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.
rverboatgambler: Since they are in somewhat different industries, it is quite possible that Vitex has never heard of Cyberkey Solutions.
Clearly they would not be happy to see Cyberkey Solutions using a registered trademark that isn't their's to use.
Maybe they'll never hear of us...
cthulla: Yes, it could. It's never good to have to change a company name or product names, when you are trying to make your imprint on the market you are trying to sell to.
Hopefully Vitex either won't care, or has an agreement that allows CyberKey Solutions to use the Cyberkey term.
Does anyone know if we have a relationship with Videx, Inc.? After failing to find any patents, approved or pending, for Cyberkey, I looked in the US Patent Office db to look at the trademark for Cyberkey. It turns out that Cyberkey is a registered trademark of Videx, Inc., not of Cyberkey Solutions, Inc.
This could be a problem - Videx, Inc. could force Cyberkey to change it's company and product names, unless we have a license agreement with them to use Cyberkey, which is owned by them.
Rocketstocks: I'm not sure, but don't they also protect officers of a company from be being held financial responsible for anything that happens at that company?
rverboatgambler: Hmmm - how do you interpret the info in this PR from April of 2006? Doesn't seem to be any way to read it other than a claim of a patent approval.
CyberKey® Solutions, Inc Announces Digital Rights Management Patent Approval
ST. GEORGE, UT--(MARKET WIRE)--Apr 6, 2005 -- CyberKey™ (Other OTC:CYKC.PK - News) has been granted US Patent Office approval for the company's universal serial bus (USB) digital rights management (DRM) process. The process is designed to deter the theft of copyrighted materials available in a digital form. Digital Rights Management is the industry term for the various technological and legal techniques available to protect copyright holders from the theft of computer accessible files.
The patented process provides an additional option for the distributors of copyrighted material to protect their music, photos, files, software, etc. from unauthorized copying. The process works with the CyberKey family of USB flash memory devices. Each CyberKey storage device is uniquely identified by an eighteen (18) digit serial number. This number can be used to authorize access to a website supplying copyrighted material. The same number is also permanently embedded in every file once stored on a CyberKey device enabling a degree of protection from unauthorized copying not currently available.
waveaura: You don't need the patent number. If you search just for Cyberkey in issued patents, you get a patent that has "The keys Model No. DS 6201 Cyberkey manufactured by Dynasys of Clearwater, Fla." buried in the middle of the patent.
If you search just for Cyberkey in pending patents, you get a reference in the middle of another patent that cites Cyberkey as an example of one of comanies that make/market key-chain type USB port devices.
It the search is sophisticated enough to pick up Cyberkey in the middle of obscure patents, it can find that term anywhere it is used.
I can see we are not going to agree on this, so how about we drop the subject.
rverboatgambler: My post was in response to the PR as posted by pennypicks:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=13883384
waveaura: Actually, you got over 5000. The 50 refers to the number of patents listed on the current page.
Try refining your search to include what Cyberkey clearly stated the patent was for: "USB and Digital and Rights and Management."
You can find any patent by using keywords in a search on line. A search of the USB Digital Rights Management turned up 48 patents, none by Cyberkey.
Doesn't matter. A search for Cyberkey would find any patent that mentions that name at all, as cited in my last post.
48 patents were located for the type of product claimed to be patented, none by Cyberkey.
Pennypicks: How is it that an approved patent was cited in 2005, but the info from the website says patent pending now? Also, I was unable to find any info about any patent pending for this product. Cyberkey did come up in a patent, cited as one of several examples of companies that make/market these types of USB devices:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FP...
Pennypicks: Did anyone check out this claim when the PR was put out? I'm a little concerned because I just went to the U.S. Patent Office website and did a search for Cyberkey and USB and no patents were found.
When I did a search for "Digital and Rights and Management and (DRM) and USB" 48 patents were found. The list gave brief description of each, but just in case I went and looked at all 48. None of them have anything to do with Cyberkey.
There does not appear that Cyberkey has any patents, never mind one relating to USB-based Digital Rights Management (DRM).
