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.
Right.
Is that "someone" yet another infringer? If so Uncle Sam doesn't knowingly work with thieves.
Why not is the better question.
Yup! No other company has the US patent on OOB for mobile devices. Ram has the first filing according to the USPO. His patent has been maintained and has not expired! Verify this for yourself by going to the United States Patent Offfice site as I have.
Listen to the ACS webinar. At slide # 15 the briefer clearly states they are working with "A large Defense Contractor."
What "Uncle Ben" asked for was a fix for his Blackberry "which is being monitored" during NATO FX Anaconda in Poland June '16. His concern was that "e-mails (unclassified) are unsecure" as expressed to the AFN repoter. Now, in accordance with SC-37 as posted via link today, DoD is transitioning to OOB for mobile devices. What is the only company that holds the US patent on OOB for mobile devices? That's right, SFOR!
Once a flag officer's operational needs are involved the bureaucrats in the Pentagon do their best to meet it. Particularly when it is a need of a frontline commander like NATO's Lt/Gen Ben Hodges.
Expiditing the paperwork is not "breaking government procurement procedures." It is speeding it up as needed to support operational needs.
This ends the DoD requirement debate IMHO. Thanks for finding and posting that ZPaul.
No "magic" required. Once "A large Defense Contractor" places an order with ACS, the paperwork can be expedited. This particularly true when there is an operational need as evidenced by the 2/27/17 BBC report of the Russian cyber attack on NATO forces deployed to Eastern Europe.
I guess then I'm "most laughable." I do believe President Trump does give "two shits" about clean coal. He made promises to the coal industry to bring back mining jobs and increase American coal exports. If CCTC's independently verified process technology stands up to his DOE's testing he very well could see this "shaky penny stock" company as part of the way to fulfill those promises! By his executive order repealing the anti-coal Obama era one he has already shown he wants to do what he can to help the American coal industry IMHO.
Dilution is a non-issue. Read surfkast's reprint of the DART information he was kind enough to post yesterday to allay that fear. In it, you will read, SFOR cannot issue any more shares until DART cashes in at a time of their choosing. Thanks surfkast!
Ropes & Gray wouldn't defend a scam. Blank Rome would not have taken the Trustwave, Duo and Centrify cases on contingency if they thought SFOR "is falling apart." They wouldn't get paid if it did!
No magic required, just hard work. It takes time to make money. Kay continues to execute on his four pronged company growth plan. The money will "appear" in time.
Nah, its abundant life. By staggering batches of future lawsuits SFOR could have a steady income stream of settlement monies or damages.
And what exactly did he do with that 9.75 million dollars, besides paying down debt? He invested it in the company in a couple different ways. It takes money to make money.
He's succeeding in implementing all four prongs of his company growth plan. Over the past year, according to the 10-K, up 41%.
Nothing wrong with that picture! IMHO progress is being made. Some people just expect much more and are disappointed when SFOR does not meet their higher expectations.
Agree. Definite win/win situation. Never forget. Without that Microsoft settlement there would be no SFOR message board because there would be no SFOR.
Increased mine mechanization is another factor in decreasing coal employment.
Oh, we'll know when it shows up in accounts receivables from ACS by the 5 agreed upon per unit sold.
Didn't you see the ACS webinar? On slide fifteen the briefer mentions working with "A large (unnamed) Defense contractor."
They will remain unnamed due to the DoD Confidentiality statement. Any DoD contract will be with that large defense contractor and the US Government. ACS will be the vendor of SFOR supplied product to be used by that large defense contractor in meeting the terms of that DoD contract. SFOR will not be contracted with directly. It must go through ACS which is fully vetted by the DoD.
Shake, shake, shake. Shake, shake shake. Look at the weak grip monkeys falling out of the SFOR money tree!
Nah, this one has risen. All you have to do is read the updated DoD info regarding MFA/OOBA posted here, with reference documents this AM. The bottom line is operational need. Credentials can be renewed. This is in no way the show-stopper you make it out to be.
You remember the "Large Defense Contractor" mentioned in the ACS webinar at slide # 15? I do! The grist mill of the Pentagon's procurement cycle admittedly grinds slowly but it does grind exceedingly finely. With ACS (our Federal Government vendor) mentioning working with "A large Defense Contractor" the gears of the grist mill have begun to turn against you.
Come on! The last couple of PRs are not that old. Although fluffy, they did contain some useful info. However, sadly, you are right about the PPS. Ugh!
There it is, as predicted. The AM MM gorilla has shown up to shake the SFOR money tree. Don't let 'em steal your shares!
What I liked was the recent article of how this infringer is enhancing the DoD's SIPIR NET with MFA/OOBA. The damages or settlement to SFOR should be awesome on that one!
Gee, I wonder why there is not 100% compliance then?
Sometime this year, I believe Mark Kay will be eating at the Ground Zero. That's the concession stand in the center of the Pentagon's courtyard. I imagine he is going to really enjoy that slice of DoD pie he'll be getting a la mode for desert. Agree. Know what you own!
Oh wait, OMG! The paperwork is not current! Do you think it can be brought up to date with relative ease as I do? SFOR long & strong, Army strong in fact in the not too distant future.
Thanks for calming dilution fears with your most accurate quote
regarding the DART note: "Under the terms of the secured debentures the company is restricted in its ability to issue additional securities as long as any portion of the principal or interest on the secured debentures remains outstanding." DART will in time IMHO sell, but only when the price is right through pps appreciation.
Hey Peggy, get a look at this! Ya think ACS or Alverez might be getting some buisness out of it? I do! Long & Strong SFOR
The partner list alone is impressive! MFA/OOBA is quick becoming embraced as the industry standard.
I really appreciate your enthusiasm Ram! However, I caution you not to invest any more than you could afford to lose in ANY equity.
Now that's interesting! Ya got to wonder what was discussed. Inquiring minds want to know.
So DART/Citco Global converts it's notes payable into shares of SFOR common stock based on adjustable conversion prices at a time of its choosing later on. Big deal!
Agree. Gorilla size MMs to shake the SFOR money tree again today before loading themselves. Weak grip monkeys to fall out of the tree as you predict. However, SFOR longs have grips like Gibraltar's rock apes! Shake away MMs, shake away. You'll get my two million shares only when you pry them out of my cold dead hands! Long and Strong SFOR.
Or Company could be wealthy by then. SFOR is a high risk/high potential investment. What else is new?
Gee Peggy, you better call him on the carpet about it then. What's he supposed to do voice the standard WH cannot confirm or deny that phrase? No comment means no comment!
I appreciate the vote of confidence in SFOR by someone who worked as a network engineer and was impressed by the patents & business model enough to invest.
Great question Peggy. Why don't you call Mark Kay today directly today and ask. The post what he says to you on the matter. Thanks!
With a 1/23/17 latest revision date you have made this old vet a very happy man finally seeing it in DoD print! OOBA successfully made the leap from the ACS white paper posted a couple weeks ago.
This mil doc is great news! Thanks for finding & sharing it with us.