Buy PM's
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.
Think what You will of the Letters Written, of which is now in the hundreds.
Thanks to Sleddogs efforts and SFOR partnerships.
The fact is between ACS and ALVAREZ SFOR has a Good chance of gaining a DOD Contact, directly or indirectly.
https://www.alvarezit.com/clients/federal-clients
4 more listed than shown below, SEC, SBA, Social Security Admin and USPS.
One can't be more Proactive than Sleddogs. EOM
Target PR was June 27th, Known about ???
June 27, 2016 08:25 ET | Source: StrikeForce Technologies, Inc.
EDISON, N.J., June 27, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (OTC PINK:SFOR) announced today that it has partnered with Target Corp. (NYSE:TGT) to offer its patented keystroke encryption software to consumers. StrikeForce is now selling its GuardedID® anti-keylogging software for desktops and laptops in select Target stores and at www.Target.com. MobileTrust®, the company’s security bundle for mobile devices, is also available online at www.Target.com.
“We’re very excited to have our products on shelves and online at Target,” said Mark L. Kay, CEO of StrikeForce. “Keylogging hackers are a serious threat to consumers — and most people don’t even know they are exposed. This type of spyware can avoid detection by anti-virus programs and steal every keystroke you type into your computer or mobile device. We’re partnering with Target to offer an affordable way for the everyday consumer to proactively protect their personal and financial information from prying eyes.”
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/06/27/851528/0/en/StrikeForce-Partners-with-Target-to-Offer-Its-Patented-Keystroke-Encryption-Software-to-Consumers.html
2016 Washington Technology Top 100 Contractors - Alvarez & Associates LLC -- Washington Technology
Partners are Looking More and More Impressive Every Day.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2016/alvarez-and-associates-llc.aspx&ved=0ahUKEwjQ0c23r-rRAhVPySYKHRUUAJkQFggsMAU&usg=AFQjCNFo0dH16tYePiIoTctzs56qaa93gg&sig2=GS-sw5PfaVnSkZrscpkB0w
MidShift-"Another one time lump sum license agreement"
Another one time lump sum license agreement and this company will be done
Sorry about the Fluff comment came from me.
If you don't understand that Pinks put out Fuff PR'S to try to increase their PPS I'm sorry. That's they way most Operate.
I'll take SFOR only putting out Real Hard Factual PR's on Deals, Partnerships and Distrutor Deals Like Target, PR's only, Thank You very much.
StrikeForce Partners with Target to Offer Its Patented Keystroke Encryption Software to Consumers
GuardedID® in Select Stores and on Target.com; MobileTrust® on Target.com
June 27, 2016 08:25 ET | Source: StrikeForce Technologies, Inc.
EDISON, N.J., June 27, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (OTC PINK:SFOR) announced today that it has partnered with Target Corp. (NYSE:TGT) to offer its patented keystroke encryption software to consumers. StrikeForce is now selling its GuardedID® anti-keylogging software for desktops and laptops in select Target stores and at www.Target.com. MobileTrust®, the company’s security bundle for mobile devices, is also available online at www.Target.com.
“We’re very excited to have our products on shelves and online at Target,” said Mark L. Kay, CEO of StrikeForce. “Keylogging hackers are a serious threat to consumers — and most people don’t even know they are exposed. This type of spyware can avoid detection by anti-virus programs and steal every keystroke you type into your computer or mobile device. We’re partnering with Target to offer an affordable way for the everyday consumer to proactively protect their personal and financial information from prying eyes.”
Musk, "he never got a dime"
Well, he could have used that dime though.
Launching SpaceX Rockets.
Building a Giga Factory that produces More Lithium Batteries than all the Rest of the Lithium Battery factories in the world.
Building Solar Roof Shingles that Look as Good and last a lot longer than normal shingles.
Designing HyperLoops.
Placing a ring of low earth Orbit, High Speed Internet Satellites up in Space to give people who live in Rural areas paying outrageous bills for 10MB speed from Direct TV and Wild Blue, a cheaper faster alternative.
Building Tesla Recharging Statations all over the Country.
Yeah, it kinda eats up Capital Quickly.
Buddy can you Spare an IP Lawsuit Dime....
SFOR will get about $10M Per Software Lawsuit not including Teble Damages. Plus Licensing and Royalities.
NOTE:
The Giga Factory is 10 Million square Feet in Size.
Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval estimated that Nevada would enjoy $100 Billion in economic benefit over two decades from the construction and operation of the factory.
A second factory—Gigafactory 2—is slated to be built in Europe (location to be announced in 2017), as of news reports in November 2016.
I still think SFOR should go for being a Sponsor of a Danica Patrick's Nascar Team and have Super Bowl Commercial. LOL
That sums it up nicely, Thanks. But what does STML & SP mean ?
Clueless in Florida.
BTW: If today's action follows my charts from Fiday, there will be some Downward Price Action Monday. But this is MM, land and anything can happen when the Market Makers are at the Throttle, until NEWS hits that is.
MidShift - StrikeForce Marketing Revival 1/28/17
______________
Marketing has not been that week and it's only gotten Stronger as the Years Pushed Forward,
Now, when the Big Boys are Vying Market Share Cyber Security and seem to not even wait for Contracts to be Completed (as they were most likely Infringing to begin with) before Putting out Products using SFOR IP, via ACS or whomever....
Hey we can see McAffee and Intel True Key already, what hasn't this Board's DD Found that's still probably out there waiting to be discovered before we hear what is really taking Place behind the scenes ?
StrikeForce Over the Years
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=128084282
StrikeForce
Veratad’s OOB AUTHENTICATION SOLUTIONS are powered by StrikeForce. StrikeForce helps to prevent online identity theft and data security breaches for consumers, corporations, and government agencies. It provides powerful two-factor, ‘Out-of-Band’ authentication and keystroke encryption solutions.
We market our products globally to financial service firms, healthcare related companies, legal services companies, e-commerce companies, gaming, automotive, government agencies, multi-level marketing groups, the enterprise market in general, and with virtual private network companies, as well as technology service companies and retail distributors that service all the above markets.
We seek such sales through our own direct efforts, with emphasis on retail, through distributors, resellers and third party agents internationally.
We are also seeking to license the technology as original equipment with computer hardware and software manufacturers.
We are engaged in multiple production installations and pilot projects with various distributors, resellers and direct customers primarily in the United States.
Our GuardedID* product is also being sold directly to consumers, primarily through the Internet as well as distributors, resellers, third party agents, affiliates and potential OEM agreements by bundling GuardedID* with their products (providing a value-add and competitive advantage to their own products and offerings).
Currently this is the most active market for us with multiple programs in production.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-q-strikeforce-technologies-inc-2016-11-17
Quote:
First of all this information was not to be presented and was discussed privately. However, it is good news that we will be adding other lawsuits some of which will also be with Blank Rome and some others will possibly be with another firm for speediness. This is not an issue and is positive.
