Buy PM's
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.
Good accessment, Legalize. YES I've had the document for sometime now, which is why I DebateD Kong about it not being tested in Court in the now sticky post.
It had been tested in the Markman hearing. I had had the Document for a while when I when I made the sticky post.
Koog did not kow about it until I just mentioned it existed in our lengthy debate in numerous Post yesterday.
And have been debating the issue with Koog for the past few days. He did not know that 13-490 existed.
Feel free to check my profile and read thought the debate Thread Friday and Saturday.
It is not clear if SFOR Won, Lost or Appealed..
Reading it over and over and over again I did not see One Line until I read it one last time.
As one line leaves the doubt in my mind. I Reaseached and found What I was looking for, but that left only more Doubt which is why I stated it could be a win, Loss or Appealed.
KAY being inundated with tons of mail in the past, should deserve to have one person call about this one Line I found. Either I or perhaps ZPAUL should call and ask.
And then Inform the Board.
As you or anyone can see the Markman hearing is about Patent Claims Construction ( construction meaning interpretation) of Terms Used and how a specific term is Interpreted and which reference it is looked up in. And how it is perceived by the person's reading. The Paenttee may have meant one way but did not clearly Define the term, to where it might mean something else read by another person.
As Bill Clinton once said ( is a lawyer, oppsed was until he met Monica) it all depends on what the definition of "is" is. LOL
Yesterday or Friday Koog told me a Markmanman hearing was not a trail
Yes it some cases it can be a mini-TriaL. JUDGES decide how to Proceed.
1) Some judges do Markman hearings in the middle of discovery
2) Some do them them At the end of discovery
)3 There are some Some judges that do them as part of a summary Judgement.
4) Some do them as part of the PreTrial
5) Still other Judges will do them at the Charging Conference right before the jury comes in to deliberate.
6) Some judges will do them purely on the papers.
7) Others will have as a hearings sort of like summary judgement hearing
8) Still others will have an evidentiary hearing sort of a mini-Trial
It can be Very very different depending on where you are.
Koog - Not so much Speculation and hyperbole.
Just because you can't find any Court Document to show what I asked for....
Did I say I cannot find an explicit statement of some in court documents.
Hey Don't Look Now, but I thought I saw Da Judge..
The fact is that there are scant to no details available to either of us on the details of this specific Markman hearing. Given this fact, it would be dangerous to draw conclusions based on what one "believes".
I think we have flogged this horse to a bloody pulp.
You refute my position based on the fact that you cannot find an explicit statement of same in court documents.
Then you posit an opposite position which cannot be backed by an explicit statement of same in court documents, only that you "just find that hard to believe".
Well, I just find your position hard to believe.
The fact is that there are scant to no details available to either of us on the details of this specific Markman hearing. Given this fact, it would be dangerous to draw conclusions based on what one "believes".
Speculation and hyperbole run rampant in situations like this. I am merely trying to add a logical counter to that.
I think we have flogged this horse to a bloody Pulp.
Koog, If you can show me in a Court Document in the the Markman hearing we are discussing that a decesion was Not made by the court prior to the Settlement, then I will concede to your statement.
You are confusing hearing definitions (what can variously happen) with what did happen in this specific case. In this specific case, the court did not make any decision as to the efficacy of the patent claim. The issue was settled out of court.
This is the fact.
Quote:
Do you know for a fact that the PhoneFactor Case was not an Evidentiary hearing?
Do you know that it was?
Then Koog I guess You Can Not Read
A Markman hearing can be an Evidentiary hearing. Want to Debate that too?
As stated in my last post.
It's right there in black and white within Rule 55 of a Evidentiary hearing. A JUDGEMENT CAN BE MADE.
Hey I Tried to be Pleasant and said I would even split Hairs with you on the Definition. But you seem to debate the issue.
Your Post Koog:
A Markman hearing is not a trial. That is why it is called a hearing. No ruling on the efficacy of the patent claim is made at the Markman hearing. A ruling is made at the trial, to which this company has not exposed it's claim. QED.
Of course, a Markman hearing may take many forms, ranging from attorney argument based solely on the paper record to a multiday minitrial with live witnesses. Courts have allowed experts to present "tutorials" on the technology without cross-examination or, in some cases, have even appointed their own technical experts. While courts almost always permit argument on claim construction, the question of whether to hold a Markman hearing usually concerns whether to allow expert testimony.
