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.
Appreciate you taking charge! Waiting for powder here!
STGG$$$
WOW! In with 200,000 then R/S down to 4000 = .14 (was not too happy about that)... super happy to be out at .99 a few weeks back, then the drop to .66... then THISSSS!
back in at 2.75 ...
Good luck here folks!
INTV$$$
Carefully reread what I wrote and read your response... Nice try baiting me into a dialogue. Again my signature. You can up your message count with someone with less life experience.
Good luck with your positions moving forward.
Please don't feel compelled to respond to this. Over and out.
SFOR$$$
*sigh* --- see my signature.
Don't be facetious. That's a mathematical fact. Your board posts are pure opinion.
Unless backed with links, what you state is opinion. Period. For example, patent invalidity, please post link starting that... not a judges opinion to vacate said patent claim, 'dismal' pacer... Please post so we can agree or disagree to its state of dismal-ness.
SFOR$$$
The $2.50 rule - shorting OTC stocks
From the article: http://tradetheticker.blogspot.com/2014/02/question-what-is-250-rule.html
The $2.50 rule applies when you are short selling stocks that are priced under $2.50. Basically, the rule states that for every share you are short, you still need to put up $2.50 of capital, even if the stock is priced lower.
Why does this matter? Let's say you have a $1000 account and you want to short sell pennystocks. If the stock is under $2.50, you will not be able to take a full $1000 position, even if you wanted to. Here's the math:
You have a $1000 account;
For ANY stock under $2.50, you must still put up $2.50 in capital.
Divide $1000 by $2.50, and the MOST shares you can short is 400 shares, REGARDLESS of price.
This can be a huge frustration for small accounts. You might have the perfect supernova chart and the stock is trading at $1, but you can't short 1000 shares. You can only short 400 because of the $2.50 rule.
Here are a few examples of the MOST shares you can short based on your account value:
$1000 account - 400 shares max
$2500 account - 1000 shares max
$5000 account - 2000 shares max
$10,000 account - 4000 shares max
$25,000 account - 10,000 shares max
The cheaper the stock, the larger a disadvantage this is because of the smaller $ position size you will ultimately wind up taking. Unfortunately, it's one of the realities of short selling but as your account grows, it will become less of a nuisance. I hope this helps clear up any confusion!
If you think iHub money is moving this, you're seriously mistaken.
STGG$$$
Congrats to all who could get in under $1!!! What a fun ride...and it's only the beginning!
Have a great weekend!
STGG$$$
Thanks for sharing!!
STGG$$$
Right!??!! Too bad they didn't get in on the morning dip down to .50
STGG$$
Pfft. First line of the PR...
STG Group Holdings Inc., (STGH) has appointed a new board of directors to take control of STG Inc., its subsidiary operating company. The new board was appointed by the company’s creditors Nov. 13.
Wow...poor dude who sold 23K at $2.50
STGG$$$
Easier to read Vendor Contract here:
https://www.lawinsider.com/contracts/2zehwaAvThaShwSh6mJgbf/tempus-applied-solutions-holdings-inc/1628871/2017-11-28
Aircraft Purchase Agreement here:
https://www.lawinsider.com/contracts/7bWpEoBcQOKUEWeS38Bz65/tempus-applied-solutions-holdings-inc/1628871/2017-11-28
Please use Google to search on "dismissed with prejudice"...as well as re-read the final Pacer doc on this case. If you're invested you should know exactly were your investment stands legally. All board conversations here are speculation, regardless if you attended the SHM. Unless you're an officer/employee of SFOR, we're never going to know what exactly happened.
Thank you for your detailed report and insight! I GREATLY appreciate it.