I can’t say anything about it until it is released.
Thanks
Mark
http://www.logicsource.com/value-proposition-video-presentation/
Yes, They Maybe even Escorting Google to Court
Just to make sure Google Gets There...
Seems Google's Email Acct. was Hacked and they didn't get the Notice of Court Appearance LOL. (Just Joking)
But Be on the Lookout for this:
Gmail Customers is Targeted new Phishing Attack Jan. 18, 2017
http://wdtn.com/2017/01/18/new-highly-effective-phishing-technique-targeting-gmail-users/
We are both Long on SFOR.
I have a few questions on your post comments which will be in Red
Below to distinguish our comments.
I Understand that
Maybe if it were more promising"???
You're freaking kidding right?
There isn't a single OTC stock out there with the potential of SFOR.
You should know, from my posts that I'm a huge critic of Kay.
Half the time I think he's asleep at the wheel and most of the rest of the time I think he moves goal posts on shareholders.
I don't believe he moves the Goal Posts on Purpose.
Contract Negotiations and Finalization are not completely under his control.
He keeps us Up-to-Date, such as last Nov. MAJOR DEALs are in the Works an Announcements (PR's) will be made when all is said and done.
Then Contracts end up taking longer than expected to Finalize.
Would you rather he not Inform Investors at All ?
Just wait and see what is happening when a PR is released
Then their would be no criticism,from investors, that all may different opinions how things should be done.
He does not have to inform you of what's Coming down the Pike.
Or do you know of a Rule that says he does ?
I personally would like to know in Advance that Major Deals are Coming, whether it be 6 Months or 1 month ahead of time.
So I can Increase my Investment ahead of time and not wait until the PR, by which time the price begins Jumping before I get in at Yesterday's Price before the PR. Especially on Major News.
As depending on the timing of the PR, say being announced after the Bell. It could Open with a Huge Up Swing in the PPS.
So which do you want The Egg ( before it hatches, Knowing Prior to) or the Chicken that's running Around and increasing PPS that you have to try and Chase to get in.)
If he did not care about the ShareHolders, Mark would just keep his mouth shut. An we would wait with Baited Breath not knowing anything until we see a PR
All that aside, SFOR has a laundry list of catalyst where if just one, or (heaven forbid) more come to fruition, I can see SFOR easily cresting over last years high water mark of $0.025.
Yes & yes.
And possibly hitting $0.01 or higher before the oppertunity to get in furthur. I guess it would be Okay if you had all the shares you wanted and no plans for further Investment no matter what.
Again, If I owned say, 10 million shares, and I knew Major Deals / Announcements were coming in Advance, I might consider Adding to my Position, Duh...
Otherwise after seeing the Huge Jump in Price, I would saying Doh ! (Slapping my forehead) and saying I knew I should have bought more ....
The biggest problem with SFOR is that Kay has a knack for not striking while the iron is hot.
Who knows best when the Iron is hot and ready to be forged, the Blacksmith right there, with all Information in front of him, or the bystander Standing Outside the Building waiting for him to complete the Job, watching him work at a distance.
SFOR sees single sessions or strings of sessions where the stock is on fire to the upside and can't seem to generate any news that maintains the momentum[color=red].
We know Mark does not put out Fluff PR's in order to increase or stabilize the Share price, with real no relevant information like a typical Penny Stock Companies.
So just sell all or a portion at a certian price point, where you have a substantial gain and wait for retracement and Buy back in with more shares with all the Capital or hang on to some Gain.
Penny stocks being what they are, without continuing momentum, they fall.
Nature of the beast, so sell before the Fall.
He's not in charge of day to day pricing, but he is in charge of the general direction and health of the share price.
As always, I'm not suggesting a pump and dump scheme by Kay, but he's shown little in the way of being capable of stoking any flame beneath any SFOR share price rise.
As John F Kennedy might say (in his the Massachusetts Accent) :
"If you want to play Football at my house, you play by My Rules, and I guess you know why.......
It's My Football that's why !
Hey Mark has got at least 2M Invested in SFOR Personally. He may have a different outlook (obviously) and having a longer time outlook and patience level for the Big Pay Day.
If you have been in SFOR for any length of Time, you know how he Operates. No Fluff PR's to try to keep the Share Price Maintained at a certain Level. So Follow his Lead and his Management Style.
If you don't Like it, one is free to find another Football game with Rules that you agree with..
When enormous volatility takes over the share price, it is his job to stabilize the volatility. A healthy share price does not swing up nearly 100% and then get cut right back in half...that volatility isn't representative of a healthy share price and it proves nearly no faith in the health of the underlying company.
So yes, Kay is directly responsible for creating a healthy stock and because he doesn't do that, I remain critical of his leadership.
Again, he makes the rules, you know how he Operates. He can work like a Scam Company, and put out Fluff or Run it the way he wants acting like a upfront and legitimate company.
It is his determination what he thinks is best and is in the Best Interest of Long Term Shareholder Value.
But as far as "more promising" goes...
If Kay were to provide just one or two stabilizing 8k's or press releases, SFOR would realize the promise that you and others seem to bemoan daily.
8K's are Forward looking Statements with all the Disclaimers stated.
Do you own DD, and if you believe what is Stated will happen, invest and sit back and wait. If not, there are other investments to choose from.
You have obviously done your DD.
Like you stated with at the begining:
There isn't a single OTC stock out there with the potential of SFOR.
Okay, So Sit Back, have Patience and Wait for it to Unfold.
Disclaimer :
My statements above, are In My Opinion.
They are not meant to aggrivate and or Harass.
They are just My Opinion and knowing What I Own.
And I accept your right to have Your own Opinion.
This disclaimer is in an effort to keep Board Camaraderie, except for known outside influences, which we have no control over.
Good Luck and wishing you well on all your Investment endeavors,
Timing is everything. I give StrikeForce Technologies Management Credit for bringing everything together, at a Point in time when it's Intellectual Property is at the Peak of Market Immediate Demand, being Cyber Security is the Hottest Topic of the New Year, besides the Election Coverage.
There was no need to push forward any faster in the prior 8 years while Massive Hacking was Occurring in the MarketPlace and Hacking of Goverment Agencies (the later for the most part, being sweep under the Rug).
Except being brought out in to the Light, and all of a sudden Hacking News Coverage was everywhere and Cyber Security made to be a Sever imminent Problem all of a sudden. When conveniently it could be used as an Excuse for someone not winning the Election.
"how Rasmussen came in contact with Strikeforce"
I can't answer that, but If you remember even in the Jan 2017 Webinar with Health Data Security with Mark Kay the Product was KeyStroke Guard !
