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.
While i can understand the angst. Most ceos probably would step down instead we are finally in court with 7 infringers..
I mean consider if you had to RS a bunch of times and people were bad mouthing u at every turn..
a Bad ceo would cut and run... Im thinking
either that or he absolutely knows what the damages settlements are worth.
No NDA this time kay doesnt have 2. we have funding. we have contingency. we just dont have 2.
NO NDA... 8k immediately
GO SFOR!
some of these companies literally just infringed and then charged recurring or residual fees.
Literally all of the proceeds are damages.
But youd have to be in the court room for discovery to know.
Feels good to be here now on the leading edge of this new unlimited freedom as it unfolds... end the struggle go SFOR
Definitely feels like pressure is building for the 10th even short-timers oughta be able to wait that long
while we can give you devils advocate... if that were the case... typically dont go all the way till just says hes ready to rule.
except if you SETTLE in A PATENT CASE new evidence cannot arise...
and THE judge already indicated he had reached prejudice.
this means.. the case was already looking bad
You dont go all the way till prejudice is announced and then settle.. unless you know your infringing.
i was hoping he would argue more.. then i could explain how an infringing patent that creates competition might get some leeway... and how maliciously cornering a market for a newer patent leads to treble damages.
Guess he'd had enough.
There are no other OOB MFA patents that use an unique identifier that are not infringing.
Period.
To say someone is infringing doesnt mean they dont have a patent.
But EVEN IF there is an improvement to existing technology that they are ABLE TO SHOW and HAVE A PATENT ISSUED FOR.
THEY ARE STILL LIABLE for DAMAGES for using existing tech inside said patent.
Int this case its a patent with a 2000 priority date.
STILL LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR INFRINGEMENT
YOU CANNOT PATENT A 2SPRING mousetrap without acknowledging the FIRST 1 SPRING MOUSETRAP WHILE STILL inside of the original PATENTS EXP date
UNDERSTAND?
Irrelevant. All oob mfa is ours there will be no innocence. U think major lawfirms are into pro Bono work in patent industry with perfect and near perfect records... have a little faith that this has taken forever to get going and realize it's deliberate and methodical....
Have u read some of these court documents and compared the expertise tween our lit team and theirs? It's ridiculous and astounding some of the responses and ineptitude displayed in these requests and responses from the defense
Problem with this is not all of the damages are purely software.... some of these solutions are sold as 1 time installs... think retina and face on corporate facilities.... these were for example 100k contracts per bank location or whatever... the damages are finite and not ongoing... unless u wanna get into maintenance and security payroll
If u want to act like an uncompromised host that sends a req and expects an auth return on a second unknown band can be spoofed fine.... but then u don't are the one assuming someone knows the other band address... and if the host is compromised why their is a need for spoof or interception?
Boy wait for a guy to eat and do some work... and declare ur selves wieners
Yes oob is secure if it's not intercepted. If something has not been intercepted... it could be NOT encrypted and still be secure...
If the other out of band path is unknown then compromise never occurs without interception of both bands
Other mfa that isn't out of band isn't secure... never said it doesn't exists...
And by secure I mean from interception... not encrypted packets that may or may not be difficult to deconstruct etc
I have to agree the mythical unicorns aren't even galloping around road Appeling on everything... just one sad clown penny wise whose lost his lunch money
If u feel foggy jump... it's irrelevant... and as I stated before our patent has no device requirements on the initiating side
So ur post is irrelevant. And pci stating that something secure cannot be initiated on the same device DOES NOT CONSTITUTE changing the meaning of outofband. It's like changing the meaning of a patent word after the fact... and trying to act if it disqualifies a patent... when it doesnt...
Additionally if ur implying it attacks the product... how is that relevant to the patent case....
So a regulator says our product isn't safe and secure when it is...
And our patent created the regulation or guideline u are erroneously defining yet the patent still includes your definition?
Jump frog jump...
It's not going to change anything... lol
And it implies operating system compromise; specific device manufacturing internal specs; or physical bad guy ownership.
None of which constitute making a wifi antennae and telecommunication antennae The same band. It wrong it's flawed and PCI us irrelevant and not really anyone that has any clout at saying otherwise...
It's astronomical the error of your perception of what this is saying and how you are trying to use this
This is out of context from having the phone physically in "bad guys" hands... u literally can even argue effectively lol
if you only make 400% here... you are flipping 1st and 15th
1.5 plus 1.5 for pertuity... and 2.5% for addition on first. and 8% on subsequent.
its like 15% averaged no big deal on a settlement that mattters.
no no but it is perpetual..
even stevens plus 2.5 then plus 8 for gains. essentially and one lump i think of 50% for entire perpetuity.
like evens on the 1.5 and plus the %
then 250 perpetual paid even stevens for ongoing litigation plus 8%
who said this?
