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.
I can't assume that because of what I read of the pilot projects DOE grant funded to investigate the recovery of REEs from coal ash.
That ash was from anthracite not the low-rank coal CCTC is targeting. I believe DOE wanted to verify the results already attained by the independent evaluation. Those results: decreased moisture content, increased BTU content, no reabsorption, stabilization, dust containment and the $9 a short ton processing fee enable the economical export of low rank coal. That's what this DOE testing is all about IMHO.
No way SFOR could afford a $400K Retainer fee and $2000/Hr attorney rates for four separate cases with multiple lawyers assigned! The power/IP legal defense funder behind the SFOR throne (that Kay told another poster he cannot comment on) has very deep pockets indeed! With the amount of legal firepower they have directed at the four they have sufficient force to prevail in court. It appears vanquishing: Gemalto, Vasco, Entrust and Secure Authentication expeditiously are this power's objectives. Thank you for emphasizing the importance of SFOR retaining Ropes & Gray and detailing their legal fee structure. The power's goal, that these objectives support is readily apparent. Once SFOR's IP has been proven iron clad by jurisprudence an acquisition is logical. I base that on the recent Bloomberg TV interview of the Texas Pacific Group partner regarding the McAfee spinoff with Intel. In it he stated "We will be acquiring small computer software companies in the cyber security landscape." SFOR fits that bill. Consequently, I believe SFOR is on their shopping list.
Given the rollout timeframe should we see revenue from this (aka license fee) in the 2nd Q report or earlier?
A clear & concise translation of legalese. Thank you!
No. Blessed be the tie that binds! In this case with Intel, Texas Pacific Group and McAfee. I believe you have pulled back the curtain a bit more on the power behind the throne who is picking up SFOR's expensive R&G legal tab. And more importantly, why they are doing so.
That's good stuff but I'm trying to find out from a chemical engineering angle how Pristine enables REE recovery. Do you know of a flow chart on the Pristine process?
Understand how vital REEs are & 100% US import problem. My question regards the Pristine process. If Pristine can recover REEs in sufficient quantity you may be on to something. I know DOE has cut grants to demo projects recovering REEs from coal ash in the past. Do you have a link regarding CCTC's REE recovery?
Without the final results from the DOE requested testing the POTUS would be hesitant to include it IMHO. That begs the question. Does anyone know when those tests will be completed?
Are the REE recovered in the Pristine coal upgrade process a commercially significant byproduct?
The delay on the cyber security executive order actually is helpful.
It bought more time for us to make senior decision makers aware of OOBA/MFA and consider its inclusion in the national "Anti-Hacking Plan". President Trump has tasked the CIA and ODNI to write the plan. This executive order kicks off reviews of each Federal Agencies digital defenses. So now is the time to write the Central Intelligence Agency and Office of the Director of National Intelligence as I have. Every letter counts!
Dr. Alan T. Sherman's expert testimony has made SFOR's case a very strong one. You've got to wonder how & with what they hope to counter it.
Agreed. Not only the frequency but the intensity of the posts to the point of being shrill are an excellent barometer. Something is indeed brewing and it is much larger than a tempest in a teacup.
Impossible with so much positive flotation. SFOR is just like a Boston Whaler. Those can be cut in half and remain afloat!
I will also put my belief and money in Blank Rome. They got the Microsoft settlement for SFOR saving it from the corporate graveyard. They also have such confidence that their cases against Duo, Centrify and Trustwave are on contingency. That fact speaks volumes to me!
To the contrary. Not planning for such a contingency would have been negligent on their part. A good legal team will cover all bases. SFOR has a great one IMHO.
Agree. "You may not get the exact source, but you will get the idea." It all boils down to two things. The first is the nature of the beast we investors are riding, cyber security. Anything security related is essentially close hold. Legally binding NDAs are an inherent part of these deals. Second is leadership. What I have found in Mark Kay since Feb '16 puts me, as a long term investor, at ease. He's always been a straight shooter with me. He is quietly, competently executing on the four pronged company growth plan he articulated. This gives me the patience needed to await the catalysts detailed by ZPaul to take place. Ya place your money, ya take your bets. I'm betting on SFOR based on the above and that one year chart ascending triangle. Agreed, "real simple."
You bring up our top notch legal representation. I & others have wondered how on earth SFOR could afford it. I noted 6 R&G attorneys assigned to one case! One of us called Mark Kay and reported he could not comment on the how. That speaks volumes to me. IMHO there is a power behind the SFOR throne and it has deep pockets. Long & strong SFOR!