I would like to Thank Everyone who has
Posted your kind words on my Posts over the past 5 months and that of the MidnightShift Crews work also..
I'd also like to especially thank those who put in a lot of Time doing DD. You Know Who You Are and What You Own.
ZPAUL and Sleddogs I don't known how you get the Drive to Do What You Do Daily Here? But you both have kept me posting some Golden Nuggets, when I would have just given up. Thank You !
Who the hell is JPual
Lobbying - Blank Rome, the Bills Too.! 2016 Blank Rome lobbying $60k for "Secure ID Coalition" www.secureidcoalition.org/
That's a Home Run Find JPAUL ! It Broke the McDonald's Sign two blocks from the Ball Park .
The List of Bills Lobbied for..
The year before the Bill was for Homeland Security.
Blank Rome Lobby'ed for SFOR
http://www.secureidcoalition.org/index.php/policy/cybersecurity-https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000056564&year=2016
2004 Blank Rome Special Interest Lobbying $60k for Strikeforce Technologies https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=F18829&year=2004
2005 Blank Rome Special Interest Lobbying $100k for Strikeforce Technologies https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=F18829&year=2005
Tale Of the Clash of Alter-ego's - SFOR/AUTHENTIFY Sfor friends with authentify .. ? Fact
BORN TO INSPIRE
AUTHENTIFY PATENT CO. V. STRIKEFORCE TECHS., INC
Case # C13-00741-RSM Jul. 31, 2014)
StrikeForce Technologies Inc. v. Authentify INC:
Case # 14-cv-01074 Dec. 18, 2014
Oh So Much More Follows
Most of us know one side of the Story, While Flipping through the Record, i came upon this Moldy Oldy.
Case No. C13-00741-RSM (W.D. Wash. Jul. 31, 2014)
AUTHENTIFY PATENT CO. V. STRIKEFORCE TECHS., INC.
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 9. Defendant, StrikeForce Technologies, Inc., moves to dismiss all claims in Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The Court granted jurisdictional discovery and oral argument to determine the nature and extent of Defendant's connections to the forum state. Having considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court denies Defendant's motion for the reasons discussed herein.
II. BACKGROUND
This is a patent infringement action arising under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and relating to out-of-band ("OOB") customer authentication. The relevant factual background has been previously discussed in the Court's Order granting jurisdictional discovery. Dkt. # 23. Plaintiff Authentify Patent. Co. ("Authentify"), a Washington LLC, is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,934,858, entitled "System and Method of Using the Public Switched Telephone Network in Providing Authentication or Authorization for Online Transactions," issued on August 23, 2005 (the " '858 Patent"). The '858 Patent describes and claims a system for authenticating or authorizing on-line transactions using simultaneous or substantially simultaneous communication on two different networks to verify a user's identity. Dkt. #1, Ex. A, p. 7. StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. ("StrikeForce"), a Wyoming corporation headquartered in New Jersey, makes and sells an OOB authentication software product known as ProtectID. See Dkt. #9, pp. 6-7. StrikeForce is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,871,599 (the "'599 Patent"), which is directed to a multichannel security system and method for authenticating a user seeking to gain access to, for example, Internet websites and VPN networks. See Dkt. # 9, p. 6. On July 9, 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued to StrikeForce U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698 (the " '698 Patent"), a continuation of the '599 Patent. Authentify's '858 Patent and StrikeForce's '599 and '698 Patents all relate to OOB authentication.
The instant action was filed by Authentify on April 26, 2013, and alleges that StrikeForce's activities in the United States relating to ProtectID infringe one or more claims of Authentify's '858 Patent. Dkt. #1, ¶ 15. On May 10, 2013, counsel for Authentify sent a letter and copy of the Complaint to StrikeForce, notifying StrikeForce of the filing of litigation and inquiring into StrikeForce's amenability to settlement. See Dkt. # 12, Ex. 2. Authentify had not yet issued a summons when, on May 22, 2013, StrikeForce filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of the '858 Patent. StrikeForce subsequently amended its complaint in the New Jersey litigation to include Authentify, Inc., Authentify Patent Co.'s sole and managing member, as a defendant.
StrikeForce's jurisdictional theory in the New Jersey litigation is that Authentify Patent Co. is the alter-ego of Authentify, Inc., a company with undisputed "continuous and systematic" contacts with New Jersey. StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. v. Authentify Patent Co., No. 13-3242, Dkt. # 35, p. 7, (D. N.J. 2014). On January 16, 2014, the New Jersey court denied motions to dismiss and to stay by defendants on the grounds that StrikeForce's alter-ego jurisdictional theory is appropriately decided on summary judgment, after the parties have engaged in discovery. Id. at ¶ 9.
StrikeForce moves this Court to dismiss the present action for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). In the alternative, StrikeForce requests transfer of this matter to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. See Dkt. # 9. The Court found that a more satisfactory showing of the facts was necessary in order to reach a determination on whether StrikeForce's actions: (1) were purposefully directed at Washington State residents, and (2) constituted offers to sell the allegedly infringing product. See Dkt. # 23. Consequently, the Court continued Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 9) for five weeks to allow Plaintiff to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery. Id.
Each of the parties submitted a supplemental brief in opposition to or support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss based on the facts revealed during jurisdictional discovery. See Dkt. # 24; Dkt. # 26. Plaintiff additionally moves to strike Defendant's Supplemental Reply (Dkt. # 26) on account of its over-length. See Dkt. # 29.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard for Rule 12(b)(2) Dismissal
Plaintiff bears the burden to establish that personal jurisdiction exists. See Lee v. City of Los Angles, 250 F.3d 668, 692 (9th Cir. 2001). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The law of the Federal Circuit determines whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with the requirements of due process in patent infringement actions. Deprenyl Animal Health, Inc. v. University of Toronto Innovation Foundation, 297 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Where, as here, the district court has allowed the parties to conduct discovery on the jurisdictional issue and held an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff must prove that jurisdiction exists by a preponderance of the evidence. Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 (9th cir. 1977).
B. Motion to Strike
As a preliminary matter, the Court denies Plaintiff's's motion to strike. Plaintiff is correct that Defendant exceeded its allowed page limit pursuant to LCR 7(e). Nonetheless, the Court finds that any prejudice to Plaintiff has been offset by its opportunity to respond at oral argument. The Court admonishes that should Defendant fail to comply with page limits in any future filing in this matter, the Court will disregard any pages in excess of the applicable limit.
