Makes the clarification of IP Financier even better! Who, what, why, when....Paid in full!

Thanks for that!!!!

Long for SFOR!

Let's address H Group and what they are in this game...an Intellectual Property Financier. They would be paid in terms similar to any other financial lending mechanism (monthly loan amount, etc). They can call on the note if there's a breach in contract/failure to pay (default). I think if SFOR was in default, we would all know about it.

Lending against intellectual property assets (including copyrights, trademarks, patents, and domain names, collectively “Intellectual Property”) is reemerging as an important financing tool for lenders and intellectual-property holders to maximize the value of their transactions. Lenders get the security of a viable property as collateral and borrowers have something more to offer with their intellectual property. The rules governing the securitization, perfection and foreclosure of intellectual property security interests, however, are not easily navigated. As lending against intellectual property increases in the digital age, it is important not to miss key elements of securitization that can mean the difference between true security and actual loss.

There are two typical scenarios in which intellectual property is used as collateral. In one instance, a lender extends credit using Intellectual Property assets as collateral. If the borrower fails to meet its loan obligations, the lender is entitled to foreclose on the collateral. But if the lender failed to properly perfect its security interest in the collateral, the lender is relegated to the status of unsecured creditor, is unable to foreclose on the collateral, and may be unable to recoup its losses.

The second common method for collateralizing intellectual property, which is now reemerging in popularity following its heyday at the turn of the century, is to pool intellectual property assets and issue a new security backed by those assets (typically music or film royalties or any other asset with predictable cash flow or receivables, such as pharmaceutical license fees). Like collateralized loans, recording the security interests in the intellectual property collateral secures the right to collect the receivables or license fees along with the right to foreclose on the assets in the event of default. Again, failure to properly perfect the security interests in the collateral leads to drastic financial consequences.

http://www.buchalter.com/publication/how-safe-is-your-security-interest-in-intellectual-property-five-tips-that-protect-you/


Long for SFOR!

Welcome and GLTY!

Long for $SFOR

Based on the following, ZERO, unless SFOR defaults on it the loan. (but to be fair, there obviously a loan agreement at certain rate and interest to be paid back over time). H Group won't get proceeds on any legal ruling unless SFOR is in default.

Lending against intellectual property assets (including copyrights, trademarks, patents, and domain names, collectively “Intellectual Property”) is reemerging as an important financing tool for lenders and intellectual-property holders to maximize the value of their transactions. Lenders get the security of a viable property as collateral and borrowers have something more to offer with their intellectual property. The rules governing the securitization, perfection and foreclosure of intellectual property security interests, however, are not easily navigated. As lending against intellectual property increases in the digital age, it is important not to miss key elements of securitization that can mean the difference between true security and actual loss.

There are two typical scenarios in which intellectual property is used as collateral. In one instance, a lender extends credit using Intellectual Property assets as collateral. If the borrower fails to meet its loan obligations, the lender is entitled to foreclose on the collateral. But if the lender failed to properly perfect its security interest in the collateral, the lender is relegated to the status of unsecured creditor, is unable to foreclose on the collateral, and may be unable to recoup its losses.

The second common method for collateralizing intellectual property, which is now reemerging in popularity following its heyday at the turn of the century, is to pool intellectual property assets and issue a new security backed by those assets (typically music or film royalties or any other asset with predictable cash flow or receivables, such as pharmaceutical license fees). Like collateralized loans, recording the security interests in the intellectual property collateral secures the right to collect the receivables or license fees along with the right to foreclose on the assets in the event of default. Again, failure to properly perfect the security interests in the collateral leads to drastic financial consequences.

http://www.buchalter.com/publication/how-safe-is-your-security-interest-in-intellectual-property-five-tips-that-protect-you/

I don't think SFOR is anywhere near being in default...

Lending against intellectual property assets (including copyrights, trademarks, patents, and domain names, collectively “Intellectual Property”) is reemerging as an important financing tool for lenders and intellectual-property holders to maximize the value of their transactions. Lenders get the security of a viable property as collateral and borrowers have something more to offer with their intellectual property. The rules governing the securitization, perfection and foreclosure of intellectual property security interests, however, are not easily navigated. As lending against intellectual property increases in the digital age, it is important not to miss key elements of securitization that can mean the difference between true security and actual loss.

There are two typical scenarios in which intellectual property is used as collateral. In one instance, a lender extends credit using Intellectual Property assets as collateral. If the borrower fails to meet its loan obligations, the lender is entitled to foreclose on the collateral. But if the lender failed to properly perfect its security interest in the collateral, the lender is relegated to the status of unsecured creditor, is unable to foreclose on the collateral, and may be unable to recoup its losses.

