesn't meet their personal timeframe.
That's great! I applaud those daily efforts whenever you can accomplish them.
Well done! Thank you for doing that on behalf of our company SFOR.
"Prior to the award" No duh! Before Uncle Sam pays a vendor that vendor has to do some paperwork, Big deal!
Yeah, some make it out to be a Mount Everest size roadblock when it is a mere speedbump along the way to doing buisiness with the Federal Government!
Paul Harvey should read Lolaspike's post #165437 then about "delayed contracts, net 90-120 terms on large deals signed and litigation" settlements. You and Paul completely discount all those of course.
ACS gave a presentation to the DoD/CIO on the potential SFOR solution to the mil-issue mobile device COMSEC problem. You can call Mark Kay who told me he would verify that took place. Giving a briefing is not "doing business"! Business happens when there is a contract to be signed for a deliverable good or service. Before signature, the vendor would accomplish any paperwork needed for the DoD procurement cycle.
Retail e-commerce is only one market for OOBaas IMHO.
Agree. "The real question is WHEN IT WILL HAPPEN." In the meantime I am long & strong SFOR because I know what I own!
I read the latest Q. As of the information cut off date of 3/31/17 SFOR had in excess of $360,000 left. That is TEN times what they had left before Microsoft settled. From then to now you don't have a clue as to their accounts receivables. Don't pretend you do!
Yes, to do business with the Federal Government a new or existing vendor would have to do paperwork including obtaining or updating their registration in SAM. Why would any vendor waste their time doing so unless DoD expresssed an interest in their goods or services first?
Vendors give sales presentations at the Pentagon. Then, if the DoD is interested in their wares, they accomplish any required paperwork it's as simple as that.
History again! SFOR eliminated its' toxic debt.
When a new or old vendor has been contacted & notified by a contracting officer, like I was, of Pentagon interest in its goods or services, they are informed of registration requirements. The vendor then decides if it desires that contract. If it does, it then takes the appropriate steps to comply with procurement rules and regulations. Right now, SFOR does not have an order from DoD for its product. Consequently, the first step is to increase SFOR product awareness. To do the paperwork now would be premature.
When the DoD learns of new products that could meet a vital mission requirement their procurement officers actually initiate contact with potential vendors. They arrange for a presentation to verify the new product meets mil-specs. Then the vendor registration and other paperwork is accomplished. If this were no so, those new products, from those companies, currently not registered, would never get to the troops. Why can't you understand how dynamic the DoD procurement cycle can be? If it is not ossified!
That is the one phone I don't want SFOR's MT to secure!
Here's some more current DD for new share holders that don't know the full history of reverse splits with SFOR. There hasn't been one for well over a year. Why? Because of the Microsoft settlement which was a sea-change event for the company. Long & Strong SFOR!
I disagree! Regardless of it's currently low pps DOE would commmunicate with a company and desire test results before investing one thin dime of the taxpayers money. It is their fudiciary duty to do so.
Many OTC stocks have a "high share structure" like SFOR. What's your point?