C. Personal Jurisdiction
Determining "whether jurisdiction exists over an out-of-state defendant involves two inquiries: whether a forum state's long-arm statute permits service of process and whether assertion of personal jurisdiction violates due process." Genetic Implant Sys., Inc. v. Core-Vent Corp. 123 F.3d 1455, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-76 (1985)). Because Washington's long-arm statute is coextensive with the limits of due process, the two inquiries collapse into a single inquiry: whether jurisdiction comports with due process. See, e.g., IP Innovation, L.L.C. v. RealNetworks, Inc., 310 F.Supp.2d 1209, 1212 (W.D. Wash. 2004); Inamed Corp. v. Kuzmak, 249 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
International Shoe and its progeny establish a two-pronged test for whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process. See Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945); Deprenyl, 297 F.3d at 1350. First, the defendant must have "minimum contacts" with the forum. Id. Second, the assertion of personal jurisdiction over the defendant must comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Id. Due process permits the exercise of general jurisdiction where a defendant's contacts are continuous and systematic. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom., S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415-416 (1984). Here, Plaintiff does not assert general jurisdiction over Defendant but rather asserts that this Court may properly exercise specific jurisdiction over Defendant. See Dkt. #11, p. 5.
The Federal Circuit applies a three-prong test in determining whether the exercise of specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant comports with due process: (1) the defendant must have "purposefully directed [its] activities at residents" of the forum state; (2) the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant's activities in the forum state; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction over the defendant must comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Akro Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541, 1545-46 (Fed.Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1122 (1995). "Under this test, a court may properly assert specific jurisdiction, even if the contacts are isolated and sporadic, so long as the cause of action arises out of or relates to those contacts." Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Industries, Inc., 326 F.3d 1194, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, in "contrast to general, all-purpose jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction." Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the first two factors have been met. Inamed Corp., 249 F.3d at 1360. With regard to the third factor, the burden of proof is on the defendant to make a convincing case that other considerations render the exercise of jurisdiction constitutionally unreasonable. Id.
In the present case, the satisfaction of the first and second prongs of the minimum contacts test turns on the character and extent of Defendant's solicitation of Washington-based companies with regards to its ProtectID product.
a. Purposeful Direction.
The first prong of the minimum contacts test assesses whether a defendant has "deliberately … engaged in significant activities within a [forum] State" and has thereby "availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there" and acquired the protection of the forum's laws. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475-76. A single act is sufficient to support personal jurisdiction where it establishes a "substantial connection" to the forum state. Id. at 475 n. 18. See also, Nuance Communications, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1232-33 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
In granting jurisdictional discovery, the Court explained that Plaintiff had not yet met its burden of showing that Defendant had purposefully directed activities into Washington. See Dkt. # 23, p. 7. In 3D Systems Inc. v. Aarotech Laboratories, the Federal Circuit rested its purposeful direction analysis on a number of activities by the defendant beyond sending promotional letters, including sending videos and sample parts and issuing price quotations to residents of the forum state. 160 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Prior to jurisdictional discovery, Authentify relied on consecutive Declarations of StrikeForce's Executive Director, George Waller, to make a similar showing as to StrikeForce's activities in Washington. However, there were no actions analogous to those discussed in 3D Systems mentioned in the Waller Declarations or alleged by Authentify in its complaint or via affidavit. See, e.g., Dkt. # 11, p. 7 n.3; Dkt. # 23, pp. 7-8. Plaintiff now contends that emails acquired during jurisdictional discovery are illustrative of Defendant's purposeful direction of activities at Washington-based residents.
Plaintiff argues that the purposeful availment prong is satisfied where Defendant sent promotional material, offered to set up trial periods, conducted an online demonstration of the product, and sent ProtectID pricing information to Washington-based entities or individuals. See Dkt. #24, p. 8. Plaintiff asserts that StrikeForce has provided technical data and pricing information to at least two different entities in Washington in an attempt to sell its ProtectID product. See Dkt. # 24, p. 7. The email communications at issue involve correspondence with three Washington-based residents: Jordan Lee of Compushare Management Systems, Inc.; Mark Grindstaff, an employee of Pierce County; and Microsoft Corporation.
i. Jordan Lee.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's communications with Jordan Lee were made in furtherance of the formation of a business relationship, with Mr. Lee as a prospective reseller of StrikeForce's ProtectID product in Washington State. See Dkt. # 24, p. 4. As part of Mr. Waller's attempt to enlist Mr. Lee as a reseller of ProtectID, Mr. Waller provided informational brochures to Mr. Lee regarding the ProtectID product, including a white paper that described how the ProtectID system operated. See Dkt. #25, Exh. B, pp. 8-9. Mr. Waller's communications with Mr. Lee also included specific pricing information on two separate occasions. See Dkt. #25, Exh. B, pp. 7-8.
Defendant attempts to draw a distinction between Mr. Lee, as one interested in reselling StrikeForce products, and one who simply purchases such products without intending to resell them. See Dkt. # 26, p. 12. However, this distinction is one without a difference because Mr. Waller's attempt to sell the ProtectID product to Mr. Lee is the act at issue in the Court's jurisdictional inquiry, not Mr. Lee's subsequent intention to resell the product. This act of attempted sale is evidenced by Mr. Waller's communications with Mr. Lee, which included more than mere promotional materials, namely detailed pricing information and an offer to set up a test of the ProtectID system. The Court accordingly agrees with Plaintiff that Mr. Waller's communications with Mr. Lee therefore exemplify the purposeful direction of activities by StrikeForce at a resident of Washington. See 3D Systems 160 F.3d at 1378 (concluding that Aarotech purposefully directed activities at residents of California when it "sent promotional letters, solicited orders for models, sent videos and sample parts, and issued price quotations to residents of California.").
ii. Mark Grindstaff.
Taken together with Mr. Waller's correspondence with Mr. Lee, the additional efforts of StrikeForce to direct commercial efforts at Mark Grindstaff, an employee of Pierce County, provide sufficient evidence of purposeful direction to satisfy the first prong of the specific jurisdiction analysis. Mr. Grindstaff received promotional materials from Defendant similar to those received by Mr. Lee. See Dkt. #25, Exh. E, p. 144. In addition, Mr. Waller conducted a remote demonstration of the ProtectID product for Mr. Grindstaff through an online conferencing site, which allowed Mr. Grindstaff to view the ProtectID product on his own computer screen. Id. Mr. Waller also sent Mr. Grindstaff detailed pricing information regarding the ProtectID product. Id. Under Federal Circuit precedent, Mr. Waller's communications with Mr. Grindstaff therefore satisfy the purposeful direction prong of the specific personal jurisdiction test.
iii. Microsoft Letter of Infringement.