SORRY Koog, Markman hearing can be a Trial
I really hate to disagree with you again Koog, please don't take offence. But when it comes to certain issues, they Task me into a debate. I will however go so far as splitting hairs and we can say we are both correct. Okay ?
Markman hearings can come at Many Points During Court Proceedings:
1) Some Judges do Markman hearings in the Middle of Discovery.
2) Some do them them at the End of Discovery.
3) There are some Judges that do them as part of a Summery Judgement.
4) Some do them as part of the Pre-Trial.
5) Still other Judges will do them at the Charging Conference right before the Jury comes in to Deliberate.
6) Some judges will do them purely on the papers.
7) Others will have a hearings sort of like Summary Judgement Hearing.
8) Still others will have an Evidentiary Hearing sort of a Mini-Trial.
Markman hearings can be very very different depending on where you are.
Why is an Evidentiary Hearing a Trial?
Because Evidence is presented and Witnesses are heard and By Rule 55 of evidentiary hearings, Upon determining that default judgment is appropriate, therefore, the court must generally conduct an evidentiary hearing before awarding an amount of damages or otherwise making an award.
An evidentiary hearing, on the other hand, is a trial-like proceeding where parties are permitted to offer into evidence documents and live witness testimony. Generally, in an evidentiary hearing parties are permitted to make opening and closing statements, examine and cross-examine witnesses and raise objections and obtain rulings on objections from the AJ. A proceeding is an "evidentiary hearing" only if witnesses testify under oath or affirmation and a verbatim record of the proceeding is made.
For Those Following the Markman Hearing Posts
I was Invested in a small Company that involved IEEE Communications Standards (Telephony Standards) IEEE T1E1.4 which is the Standards for ADSL or DSL (high speed Bandwidth) when consumers were still using 56K Modem dialup.
I invested in Amati after two weeks of Research after discovering what they had was far Superior to AT&T. At that time ('96) when you typed in ADSL in to the Search Engine HotBot you only got 6 hits. TRY it today HotBot still exists and you wIL get overy 14 Million hits.
A battle arose begining in 1996 in ADSL that was likened to the BETA vs VHS Video Recording Standard Battle for Supremacy.
In the case, AT&T Lost Against a small Company (Amati Communications Corp.) Founded by a Stanford Professor who had worked at Bell Labs when they First Developed ADSL. The Line Code for ADSL was the Battle.
Amati's Discrete Multitone (DMT) Line Code Won and is the International Standard since the Year 2000. Because it could CANCEL OUT induced Line Noise that would slow down your Megabits Per Second.
I love the Parodies in Multitone and Multichannel and the fact that Ram Pemmaraju also worked a Bell Labs.
An analogy would be 56k Modems are Passwords and COBAS (MULTICHANNEL DEVICE UTILIZING A CENTRALIZED OUT-OF-BAND AUTHENTICATION SYSTEM) is High Speed Bandwidth.
Now that would be an interesting document to read.
Thank You for another explanation.
My point is they held that hearing when MS/PF was withholding the most relevant tech documents from discovery. They only settled after they got caught doing that.
ABSINTHEMINDED - Markman Hearing I don't see your Point.
The fact is, it was a Markman Hearing to prove the validity of the Patents claims. A Markman Hearing is about Patent Claims Construction pretrial or during a trial. Where both Plaintiffs and Defendants try Prove or disprove each Claim within the Patents to the Judge.
At which point the Judge has been fully educated on the Patent claims and ready, should procedings Proceed to a Jury Trial and the Judge is fully capable of giving instructions to the Jury thoughout the Proceedings.
And after the Marksman Hearing PhoneFactor settled out of Court.
True I have not read the other Court documents you preport in your post, but would enjoy reading them.
The hearing you're so wrapped up in was in 11/2014. The spring of 2015 was when MS/PF got caught hiding shit from discovery, it was scheduled for jury trial in 01/2017 just before settlement.
Don't see how you can draw the conclusions about the hearing that you are.
Please explain your statements in detail and what you mean by Rigged and no accountability
Thank You
Microsoft Settlement is Rigged !
No accountability !