Let's also not forget what changed that direr situation into settlement was the Markman hearing.
SFOR was 22nd early this week now #6! Steady, incremental progress in HSN demand speaks loudly to me. People that shop on HSN are researching this defensive software. They are finding out their anti-virus software has a Achilles' heel. They are then filling that gap in their cyber armor by purchasing SFOR product. Word will spread. Long & strong SFOR.
Those who "fire the barrel and move on" will, in time, come to the realization they have shot themselves in the foot IMHO!
Want to know SFOR's future? Read RDY2ROCK's post! It is not only fact filled, clear and concise but above all reasonable. It shows the path forward in an incrementally logical way. File this post. If ever you doubt SFOR's viability reread it.
If Kay will be retiring soon and selling the company it won't be for cheap IMHO.
Hey, it's a discussion board where we can bat possibilities around in addition to sharing hard facts!
I stand corrected by a far sharper legal mind than mine. I did not know that is the way it worked. Thank you for illuminating me.
That's true. An asteroid could hit the earth in 90 days and wipe us all out. I venture to say the probabilities of both are the same!
I find that strangely comforting. To me that means he is not at liberty to reveal the source of funding for SFOR's legal defense. Possibly somebody, with deep pockets, is picking up our tab. Now why would a generous soul do that for little SFOR? Inquiring minds want to know! Since multi-billion dollar Intel and TPG have the same lawyers, Ropes and Gray as microcap SFOR, there might just be a connection. I base that on what that Texas Pacific Group partner said on last weeks Bloomberg TV interview, "We will be acquiring small computer software companies in the cyber defense landscape". Does little SFOR fit that description? I think it does! Do you think I'm out in left field about this?
Are you leaving out the $50,000 Mark Kay originally included in accounts payable but the auditor took out since it is "still accruing"? If so that should be in the next Q.
Thanks for sharing that good news. Even if we have to wait an extra six months, it'll be well worth the wait! Long & strong SFOR.
The only fly in the oatmeal is just how Ropes and Gray are being paid? I know for a fact that Blank Rome is litigating the Duo, Centrify and Trustwave cases on contingency. What I don't know is if Ropes and Gray are on contingency or not. If not, I am concerned how SFOR can possibly afford their fees for four separate cases. I saw six of their lawyers assigned to one of them. That's expensive!
Have you seen anything in writing as to how SFOR is footing the legal bill because it is going to be a large one IMHO.
Thanks for posting that and providing the referenced messages. I had forgotten it was Robov who had shared the chart patterns.
Hardly a patent troll! A robust legal defense of SFOR IP is but one of the four prongs of company growth articulated by SFOR CEO Mark Kay. Look up the definition of a patent troll, SFOR is far from it!
We'll agree to disagree about the conference being open to paying members of the public. The media should also be covering the event making the goings on public information. So, if that is not an appropriate "forum where that kind of information would likely be revealed for the first time" to common stock holders what is?
Sorry but I can't. I print & physically draw them as I was taught. Somebody more adept at screenshots did a few weeks back in addition to the 6 month powerful cup & handle pattern. Just pull up a one year chart and connect the dots by drawing the lines the lines from the starting points of the pps one year ago to the most recent close.
You requested input on "Why these big guys (from around the world) attended the ACS webinar. In two words, INDUSTRY STANDARD! They realize OOBA/MFA is being rapidly adopted and want it, LEGALLY. So, they went to the source provider, SFOR's ACS. It's as simple as that IMHO.
Understand the historical perspective. However, it is the legal one that has changed dramatically with the addition of Ropes & Gray. That is THE game changer in my mind. There is no better IP defense firm in the country and they took on 4 cases against large companies for microcap SFOR? If that doesn't strike you as odd I don't know what will! At this point, I believe retail growth (which continues) is a minor consideration. What is key, is establishing the validity of SFOR's IP and its ownership beyond a reasonable doubt. Once that is done, the bidding war for SFOR starts IMHO. That buyout is what I am holding out for.
It seems like SFOR is on their last lap to legal victories with a 13 year old initial patent filing that has be updated in accordance with United States Patent Office requirements!
You honestly think the company is going to keep the common stock holder in the loop about test results? Even if they are not under an NDA, I have been as disappointed as you in the wording (or lack there of) on recent PRs and the lack of any answer to my e-mail inquiry.
MODS please consider making this a sticky note to balance what is currently posted there. Thank you!
Agree. Some ignore an undeniably strong ascending triangle on the one year chart. Or better yet they pretend it doesn't even exist!
Thanks for setting the record straight once and for all on that!