Happy Thanksgiving and go GRCK$$$
Pffft! A simple Google search states otherwise.
https://www.google.com/patents/US8732483
Methods and apparatus for securing keystrokes from being intercepted between the keyboard and a browser
The invention described herein provides a method and system for foiling a keylogger by creating a custom keyboard driver and passing the keystrokes directly to the browser in an encrypted format. The browser (which is used to access the Internet) has a component that decrypts the keystroke before it is sent to the website. Thus the present invention enables the user to go to any website and enter sensitive information (passwords, credit card numbers, etc.) without the keystrokes being intercepted by Keyloggers. In general terms, the invention described herein provides a method and system for (1) modifying the keyboard driver, (2) encrypting the keystrokes between the keyboard driver and the browser, and (3) notifying the user if the invention has been compromised.
SFOR$$$
I did. And all those patents were mostly granted after 2010. SFOR has their MFA as well as 2FA covered well...WELL before those dates.
Did you read the 698 patent? It's clearly written - if you're a lawyer - but diagramed exactly to what you do today. Everything! Facebook. Apple. Ebay. Amazon, your BANK!!!! They may some sort of patent, but it all goes back to the 698 patent. If you haven't, you're just being argumentative for arguments sake. And that's ok. It is a discussion board.
And, do you understand what Centralized Out-Of-Band Authentication System is?
Here's an article dated 2013 - to help jog your memory
https://disruptiveviews.com/out-of-band-authentication-money-maker-mobile-operators/
There's a reason patent attorney's charge upwards of $500/hour. they SIFT THROUGH EVERYTHING...there's a reason you don't fight a patent infringement, unless you have the chutzpah and financial backing to weather the storm. The IPR denial makes it only that much harder for DUO et. al. to see a positive outcome for themselves.
There's a reason Ropes and Gray are undefeated in their PTAB litigations.
I don't need to convince you anymore than you need to convince me otherwise. But, I, as an investor want to know what I'm invested in. If I'm a trader, then I'll trade away, there is money here to made either way. I'm an investor.
SFOR$$$
Good luck in whatever your play is.
LOL, go ahead, start naming them...
Here's a VISUAL PROCESS Diagram (the actual documentation included in the complaint)...
https://search.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/12021127#page=5
ANDDDD...
Has anyone Read the 698 patent? If you did, your argument collapses in on itself.
I have.
It's a VERY LONG and esoteric read, but very interesting nonetheless.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,484,698&OS=8,484,698&RS=8,484,698
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
I like this specific part (talk about covering your AUTHentication bases !!!)
This is in contradistinction to present authentication processes as the out-of-band security network 40 is isolated from the corporate network 38 and does not depend thereon for validating data. The first shows a biometric validation which, in this case, is in the form of voice recognition and is within voice network 42. While voice recognition is used herein, it is merely exemplary of many forms of recognizing or identifying an individual person. Others include, but are not limited to fingerprint identification, iris recognition, retina identification, palms recognition, and face recognition. Each of these are similar to the first embodiment in that these are a requirement for monitoring the particular parameter of the individual person; including the parameter to a mathematical representation or algorithm therefore; retrieving a previously stored sample (biometric data), thereof from a database and comparing the stored sample with the input of the accessor.
Thanks ZPaul!!
For those who want to dig into the Cray, Inc., case that Blank Rome uses to disagree with the earlier letter from Duo.
As an investor, you should have read the Duo complaint and now this following below:
http://www.patentdocs.org/2017/09/in-re-cray-inc-fed-cir-2017.html
SFOR$$$
Trading 101: for every sell, there is a buy, and vice-versa.
That being said, someone just picked up 520,538 shares at a 'cheap' price of a penny and half!
SFOR$$$
And...here are our L1011s
pic.twitter.com/nG8waIucmp
https://twitter.com/TempusAS/status/930481616249638914/photo/1
TMPS$$$
Agreed, just saying the space is heating up. What's with the UI similarity?
OTTV$$$
More competition! Geez!!! OTT space is heating up! Let's get VIVA officially launched!!!!