The second common method for collateralizing intellectual property, which is now reemerging in popularity following its heyday at the turn of the century, is to pool intellectual property assets and issue a new security backed by those assets (typically music or film royalties or any other asset with predictable cash flow or receivables, such as pharmaceutical license fees). Like collateralized loans, recording the security interests in the intellectual property collateral secures the right to collect the receivables or license fees along with the right to foreclose on the assets in the event of default. Again, failure to properly perfect the security interests in the collateral leads to drastic financial consequences.

http://www.buchalter.com/publication/how-safe-is-your-security-interest-in-intellectual-property-five-tips-that-protect-you/

I don't think SFOR is anywhere near being in default...

Long for SFOR!

TV/Script/QA - Actually it is far more in-depth than that.

As senior digital marketing strategist for large health care company, we are running a 30 day regional TV campaign and it has pressure from both legal and compliance (voice-over script) and contextual edits (creative director) in visuals/against closed-captioning to stay on creatively and legally on point.

We missed ONE word in post-production due to miscommunication between writer, editor and CD, and the "final approval" spot without the word was already on the airwaves. Visually/audibly, not a big thing to the casual consumer/viewer...but legally it is HUGE.

SFOR needs to be very, very careful at this point. Given SFOR's current legal cases in play, SFOR cannot misstep...one word, comma or period.

Long for $SFOR

I think he responded because the board is sequential in messaging and he didn't see what post your response/statement was referencing.

I think the question was directed at pre-market Monday news. But if you have any news, please share :)

Go SFOR!

3 Counts of Patent Infringement.


Here's the patent, specifically parts 53/54

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,484,698&OS=8,484,698&RS=8,484,698

53. A software method for employing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising the steps of: receiving in a first channel a login identification demand to access a host computer also in the first channel; verifying the login identification; receiving at a security computer in a second channel the demand for access and the login identification; outputting from the security computer a prompt requesting a transmission of data; receiving the transmitted data at the security computer; comparing the transmitted data to predetermined data; and depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, outputting an instruction from the security computer to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

54. Apparatus for implementing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising: a device for receiving a login identification and demand to access a host computer, wherein the device and the host computer are in a first channel; and a security computer in a second channel for receiving the login identification and the access demand and outputting a prompt requesting a transmission of data once said login identification is verified by said security computer, wherein said security computer comprises a component for receiving the transmitted data and comparing said transmitted data to predetermined data, such that, depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, said security computer outputs an instruction to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

Huh? RSI around 50-51

Great!

This is another example of the excellent DD here, folks. Thank you for pointing that out for all and potential new SFOR investors.

$SFOR!

RE: other tech companies, Apple, etc developing their own. Perhaps, only time will tell... but, so long as they stay away from these two points of the SFOR patent.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,484,698&OS=8,484,698&RS=8,484,698

53. A software method for employing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising the steps of: receiving in a first channel a login identification demand to access a host computer also in the first channel; verifying the login identification; receiving at a security computer in a second channel the demand for access and the login identification; outputting from the security computer a prompt requesting a transmission of data; receiving the transmitted data at the security computer; comparing the transmitted data to predetermined data; and depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, outputting an instruction from the security computer to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

54. Apparatus for implementing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising: a device for receiving a login identification and demand to access a host computer, wherein the device and the host computer are in a first channel; and a security computer in a second channel for receiving the login identification and the access demand and outputting a prompt requesting a transmission of data once said login identification is verified by said security computer, wherein said security computer comprises a component for receiving the transmitted data and comparing said transmitted data to predetermined data, such that, depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, said security computer outputs an instruction to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

Haha, right! Your response popped up after I went back into edit!

Great job!

$SFOR

Thanks, but that's from 2011.

Edit: It is great content, tho. Perhaps it does need stickied for new SFOR investors.

$SFOR

TV Commercial: be careful what we wish/hope for.

I hope we don't go down the campy NORTON 2010 route with Kimbo Slice (RIP) vs the caterpillar. High production value, cheesy AF.

Not really. As an manager of digital marketing in the health care industry for one of the largest health care insurers in the country, regardless who is at fault, the first thing we do is get compliant immediately on all public facing property until told otherwise. The financial implications may be added up on a per case/per day basis. For example if I send out a communication to a member(s) with the wrong branding, we are liable for every instance of the improperly branded communications.

This is a good thing IMO. It means they're taking the complaint very, very seriously.

I'm going not get too hung up on that flippant question, as not very many people understand what happens on the back half media production and marketing. That said, it all depends on the media buyer, when, if appropriate and within budget, targeting national, regional or local all fraught with variables with different financial packages /incentives. One step is choosing when to run 15 sec bookends, 30 short form, 60 sec long form, primetime, off-peak... so take a step back and think about shooting a commercial, the last thing I'd want to see is some stupid "oxy clean" style script and production.