Koog - Sorry BUT YOU ARE WRONG! CASE TESTED
As someone who deals in FACTS rather than rather than some who deals in perceptions or conjecture of how things occurred, in a couple of quick sentences in a post with no basis in fact and presenting No Evidence to back up their statements.
I do apologize for being Blunt Koog, but.......
I am tried of False Statements on the board being made in regard to saying that the case just settled out of Court and their was no Trial.
Your Post Koog
The case was never adjudicated and the patent's efficacy has never been tested.
The issue was settled out of court. It could have been settled by Microsoft for any reason. Certainly, no precedence has been established.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a patent suit. On March 28, 2013, StrikeForce Technologies, Inc.(“StrikeForce” or “plaintiff”) filed suit against PhoneFactor, Inc. (“PhoneFactor” or “defendant”), FiServ, Inc. (“FiServ”), and First Midwest Bancorp, Inc. (“First Midwest”)alleging those entities infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,870,599 (“the ‘599 patent”). 1
On June 11, 2013, StrikeForce filed a “Notice of Dismissal of FiServ, Inc. Without Prejudice.”2 On June 25, 2013, StrikeForce filed an amended complaint removing FiServ as a defendant and adding additional allegations with respect to First Midwest.3 On July 8,
2014, StrikeForce filed a second amended complaint adding allegations that PhoneFactor and First Midwest also infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,484,698 (“the ‘698 patent”) and 8,713,701 (“the ‘701 patent”). 4
On December 4, 2014, StrikeForce and First Midwest filed a “Stipulation and Order of Dismissal” by which all claims between
those two parties were dismissed with prejudice.5
On November 19, 2014, the court held a Markman hearing regarding contested claim terms. This Report and Recommendation sets for the court’s suggested constructions of those terms.
II. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The patents-in-suit are titled “Multichannel Device Utilizing a Centralized Out-Of-Band Authentication System (COBAS).” The patents are directed to multichannel security systems and methods for authenticating a user seeking to gain access to, for example, Internet websites and VPN networks such as those used for conducting
banking, social networking, business activities, and other online services. Such technology is sometimes known as “out-of-band” authentication. When coupled with more traditional processes, they are more commonly known as two factor
authentication.6
Whether to Have a Markman Hearing
One of the first procedural issues the district court must consider is whether a Markman hearing is necessary at all. The Markman decision does not mandate a hearing and just requires that the judge, not the jury, construe the patent claims. Often, district courts decide that a hearing is unnecessary. Generally, the reason articulated is that a hearing is not necessary because the paper record provides all the information the court needs for claim construction.
Of course, a Markman hearing may take many forms, ranging from attorney argument based solely on the paper record to a multiday minitrial with live witnesses. Courts have allowed experts to present "tutorials" on the technology without cross-examination or, in some cases, have even appointed their own technical experts. While courts almost always permit argument on claim construction, the question of whether to hold a Markman hearing usually concerns whether to allow expert testimony.
A Markman hearing is a pretrial hearing in a U.S. District Court during which a judge examines evidence from all parties on the appropriate meanings of relevant key words used in a patent claim, when patent infringement is alleged by a plaintiff. It is also known as a "Claim Construction Hearing".[1]
Holding a Markman hearing in patent infringement cases has been common practice since the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1996 case of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., found that the language of a patent is a matter of law for a judge to decide, not a matter of fact for a jury to decide. In the United States, juries determine facts in many situations,[2] but judges determine matters of law.[3]
Markman hearings are important, since the court determines patent infringement cases by the interpretation of claims. A Markman hearing may encourage settlement, since the judge's claim construction finding can indicate a likely outcome for the patent infringement case as a whole. Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection.[4]
The evidence considered in a Markman hearing falls into two categories: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic evidence consists of the patent documentation and any prosecution history of the patent. Extrinsic evidence is testimony, expert opinion, or other unwritten sources; extrinsic evidence may not contradict intrinsic evidence.[5]
[/quote
Marksman Hearing
The statement in red above only goes to show that "most likely" (IMO) in Future Patent Infringement cases the same evidence does not need to be presented again, making the our current 3 Lawsuits that much simpler to be heard and the cases maybe be Settled in much less time.