OTTV$$$
https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/14/philo-ditches-sports-to-introduce-a-16-per-month-live-tv-service/?ncid=rss
"Philo ditches sports to introduce a $16 per month live TV service"
The reason I ask, is looking at L2, the only way I see you making a 'couple thousand' is selling into the bid at .0163/61 ~165K shares.
How much and at what price did you just flip? Are you back in for more?
Global game is heating up. HBO launches...
https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/13/hbo-launches-an-over-the-top-streaming-service-in-central-europe/?ncid=rss
Long and strong OTTV$$$
Careful reading of the first line of Pacer entry for ENTRUST, https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/21694325/ENTRUST,_INC_v_STRIKEFORCE_TECHNOLOGIES,_INC
Order Administratively Terminating Action - 60 Day, Pending Consummation of Settlement. Administrative Termination deadline set for 12/18/2017
Consummation of Settlement 11/10/17
Termination of an Action
After an action is commenced, it is said to be pending until termination. While the action is pending, neither party has the right to start another action in a different court over the same dispute or to do any act that would make the court's decision futile.
A lawsuit may be terminated because of dismissal before both sides have fully argued the merits of their cases at trial. It can also be ended because of Compromise and Settlement, after which the plaintiff (in this case ENTRUST) withdraws his or her action from the court.
SFOR$$$
Enough about T-Trades!!! I provided you info yesterday!
Pink Sheets and “Form T” Trades
Since OTC does not accept pre-market or after-hours trades, an OTC transaction marked as a "T" trade indicates the transaction did meet the NASD 90-second posting rule per above. If the "T" trade appears at the beginning of the day, it indicates the trade was not posted at Pink Sheets before 5:00 PM on the preceding day.
There are several types of "late" reports:
1. Those with a time stamp within a minute and a half after closing are just normal 90-second delays.
Rule 6620.1: OTC Market Makers shall, within 90 seconds after execution, transmit through ACT last sale reports of transactions in OTC Equity Securities executed during normal market hours.
In this case, the market maker may have conducted a trade within seconds of closing and delayed reporting it until just after the bell. This delay, which is permitted, is frequently misinterpreted as manipulation.
2. Then there are trades later than 90 seconds after closing. These trades fall into two categories and typically involve larger size lots.
a. The first category is sometimes used by financial institutions that are non-market makers to report larger transactions that actually occurred during market hours. However, since these institutions do not have access to ACT (Automated Confirmation Transaction Service), they use "Form T" to report.
MMs are prohibited from habitual "Off Market” transactions:
A pattern or practice of late reporting without exceptional circumstances may be considered conduct inconsistent with high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade, in violation of Rule 2110.
These ”Off Market” trades are typically used by larger investors to trade larger lots at pre-arranged prices without risk of driving the price upward or downward.
b. The second category involves so called “ex-clearing” lots. Certain transactions may clear and settle outside of the regular clearing system ("ex-clearing" transactions), where two dealers make an arrangement to settle trades between themselves and outside the clearing system.
The process used to balance street-side transactions depends on the type of comparison generated and the settlement method for the particular trade.
Trades Comparison is accomplished in one of two ways:
1. Electronically through the use of an automated clearing house such as the NSCC. This the normal way.
2. Manually via ex-clearing. Ex-clearing is a manual comparison process that is performed by the brokerage firm’s Purchase and Sales Department. Unusual short coverings can end up settling this way.
3. See http://www.brokerage101.com for further information.
http://www.hotstockmarket.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60075&page=27
Entire source: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=49465673
SFOR$$$
Ok, Patent granted. Moving forward...Psoriasis
1.6 MILLION SUFFERERS AUSTRALIA WIDE
http://www.psoriasisaustralia.org.au/
Something massive this ways comes...
OWCP$$$
Correct, ~$9700.
Let's not get into the whole T-Trade discussion. ;)
===
But if you insist, let me set the stage.