"You only get one chance to make a first impression", I'm ok that SFOR is taking its time to do it properly. Time will tell.

GO $SFOR

That depends on the media buy, targeting national, regional or local. Lots of variables once you start down that path. 15 sec bookends, 30, 60 sec long form, primetime, off-peak...

Someone tried to pull an eBay last min/sec bid.. and walked down $520K... all at 3:59:00-59... then a couple t-trades after the bell for 234k...

Is this only available via Pacer account ?

I wish I could clone myself. I'd take this one on... even for sweat equity. :)

$SFOR

Good point, and dovetails into the previous post (my comments) about revising their marketing plan. PR and Advertising/Marketing must work together.

Take the FB or LinkedIn channel...that's FREE, per se, "advertising" and "PR" wrapped into one.

If anything, self-publish and hammer the sh#t out of their respective user groups, etc. Pull user reviews out of Amazon, work that into an article. Do comparisons. Lots can be done, on the "cheap" and free.

$SFOR

Agreed. They definitely need to review/revise their marketing plan.

As a 20+ year ad exec, the commercial is not the expensive ticket item, it's the regional and national media buys. The digital channel, social (FB, LinkedIn, etc.) should be leveraged like nobody's business! PR and Advertising go hand in hand (however, that relationship sometimes seems like Sales and Marketing's ... oil and water).

Consolidate their websites, for one. Everything should redirect to strikeforcecpg.com , or if not, they need to have the same visual/cognitive look and feel...so everything looks unified.

Long for $SFOR

Yes... I have.

It has nothing to do with "new" or "old", rather, being first-to-market.

Here are the two points of patent infringement 53/54 that you can read to understand how - any which way you try to slice it, the defendants in this case/matter, are having a very hard time trying to circumvent the "first-to-market", patented methodology within their current sales process.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,484,698&OS=8,484,698&RS=8,484,698

53. A software method for employing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising the steps of: receiving in a first channel a login identification demand to access a host computer also in the first channel; verifying the login identification; receiving at a security computer in a second channel the demand for access and the login identification; outputting from the security computer a prompt requesting a transmission of data; receiving the transmitted data at the security computer; comparing the transmitted data to predetermined data; and depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, outputting an instruction from the security computer to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

54. Apparatus for implementing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising: a device for receiving a login identification and demand to access a host computer, wherein the device and the host computer are in a first channel; and a security computer in a second channel for receiving the login identification and the access demand and outputting a prompt requesting a transmission of data once said login identification is verified by said security computer, wherein said security computer comprises a component for receiving the transmitted data and comparing said transmitted data to predetermined data, such that, depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, said security computer outputs an instruction to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

WHOA! New look-n-feel here at iHUB

Thanks! Good info! :)

SFOR!

Link to news please.

Exactly. Not related. Thanks for reading. Go SFOR!

They have 10.

See my earlier post.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=124414643

Long for $SFOR

Long read. DUO has 10 patents, one most recently approved/listed on USPTO on June 7, 2016

System and method for enforcing a policy for an authenticator device.

A system and method including defining at least one device authentication policy; at a policy engine, initializing authentication policy processing for an authenticator device; collecting device status assessment; evaluating policy compliance of the device status assessment to an associated defined device authentication policy; and enforcing use of the authenticator device according to the policy compliance.

Document Identifier Publication Date
US 20140245379 A1 Aug 28, 2014

===

Here's SFORs patent approved/listed USPTO July 9, 2013

Multichannel device utilizing a centralized out-of-band authentication system (COBAS)

A multichannel security system is disclosed, which system is for granting and denying access to a host computer in response to a demand from an access-seeking individual and computer. The access-seeker has a peripheral device operative within an authentication channel to communicate with the security system. The access-seeker initially presents identification and password data over an access channel which is intercepted and transmitted to the security computer. The security computer then communicates with the access-seeker. A biometric analyzer--a voice or fingerprint recognition device--operates upon instructions from the authentication program to analyze the monitored parameter of the individual. In the security computer, a comparator matches the biometric sample with stored data, and, upon obtaining a match, provides authentication. The security computer instructs the host computer to grant access and communicates the same to the access-seeker, whereupon access is initiated over the access channel.

Document Identifier Publication Date
US 20130096916 A1 Apr 18, 2013

So, SPECULATIVELY-speaking, with 10 patents, they're going assign a team member a group of docs/patents to comb through and see where things are grossly out of alignment.

