NEWBIE
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.
Marketing for Advanced Cyber Security Inc, not SFOR. ACS would have been the entity that paid the company Hadley worked for.
Why would SFOR pay for ACS marketing?
RAM, yes I am serious.
Nothing. Hadley didn't work for SFOR. Why would he be mentioned?
So you were searching for the partial patent number, found that page, and posted twice within 2 minutes with the words: "Check this out too" and "Hmmmmm"?
What were you implying with those words?
He did not work for SFOR. He worked for a company that did marketing for Cyber Security (Advanced Cyber Security, Inc).
How did you find that URL?
Patent 8566608 is not a real patent. Patent 8566608B2 is.
The URL you posted had nothing to do with SFOR. How did you even find it?
https://rocketreach.co/hadley-starkey-email_1149452
Oh I found a better URL for you to use. https://www.linkedin.com/in/hadleystarkey
INTERNATIONAL MARKETING DIRECTOR
CYBER SECURITY | US PATENT 8,566,608
February 2011 – March 2016 • 5 years 2 months
Hadley is among the The International Marketing Team Leaders who are building a global internet business marketing patented software through StrikeForce Technologies to prevent online identity theft.
So his firm is marketing the patent and does not own it.
US PATENT 8,566,608. No such patent that I can find. I did find US8566608B2 which is StrikeForce's.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8566608B2/en?oq=8566608
Let me get this straight. They took $1 salaries for two years and then decided to take $150k starting in 2018 and you are claiming they are basically robbing the shareholders and enriching themselves?
My thought on the A/S count is WW is waiting for money to start flowing in. There have been set backs in the industry that he did not see coming. Like the moving back of the Jan 1 date to July 1 and then Jan 1 again. Lack of state enforcement of testing. The change in CA no allowing transport between sites. etc.
I am worried about the fillings being late, but I will wait an see what happens.
Note: even if they don't make it by the end of the month, they still have 180 days to get compliant again before they are removed from the QB. Not that I want them to test that.
I just noticed in https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=12479848&guid=Ky2tUWx4mS9beth#EVIO_10K_HTM_ITEM11
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
William Waldrop, CEO, Director (1)(2) 2016 and 2017 = $1
Lori Glauser, President, COO, Director (2) 2016 and 2017 = $1
So for 2016 - 2018 that would average out to $50k. So they average under the $60k you think they should get in salary in the last 3 years. Correct?
IMHO that is not "looting the treasury", that is getting paid to work in their positions.
So you are saying $150k is too much money to pay the President and CEO (each)? How much do you think they should be payed?
What kind of cars did they get?
I have been looking at new cars recently. At $750 a month for just a car payment is about a $41,000 car on a 60 month loan. (I need to check my math, but that should be close)
Ah, so:
Ms. Glauser will be paid a base salary of $150,000 per annum and receive a car allowance of $500 per month.
Mr. Waldrop will be paid a base salary of $150,000 per annum and receive a car allowance of $750 per month.
So $300k in salaries and $1250 a month in car allowances.
Got it, Thanks.
This is the only thing I have found.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=12917878&guid=Ky2tUWx4mS9beth
On March 16, 2017, the Company executed notes payable for the purchase of three vehicles. The notes carry interest at 6.637% annually and mature on March 31, 2023.
September 30, 2017 = $71,039
June 30, 2018 = $58,508
I have been wondering about this. Can you show me where the "Instead used the money to give himself and Glauser huge raises and generous car allowances" comes from? I have never found the whole car allowance information.
Please don't just reply with "read the financials". Can you point to the information directly.
EVIO receives two samples, they tested 1 and saved the other for 40 days incase it needs to be retested. After the 40 days it should be disposed of. Instead the people at the lab were taking it home for personal use.
EVIO did point out that Oregon never said what should actually happen to it.
This was either in the article from this morning or in the 8K. I don't remember which place I read that.
EDIT: https://www.ktvz.com/news/bend-marijuana-testing-lab-gives-up-license-due-to-olcc-issues/980054322
The OLCC noted that samples sent to labs for testing are divided in half, with one half tested and the other half retained, in case there's a need to do a retest. After about 40 days, the "retention sample" is supposed to be disposed of, but the OLCC found that Evio Labs was letting workers take them home for personal use.
EDIT2:
Glauser said some workers had taken small quantities of "waste material" home during a period in 2017. She said, "OLCC came out with more guidance regarding cannabis waste, at which point we immediately took corrective action to ensure full compliance. "
Ah. ATP = Active Trader Pro. I have setup 2FA with Fidelity so I don't get that message anymore. As of right now it is only the options that I posted before. Text message, voice call, or the code from Symantec App (like RSA SecureID). Maybe something like SFOR IP is coming, but it not an option at this time. Would be nice if it shows up.
I use Okta Verify which is OOB 2FA and it is SOOOOOO much easier than the other methods (and more secure). Okta will be sued at some point if SA is reversed.
These are the two offerings I see on Fidelity. Neither do what SFOR IP does. Do you have a link to the ATP information that you are referring to?
2-Factor Authentication at Login: ON
Get a security code via text message or automated call, for an extra layer of protection at login.
Symantec VIP Access at Login
Symantec Validation and ID Protection (VIP) Access provides two-factor authentication at login.
Great, now I have that song stuck in my head. Thanks.
/sarcasm off
Agreed. The OOB 2FA is the most secure and should be demanded by the end users more and more. Just a matter of time.