StrikeForce sent letters to Microsoft's former CEO, Steve Ballmer, and a Microsoft patent attorney informing them that Microsoft was infringing StrikeForce's '599 patent. Dkt. #25, Exh. F. Under Federal Circuit law, "the sending of an infringement letter, without more, is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process when exercising jurisdiction over an out-of-state patentee." Inamed Corp. 249 F.3d at 1361. As the Federal Circuit explained, "[a]s a matter of patent law policy, ... 'principles of fair play and substantial justice afford a patentee sufficient latitude to inform others of its patent rights without subjecting itself to jurisdiction in a foreign forum.' " Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc., 638 F.3d 785, 789 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Because StrikeForce's communication with Microsoft was not an offer to sell its ProtectID product but rather a notice of infringement, it is insufficient, on its own, to confer personal jurisdiction. See Dkt. # 25, Exh. F. The Court therefore declines to consider the communications between StrikeForce and Microsoft in its specific personal jurisdiction analysis.
Even so, on the basis of StrikeForce's communications with Messrs. Lee and Grindstaff, the Court finds that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that StrikeForce purposefully directed its commercial efforts at Washington State residents, establishing through them a sufficiently substantial connection with the forum state to satisfy the first prong of the specific jurisdiction analysis.
b. Arising out of Activity in the Forum State.
The second prong of the minimum contacts test asks whether the cause of action arises out of or directly relates to the purposefully directed activities. Plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that its claim for patent infringement is connected to StrikeForce's activity within the State of Washington related to its '858 Patent. See, e.g., Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472-73; Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1285. Patent infringement occurs when someone "without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention." 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (1994). In the instant matter, the central question for the Court under the second prong of the minimum contacts test is consequently whether or not StrikeForce's solicitations constitute offers to sell under U.S.C. § 271(a). Case law from the Federal Circuit is instructive in this analysis. In 3D Systems, the court concluded that "[a]s a matter of federal statutory construction, the price quotation letters can be regarded as 'offer[s] to sell' under § 271 based on the substance conveyed in the letters, i.e., a description of the allegedly infringing merchandise and the price at which it can be purchased." 160 F.3d at 1379. Based on this interpretation of § 271(a), the court concluded that the plaintiff's claim for patent infringement arose out of the defendant's "actions of sending price quotation letters to California residents," and that the second prong of the specific jurisdiction test had therefore been met. Id.
In Rotec Industries, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp, the Federal Circuit provided additional guidance to assist in interpretation of the statutory "offers to sell" language in § 271(a). In Rotec, the court determined that liability for § 271(a) "offers to sell" should be defined according to "the norms of traditional contractual analysis." 215 F.3d 1246, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2000). An offer to sell arises where a defendant "communicate[s] a 'manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it." Id. at 1257 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 24 (1979)); see also MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., 420 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A solicitation may be considered an offer to sell where it contains features such as price quotations and terms, which could "make it into a binding contract by simple acceptance." MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., 420 F.3d at 1376 (relying on 3D Systems to hold that the defendant had not offered to sell its products where there was no evidence that its emails included price terms).
Plaintiff relies on several sets of communications between StrikeForce and two Washington State residents, Grindstaff and Lee, for its argument that Defendant offered to sell its allegedly infringing OOB authentication product. Defendant, by contrast, denies that these communications related to the patented technology at issue in this case. StrikeForce contends that its ProtectID product contains twelve possible components, with only some of those components relating to OOB authentication. Additional components of ProtectID that do not involve OOB authentication allegedly include in-band technology, such as SMS and soft or hard tokens. See Dkt. # 26, p 8. Defendant argues that the email communications between Mr. Waller and Messr. Lee and Grindstaff involve components of ProtectID unrelated to OOB authentication technology.
The Court is not convinced that the pricing information relayed by Mr. Waller to Mr. Grindstaff relates specifically to OOB technology, as it appears to reference parts of the ProtectID product that are not related to the patents at issue in this case. See Dkt. # 25, Exh. E, pp. 140-41. The Court accordingly declines to find personal jurisdiction on the basis of the Waller-Grindstaff communications alone. However, the Court finds that Defendant's communications with Mr. Lee constitute offers to sell the allegedly infringing product under the norms of traditional contract analysis. In an email dated September 5, 2012, Mr. Waller sent Mr. Lee specific pricing and product information that involved the patented OOB technology. See Dkt. # 25, Exh. B, pp. 7-9. The pricing information included the hosted per-transaction fee based on the transaction bucket size selected by the offeree. Id. Under the standards established by the Federal Circuit in Rotec and 3D Systems, these communications constitute "offer[s] to sell" under § 271(a) as they contain specific pricing terms and detailed product information regarding the patented OOB technology. See id. at pp. 7-9. Mr. Lee could have accepted the offer by merely indicating to Mr. Waller that he would purchase buckets of one of the specified transaction sizes at the proposed hosted per-transaction fee. See id. Because Mr. Lee could have accepted the proposed terms offered by Mr. Waller, thereby creating a binding contract, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant's interactions with Mr. Lee satisfy the second prong of the specific personal jurisdiction test.
c. Fair Play and Substantial Justice.
Once it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum state, these contacts may be "considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice"— that is, whether the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable under the circumstances of the particular case. See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476 (quoting International Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 320 (1945)). When a defendant seeks to rely on the "fair play and substantial justice" factor to avoid the exercise of jurisdiction by a court that otherwise would have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, "[it] must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable." Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477. Instances in which a defendant may successfully invoke "fair play and substantial justice" to defeat an otherwise constitutional exercise of personal jurisdiction "are limited to the rare situation in which the plaintiff's interest and the state's interest in adjudicating the dispute in the forum are so attenuated that they are clearly outweighed by the burden of subjecting the defendant to litigation within the forum." Akro Corp., 45 F.3d at 1549, quoting Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558, 1568 (Fed.Cir.1994).
In Electronics for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1351-52 (Fed.Cir.2003), the Federal Circuit provided five factors for courts to apply in determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is reasonable: (1) the burden on the defendant, (2) the interests of the forum state, (3) the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief, (4) the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and (5) the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. The defendant bears the burden to present "a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476-77.
In the instant case, Defendant does not cite any of these factors in its argument but instead focuses on the attenuated nature of its contacts with the forum state. See Dkt. # 26, p. 24. Defendant relies on Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., v. Propet USA, Inc., 62 Fed. App'x 322 (Fed. Cir. 2003), wherein the court held that conferring personal jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice where the defendant's contacts with the forum state were miniscule and unrelated to the cause of the plaintiff's alleged injury. The Court finds Hockerson inapposite, as it concerned the exercise of general, rather than specific jurisdiction. The defendant in Hockerson operated an online retailer which sold shoes around the country, with only a small portion of sales - unrelated to the plaintiff's alleged injury - occurring in the forum state. Id. at 337. Because the retailer did not purposefully direct its commercial efforts to sell the allegedly infringing product towards residents of the forum state, the court considered whether the defendant's contacts with the forum state were such that the court could have exercised general personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Id. Here, the Court's inquiry is whether specific personal jurisdiction is proper, and it is appropriate to focus on a small number of, or even singular acts to make that determination. Further, the Hockerson court determined that the defendant's activities failed to meet the minimum contacts test, while this Court has already reached a contrary finding in the instant matter.