The above patent CHANGES NOTHING in the patent infringement, in fact, it supports the case of willful intent! SPECULATIVELY-speaking, of course.

$SFOR

Use Google and add the search term in quotes, "trustwave two factor authentication patent" ... cannot seem to be found.

SFOR patents are clearly defined and specifically infringed upon.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,484,698&OS=8,484,698&RS=8,484,698

53. A software method for employing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising the steps of: receiving in a first channel a login identification demand to access a host computer also in the first channel; verifying the login identification; receiving at a security computer in a second channel the demand for access and the login identification; outputting from the security computer a prompt requesting a transmission of data; receiving the transmitted data at the security computer; comparing the transmitted data to predetermined data; and depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, outputting an instruction from the security computer to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

54. Apparatus for implementing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising: a device for receiving a login identification and demand to access a host computer, wherein the device and the host computer are in a first channel; and a security computer in a second channel for receiving the login identification and the access demand and outputting a prompt requesting a transmission of data once said login identification is verified by said security computer, wherein said security computer comprises a component for receiving the transmitted data and comparing said transmitted data to predetermined data, such that, depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, said security computer outputs an instruction to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

Right.

The court docs are rock solid and those 3 counts of patent infringement per company at treble damages is irrefutable.

You add team members and file extensions because why? They're looking to mitigate financial damages and or...???


http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,484,698&OS=8,484,698&RS=8,484,698

53. A software method for employing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising the steps of: receiving in a first channel a login identification demand to access a host computer also in the first channel; verifying the login identification; receiving at a security computer in a second channel the demand for access and the login identification; outputting from the security computer a prompt requesting a transmission of data; receiving the transmitted data at the security computer; comparing the transmitted data to predetermined data; and depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, outputting an instruction from the security computer to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

54. Apparatus for implementing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising: a device for receiving a login identification and demand to access a host computer, wherein the device and the host computer are in a first channel; and a security computer in a second channel for receiving the login identification and the access demand and outputting a prompt requesting a transmission of data once said login identification is verified by said security computer, wherein said security computer comprises a component for receiving the transmitted data and comparing said transmitted data to predetermined data, such that, depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, said security computer outputs an instruction to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

Nope. Locked in here. But I love running numbers and hypotheticals.

The court docs are rock solid and those 3 counts of patent infringement per company at treble damages is irrefutable.

You add team members and file extensions because why? They're looking to mitigate financial damages and or...a buyout??? Hence running the numbers, why not? I'm riding free shares from tz9 to dz13 :)


http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,484,698&OS=8,484,698&RS=8,484,698

53. A software method for employing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising the steps of: receiving in a first channel a login identification demand to access a host computer also in the first channel; verifying the login identification; receiving at a security computer in a second channel the demand for access and the login identification; outputting from the security computer a prompt requesting a transmission of data; receiving the transmitted data at the security computer; comparing the transmitted data to predetermined data; and depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, outputting an instruction from the security computer to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

54. Apparatus for implementing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising: a device for receiving a login identification and demand to access a host computer, wherein the device and the host computer are in a first channel; and a security computer in a second channel for receiving the login identification and the access demand and outputting a prompt requesting a transmission of data once said login identification is verified by said security computer, wherein said security computer comprises a component for receiving the transmitted data and comparing said transmitted data to predetermined data, such that, depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, said security computer outputs an instruction to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

Would you throw a hypothetical out there with a "big" buyout for us longs, please?

$SFOR

No attorneys here, otherwise they would have disputed the patent infringements.


3 Counts of Patent Infringement.

I don't think they can possible find holes in the complaint. They're looking to mitigate financial damages and or...a buyout???


http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,484,698&OS=8,484,698&RS=8,484,698

53. A software method for employing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising the steps of: receiving in a first channel a login identification demand to access a host computer also in the first channel; verifying the login identification; receiving at a security computer in a second channel the demand for access and the login identification; outputting from the security computer a prompt requesting a transmission of data; receiving the transmitted data at the security computer; comparing the transmitted data to predetermined data; and depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, outputting an instruction from the security computer to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

54. Apparatus for implementing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising: a device for receiving a login identification and demand to access a host computer, wherein the device and the host computer are in a first channel; and a security computer in a second channel for receiving the login identification and the access demand and outputting a prompt requesting a transmission of data once said login identification is verified by said security computer, wherein said security computer comprises a component for receiving the transmitted data and comparing said transmitted data to predetermined data, such that, depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, said security computer outputs an instruction to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

Great day!

Thanks for your chart and L2 inputs! Glad you're on the SFOR train!

Hoping we can make up some ground for our "other" previous plays.

$SFOR!