"I do wonder why they settled out of court on the patent case with this company,"
It's probably due to the outcome of the Markman Hearing they had with PhoneFactor.
Reference Post about the Markman Heraring
EsterProverbs - I Have no Idea HOW what you posted to me has anything to do with what I was explaining about the facts about a Markman hearing that I was explaining to Absintheminded.
Unless perhaps you may be addressing the the $9.7M figure from the Settlement from PhoneFactor?
They went from right under 5 million to 1.6 million in a blink of an eye. And now im supposed to believe that five months later they still have cash from the settlement.
Im sorry but that is wrong. George Waller announced it on October the 11th. Surely if it is true it didnt start on the 11th lol. It started way before that like after the settlement some time so it most definitely will reflect on this 10q for the third quarter. And kay said they will be the same lol. See if I believe that it started in October than yes i also believe that will reflect on the 10q for the last quarter. So the last quarter does not end until December 31st. We will not know about it until February the 15th that is an eternity here in pinkyland. So this could be used as a hhhuuuuggggeeeee carrot to dangle in front of niave investors as the AS could possibly get maxed out by than. Not saying it will but I don't know the OS even for now. OS is very important for now cause i have no clue where there getting money to continue without selling shares. And please that settlement is just about gone if not gone already. They had 1.6 million at close of 2nd quarter. They went from right under 5 million to 1.6 million in a blink of an eye. And now im supposed to believe that five months later they still have cash from the settlement. YEAH RIGHT only a fool would believe that. So again OS is the highest priority here not settlements or not even big contracts OS is.
Brooklyn - The Crowd is nervous because the don't Their own DD or have limited knowledge in the inner workings behind the Technology or Court Proceedings.
see this post and follow the posts/ thread backward to post 112727
Video Links that did not take the HTML Links in Post in 112727 can be found here:
Video Links that work to my Background in Technology if Interested
SFOR is setting on Solid Ground, as apposed to it's shaky and moving
Moving PPS Support Lines. IMO
I also replied to the same absintheminded post you did, read my reply.
Enjoy the beautiful evening in Brooklyn.
49'er
Absintheminded - INTEL- You are Correct.
I have made 4 posts trying to describe what Waller's comments meant by the word "Embedded". At 42 Minutes into the Video.
absintheminded / ALL interested in FAQ and DD - It's Just some background so you know I'm not some crackpot poster speaking about things I know nothing about (Technology / viable Patents).
This Since you asked for the Judge and Trial. And if I understood what I Read. At least I assume that's what you meant by "Understand why?"
BTW: It's not an incorrect Statement. Do you really think PhoneFactor would payout $9.7M just because SOMEONE says they are infringing on their Patents?
Your Post to me absintheminded:
So this is an incorrect statement. The "Judge found in favor of most of SFOR's Claims within the Patents"
Do you understand why?
A Markman hearing is a pretrial hearing in a U.S. District Court during which a judge examines evidence from all parties on the appropriate meanings of relevant key words used in a patent claim, when patent infringement is alleged by a plaintiff. It is also known as a "Claim Construction Hearing".
Holding a Markman hearing in patent infringement cases has been common practice since the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1996 case of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., found that the language of a patent is a matter of law for a judge to decide, not a matter of fact for a jury to decide. In the United States, juries determine facts in many situations,[2] but judges determine matters of law.
Markman hearings are important, since the court determines patent infringement cases by the interpretation of claims. A Markman hearing may encourage settlement, since the judge's claim construction finding can indicate a likely outcome for the patent infringement case as a whole. Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection.
The evidence considered in a Markman hearing falls into two categories: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic evidence consists of the patent documentation and any prosecution history of the patent. Extrinsic evidence is testimony, expert opinion, or other unwritten sources; extrinsic evidence may not contradict intrinsic evidence
It's free where I practice here in Los Angeles Superior Court. I am also an Estate Planning Attorney wherein I don't get involved in a lot a trials but rather mediations, arbitrations, Trust administrations, probate, etc.
absintheminded / ALL interested on FAQ and DD - It's Just some background so you know I'm not some crackpot poster speaking about things I know nothing about (Technology / viable Patents).
This Since you asked for the Judge and Trial. And if I understood what I Read. At least I assume that's what you meant by "Understand why?"
