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.
Yeah, that's what I want to know because there is no way (based on the 10-K)) SFOR could afford them for long. I read just one of their 4 patent infringment cases had 6 R&G lawyers assigned to it. Now I know multi-billion dollar Intel and Texas Pacific Group (who spun off McAffe as a pure-play cyber security co.) can easily afford them but microcap SFOR? Get real! Something's up and that something is good IMHO. I base that on what I heard on Bloomberg a week ago. A TPG partner was interviewed about the McAfee spin off. He stated "We will be acquiring small computer software companies in the cyber-defense landscape" Does that sound like SFOR to you? It does to me! Long & strong SFOR.
How much longer should the USPTO review take in your opinion?
Easy answer. Delay payment as long as possible. If an infringer's legal team can engage in Kabuki theater they not only stall the inevitable settlement or damages but may be able to run out the clock. Microsoft tried that and it almost worked! SFOR was down to its last $35K in the bank when BR scored the settlement. The legal Hail Mary pass is another possibility they have to try to be worthy of their fees.
Yeah, the common share holder will be kept in the dark until then IMHO. Of course CLD and BTU executives will have access to the current ongoing test results and their people will do the number crunching & determine if it is economically viable or not. However, as far as small time investors like you & I are concerned, those kind of corporate secrets will only be revealed to us in a public forum like the June conference.
Agree with both. Some are hesitant to put all the eggs in the DOE basket because that basket may not even exist! We won't know for sure until the June conference at the earliest. The bottom line is that unless the DOE is on board & invested (paying for testing at the very least) some may see CCTC as a sinking ship.
Agree, the DOE has major egg on it's face from that one and wants a winner now to make up for it in the public's eyes.
Since both the USAF (in which I spent 20 years) and US DOE are Federal Government Departments one may safely assume confidentiality statements are standard operating procedures. Understand I was dealing with civilian contractors as DOE is. The only question in my mind is whether or not the DOE is picking up the tab for testing.
Agree. Garbage is far better than crap. It'll be so good to crawl out of the septic tank and rest on the firm ground of the garbage heap!
Thanks for reporting that! With around 2,000 customers like you receiving their HSN SFOR purchase some will check out SFOR stock.
I believe we may have some new board members next week.
One must wonder what is to happen in the near future then.
Eves would be a madman, a fool, or both to jeopardize things by shooting of his mouth to anyone! IF Uncle Sam is footing the bill for testing he calls the shots. Only when DOE gives Eves release authority would word get out of their involvement in the testing.
This is CCTC's last best chance. I believe Eves is wise enough not to mess it up.
Oh ZPaul you're so very wrong some will say! Their Federal Government paperwork is not in order yet preventing them from even introducing any product into the procurement cycle for any part of the Federal Government. As though that paperwork is an insurmountable, permanent barrier and could never, ever be expedited. Even in the face of operational COMSEC needs! How could you ever spread such a grossly unfounded rumor ZPaul? Here I had previously though so highly of you and your excellent DD. LOL!
Sorry, I misunderstood your perspective. I also believe you are right in the assumption DOE is picking up the tab for final testing.
"The dust-control aspect of CCTC's technology, and its importance to transporting coal, might be its foot in the door" Don't downplay that! It's CCTC's lunch ticket. If it wasn't for the Pristine process enabling coal transport this company would have the proverbial snowball's chance in hades of succeeding at this time. The only question is the economic one. Does the nine dollars a short ton process cost cut it or not? Inquiring minds want to know.
"Why would the DOE ask CCTC to prove their process prior to financing. Makes no sense." Oh yes it does if that financing is from
private industry. Just look at DOE's NREL. It's a tech incubator. When the tech is proven & ready to go into production some company steps in and brings it to market IF it is economical. IF DOE is funding this final testing it may be at the behest of private industry. Before they commit the bucks to commercialize Pristine they want a final quality control check performed by Uncle Sam and at his expense, not theirs. It's a Government/Industry partnership that has worked for years in bringing a diverse offering of goods & processes to market.
Yes, there is a gag order. It's called a confidentiality statement. How do I know? For my first year as an Air Force officer I was in Finance. I cut contracts with civilian contractors I had them sign confidentiality statements. If confidentiality was breached, Uncle Sam not only then had the legal right to cancel the contract but could also pursue damages. I assume, but am not 100% certain, the US DOE would follow similar procedures in dealing with civilian contractors as the USAF did.
