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.
Agree. "Those at the meeting will not want to hear (or tolerate) any BS". CCTC will have to be absolutely candid. No more "weasel" statements that some have rightly mentioned. It's put up or shut up time!
What would they do with the funds then in your opinion?
More than important. Absolutely vital! Eves generates enough excitement for Pristine among attendees or CCTC continues to limp along. Yeah, it now moving to WY to set up the pilot plant. However, unless it has major sponsorship and end product buyers for processed coal or IP license fees it is just yet another clean coal scheme that failed to advance to commercialization and industrial production. As you know, those litter the coal country landscape.
What do you mean "no real revenue" the Qs reflect sales and a steady $25K monthly payment. OEM bundling is our greatest growth area ahead of retail! Are you talking burn rate or what?
It makes sense for ACS to spend money ($9 million) early to make a lot more money later without any further licensing fee encumbrance from that SFOR encryption patent.
I never said that! I said mil-spec technical details!
Call me a cheerleader but I believe Eves' statement that "investors will be rewarded". The questions of course are when & how much. Investors may have to endure "a time that tried men's souls" before their "winter of discontent" is finally over. GLTA!
This is a good sign that the national "Anti-Hacking Plan" is still high on his priority list. These is still time to write the WH, CIA and ODNI about recommending MFA/OOBA and the small company that has the patent on it for inclusion in plan. The plan must be on his desk 16 June.
That's not pound sterling is it? If not now it might be in the future with that SFOR homepage modification for our European customers.
Yup, now it makes perfect sense, or in your case purrfect sense,to have this week's modification to the SFOR home page for our European customers.
SFOR is not a scam company! It is a real company, with real patents, selling real products!
Funny, it's green as of this writing at 1:50 EST.
Perhaps. He clearly indicated the acquisitions of "small computer software companies in the cyber defense landscape" was happening this year in that Bloomberg interview.
You're not a simpleton by any means! What you wrote is clear, concise and above all true about SFOR.
You saw the same sales agreement posted here that I did citing the NLT date but they have the option of paying early.
The exact mil-spec details are sometimes not diclosed fully particularly when it comes to Comms. You know that as well as I we both did Pentagon tours of duty and were envolved in the procurement cycle.
Correct, ACS still owes SFOR $9 million.
In the ACS briefing CJ clearly states "We own this patent" (when fully paid for) "and have access to these others" All the patents are SFOR's. He is talking about IP which means licensing fees.
No. There are OPSEC/COMSEC consideration here! It would be like a bank advertising what model safe they keep currency & valuables secured in.
However, Peggy is right. A contract with ACS must, by law, be published in places like the Federal Register. However, technical details of the item provided DoD will understandbly be sparse and often stated in general, not specific, terms.
Yeah, CJ and Bo of ACS are not villiage idiots that fell off the pumpkin cart yesterday. They know if they want to continue to milk the Federal cow they have to keep their mouths shut about the exact details. Or they will be kicked out of the milking parlor!
Bingo! Mark Kay's email response about the DoD paperwork being renewed only when needed should now should make perfect sense to everyone. Just like you wrote, "Patent use=Licensing=more money" How some people can't get their minds around this concept amazes me!
You're right. Under Accounts Recievables the only thing SFOR common share holders will see it the line entry from ACS with it's credit figure. We will have no way to know what sales, DoD or otherwise, generated by our fully vetted US Government vendor, ACS, account for it. ACS like any other vendor will have a Federal Government Confidentiality Statement on file. If they violate the terms of it, by disclosure, the Government can cancel the contract and sue them. ACS consequently will not disclose. How do I know this? Because I ws a USAF finance officer for a year before cross training into the much more exciting ops side of the house. I personally had contractors sign these things.
A TPG partner tipped their hand on this during the Bloomberg interview following the McAfee spinoff. When asked if TPG would continue acquisitions this year he stated "We will be acquiring small computer software companies in the cyber security landscape". Sounds like SFOR meets those requirements IMHO. Also, microcap SFOR shares the same expensive lawyers TPG does, R&G. Bear in mind their M&A office just consumated the McAfee spin off with Intel. So, I don't believe you're "far off" in your connecting the dots at all!
Thank you for informing us that DISA is seeking a CAC replacement. You also wrote the key word for DoD, McAfee. SFOR IP can plug the chink you exposed in Mcafee armor (currently plugged by cumbersome CAC). Multi-Billion dollar Intel & Texas Pacific Group spun off McAfee as a pure play, cyber security company 2 months ago with the help of their expensive lawyers, Ropes and Gray. Who else does R&G represent? Microcap SFOR is the answer. How are we paying their $300K retainer fee, let alone their hourly rate for several lawyers on each of the 4 IP infringment cases? What was it a TPG partner said on a Bloomberg TV interview last month? "We will be acquiring small computer software companies in the cyber security landscape."
We longs know what we own and its tremendous potential!
The "Big Plan" of OOBA as a service (OOBAS) has tremendous potential. Unlocking that potential will take time. However, once SFOR demonstrates it really does hold the key in a court of law the door should swing wide open!
My vote, #1, he's gagged. That gag rule was imposed right after he shot off his mouth to that OK reporter Cartman cited. IMHO once DOE bellied up to the bar, ordered, and I believed paid for more tests, they had leverage. That leverage enabled DOE to make Eves sign the Federal Government Confidentiality Statement. He'll have to keep his yap shut until the WY Mining Conference. Also, before he speaks, his remarks will reviewed by DOE. Since the Feds have skin in the game, they are calling the shots PR wise now.
That's good news indeed!
I agree they have MFA. The question of course is what is the date of their patent on it? I seriously doubt it predates Ram's US patent.
The figures are downright mind boggeling! Thank you for researching and sharing that tremendous potential for SFOR.
I would not discount the brilliance of PRC engineers with reverse engineering. They have a strong track record of doing so with success.
It all depends what value is placed on SFOR IP. Ram has a foundation stone of cyber security, MFA/OOBA. You tell me what you think that is worth to the industry and why.
Our CEO Mark Kay stated he believed SFOR would be worth $8 Billion in a year or so. I believe he is privy to information that we common share holders are not. Consequently, I trust his estimate.
What was it our CEO Mark Kay wrote, something to the effect about those spreading the R/S fear for their own gain?
That's right, keep looking in the rear view mirror. Let's see no R/S in well over a year. Thanks for the history lesson but I'll keep my focus on SFOR's road ahead. Also, as far as "Microsoft bent them over" Let's see, the company was down to its last $35K when BR snatched victory out of the jaws of defeat. SFOR at that time was on the verge of extinction. It survived to thrive another day with that $9.7 million settlement. It was a necessary lifeline at the time.
I'd like to add one thing to your sage recommendation. That is go straight to the source, the United States Patent Office site. Wade through all Ram's filings. Pay particular attention to the original filing date. You'll then realize Ram was the first kid on the block to have the shiney new toy called MFA/OOBA for Mobile Devices among others. Can you say jackpot?
Worse than that! Only being up 700% on SFOR has made me downright depressed.
In the works is good but if I were in CCTC management I would give the other countries a wide berth until granted. In particular, the PRC because of it's history of IP infringment that President Obama & now Trump have tried to address.
O.K. I trust the Aussies to honor a patent granted in their country. However, since the others have only been filed, and not granted, the other countries are under no obligation to not reverse engineer.
That concerns me!
Yeah, add copyright to IP infringment. "Mobile Trust Net" give me a break! They couldn't even hide their IP infringment behind a different product name? Somebody in their marketing department is going to get fired over this gaffe IMHO.
Do you know if they were just filed or granted? The application process on averge takes at least 30 months.