BTW: It's not an incorrect Statement. Do you really think PhoneFactor would payout $9.7M just because SOMEONE says they are infringing on their Patents?
Your Post to me absintheminded:
So this is an incorrect statement. The "Judge found in favor of most of SFOR's Claims within the Patents"
Do you understand why?
A Markman hearing is a pretrial hearing in a U.S. District Court during which a judge examines evidence from all parties on the appropriate meanings of relevant key words used in a patent claim, when patent infringement is alleged by a plaintiff. It is also known as a "Claim Construction Hearing".
Holding a Markman hearing in patent infringement cases has been common practice since the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1996 case of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., found that the language of a patent is a matter of law for a judge to decide, not a matter of fact for a jury to decide. In the United States, juries determine facts in many situations,[2] but judges determine matters of law.
Markman hearings are important, since the court determines patent infringement cases by the interpretation of claims. A Markman hearing may encourage settlement, since the judge's claim construction finding can indicate a likely outcome for the patent infringement case as a whole. Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection.
The evidence considered in a Markman hearing falls into two categories: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic evidence consists of the patent documentation and any prosecution history of the patent. Extrinsic evidence is testimony, expert opinion, or other unwritten sources; extrinsic evidence may not contradict intrinsic evidence
It's free where I practice here in Los Angeles Superior Court. I am also an Estate Planning Attorney wherein I don't get involved in a lot a trials but rather mediations, arbitrations, Trust administrations, probate, etc.
absintheminded / ALL It's Just background so you know I'm not some crackpot poster speaking about things I know nothing about (technology), Since you asked for the Judge and Trial. And if I understood what I Read. At least I assume that's what you meant by "Understand why?"
BTW: It's not an incorrect Statement. Do you really think PhoneFactor would payout $9.7M just because SOMEONE says they are infringing on their Patents?
A Marksman Hearing was heard by the Court in StrikeForce vs PhoneFactor
The Judge hears all the Merits of the Patents Claims, rules on every detail of each claim within the patents, after hearing from both parties both arguments and expert Witnesses from both parties. Then Defendant is then Welcome to take it to a Jury Trial or reach some Settlement Agreement.
A Markman hearing is a pretrial hearing in a U.S. District Court during which a judge examines evidence from all parties on the appropriate meanings of relevant key words used in a patent claim, when patent infringement is alleged by a plaintiff. It is also known as a "Claim Construction Hearing".
Holding a Markman hearing in patent infringement cases has been common practice since the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1996 case of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., found that the language of a patent is a matter of law for a judge to decide, not a matter of fact for a jury to decide. In the United States, juries determine facts in many situations,[2] but judges determine matters of law.
Markman hearings are important, since the court determines patent infringement cases by the interpretation of claims. A Markman hearing may encourage settlement, since the judge's claim construction finding can indicate a likely outcome for the patent infringement case as a whole. Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection.
The evidence considered in a Markman hearing falls into two categories: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic evidence consists of the patent documentation and any prosecution history of the patent. Extrinsic evidence is testimony, expert opinion, or other unwritten sources; extrinsic evidence may not contradict intrinsic evidence
It's free where I practice here in Los Angeles Superior Court. I am also an Estate Planning Attorney wherein I don't get involved in a lot a trials but rather mediations, arbitrations, Trust administrations, probate, etc.
So this is an incorrect statement. The "Judge found in favor of most of SFOR's Claims within the Patents"
Do you understand why?
Absintheminded - Video Links from Last Post
For some reason today, IHUB is not recognizing video links HTML
This was one of my $40 Million Dollar Toys (1985 dollars)
Absintheminded - Yes, I understand why...
And here's why.
I've Been in Technology Fields since 1977.
14 years in Flight Simulation, not the games.
22 Years Launching Rockets and Space Shuttle with Range Safety in the Range Operations Control Center (ROCC) at Cape Canaveral A.S.
Emerging Technology Investor.
Have not been in SFOR very long Mid-Sept. But spent most of that time doing Research.
This was one of my $40 Million Dollar Toys (1985 dollars)
The Judge and Trial - Since you asked, so pleasantly ???
What judge, what trial?
WBCTRADER Why Exaggerate? DUMB???