Han2004fl: No problem. I should tell you, you need to buy another 122,486,271 to catch up with me.
You might want to reconsider ignoring him. His posts about how many shares he owns has been basically a parody of the whole idea of compiling a list of how many shares each person owns.
His whole point of announcing 99M shares was that such a list is absolutely useless because there is no way to verify any of the claims.
That's the same reason rockets announced owning 3600 shares...
tewitt: That's a good one. I've been around a gazzillion years and that's the first time I've heard that one.
Thanks...
Alright, anyone able to put a good spin on the last couple of days (particularly today)?
Come on. We all need a good word...
.014 support gone...
As I said, more importantly, the fact that the audited financials would include the 3rd quarter should have been stated. That simple added bit of detail would have made it crystal clear that it would not be just for what is already posted.
It would have made it much clearer that the financials won't be out within the week.
If your going to say, 'audited financials' are coming, how hard would it be to make sure your investors know what they would cover?
RedCloudPaint: No, they haven't set a date, publicly, but apparently told one guy within 2 weeks back about a week or so ago.
More importantly, if they intended to do the A/Fs to include the 3rd quarter, they should have said so. To not say that, it becomes reasonable to assume that they were doing the A/F to cover the finances currently posted.
If they are waiting to include the 3rd q, then that should be mentioned, sooner, rather than later.
RedCloudPaint: The longer it takes to put out the promised AFs, the more sense that they do what you think (and I think) they should do at this point: Do AFs for first 3 quarters.
Of course, for them to come out and say we've decided to wait until we can include the 3rd quarter could cause a problem with people who think, "Oh oh - they're putting them off."
They could also do the first 2 q's now and then release q 3 a month from now.
syracuseo: That was my point in my response to RedCloud - They can't be coming out soon if they'll include 3rd q as he suggested.
9 on bid at .016, 3 on ask at .0175? What's with that?
RedCloudPaint: The 3rd quarter just ended. I we are going to be waiting for those numbers to be included, then we may easily be waiting until some time early November.
Two things look pretty obvious today:
1. 016 is proving to be strong support.
2. The momentum players are gone.
Don't mind either. Better to go up without mo-mo players, because they always leave eventually, and pps always goes down when they do.
Stetson: Reportedly it is Green Tree Financial.
If people don't start actually buying at .019, it will be there forever...
Let's hope. A lot of momentum players jumped in yesterday, if this fails to hold .02 many more times, those guys will start jumping back out.
That could get ugly in the shorterm...
I was hoping we could test the wall of 9 MMs at .02 today, but it doesn't look like the flippers will let us.
Maybe tomorow...
7 Asks at .017
We just blew through 7 bids at .017 in less than 2 minutes...
One bid at .0155, six on Ask at .016
logjams building at .016 and .017. One bid at .015 x two on ask at .0155...
And then there was none. Bid and Ask up...
And then there was one...
And then there were two...
And then there were three...
RedCloudPaint: I don't believe in hyping other stocks on boards, so I was with you on that post, up until the point where you said:
"Go convince the posters on that board to buy CKYS..."
So, it's OK with you that they spam other boards about CKYS, but not if they spam this board about those stocks?
That's actually kind of funny...
BirdsOfFire: It wasn't me, but I would guess that whoever it was assumed that earnings for the second half would equal earnings for the first half, thus 20 x .054 would be better than 1.00.
AngelHillCorp: Thanks for the heads up on this stock. Only have 862K shares so far. Tried to get more last couple of days, but I was greedy and kept bid low.
Monday's another day...
BirdsOfFire: So you believe that this company can get to where it has a market cap of almost 3 billion dollars? That's a tad bit on the optimistic side.
I certainly wouldn't mind if this company got to .75 to 1.00 a shave a few years from now and did a RS for the purpose of getting onto the Nazdaq. Obviously to get to that price range on the OTC BB with over 500M shares outstanding, it would have to be performing extremely well. It would do much, much better with a Nazdaq listing than remaining a .75 to 1.00 stock.
IMNSVHO...