I have Fidelity so I decided to see what they have available. (No idea if the links work if you are not signed in to Fidelity)
https://www.fidelity.com/security/how-two-factor-authentication-works
"With 2-factor authentication, an extra layer of security is added to your account to prevent someone from logging in, even if they have your password. This extra security measure requires you to verify your identity using a randomized 6-digit code. You can choose to have this security code sent to your mobile phone (or an alternate phone number) via text or voice call. Each security code is used only once. It is not a password that you need to create and remember."
and https://www.fidelity.com/security/soft-tokens/overview
"Use a randomly generated code from the VIP Access app to use with your username and password when you log in"
This is not out-of-band so it is probably not SFOR. If the app responded back to a security server then it would be SFOR IP, but if they just get a code to type into a webpage, it is NOT out-of-band (and less secure).
Just my thought.
Ah, I see it now. So EVIO has less than 15 days to file the late report.
If they don't file by then, what are the odds of them "face decertification, suspension of trading and other potentials"? I assume other companies have done this so their should be a statistic of this occurring. Anyone know? Would the shutdown affect this also?
My guess is EVIO will file before the 15 days are up, but that is just my opinion.
Can you explain what this is referring to? "Then the SEC filed EVIO as delinquent this morning"
Are you saying the SEC filed something against EVIO or are you speculating what may happen?
Could be. But it really depends on how their 2 factor authentication works.
If they are only using text messages, key fobs, or phone call backs, that is different than SFORs patent.
If it is out-of-band the same way as SFORs patents, then yes, they will either be paying SFOR or they will be a potential target of a lawsuit at some point.
We will just have to wait and see.
No license agreement with MSFT and SFOR has ever been announced, but that does not mean there is not one.
FYI: this subject is a "can of worms" here. Basically it comes down onto how you read the following.
MS Settlement: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1285543/000147793216008173/sfor_8k.htm
"Both actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On January 15, 2016, the litigation was settled and the parties executed a settlement agreement in the form of a Release and License Agreement. The terms and conditions of the Release and License Agreement are confidential except under limited conditions. As a consequence of the Release and License Agreement, the parties have moved to dismiss the action with prejudice, the Company has licensed the patents to Microsoft Corporation, and the Company will receive a non-disclosable one-time lump sum payment."
Some say the lump sum IS the cost of the licensing agreement. I think it is in addition based on the grammar. Your call to which way you think it is reads.
Repost of how I read it:
The way I read it is: "As a consequence of the Release and License Agreement ..." 3 things happened:
1 "... the parties have moved to dismiss the action with prejudice, " (Release)
2 "... the Company has licensed the patents to Microsoft Corporation, " (License)
3 "... and the Company will receive a non-disclosable one-time lump sum payment." (Release)
1 means lawsuit ends
2 means MS signed a License Agreement and the previous sentence states it is confidential
3 means a non-disclosable one-time lump sum payment for the lawsuit settlement (later shown as $9.7 million in the financials)
Bob had a blue, yellow, and red book. => Bob had 3 books
Bob had a blue, yellow and red book. => Bob had 2 books. One is blue and one is yellow and red
Note: I will not try to argue this again.
By ATP are you referring to Microsoft Advanced Threat Protection in Office 365? I don't think so, but I have only seen parts of it and it is more Data Loss Prevention (scanning for HIPPA, SOX, PCI stuff).
More info for ya:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/argument/upcoming-oral-arguments
Panel C: Monday, February 04, 2019, 10:00 A.M., Courtroom 203
Case 18-1470 : Strikeforce Technologies, Inc v. Secureauth Corporation
It is scheduled for Feb 4 @ 10AM.
New Congressional Marijuana Bill Is Actually Numbered H.R. 420
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2019/01/09/new-congressional-marijuana-bill-is-actually-numbered-h-r-420/#6d8401642e60
Makes me smile for multiple reasons.
I missed that one, have a link to the info?
Edit: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/4098261
Nice
Well said. Plus add what is happening to increase the sector legally and this will be a fun ride once it gets going. The E tickets will get expensive then.
Yeah, dividing by 100 is tough.
/sarcasm off
Cuomo to Push Legalizing Recreational Marijuana in New York by Early 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/nyregion/marijuana-legalization-cuomo.html
There was news. Did you miss it?
What "liens or claims" are currently on the patent?
"In the event liens or claims against the Assets" - Asset is the patent.
promissory note: a signed document containing a written promise to pay a stated sum to a specified person or the bearer at a specified date or on demand.
The promissory note has to be due by September 30, 2020"
"which may be paid in the form of a promissory note due by and no later than September 30, 2020"
My take is they sold the rights to ACS and ACS has to pay SFOR $9m by September 30, 2020 one way or anther.
"which may be paid in the form of a promissory note due by and no later than September 30, 2020"
I don't like the fact this deal even exists, but they did what they had to do at the time. If SFOR does not get the paid by Oct2020 then SFOR keeps the patent.
Now, how ACS gets the $9m is my big question. If they get it from sales of GuardedID then SFOR already gets 15% of that. Will they have $9m to spare in less than 2 year? I don't know.
I think he was referring to this:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=11141688&guid=bdxbUKFgA0Q-z3h
Cool Thanks. Odd that it did show on their Jobs tab.
See https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=145273491 for my response opinion to your concern.
Totally Agree. Just the price of a mass spectrometer alone is scary.
Labs should have calibration samples that they can run through every few week/month/quarter to verify everything is good to go.
What gets me about this is it is unlikely he was the only one that knew of the bad equipment.
Now if this could cause double testing requirements, say 2 samples for every 20lbs tested by different labs, that would be awesome. Or 3 per 30. and then compare results of the different labs. It would also let the testers know if their machines are out of whack and need calibration/replacement.
Just thinking out loud.