There is no reason why conferring personal jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and justice in this case. An assessment of the factors from Electronics for Imaging shows that the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this forum is reasonable. First, requiring a New Jersey-based defendant to litigate in Washington would not impose on it an excessive geographic burden. Second, Washington has a substantial interest in protecting its residents from the sale of allegedly infringing patents. See Deprenyl, 297 F.3d at 1356. Third, Authentify also has an acknowledged interest in protecting itself from patent infringement. Fourth, with regard to the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining efficient resolution of this dispute, the Court recognizes that StrikeForce has filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. However, the pending New Jersey case, still at an early stage of litigation, could be efficiently consolidated with this case if it is determined that they are sufficiently related. Finally, the Court does not see any conflict between the interests of Washington and New Jersey in furthering their own respective substantive laws, as the same body of federal patent law would govern the patent infringement claim irrespective of the forum. In light of this analysis, the Court finds that it is not unreasonable to exercise personal jurisdiction in this instance.
D. Venue
A motion to transfer an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) presents two basic questions: (1) whether the action sought to be transferred might have been brought in the proposed transferee district; and (2) whether the transfer would be for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice. Int'l Patent Dev. Corp. v. Wyomont Partners, 489 F.Supp. 226, 228 (D.Nev.1980) (internal citation omitted). The court then balances the competing public and private interest factors to determine if transfer is appropriate, recognizing that "[section] 1404(a) provides for transfer to a more convenient forum, not to a forum likely to prove equally convenient or inconvenient." Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 645-46 (1964). Also, "transfer should not be granted if the effect is simply to shift the inconvenience to the party resisting the transfer." Id. at 646. Nor is the court required to determine the best venue for the action. Gherebi v. Bush, 352 F.3d 1278, 1303 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotations omitted), vacated on other grounds, 542 U.S. 952 (2004). There is a strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum which must be taken into account when deciding whether transfer is warranted. Id. at 1303.
The Ninth Circuit has identified a number of public and private factors that a district court may consider on a case-by-case basis in deciding whether an action should be transferred. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir.2000). These factors include: (1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) ease of access to sources of proof. Id. Among the aforementioned factors, Defendant relies on the following to buttress its argument to transfer the present action to New Jersey: the relative ease of accessing records and witnesses in New Jersey, its lack of contacts in Washington, and the pending ligation in New Jersey. See Dkt. # 9, p. 19. Defendant's arguments to this effect are unpersuasive and do not justify a change in venue, particularly in light of the first to file rule, as well as the strong presumption in favor of Plaintiff's choice of forum.
When, as here, two actions that sufficiently overlap are filed in different federal district courts, one for infringement and the other for declaratory relief, the declaratory judgment action, if filed later, generally is to be stayed, dismissed, or transferred to the forum of the infringement action. See Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 681 F.3d 1283, 1299 (Fed.Cir.2012). This "first-to-file" rule exists to "avoid conflicting decisions and promote judicial efficiency." Id. The rule is not absolute; exceptions may be made if justified by "considerations of judicial and litigant economy, and the just and effective disposition of disputes." Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 394 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed.Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Justification for an exception may be found in "the convenience and availability of witnesses, [the] absence of jurisdiction over all necessary or desirable parties, ... the possibility of consolidation with related litigation, or considerations relating to the real party in interest." Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931, 938 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Resolution of whether the second-filed action should proceed presents a question sufficiently tied to patent law that the question is governed by Federal Circuit law. Elecs. for Imaging, 394 F.3d at 1345-46. Application of the first-to-file rule is generally a matter for a district court's discretion, exercised within governing legal constraints. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 139 (2005); Merial, 681 F.3d at 1299.
There is no dispute that the instant infringement action was filed prior to the declaratory judgment action in New Jersey. StrikeForce has not shown that interests in litigant or judicial economy favor transferring the present action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Rather, the factors to be considered by the Court to determine if transfer is appropriate on balance point towards retaining the action in this forum. For example, StrikeForce's contacts with Messrs. Lee and Grindstaff relate to the Plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum. Second, the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums are not so significant as to be onerous to Defendant. Third, the ease of access to sources of proof is not significantly impacted by the chosen forum. Lastly, StrikeForce does not make a compelling argument to transfer the present action to New Jersey based on the fair play and substantial justice analysis outlined above.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Dkt. # 9) is DENIED. Defendant's alternative request to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey is also DENIED.
Dated this 31 day of July 2014.
/s/_________
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ZPAUL - Current Deals and Partnerships are Impressive
And have only gotten better over the years and with now with Larger Companies over the years as StrikeForce/ACS is becoming more recognized since the outcome of the PhoneFactor/Microsoft Patent Infringment Lawsuit.
Here are some of the deals from years past:
Distributor and Reseller Agreement Cyber Safety, Inc. August 28th, 2015
https://www.lawinsider.com/contracts/33q85wDnhEqO1UNlFqbpO2/strikeforce-technologies-inc/1285543/2015-08-28
StrikeForce Technologies and Veratad Technologies Form Strategic Partnership
EDISON, NJ and TEANECK, NJ- 10/19/11 –
https://veratad.com/press-releases/veratad-technologies-and-strikeforce-form-strategic-partnership/
StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. Jumps 34% on New Partnership With Target Corp. (NYSE: TGT)
June 27, 2016
http://emerginggrowth.com/strikeforce-technologies-inc-otc-pink-sfor-jumps-34-new-partnership-target-corp-nyse-tgt/
Source for folowing:
http://wallstreetanalyzer.com/page/1/?s=StrikeForce+technologies+&submit=Search
StrikeForce Technologies Announces Partnership With FlexiP Group, an IT Security Solutions Provider
ON: OCTOBER 29, 2013
StrikeForce Technologies Announces Partnership With SynerComm Inc., an IT Solutions Provider
OCTOBER 8, 2013,
Melrose Credit Union Purchases StrikeForce’s ProtectID® Two-Factor Out-of-Band Authentication Technology to Protect Their Employees
SEPTEMBER 4, 2013
StrikeForce Technologies Announces Partnership With FlexiP Group, an IT Security Solutions Provider
OCTOBER 29, 2013
Canadian Town of Whitby Purchases StrikeForce’s ProtectID® Multi-Factor Authentication Technology
ON: NOVEMBER 19, 2013
StrikeForce and VigiTrust Form Strategic Partnership to Assist Payment Card Industry with Meeting New PCI-DSS 3.0 Regulations
ON: NOVEMBER 21, 2013
Superior Discovery Purchases StrikeForce’s ProtectID® Multi-Factor Out-of-Band Authentication Technology to Protect Client Data
ON: DECEMBER 10, 2013
StrikeForce Adds Logical Source, Inc. as a New Distributor of its Products
ON: JULY 16, 2014
Midnight Shift 1/24/17 - ACS Comment Inspired
To All: Not trying to Assume Any Connections
PLEASE Use Free Association while Reading.
