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.
Then you might want to relearn the definition of Patent Troll. Here:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/patent-troll.html
"A company or person that acquires a lot of patents without the desire to actually develop the products. Instead of making money from the product, the company or individual launches a large amount of patent infringement lawsuits. The sole purpose of a patent troll is to identify infringers and sue them."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/patent-troll.asp
"While the practice of patent trolling is not illegal, a patent troll has no intent of ever developing a product or service by utilizing a patent."
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-a-patent-troll-31750
"Generally speaking, a patent troll is usually a business entity that does nothing but own patents, then sues potential infringers"
SFOR has products (and I use them) so the definition does not apply. Note: None say anything about making money off the products.
I stand corrected...sort of.
Is this what you were referring to?: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180319005180/en/Entrust-Datacard-Announces-Settlement-Patent-Litigation
"“Entrust Datacard takes assertions of IP infringement seriously and vigorously defends against claims that are viewed to lack merit. We are not in the business of paying nuisance settlements to entities looking for a quick payout,” said Brian L. Jarrells, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney at Entrust Datacard Corporation."
"Patent Troll" was not used in his statement. He only stated that the claims lack merit and they don't like "nuisance settlements".
I thought a lawyer did say SFOR was a patent troll, but I sure can't find it now. If you can post a URL that would be helpful.
FYI: Their assessment of the case is not correct also. They settled because each company infringed on each other.
I am pretty sure that was SecureAuth's lawyer that said that. I will verify tomorrow, but that is really bad DD if I am correct.
No, the claim is SFOR has a patent for OOB IP that others are infringing on. So stating there are all kinds of OOB is correct, but SFOR has a very secure form and that is what this board should be focusing on.
As far as mousetraps, yes there are many patents and forms, but if you use the IP of one of them you can be sued for infringement.
A Old Mouse Trap patent (one of them):
https://patents.google.com/patent/US528671A/en
Modern Mouse Trap Lawsuit:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5269091
http://next-generation-communications.tmcnet.com/news/2007/03/13/2411053.htm
So if this lawsuit was won by the IP holder, why shouldn't SFOR win? Unless someone can find a patent with the exact IP that SFOR has a patent on with a priority date before SFORs.
Nope, for Okta there is a sync with Active Directory to Okta. Users do not "create and account". User created accounts would be a piss poor security.
For banks, they would have an account already created (that you have put money into), the user can link 2 factor to that existing account.
For anything, I would speculate that the account was already created before you set up 2 factor authentication and register your device. If you disagree, please give examples.
I don't have an issue with the patents you sent, I have an issue with them being compared to SFORs patent as they are very different. You cannot assume what a patent is for based on the subject of the patent, you have to read the patent to see what it is for and how it is implemented (like I did).
SFOR has a patent for OOB IP and companies are infringing on that specific IP so they are being sued.
What?
SFORs patent does not use SMS. It uses a secondary channel to talk with the user's secondary device and that device talks back to the security server on the second channel.
I have agreed in the past that there are many different forms of OOB authentication, but SFOR has a particular patent on a form that companies are infringing on. The Intel patent is OOB, but it is not the same form of OOB as SFORs and not a form SFOR is suing people over.
So please let us know when you find one that is full OOB user authentication and post it please.
I have been looking for one for the last two years and have yet to find one that is the same as SFORs. But I have used products from companies that infringe on SFORs patents (like Okta).
Reminder of SFORs OOB patent in a nutshell:
1 = User Computer
2 = System 1 wants access to. (like a website)
3 = Security Server
4 = 2nd factor device. (cell phone)
1 and 2 can talk
2 and 3 can talk
3 and 4 can talk
1 and 3 CANNOT talk to each other
1 and 4 CANNOT talk to each other
2 and 4 CANNOT talk to each other
SFOR (Full 2 Channel MF/OOB):
1 connects to 2 and enters username and password
2 contacts 3 and requests verification
3 sends request to 4
user responds on 4
4 sends confirmation to 3
3 tells 2 the user is ok
2 lets 1 into 2
This one is interesting.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160286393A1/en
Abstract
In an embodiment, at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium includes instructions that when executed enable a system to: request, by an authentication logic of the system during a multi-factor authentication of a user of the system to obtain access to a first service, a token to be sent from a second system associated with the first service to a third system associated with the user; receive, in the authentication logic, the token from the third system without user involvement via a secure channel; and send the token from the authentication logic to the second system to authenticate the user. Other embodiments are described and claimed.
How I understand this one is when you logon to a local resource device (like a PC), a security server sends a "token" to a verification device registered (like a cell phone) with the user and then uses WiFi/RF (radio frequencies) to verify that device is near the local resource device. There is no verification on the user side, it just looks at the location of the verification device to verify you are near the resource.