I never "moved the goalposts" as one poster wrote in criticism. When I brought up the 1 October cutoff date for obtaining DOE SBIR or Fossil Fuel grant monies. From the get go I referenced the President's DOE budget. It clearly states the redirection of funding toward nuclear & applied research. It also eliminates the grant funding for emerging industrial scale technology such as CCTC's, period. The cutoff date of 1 October is in accordance with the Federal FY end of story. I say again I did not "move the goalposts." I clearly referenced them right at the time I first started posting here! Consequently, 1 October was and remains the drop dead date for this company in my eyes.
Also, the one year chart looks fantastic IMHO! It's hard to argue with an ascending triangle.
Ah the dreaded R/S rumor. I was wondering when it would raise its hoary head. No matter how many times Mark Kay states "No R/S in the foreseeable future" it keeps being recirculated on this message board.
Sometimes that is done with the merest of fig leaves as in blank or "white label" boxes containing product being provided by the OEM to the wholesaler who relabels them with their logo, graphics & text.
Like Baron Von Rothschild said "Buy when there is blood in the streets!" Long & strong SFOR.
"TA is ungagged" transparency is a good thing, a very good thing!
Same here! "2 deals already done that should pay over the next half of a year" and "We have and will have enough money!" Nothing wrong with that picture of fiscal health.
Did you read Mark's e-mail regarding company fiscal health as highlighted by ZPaul? Given your reply, I doubt it.
BINGO! with OOBA/MFA becoming the "industry standard" SFOR is in the cat's seat because of its IP. That industry rollout has occurred via infringment which continues unabated in addition to any SFOR license deals.
How hard is it to pay that debt when ACS still owes us a total of $9 million for the SFOR encryption patent?
I e-mailed Mark that I'm glad he's working on that. Once we finally get off the pink sheets and up list to the QB investors who hesitate gambling on a "stinky pinky" will consider SFOR.
With just 1 settlement that gap could quickly close and then some.
Until the news Gold49er's group wrote about is released or the up listing Mark wrote another poster happens you're probably right. However, like Mark wrote something could happen with any of our seven patent infringment lawsuits at any time.
I'm sorry to read that. I was relying on my personal experience with other companies' 10-Ks containing some forward guidance.
HSN "Best Seller" designation is what caught my eye yesterday!
Many don't see the ascending triangle on the one year chart. They want everything right now! Me, I'll follow Jesse Livermore's advice since he was the 20th century's greatest stock investor. "Buy right, sit tight" I did my DD last year, particularly at the US patent office site. Ram's date of filing for OOBA/MFA mobile device was the clincher for me. SFOR is a IP goldmine! My fellow longs know what they own. Review ZPauls note on catalysts. All these irons in the fire are heating up this year IMHO. Long & Strong SFOR.
It'll be "Cheeseburgers in paradise" for SFOR longs!
Doesn't surprise me. They could well have plugged into the ACS webinar and decided to go to the source for more information. It's all good. Thanks for sharing!
Go back to January 16 when the settlement happened. SFOR got a one-time lump sum of $9.7 million dollars and MSFT got an NDA license agreement with SFOR which enabled the timely roll out of Azure. People complained because they thought it was a bad deal. MSFT could have obtained a license for free. I don't know for sure. What I do know is this. At that point, SFOR had $35,000 left in the bank. That $9.7 million was the lifeline SFOR desperately needed at that time. I cannot fault Mark Kay for making such a deal in the corporate survival situation SFOR found itself in then. The bottom line in my mind is SFOR survived and MSFT is now using its IP. That in itself is an endorsement of its value IMHO.
Nothing can be said about " a Microsoft licensing deal", it was NDA! You've seen this now in the Delaware court documents for yourself so quit trying to deny it as reality!
No, go to the Del court documents regarding the settlement. There were two! One for $9.7 million dollars. The other for a license agreement which was NDA. That is legally binding. SFOR can be sure for divulging any details about it. That's why the CEO gave you a "grumpy" answer. Don't believe me. I assume you have a PACER account like many of us. Use it and tell us what you find!
Please understand that I'm relatively new here so I have to give Mahoney a fair chance and hope it is released AH. Thanks.
I wouldn't completely disregard the audited, annual 10-K report. I have always included them as a valid source of info. You are correct in stating they are backward looking in regards to the figures. However their forward guidance is what I most appreciate.
I perfectly understand you must honor that working relationship. The bottom line for me is that, from what you wrote, the two thousand units sold number given me by the HSN operator is based in reality.