Pay Attention to Green Text
First Thank You KEEPIN-EYE
And then without your question:
"Please anybody explain this to the board" For without doing that, I not have embedded the CyGate picture, and then noticed the Picture Files Name euipfcygate_coming_soon.jpg which began this Midnight Adventure Hunt.
Which once I catch a wiff of a scent, well..
Euip - Humm not short for equipment
European Union Intellectual Property
Sniff Sniff
Now that's a coincidence
Sweden
See Partners
Watch at 4:28 AFRICA
"Kay is what count gold49er."
I have no Idea what that comment is suppose to mean ??
Please read what you post, before you hit Submit.
That is if you would like a reply.
Theme Nah- I've Got Sunshine in a Bag
The Future is Coming On, is Coming On
Letters written on behalf of an investor, then posting the fact on these boards reminds me of this.SFOR theme song
I would not expect the TV Store until at least Thur. Feb 2nd.
This is when QVC begins their Top Tech Week Series
Top Tech Runs 5 times that day.
Next is Sat. Feb 11th 1 Time and then Sat. Feb 18th 1 time.
Also QVC as the Absolute Best Deal on McAffe Anti-Virus Software.. It's a Ridiculous Price !
McAfee & Intel Antivirus Plus System Mechanic for Life of 7 Computers
Or put another way, 7 years worth for 1 Computer for $70 ÷ S/H Tax
Plus you can Break it up into 3 Payments if you like.
ORDER the Black USB Drive it's in Stock or you can check to see if Another color is in Stock.
It also comes with System Mechanic too. Which I Highly Recommend.
There are a lot of these Fix all the Problems with Your PC on the Market, but System Mechanic is the Best IMO. And I've been Repairing Other People's PC''s since 1985.
This is an Amazing Offer! That's only $10 a Year for Antivirus Software + System Mechanic! Just Click the Link Below it takes you to the Page and The Show that is Advertising It.
http://www.qvc.com/McAfee-%26-Intel-Antivirus-Plus-System-Mechanic-for-Life-of-7-Computers.product.E229420.html?sc=SRCH
Did I say there were tangled deals with ACS ?
No
In the few posts on the Subject I said basically said there is probably more to the Deal than Released. And I included the Filing stating the Terms of the deal that were stated in all posts.
In the post you are replying to I did not say anything about "Tangled Deals" between SFOR and ACS. I can understand you were misinterpreted it.
To put it in a different manner
Dave and I made a Deal and I gave Dave all copyrights to a Song I wrote and Produced and Dave was Going to Promote it hard to the Music Studios and in return I get Royalties, It's GREAT so I have some Extra Cash coming in and if all went as good as Dave thought it would with the Studios he will Pay me $9M. at a future date. End of Deal.
This deal will be Great for me, because I have some Huge Outstanding Toxic Loans out there with DWCEM&H LOAN Co. with High Interest. With this Deal I made with Dave, I will be able to ensure the Do-We-Cheat-em & How Loan Company, I have Royalties coming in and will be able to continue making payments on my Loan, as DWCEM&H had written letters to me stating, According to my Filed Financials, it looked like I may have problems making future payments.
I know I will be able to pay off those loans at some point soon.... as I have a Copyright Lawsuit against a Major Studio and I will Win.
But I don't know if the Lawsuit will take 4 months or 4 years. and in the mean time I need to be able to kept making payments on time with these creeps.
I've already done a Reverse Split just to pay these High Interest Toxic Loan Payments and keep the Business Doors open. with all the Pieces finally coming together after 15 years our Products Finally being needed in the Market Place, we CAN'T go Bankrupt! Not Now, not when Revenues are about to finally come pouring in. More Lawsuit Settlements will be coming in too. So this deal I made with Dave came at just the Right Time.
Hypothetical yes, Possible Yes. Will we ever know? Possible, about the time we actually find out what the NDA with MSFT was... LOL
I believe there is so much happening behind the Scenes with New Deals and New Markets and Distributors and in the courts that most haven't a Real clue as to it all.
Hey after all, it's just some little Sub-Penny Stock with nothing happening right! LOL !
And it has a CEO that Does Not put out Fluff News.. and its hard to put whats all going on together.
But he does drop hints in Non-Investor related Videos that end up on YouTube. Like " and Yes we do sell products though McAffee"
Did you hear him say that in the Investor Meeting?
With things like that or finding a 43 minute Interview with Waller from Nov. 2013 with great info and insight. With multiple people doing Real DD and we are finding enough Tidbits to put the JigSaw Puzzle together. With each Piece added, a Picture is beginning to emerge. It seems to be a Master Piece.
More thoughts on ACS Deal
I mentioned about this deal awhile ago, must they meet their option?
We are proud to announce our most recent 8k, that shows that Cyber Safety, Inc., a company owned by Advanced Cyber Security, purchased their option this week of Nine Million Dollars ($9,000,000), which may be paid in the form of a promissory note due by and no later than September 30, 2020, of our keystroke encryption patents and related products (GuardedID® and MobileTrust®). StrikeForce Technologies Inc. sees these events as a game changer to the Company. The Company's agreements' does not affect or impact the right to sell through our distributor channel in perpetuity. We also intend to continue to protect our Out-of-Band Authentication (ProtectID®) patents in the marketplace over the next couple of years. The Company has and continues to plan to buy out a number of our major debt partners. We see all of these events as strong statements about our Company and products, ProtectID®, GuardedID®, MobileTrust® and MobileTrust® Secure Keyboard.
SFOR Owns the Patents until ACS pays the $9M.
Though selling the patents they continued the right to sell and earn off it even as they dont own it
StrikeForce ACS Deal Just Sounds Strange
I wonder if anyone has seen the full contents of the ACS option to purchase the guardedid patents?? Was there room in the contract to reverse/cancel/opt out of the contract?? usually a better written contract includes an option to opt out if conditions change.....now those patents are way valuable than the 9 million that ACS is not even paying!!! If there was no option out ...then judge for yourselves!!!
We are proud to announce our most recent 8k, that shows that Cyber Safety, Inc., a company owned by Advanced Cyber Security, purchased their option this week of Nine Million Dollars ($9,000,000), which may be paid in the form of a promissory note due by and no later than September 30, 2020, of our keystroke encryption patents and related products (GuardedID® and MobileTrust®). StrikeForce Technologies Inc. sees these events as a game changer to the Company. The Company's agreements' does not affect or impact the right to sell through our distributor channel in perpetuity. We also intend to continue to protect our Out-of-Band Authentication (ProtectID®) patents in the marketplace over the next couple of years. The Company has and continues to plan to buy out a number of our major debt partners. We see all of these events as strong statements about our Company and products, ProtectID®, GuardedID®, MobileTrust® and MobileTrust® Secure Keyboard.