Pretty cool actually, but very different from SFORs patent. This is not for remote services like websites. It is also not great security if a user leaves their phone near the local resource device and then walks away.
Please correct me if I am wrong on my reading of this patent.
This is not full OOB. https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2761805A1
It does not even describe how the OOB works, only that is it used. This is more of a Single Sign-On or Identity Provider system.
Abstract:
In an embodiment a single user authentication event, performed between a trusted path hardware module and a service provider via an out of band communication, can enable a user to transparently access multiple service providers using strong credentials that are specific to each service provider. The authentication event may be based on multifactor authentication that is indicative of a user's actual physical presence. Thus, for example, a user would not need to enter a different retinal scan to gain access to each of the service providers. Other embodiments are described herein.
Let me know if you can find anything describing the OOB in it.
Yes, and that reason is BlockSafe is a subsidiary of SFOR. There is no need to advertise SFOR. We will still see where all the money goes.
Then show me ANY patent that is full OOB other than SFORs.
Yes, but the money is not funneled anywhere. We will see where all the money goes.
Ok, please show us one other full OOB patent that has a priority date that is older than 2001.
But SFOR owns the one that is full OOB authentication. Correct?
Examples:
1 = User Computer
2 = System 1 wants access to. (like a website)
3 = Security Server
4 = 2nd factor device. (cell phone)
1 and 2 can talk
2 and 3 can talk
3 and 4 can talk
1 and 3 CANNOT talk to each other
1 and 4 CANNOT talk to each other
2 and 4 CANNOT talk to each other
_____________________________________
SFOR (Full 2 Channel MF/OOB):
1 connects to 2 and enters username and password
2 contacts 3 and requests verification
3 sends request to 4
user responds on 4
4 sends confirmation to 3
3 tells 2 the user is ok
2 lets 1 into 2
Half 2 Channel MF/OOB:
1 connects to 2 and enters username and password
2 contacts 3 and requests verification
3 sends request to 4
1 responds to 2 with text from 4
2 lets 1 into 2
Full 1 Channel MF/OOB?:
1 connects to 2 and enters username and password
2 sends request to 4
1 responds to 2 with text from 4
2 lets 1 into 2
RSA Token (2 factor ONLY / No OOB):
1 connects to 2 and enters username and password
2 ask 1 for code from fob or software
1 enters code
2 lets 1 into 2
LOL, channeled to where? You do realize that BlockSafe is a subsidiary of SFOR and SFOR owns 49% of BlockSafe?
That was before my time and I have not seen the court documents so I can't speak to it.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/4343558/StrikeForce_Technologies_Inc_v_Authentify_Inc
"Voluntary Dismissal by StrikeForce Technologies Inc."
It was 4 months long and it does not say "dismissed with prejudice". So I think it could be filed again.
Ok, I think I was incorrect. They will receive royalties on the ProtectID (2Factor) product sold going forward (of course) and NOT on keyboard encryption. But SFOR can keep selling keyboard encryption software in their products.
8K:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=11141688&guid=tJUZUKWw1si5_3h
"StrikeForce, directly and through its distribution channel, will maintain the right to sell in the retail space in perpetuity."
Hmmm, I swear I saw the royalties thing somewhere, but here is some of the DD. I may be remembering incorrectly. I will keep looking.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=11403434&guid=xgUZUFjE8Ajz-3h
Additionally, in February 2016, Advanced Cyber Security ("ACS") purchased their option to buy our GuardedID Ò patent for nine million dollars ($9,000,000) to be paid by September 30, 2020, and will resell our GuardedID Ò and MobileTrust Ò products, for which we will receive a royalty, while we retain an unlimited license to resell those products.
Cyber Safety has the option to buy our GuardedID Ò patent for $9,000,000 that expires on September 30, 2020. At March 31, 2016, the Company does not have an estimate when Cyber Safety will exercise its option to make the purchase. Cyber Safety will also resell our GuardedID Ò and MobileTrust Ò products, for which we will receive a royalty, while we retain an unlimited license to resell those products.
As a condition of the asset purchase agreement, Cyber Safety will license the Malware Suite (as defined in the Asset Purchase Agreement) up to and until September 30, 2020. Pursuant to this license, Cyber Safety shall pay the Company 15% of the net amount Cyber Safety receives, as defined, which amount may be increased to 20% under certain conditions for ProtectID Ò , and is subject to reduction for commissions and support costs that Cyber Safety will be obligated to pay to the Company. During the three months ended March 31, 2016, the Company did not receive any license revenue related to this agreement.