Pink Sheets and “Form T” Trades
Since OTC does not accept pre-market or after-hours trades, an OTC transaction marked as a "T" trade indicates the transaction did meet the NASD 90-second posting rule per above. If the "T" trade appears at the beginning of the day, it indicates the trade was not posted at Pink Sheets before 5:00 PM on the preceding day.
There are several types of "late" reports:
1. Those with a time stamp within a minute and a half after closing are just normal 90-second delays.
Rule 6620.1: OTC Market Makers shall, within 90 seconds after execution, transmit through ACT last sale reports of transactions in OTC Equity Securities executed during normal market hours.
In this case, the market maker may have conducted a trade within seconds of closing and delayed reporting it until just after the bell. This delay, which is permitted, is frequently misinterpreted as manipulation.
2. Then there are trades later than 90 seconds after closing. These trades fall into two categories and typically involve larger size lots.
a. The first category is sometimes used by financial institutions that are non-market makers to report larger transactions that actually occurred during market hours. However, since these institutions do not have access to ACT (Automated Confirmation Transaction Service), they use "Form T" to report.
MMs are prohibited from habitual "Off Market” transactions:
A pattern or practice of late reporting without exceptional circumstances may be considered conduct inconsistent with high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade, in violation of Rule 2110.
These ”Off Market” trades are typically used by larger investors to trade larger lots at pre-arranged prices without risk of driving the price upward or downward.
b. The second category involves so called “ex-clearing” lots. Certain transactions may clear and settle outside of the regular clearing system ("ex-clearing" transactions), where two dealers make an arrangement to settle trades between themselves and outside the clearing system.
The process used to balance street-side transactions depends on the type of comparison generated and the settlement method for the particular trade.
Trades Comparison is accomplished in one of two ways:
1. Electronically through the use of an automated clearing house such as the NSCC. This the normal way.
2. Manually via ex-clearing. Ex-clearing is a manual comparison process that is performed by the brokerage firm’s Purchase and Sales Department. Unusual short coverings can end up settling this way.
3. See http://www.brokerage101.com for further information.
http://www.hotstockmarket.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60075&page=27
Entire source: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=49465673
SFOR$$$
Funny, I found $3600 in my IRA doing nothing around April 2016, picked up 3,000,000 at .0012 ... flipped it a few times to ride free shares, bought more on dips, sold more on peaks, now...comfortable riding 2M free waiting for the ride up. It's a patent play. If you haven't read the patent, or the complaints, or the pacer docs, then you're just being argumentative for arguments sake. Good luck with whatever position you have or decide to take or not.
Oh, and I put that found money somewhere else now. How much is in your wallet :)
SFOR$$$
Split, my man, :) so I'm going to post this AGAIN for our friend...clearly he hasn't read it the first time I posted it. And all the pontificating going on about OOBA/MFA...unless he's on opposing counsel...EVEN THAT...their defense is sunk clearly by the settlement on the '698 patent infringement...all found in the PACER docs...
READ the 698 patent, then the compliant ...there's even a pretty picture... LOL
==
Yes...here's an illustration...
VISUAL PROCESS Diagram (the actual documentation included in the complaint)...
https://search.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/12021127#page=5
ANDDDD...
Has anyone Read the 698 patent?
I have.
It's a VERY LONG and esoteric read, but very interesting nonetheless.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,484,698&OS=8,484,698&RS=8,484,698
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
I like this specific part (talk about covering your AUTHentication bases !!!)
This is in contradistinction to present authentication processes as the out-of-band security network 40 is isolated from the corporate network 38 and does not depend thereon for validating data. The first shows a biometric validation which, in this case, is in the form of voice recognition and is within voice network 42. While voice recognition is used herein, it is merely exemplary of many forms of recognizing or identifying an individual person. Others include, but are not limited to fingerprint identification, iris recognition, retina identification, palms recognition, and face recognition. Each of these are similar to the first embodiment in that these are a requirement for monitoring the particular parameter of the individual person; including the parameter to a mathematical representation or algorithm therefore; retrieving a previously stored sample (biometric data), thereof from a database and comparing the stored sample with the input of the accessor.