Let's put charts, AS/OS/SS aside.

No one seems to counter that the infringements are clear cut!

Patent ID: 8,484,698

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,484,698&OS=8,484,698&RS=8,484,698

53. A software method for employing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising the steps of: receiving in a first channel a login identification demand to access a host computer also in the first channel; verifying the login identification; receiving at a security computer in a second channel the demand for access and the login identification; outputting from the security computer a prompt requesting a transmission of data; receiving the transmitted data at the security computer; comparing the transmitted data to predetermined data; and depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, outputting an instruction from the security computer to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

54. Apparatus for implementing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising: a device for receiving a login identification and demand to access a host computer, wherein the device and the host computer are in a first channel; and a security computer in a second channel for receiving the login identification and the access demand and outputting a prompt requesting a transmission of data once said login identification is verified by said security computer, wherein said security computer comprises a component for receiving the transmitted data and comparing said transmitted data to predetermined data, such that, depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, said security computer outputs an instruction to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

AGREED!

Thank you for your Stock Chart analysis DD!

Again, no one seems to counter that the infringements are clear cut!

Patent ID: 8,484,698

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,484,698&OS=8,484,698&RS=8,484,698

53. A software method for employing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising the steps of: receiving in a first channel a login identification demand to access a host computer also in the first channel; verifying the login identification; receiving at a security computer in a second channel the demand for access and the login identification; outputting from the security computer a prompt requesting a transmission of data; receiving the transmitted data at the security computer; comparing the transmitted data to predetermined data; and depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, outputting an instruction from the security computer to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

54. Apparatus for implementing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising: a device for receiving a login identification and demand to access a host computer, wherein the device and the host computer are in a first channel; and a security computer in a second channel for receiving the login identification and the access demand and outputting a prompt requesting a transmission of data once said login identification is verified by said security computer, wherein said security computer comprises a component for receiving the transmitted data and comparing said transmitted data to predetermined data, such that, depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, said security computer outputs an instruction to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

Patent D/D ID: 8,484,698

No one but a select few here actually read the filings, I had the "luxury" to read through them again earlier today in a "boring" health care meeting (which is ripe for 2FA...HIPAA-compliance and the like)...

That said, I know we're not all attorneys, but I have to say, the language can be esoteric, all the filings are clear-cut/plain-as-day, rock-solid...patent infringements... No one has proved or offered an explanation stating otherwise. Are there any attorneys who wish to chime in?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,484,698&OS=8,484,698&RS=8,484,698

53. A software method for employing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising the steps of: receiving in a first channel a login identification demand to access a host computer also in the first channel; verifying the login identification; receiving at a security computer in a second channel the demand for access and the login identification; outputting from the security computer a prompt requesting a transmission of data; receiving the transmitted data at the security computer; comparing the transmitted data to predetermined data; and depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, outputting an instruction from the security computer to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

54. Apparatus for implementing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising: a device for receiving a login identification and demand to access a host computer, wherein the device and the host computer are in a first channel; and a security computer in a second channel for receiving the login identification and the access demand and outputting a prompt requesting a transmission of data once said login identification is verified by said security computer, wherein said security computer comprises a component for receiving the transmitted data and comparing said transmitted data to predetermined data, such that, depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, said security computer outputs an instruction to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

3 Counts of Patent Infringement.

Ok, still in my healthcare marketing snooze-fest meeting. Thanks to CJSTOCKSUP for re-posting the links to the complaints.

Has anyone really read through these?

This is a rock-solid, well-written and clear as day for the non-patent-litigator.

Here's the patent, specifically 53/54 for which the compliant is infringed upon.

PLEASE tell me (and/or us longs) what we're missing here??? You add team members and file extensions because why? I don't think they can possibly find holes in the complaint. They're looking to mitigate financial damages and or...a buyout???


http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,484,698&OS=8,484,698&RS=8,484,698

53. A software method for employing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising the steps of: receiving in a first channel a login identification demand to access a host computer also in the first channel; verifying the login identification; receiving at a security computer in a second channel the demand for access and the login identification; outputting from the security computer a prompt requesting a transmission of data; receiving the transmitted data at the security computer; comparing the transmitted data to predetermined data; and depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, outputting an instruction from the security computer to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.

54. Apparatus for implementing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising: a device for receiving a login identification and demand to access a host computer, wherein the device and the host computer are in a first channel; and a security computer in a second channel for receiving the login identification and the access demand and outputting a prompt requesting a transmission of data once said login identification is verified by said security computer, wherein said security computer comprises a component for receiving the transmitted data and comparing said transmitted data to predetermined data, such that, depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, said security computer outputs an instruction to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.