I did not say you were dumb I stated:
"You maybe in the cyber security sector for financial institutions, but it would appear your statements are coming from Ill informed sources. "
You really should begin to Understand COBAS as JPAUL Suggested.
In my post I mentioned a "Keyword" which you did not pickup on, which would seem to lead me to believe you do not have a clue as to what is going on in the World and U.S in of Standards current being set.
If a company is using Multichannel Device Utilizing A Centralized Out-of-Band Authentication System. They are infringing upon SFOR Patents.
So as to not give you the keys to the Kingdom in the latest of what's going on in the World, yet inform, as where the World is currently heading in World Standards for Cyber Security, here is and older White Paper on COBAS from Southern Europe.
Centralized Out-Of-Band Authentication System - Southeast Europe Cyber-security Conference
If you work for a particular Bank check with the Company that is Providing Cyber Security H/W and S/W and see if they are Using COBAS. Don't Multichannel yourself in to a finalized statement of
"To go back to my OG statement. OOB is just 1 form of multifactor. Financial institutions utilizing mulitfactor auth are not all infringing on sfor patents."
Perhaps currently not "All" are but for the most part the Vendors providing Cyber Security to Banks are. As you can see by the White Paper COBAS adaption has been on going for a long time.
Patents are made up of several "Claims" I've read the Proceedings of the Trial with PhoneFactor,Expert Witnesses, etc. the splitting of hairs in the Definitions of Terms. Similiar to what the definition of "is" is" LOL.
Is it any wonder why SFOR was successful in winning a settlement against PhoneFactor and MSFT. The Judge found in favor of most of SFOR's Claims within the Patents, And why they are Filing Patent Lawsuits against other Companies.
With what is going on in the world in regards to Cyber Security Standards currently being utilized yet not yet finalized, the International Patents Acceptance become very important.
49'er
Not arguing that OOB isn't 2 factor.
Arguing that there are other forms of 2 factor or multi auth than sfor patents. I provided links to ffiec website guidance on the matter yesterday.
I was argued with about that anyone using mulitifactor has to be infringing on sfor patents. That is not true. there are many forms of multifactor auth. OOB is just one of those, I did say OOB is basically a text back (just trying to get point across) then in classic i hub someone states "nope, ur dumb, not just text, can be a call to".
To go back to my OG statement. OOB is just 1 form of multifactor. Financial institutions utilizing mulitfactor auth are not all infringing on sfor patents.
© 2016 InvestorsHub.Com, Inc.
WBCTrader "OBBA is NOT just Text Based"
Out of band authentication OOBA is in short, text based authentication. Meaning you initiate something on computer/smart phone then you will receive a text with a code to verify said transaction.
Out of band authentication is a ‘transaction verification’ process with its primary function to confirm that the transaction details originated with the user. It is typically used as part of an online transaction – the person making the transaction using an out of band process to authenticate it.
It is an interactive process that conforms to FFIEC guidance and is particularly suited to authenticating an online transaction, whether that is a session or a transaction within a session.
VoiceVault’s voice biometric out of band authentication solution is phone-based and uses either an out of band call to a user-registered phone number, or uses an Android / iOS smartphone-based app. In this instance, the phone line, or the app, is regarded as being one of the trusted parts of the strong multi-factor authentication process, and the voice biometric element adds yet another factor. This solution leverages the fact that phones and smartphones are ubiquitous and are never far away, and that the use of them is non-invasive, intuitive and has a low user experience impact.
Just how does out-of-band authentication work? Here are some examples:
Text messages
When an authentic customer logs in to a financial website with a username and password successfully, the user is prompted to click a button to send a numeric code via SMS to the cell phone number on record at the bank. The user receives the one-time code on the cell phone and enters it on a second secure Web page and clicks the "verify code" button to confirm the correct user is in fact at the other end of the phone.
With this type of out-of-band authentication system in place, even if an aspiring criminal were to obtain a customer's username and password, the account compromise attempt would be thwarted because the attacker would be unable to receive the one-time code sent to the customer's cell phone. Should this scenario play out, the customer would receive a cell phone call by the application, alerting him or her to the attempted fraud. This enables the customer to contact the financial institution and report the attempted unauthorized access.