Ignorant as all hell.. OOB MFA is even designed for securing a device thats physical ownership is compromised... that is the operating systems purview.
whoever even said this has no concept of OOB MFA.....
and "password" auto complete has been "physically" compromisable via blunt force since windows NT...
thats 20 years ago folks... NOT what OOB MFA is even designed to combat.
Broken record. It might not be what a regulator says constitutes oob mfa... but it's not regulation that must be followed
What must be followed is patent law... what difference does it make if we follow pci recommendations?
If they realized that a hypervisor that keeps Channel separate on a single device actually is secure any ass hat with a pen can change that regulation tomorrow and I still don't have to follow it and they still don't have a law enforcement program it doesn't matter
Oob is defined by law and/or patent especially when said patent or law is older by han a subsidiary regulator...
U do understand not a regulation on earth is law... and still answers to the court system? This is why all executive orders can just be ignored overturned not enforced or recreational exec ordered? Cause regulations aren't law
It's a moot point because if you read the patent or patent doesn't even specify how many devices are necessary and just because our implementation of it for sale may be available for one device like a smartphone but it doesn't change the fact that the patent doesn't require it and so we own anyone else is Patton that infringes upon it
Our patent is the simplest form of Oob mfa and doesn't specify how many devices are necessary
Therefore we own anybody's patent if it's OB MFA whether it follows regulation or not
I can'T telll if you're being conveniently obtuse or you haven't read the patents or you don't understand the patents when you read them if the anti keylogger is a hypervisor and it's installed before the phone is used all the channels will remain independent and uncompromised indefinitely and it doesn't matter if someone wants to make up a regulation that you have to follow it doesn't make it true and it doesn't change anything okay how much protection I receive from a technology does not hinge and is not contingent upon someone else's regulation it's not accurate it's simply a regulation
It's a moot Point anyway because our technology doesn't even require that it only be on a smartphone that's actually Apple's implementation of the finger scanning stuff which we own anyway and a regulation that comes out after words doesn't change that we own a patented technology that someone else believes that they own the regulation doesn't change that or keylogger work and we own the simplest version of oob MFA via priority date and patent date that exist
They aren't wrong they're just behind where they would be if the patents were realized fully instead of maliciously stolen
No Pennywise if the phone is not compromised because keylogging is denied all the channels remain separate because it ensures that all the channels cannot be seen remotely it means you would have to know the phones connection information every time it's restarted every time it's entered into a new area every time a failed or dropped call occurs the denial of key-logging ensures that all the channels remain independent of each other because a Trojan spyware keylogger Exedra Exedra cannot see the phone's screen cannot see what's being done on the phone I realize this is difficult for you to understand but the oob requirements that you're cutting and pasting were made after our patents were made and that's why you don't understand them you're following regulations that are made after somebody started stealing this technology
You do realize that web browser is Port 80 over 4G a phone call isn't even a port and it's a completely different monster and that an nms message is even different then a regular SMS message
So with Keylogger denial you separate all these channels oob MFA is possible on a singular device if the keyboard logging is denied
Once again I have to open the school and show you your books tell you To read them the reason that the oob MFA work with ours is because the keyboard encryption separates web browser and and typical phone Transmissions
What you are failing to realize is that all our patents work together so oob mfa Become secure again if the keyboard logger isn't available on the phone and both channels are separate from the same device
i find that they agreed to "stay" litigation for settlement talks to line up with Q release... a little bit excited way more than reassuring for some reason.
Thats wishful thinking. Msoft asked for silence and was in a position to require it. Entrust is not in that position.
Kay releases an 8K. Its a called a material or significant change.
additionally even if we dont know the settlement amount this jumps pennies even if we are in the dark.
Remember MSOFT jump? and it was dark.
It wont likely be dark this time... cause we dont have 2.
News?!! Or short cover for 1st hiding.. did we get something juicy?
holy hell 14 !... wow... hats off!
i flipped a portion here and there but i still have untouched trips.
unfortunately they will be able to push a little harder on the 2nd... however it should recover leading up 2 the 10th.
bye felicia kek
Youd have to be holding since trips when this explodes not to have to pay Capital gains.
You understand capital gains is huge and .016 and .03 is not what we are hoping for right? those changes are beans.
a stay of litigation request by both parties is actually proof settlements are being negotiated.
Seperating Duo entrust singapore litigation team is also huge sign someone wants to settle, and someone doesnt.
its because the new settlements/trial wins are so big no one comprehends it yet.