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 blame Mark. If he's dealing with a heavy hitter like TGP they are in the driver's seat and would be the one to insist on a NDA. If this is the case, SFOR is like a flea that has jumpped on the back of a large, strong dog. The dog is in charge of the journey.
If a third party, such as TPG, is picking up the SFOR legal tab would that have to be reflected in the financials?
Agreed. ACS is SFOR's fully vetted vendor for many US Government agencies and departments. DoD is just one of them. One has only to go to the ACS homepage to verify that.
Bingo! "Respectfully I think you're focused on manufacturing which does seem to carry more guidelines." You just got right to the root of the matter of this ongoing confusion.
Good point! So you think the Sugar Daddy paying the high legal defense bills or that R&G is on contingency may be revealed in the fins?
Oh yes it does, in a court of law in defense of SFOR IP.
Interesting! Social Security using MFA/OOBA on 6/10. Do you think they realize what ompany has the patent on that? If not, which infringer has sold our wares as their own to Uncle Sam's Social Security Administration?
Please repost any message of mine where I wrote "It's a done deal!
When you can't please don't attribute things I never wrote to me again. Thank you.
Texas Pacific Group is that "Sugar Daddy" IMHO.
No, I did not realize that! Thank you for discovering and sharing that most interesting connection.
I'm in perfect agreement with you.
If "a third party is underwriting the whole she-bang" there might be a third possibility! It (read TPG) wants SFOR to prevail in court. Once it is completely assurred of the validity of SFOR IP it buys out SFOR.
I have to go back to the April Bloomberg TV interview with a TPG partner who clearly stated TPG's intent over the rest of this year when he said
"We will be acquiring small, computer software companies in the cyber security landscape." (Does SFOR meet that description?) I also know both multi-billion dollar Intel and TPG used the Ropes and Gray's mergers and acquisition office to spin off McAfee as a pure-play, stand alone, computer security play. Now McAfee is good anti-virus software. However, it has an Achillie's heel like all others, lack of zero day attack protection. SFOR can be the armor to fill that gap. All three SFOR, Intel and Texas Pacific Group sharing the same expensive law firm could make that happen easily.
Agreed. Today's BBC story about the US/China trade deal speaks volumes to me. In international relations there is always a quid pro quo. Xi left Trump with that in hand. But, he had to help with North Korea as the price for Chinese banks operating in the US. So, shortly after he got home he embargoed NK coal even turning away coal ships already enroute & ordering one to take on the coal it had just unloaded! That coal has to be replaced. IMHO Pristine treated PRB coal will be able to compete with other suppliers in meeting that market demand in the future.
10-Q release hopefully tomorrow. Personally, I'd like to see it after market close. Tht would allow time to fully digest all the facts and figures and parse things out here. Goodnight & GLTA SFOR investors tomorrow!
Good point, but I applaud the efforts anyway.
Good point. Don't lose the entire view of the forest for the trees. CCTC will surive to relocate and set up the first, modular, commercial Pristine process plant in WY. I know Cartman will slam it because the process hasn't been proven on an industrial scale, yet! My only concern now is, if we build it will they come? Time will tell.
I haven't either.
I'll disagree with the second point. Any company's legal counsel would be negligent in my book not to try their very best for their client. This includes making "every last ditch effort" on their behalf.
For what it's worth. I didn't expect more. However, once again I'm relatively new here so management has a clean slate with me. Although aware of it, I refuse to dwell in the past history of any company. From the day I take a position, that's when the clock starts for me.
I admit I did not read the last 10-K "to put it in context". I have not been here that long and was very concerned by the figures and text I read today.
Where & how do you think we'll find out?
Thanks for that reference!
This gets more & more interesting! Thanks for sharing your DD attempt to get a straight answer right from Ropes and Gray directly.
100% wins in IPR cases for Utility Patent Owners (like SFOR) is good news, very good indeed! Thanks Gold49er for finding that out and sharing that morale building statistic.
Yes Peggy it is 8 Billion with a B. Sorry, no break for you!
Yeah and like you I think they are smart cookies. Maybe just maybe they are working on contingency as Hate Liars implied. If not somebody is paying their high legal fees. Inquiring minds want to know just who it is? Somebody on this message board asked Mark and got a firm no comment. That silence speaks loudly to me!
No kidding! I only mentioned that as the exception to disclosure! In no way do I believe SFOR IP is now, or will go, black in the future.
Yup the empirical evidence is terrible! Based on it, IMHO I believe CCTC stock to be dead money until there is a significant catalyst, as in commercial investment (rail carriers or coal miners). However, the venture capital money they just got may serve as the required match DOE demands for Federal funding (grant or award). We won't know until the WY mining conference is over if any of the attending companies takes the bait or if DOE even baited the hook! Stand by to stand by.
Ya got guts! I'll give you that.
Well,it's good to know I've got that Ty Cobb card in one hand and a dollar bill in the other right now at that yard sale. Hey, I'm next in line! Long & Strong SFOR!
Seems like a lot of settlements when cases get to that point doesn't it?
That's a reasonable assumption. Steady, incremental progress quarter over quarter, year over year is a good thing, a very good thing!
Looks like we've got some more time to make senior decision makers aware of MFA/OOBA and the little company that holds the US patents.
Do you think they are working on contingency or is another entity like Texas Pacific Group paying the monthly SFOR legal bills? I have found nothing official about this, have you?
IMHO they're not. There is no way SFOR could even afford the R&G $300K retainer fee to initiate litigation let alone the ongoing high legal fees of up to a half dozen attornies per case and there are 4! I don't know who or what is picking up the tab but, according to the 10-K figures, it can't be SFOR. It's simply an economic impossibility.
Yeah, the IP alone is worth that since it is a foundation stone of cyber security used or should I say infringed worldwide!
They may not have the funds available at this time.
O.K. Peggy, I though you were giving me grief and will even verify the fact that BASIC contract details (unless black) are disclosed.
No way to put a smiley face on the 10-Q. In a word it is a disaster! Unless the WY Mining Conference garners needed investment CCTC is DOA.
CCTC's back is against the wall now. It can't afford to piss away any funds. The WY move and set-up must happen with that money or it is banko/lawsuit time IMHO.