Correct, trading 101...for every sell there is a buy, and vice-versa...smh
SFOR$$$
You are correct splithappens. There are a few people on this board who have actually read the patent AND the compliant...myself being one.
My previous post provides a link to the visual diagram in the complaint as well as the patent itself.
@OP - You can rely on the outstanding DD here...but we all recommend you do your own DD
Yes...here's an illustration...if Yahoo's process is anything like what is illustrated in the compliant, they're on the list, or will be on the list at some point.
VISUAL PROCESS Diagram (the actual documentation included in the complaint)...
https://search.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/12021127#page=5
ANDDDD...
Has anyone Read the 698 patent?
I have.
It's a VERY LONG and esoteric read, but very interesting nonetheless.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,484,698&OS=8,484,698&RS=8,484,698
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
I like this specific part (talk about covering your AUTHentication bases !!!)
This is in contradistinction to present authentication processes as the out-of-band security network 40 is isolated from the corporate network 38 and does not depend thereon for validating data. The first shows a biometric validation which, in this case, is in the form of voice recognition and is within voice network 42. While voice recognition is used herein, it is merely exemplary of many forms of recognizing or identifying an individual person. Others include, but are not limited to fingerprint identification, iris recognition, retina identification, palms recognition, and face recognition. Each of these are similar to the first embodiment in that these are a requirement for monitoring the particular parameter of the individual person; including the parameter to a mathematical representation or algorithm therefore; retrieving a previously stored sample (biometric data), thereof from a database and comparing the stored sample with the input of the accessor.
I think SFOR can weather the storm and won't go under anytime soon...
From the 8-k
On September 6, 2017, the Company entered into a Litigation Funding Agreement with two parties (the “Funders”) for the purpose of funding the enforcement of certain patents relating to the process of providing dual channel authentication against several infringers (the “Litigation Enforcement of Patents”).
The Litigation Funding Agreement provides for the following:
1. Immediate funding of One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) (“Initial Funding”).
2. The Funders shall receive from the proceeds of any litigation arising from the Litigation Enforcement of Patents (the “Claim Proceeds”), an amount equal to One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) plus ten percent (10%) of any balance thereof until the Funders have received an aggregate of Seven Million, Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($7,500,000) and thereafter, in perpetuity, Two and One Half percent (2.5%) of any and all additional Claim Proceeds.
3. The Company can request subsequent funding, upon notice and request of the Company, of up to an additional One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) payable in increments of $250,000 during the period of February 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019 (“Additional Funding”).
4. In the event the Company requests Additional Funding, for each $250,000 received, the Funders shall receive from the Claim Proceeds an additional Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), plus, pursuant to the Additional Funding clause, one-sixth of Eight percent (8%) (1 and 1/3 percent) of all additional Claim Proceeds until the Funder has received an additional One Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000.00), and thereafter, in perpetuity, one-sixth of Two percent (2%) (1/3 of 1%) of all additional Claim Proceeds.
Management believes that this Litigation Funding Agreement will allow the Company to pursue litigation against any infringement on its patents. Previously, in an action commenced on March 28, 2013 (subsequently amended in April, 2014), and settled on January 15, 2016, the Company settled certain patent litigation through a Release and License Agreement in which certain patents were licensed to Microsoft Corporation, and the Company received a non-disclosable one time lump sum payment. No assurances can be provided that subsequent litigation, funded through the Litigation Funding Agreement, will have the same results.
Maybe SecureAuth wants some cheapies, since they just got SMOKED... I for one just picked up some...thanks!!!
SFOR$$$
Nice! Thanks for clarifying!
I see a date of 2015 here. Please amend or clarify. I might have delete for being 2 years off-topic.