Telephone
Another out-of-band authentication scenario would involve the same set of steps with the legitimate user logging into the financial website, but instead of receiving a text message, the user would be asked to initiate a call back by clicking on a button on the Web page. This method requires the customer to use the telephone associated with the phone number on file with the financial institution as a second form of authentication.
The financial institution's out-of-band authentication server calls the customer and a voice prompt asks the user to recite a word or enter a numeric code presented on the financial Web page. If the customer is indeed initiating the authentication, he or she will easily pass the challenge by simply reciting the word or entering the code using the dial pad. Without access to the customer's phone, a malicious user would be thwarted.
More sophisticated schemes may even feature biometric voice recognition, in which the user's voice is matched to a known voice print on record. This particular technology choice demands that the user allow the financial institution to keep a voice print on file to confirm or prove the authenticity of the end user.
SC Congress Where CyberSecurity Leaders Unite
Nov. 10th. Since this is held in New York let's hope StrikeForce is there with more than a small little Booth with a Couple of Signs to represent the Company. Make Us Proud SFOR. You Really Own The Show.
Just kidding, but they could put up Most Wanted Posters. LOL
This ad below says Nov. 10th the website shows another date ???
http://www.sccongress.com/new-york/exhibitsponsors/section/4496/
Trustwave is a US based Company, SingTel is International hence it's not the same as PhoneFactor and Microsoft.
Jtech - There does not have to be a Jury Trial. It can be, just as with the PhoneFactor Case where the Judge hears the Merits of the case and makes the Deceision. Unless the defendant's are assured a win, the the Case will not go to Jury.
But now that JPaul has stated all 3 will settle (according to someones Email from Kay ??) it's just a matter of time when we hear the outcome of the settlements.
Correct ! Jpike - Sorry Jtech
Correct ! Jpike.
Jtech - I never stated There was a REASON to SELL. Or even inferred such.
Major Deals could be finalized any day, week, or month which should increase the PPS, of that I'm realistic in they will happen.
But as far as any Lawsuits go, I'm being realistic in Expectations in that nothing will be Settled Soon, unless one or all 3 of the defendant's decides to give up without a fight in court based on the reading the Proceedings of the PhoneFactor Case and determine they don't have a leg to stand on.
That is not out of the realm of possibility. But I'm not counting on the odds of that happening.
If you have read the proceedings of the PhoneFactor Trial you might understand my stance on the Lawsuits.
There is NO REASON to SELL in the range of .007 to .008. Nothing to accomplish selling now. No one can say with certainty when and if settlement or trial will occur. However, the products are strong and business will improve. Sure the stock can be traded in and around these prices but the real money will be made with blockbuster news when it comes.
Jtech - By the word "Court" do you mean Jury Trial ?
Just curious as to Definition of Terms.
At this point is up in the air really. Either it's just an administrative meeting like Kay said or they will inform the judge that they have settled and working out the details or they will tell the judge they will take it to court.
I have a good feeling since I have read a lot of court documents involving patent infringement lawsuits but at this point I'm no expert and will keep my opinion to myself for now! Lol.
I'm still holding my shares and plan to add to my position.
Pennydream - I'm not trying to be pessimistic.
Nope doesnt have to but very well can
DD Synthek - Congrats, You're Knowledgeable on The Past Cases
Athentify is not the only one that SFOR went after and then dismissed.
In March 2013 SFOR actually filed suit on PhoneFactor, FiServ and First Midwest Bacorp, Inc. Alleging they infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,870,599
Then in June 2013 SFOR amended complaint removing FiServ as a defendant and adding additional allegations with respect to First Midwest.
In July 2014, SFOR filed a second amended complaint adding allegations that PhoneFactor and First Midwest also infringe on Patent 8,484,698.
and 8,713,701.
In Dec. 2014, SFOR and First Midwest filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal” by which all claims between those two parties were dismissed with prejudice.
On Nov. 2014, the court held a very indepth Markman hearing regarding contested claim Terms with PhoneFactor.
The Markman hearing appears to have been concluded in Jan 2015.
So when Kay stated that any Lawsuit takes a year to 3 years to get accomplished, he was trying to be straightforward with Shareholders.
As one can see from above the Lawsuit on PhoneFactor was just shy of 3 years.
If anything took the wind out of the sails of the PPS, it was Kay's statement that Nov. 9th Is just one of many Meetings, as aposed to all the Posts floating around the Board.