Would this be needed for the research department they recently started?
https://www.networknewswire.com/evio-inc-evio-expanding-into-biosciences-with-a-focus-on-cannabis-and-cannabinoid-research/
The keyboard encryption patent is the only one being sold for $9m plus we still get royalties after that. Plus SFOR can still use the patent themselves, like for GuardedID and CryptoDefender.
The OOB patents in not being sold.
Share Price aka PPS (Price Per Share)
"A percentage of Jack is Squat." - If so, then they will most likely not be able to raise the $9m to pay SFOR and SFOR will keep the keyboard encryption patent.
SFOR will still get a percentage of the keyboard encryption sales even after they pay for the patent.
SFOR does not have a loosing record on the OOBA lawsuits:
Microsoft - WIN
Trustwave - Dismissed since they were using a rebranded DUO
SecureAuth - In Appeal
Entrust - a wash. They were infringing on each other.
The rest are on hold until SecureAuth appeal is decided.
Nice. /GolfClap
That we know of...
SFOR is not currently eligible, but some of our channel partners are eligible to sell to the DOD.
So it is a different guy then, correct?
Is this the guy? https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-n-christos-72326514/detail/photo/
Does not really look like this guy: https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-n-christos-72326514/detail/photo/
Also, https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127381101
"Peter N. Christos, Chairman since June 2015, is a Wall Street executive with 30+ years experience."
https://www.newsnowwarsaw.com/winona-lake-councilman-boathouse-owner-pleads-guilty-felony-domestic-battery/
"41-year-old Peter Christos"
So unless he started at 11 years old as an "executive", I doubt it the same guy.
Does that help?
How about "Susan"?
A single zero? There are 3 more zeros. It is 1000 times difference.
Yes, I know what their past looks like. I also know what may happen in the future. It is worth the risk for me.
What version are you on? Mine shows 4.01.0112 and I downloaded it and installed it on 8/31/2018
Thank you for your answer.
"This software was printed years ago." - Odd, I own it also since Dec 2016. I have downloaded and updated it 3 times since then and one of them I know was adding support for Windows 10. I had trouble on my Win10 desktop prior to that update (it would sometimes give me the 0123456789 stuff in a google search box). So I know it is being updated.
"You’re acting like an OTC stock is AAPL and you’re going to be billionaire" - Really? When did I claim anything like this? All I was asking is if a channel partner can sell SFOR products to the government. Millionaire maybe at some point if all goes well, billionaire highly doubtful.
I am asking you opinion. What I speculate on should not matter.
So, in your opinion, can Alvarez sell SFOR products to the government? Simple yes or no is all I am looking for.
Note: I am not asking if they are selling. I am asking "can" then sell.
All I am requesting from you is a yes or no response to the question.
I really don't want to debate the other parts of "where is the money" or "where are the deals" or "where is your proof". Let just pretend I have none of those answers and anything I say would be unsupported DD or a bad interpretation of the facts.
So, can ALVAREZ sell SFOR products to the government?
Not sure what you want a link to.
ALVAREZ, LLC has "an active registration in SAM" so they can "do business with the Federal Government"
ALVAREZ, LLC sells SFOR products.
So SFOR products can be sold to the Federal Government.
Correct? If not, please show a link to where is says the government can only buy products that the company that made them has to have SAM registration.
Example, the Army buys a radio from a contactor, does the company that wrote the firmware, the manuals, and made the antenna (etc) for the radio have to a SAM registration? ALVAREZ is selling their consulting services to the government and part of that service is SFOR software. (Not a great argument, but I hope the point comes across)
The money will come if and when the contracts are signed and the products are tested and deployed.
I am asking if SFOR products can be sold to the government, not if SFOR can sell to the government.
No, SFOR does not have a current SAM, but they don't need one if they are planning on using their channel partners to do the selling to the government. They have had SAM registration in the past and SFOR has said that if they need it again they will get it.
So again, can SFOR products be sold to the government using channel partners? Simple Yes or No question.
ALVAREZ, LLC does.
DUNS: 160759135
https://www.sam.gov/portal/SAM/?portal:componentId=24f38525-a064-4a77-b09f-3fa5986c2b48&interactionstate=JBPNS_rO0ABXc0ABBfanNmQnJpZGdlVmlld0lkAAAAAQATL2pzZi9uYXZpZ2F0aW9uLmpzcAAHX19FT0ZfXw**&portal:type=action#1
https://www.alvarezit.com/what-we-do/strikeforce
https://www.alvarezit.com/clients/federal-clients
If it was not selling there would be NO crap money. If there is any money it is selling, just not well as of the last financials.
Can SFOR products be sold to the government using channel partners?