More Good News! On Mobile Trust
It might not mean much to some, but as User of Mobile Trust User my Prayers have been Answered.
Thanks Ram Leo and StrikeForce.
A NEW KEYBOARD !
Still need some Left and Right ARROW Keys to move the Cursor.
Perhaps a little to Large also.
But Much Better to work with.....
Sleddogs here is something Geared for You
First is the Article next is the Link to the Report I added 3 Pages at the bottom of the post( Letter to the POTUS, 12 individuals constitute the President’s Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity and Table of Contents) to wet your appitite from the PDF Dec. 31, 2016 Report.
JAN 1
Cybersecurity is out of control. Literally.
Over 3 billion people use the Internet, and we are led to believe that cybersecurity is everyone’s responsibility. To put it bluntly, that doesn’t work, and it never will. As the saying goes, when everyone is responsible, nobody is. It’s time for a change.
Recently, I had the great privilege of serving as a member of a non-partisan commission appointed by President Obama. Our task was to put together specific recommendations for the next Administration to strengthen cybersecurity in the public and private sectors. We issued our Report on Securing and Growing the Digital Economy last month, which includes 53 recommended actions. Here are a few of the report’s significant, overarching principles:
The Report on Securing and Growing the Digital Economy PDF can be found at this Link:
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2016/12/02/cybersecurity-commission-report-final-post.pdf
Drain the Cyber Swamp
It is not possible or optimal for every person and every company to be on the frontlines of cybersecurity. We should focus on fewer, higher level solutions that benefit everybody. Shifting the burden away from end users will require a sustained international effort to tackle common Internet ecosystem threats, such as eliminating botnets that infect millions of victims and can take down power grids. Products, protocols and systems should be secure by design and by default, their complexity reduced, and their security capabilities disclosed. Finally, we need to ratchet up threat deterrence. The bad guys, whether criminal or military, won’t relent unless we improve our abilities to detect, identify and penalize them using all elements of national power.
Measure by Effectiveness, Not by the Undertaking
The NIST Cybersecurity Framework is a simply stated document, but don’t let that fool you. Attempting to achieve the Framework’s list of 98 specific outcomes would be enormously difficult and costly. And to what end? Unfortunately, nobody seems to know, not even the regulators that are so quick to determine whether a breached company’s actions were “unreasonable.” We quickly must address our lack of fact-based metrics that would establish not only whether the NIST Framework and related standards are cost-effective, but whether and to what extent they are effective at all. Regulators also should get their acts together by harmonizing their rules around common principles, as well as with one another.
Find New Ways to Win
The government and the private sector must resolve how to work together to jointly defend the nation in cyberspace. We also must continue to innovate with substantial advances in automation, artificial intelligence, machine learning and identity management. Finally, we must promote international standards that foster security, privacy and interoperability in ways that make it easier for businesses to innovate and operate with certainty across geopolitical boundaries.
Play Ball!
The commission’s report is like a pitch straight down the middle. It’s packed with energy, urgency and direction. The new Administration, working internationally and with industry, can knock it out of the park. We have to. We’re currently down in cybersecurity, and it feels like the bottom of the ninth.
"Wanna help me take out the ask up to 0065??"
zata,
Of course SFOR can be driven by a News Release at any moment, although in a lot of cases it's leaked out to some before the release.
Which is why I rely on my Charting Method. But this is a Penny Stock and as such, Charting is well..... not Precise in most forms of TA.
I'm not that experienced in Techical Analysis, I used the rules for my tool, which can go deep, but to me are not near as complex as typical TA.
And most probably choose only the few areas they use consistently anyway.
As an example sbronk Posted a line about pinching, referring to I assume pinchers, which on typical stocks work quite well.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127996842&txt2find=Pinching
Double Tap/Click on the charts to get a more defined view.
As you can see just prior to the jump to .007 in the 18th there was a Reversal Buy Count of 4. "Chart 1
Now yesterday you had asked if I want to help you bump the ask up to .0065.
Now on the 18th Chart #2 I'm was showing a Reversal Sell Count of 2.
And on the 19th, Yesterday it followed through with a Reversal Sell Count of 3.
And as you can see on the 5 Min Chart Yesterday Chart #4 an Exhaustion Sell Count of 17 around the time your asking me to Bump up the ask.
Basicly, helping you to try and move the ask to .0065 would have been an effort in Futility.
I hope I got all the chart numbers and statements correct, it's easy to screw up when not making a two line post.
Jan 13th Day Chart #1
Jan 18th Day Chart #2
Jan 19th Day Chart #3
Jan 19th 5 Min Chart #4
Unique in the way its done in this Chart Package the Trend Reversal Indicator is based on 9,13 Count Indicator, a highly sought after technical analysis tool.
Trend Reversal Indicator is based on counting price candlesticks or bars in anticipation of trend Reversal or Exhaustion. It has an impressive record of identifying and anticipating turning points across the FX, bond, equity and commodity markets. The Reversal predicts the Reversal pattern, whereas Exhaustion anticipates trend Exhaustion.
Trend Reversal indicator has been used by institutional traders since 1990s, and so far only been available exclusively on professional platforms such as Bloomberg, making its use rare among average retail investors.
__________
Not sure if you are familiar with
Glenn Frey's Summgglers Blues, I rewrote it in Germany one night while Driving on the Autobahn. Turned it into basicly a Porche Commerical.
Although the Lyrics are Copywrited, I won't put them out in a Public Forum for obvious reasons.
Oh yea, but it's Fun to walk out in the Driveway and Watch the Launches now too, instead of Sitting behind a Console.
To many Swing and MidShift on Holidays,
I got Bored and Rewrote Hotel California in the Court Yard one Night.
On A Dark Orbit Highway,
Cool Nitrogen in the Air
Another Shuttle Launches rising up through the air
up ahead in the distance they saw simmering lights
the whole Launch Team on Board as we launch into the night
Welcome to The ROCC we'll launch one for you,
such a Lovely Place such a Lovely Place such a Tax Disgrace
No more room at the ROCC here to afford ya,
Anytime of year, you will find us here
The place is definitely Twisted we got the Watch Item Trends
We got a lot of pretty pretty displays for a Range Safety Friends
Now some smoke in the courtyard so hot it makes them sweat,
some come to get knowledge, some come to forget
So I called up the Captain all he did was whine,
so I told this place hadn't made history since 1969
But still those voices are calling from far away,
Wake us up in the middle of the night just to hear us say
Welcome to the ROCC we'll Launch One for Ya.