The fact that we Settled with Phonefactor and whatever the Arrangement with MSFT, plays in SFOR's favor in shortening the timeframe.
But if any or all of the 3 Current Lawsuits with Trustwave, DUO and Centrify don't decide on a Settlement right away, the Lawsuits could take a few years until the conlusion.
And I agree with your statement Synthek, SFOR has gotten Smarter on who to File Lawsuits against.
Hopefully SFOR will come up with 3 7's on this Slot Machine as they pull the handle.
FiServ was one Big Fish that got away, Hook Line and Sinker and Boat !
Fiserv is a global organization with more than 13,000 clients and approximately 22,000 associates worldwide. And has won many Awards by Fortune Magazine.
They have a one division less than 4 miles from my home.
Fiserv:
[quote]"Words like "number one," "top," "best," "most" and "leading" often describe what we do. While we're grateful for the recognition, we're more focused on innovating to help our 13,000 clients worldwide achieve best-in-class results".
Fiserv moves money and information on behalf of thousands of financial institutions and millions of consumers. And we lead the financial services industry in account processing, mobile and online banking, electronic bill payment and more.[/quote]
Pennydream - It does not have to go to trial for the case to drag on, the Judge can hear all the arguments, on what individual Claims within the Patents are vaild and not vaild.
There are multiple sections of each Patent called Claims.
Expert Witnesses can be heard thoughout the proceedings, and then the Judge can make the decisions thoughout the proceeding on the individual claims, as in the previous Lawsuit with Phonefactor. At which point the defendants can choose to settle or choose to go on to a trial.
Shalley the Video Investor Relations Q&A on YouTube
I Do read what is being said.
Yep, that's proof!
Here we go another law suit pump. The other three must not be working out.
If they have a buyout deal in the works why would they start another law suit.
People need to stop trying to read between the lines and read what is actually being said. There is no buyout talks, and no new revenue to speak of.
George: I think the company in two to three years with the deals that we’re working on, the contracts that we’ve been signed and a lot of contracts that we sign they take a couple of months for them to build the components on their site to get it up and running. I think the company’s poised to do many millions.
I also think that with all the acquisitions going on in the market I would think that there are probably plenty of companies that would love to own our technologies and I’m talking about the big ones. Possibly even some of the ones that we’re suing.
The next couple of years are going to be very interesting because cyber security is getting better funded today. I just read an article two days ago that U.S. government, the Pentagon’s going to be spending another $23 billion extra over the next year just to help stop fraud and cyber theft.
Our products are poised to be enveloped into that by some companies. We feel very, we couldn’t be in a better place at a better time. That’s for sure.
INTRODUCTION INTO MFST AZURE MULTI-FACTOR ATHUTENTION
This section of video starts at 1:53 minutes in, at the begining of the inserted clip.
If you want you can backup to about 25 seconds in to the Video and hear the guys MESS UP Going through Bullet Points they are going to cover and slip up and say PhoneFactor and quickly say it the way it reads.
I can hear the behind the scenes discussion....
Yeah, Let's not scewed up mention PhoneFactor again Guys, No Sh*t ! They caused us Problems with Patent Infringement Litigation, We only bought them because we thought the had a Lock on this Cyber Security MFA Stuff and it Cost us Royalties.
What is the Delay ? What's the Delay !
He posted: I have another Video that goes into More Detail if a anyone wants to Know or is Interested.
Then what is the Delay?
You said Put Out REAL NEWS KEEPIN-EYE
So why Post anymore Videos if you just COMPLAIN about them.
Sorry No News KEEPIN-EYE
So Just Info that Might Help Inform People What The Own and How it is Used the Networking Industry for Banks, Universities, Government to Protect their Customers.
VIDEO - HOW ProductID WORKS for MICROSOFT AZURE
Cyber Security by StrikeForce
It's StrikeForce Technology Behind The Scenes That Make Things Work
This is a short Video of How ProductID Patents Work for Microsoft AZURE ACTIVE DIRECTORY and OFFICE 365. The Same goes for Bsnks, Heathcare Institutions, Universities, Goverment..
STRIKEFORCE has it's own CLOUD SERVICE also that they can offer Customers.