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.
Believe the DoD procurement cycle is that ossified/hamstrung if you wish. If true, no breakthrough technology would be solicited by DoD from innnovative or start-up companies not in the system already. As a consequence of that red-tape victory, our warfighters would sometimes not be victorios in the battlespace. That is not going to be allowed to happen because of bureaucracy!
SFOR only made their sales presentation to the DoD/CIO last summer! Then all presenters products would have to be evaluated by US Cyber Command, DISA and DARPA. In the webinar CJ stated they were working with both DISA and DARPA. IF Uncle Sam chooses Mobile Trust, version 3 over competing products, AFTER all product evaluation, the paperwork will be updated/accomplished to bring SFOR into the DoD procurement cycle.
The computer science behind the code creation makes SFOR's Mobile Trust, version 3, the best defensive software for mobile devices on the market today not paperwork! That paperwork can be quickly updated when requested by a Federal Government IT buyer.
IT sales presentations are not forbidden by Federal rules or regulations. Often that is how individuals envolved in the procurement cycle like the DoD/CIO are initially made aware of new software. When his office called me last summer (in response to my letter to the POTUS) his policy advisor stated he was unaware of SFOR's Mobile Trust. Consequently, ACS, (along with other vendors offering their solution to the military mobile COMSEC problem) made sales presentations. Mark Kay, Strike Force CEO, told me he will verify that took place to any caller WITHOUT any details. So, I don't know what happened after that presentation took place.
NOPE! MFA/OOBA protection for military mobile devices being mentioned in the DoD Cyber Protection Plan is all that is needed. Gee, I wonder what little company has the US patent on that? That's right, SFOR!
BIG DEAL! paperwork can be updated if the US Government indicates it is interested in SFOR products. Paperwork is an administrative speed bump in doig business with the Federal Government not a Mt. Everest size obstacle preventing it.
This is the last week to write him, the Sec/Def and Congress about getting our troops MFA/OOBA protection on their mobile devices. As you are aware the DoD Cyber Defense Plan must be on the desk of the POTUS the end of June. It takes 2 weeks for letters to clear the Force Protection safety screening and be delivered. If you believe America's best deserves the best cyber defensive software, SFOR's Mobile Trust, to protect against exploitation by hostile intelligence services (Please read the 2/23/17 BBC report of Russian cyber attacks on US led NATO forces deployed to Eastern Europe) consider writing this week. If you have already done so, thank you for supporting the troops!
Sorry but if Uncle Sam didn't have CCTC sign a Government Confidentiality Statement a deep pocket investor could have had them sign a legally binding Non-Disclosure Agreement. CCTC is at the point of signing their soul over to the devil for a large investment. If they signed a NDA, then the investor calls the shots as to any PR about it. Consequently, I don't expect a peep from CCTC until the WY Mining Conference. Then I hope for a brass band and dancing girls type of very public announcement!
Sorry but not if Uncle Sam had CCTC sign a US Government Confidentiality Statement. DOE would be the one to determine a PR release date at a time of their choosing.
You're wrong when it comes to EOY fallout monies! I personally partiipated in this when I was a USAF Finance Officer. Rather than turn in their remaining funding, Departments/Agencies inform their locations (in my case an airbase) that funds remain for the nice to have items, like building up a spare parts/tools/disposables inventory etc. DOE would prefer to fund energy related projects rather than turn in residual funds back to the US Department of Treasury for reallocation in the next FY. The bottom line is that funds remain to be dispersed by the holding Agencies/Departments until 1 October. End of story.
You're right about a United States Government Confidentiality Statement. It has the same force of law as a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) has in a court of law. Violating it can incur criminal penalities.
Great explanation of the ACS/SFOR dynamic relationship.
MODs, Gold49er's post here is sticky worthy IMHO!
The punch bowl is at the US Patent Office site. I suggest you fill your glass there researching Ram's patents to get in the partying mood!
Yet another great, hard hitting video! If potential investors just go to the USPO site and do their DD on Ram's patents they will realize you are right. SFOR is a goldmine of IP.
Bingo! From somebody who has been a VAR within the DoD Procurement Cycle AS IT RELATES TO NEW SOFTWARE! End of story or should I say the SAMS fairy tale being a show stopper.
Then would you please post this e-mail exchange between you and them for us. Thank you for sharing this vital source information!
It's kind of like eminent domain. Particularly in the case of a critical, operational COMSEC need by fielded US forces that have been cyber attacked by the Russians. (See 2/23/17 BBC report) Add to that the horsepower of EUCOM commander Lt/Gen Ben Hodges concern about believing his "Blackberry is being monitored" and "(U) e-mails are insecure." (See AFN Operation Anaconda in Polard report). That is a powerful combination for getting the troops what they need. The paperwork, like a SAMS registration can be updated in short order if a firm order by "a large Defense contrctor" (as the ACS briefer mentioned in the webinar stated) is received. The administrative paperwork is a speed bump in the way of doing buisiness with the Federal Government, not Mount Everest!
Thanks and in agreement. You either believe Mark Kay or you don't. It's as simple as that. We do, confident our CEO is privy to informtion (with NDAs) that the common SH is not. Besides the potential cash flow sources you mentioned I would like to add retail.
Since the info cutoff date of 3/31 for the Q we don't know how good they have been. Now we get to add the additional sales the next spot on HSN will provide to this organic growth figure which I believe will be good.
Agree. Now facing a Markman Hearing filed by the best IP defense firm in the country, Ropes & Gray would definitely cause "the defendants to think different now than when first served." R&G has grasped their first infringer by the throat. They strengthened their grip by the smaller font size that the judge allowed! This enabled R&G the luxury of presenting more pages of facts and figures in the Markman filing to the judge. That has further strengthened their case. A Markman Hearing is a high stakes game of legal Russian roulette. Permiting that smaller font size enabled R&G to put another round or two in the legal revolver before handing it to the infringer's atttorney. The only question now is, how lucky does that attorney feel today? They have a chance to put the treble damages revolver on the table with reasonable settlement offer. We'll know if they are foolhardy or fiscally prudent on Monday. GLTA longs!
"Dilutes into oblivion" No can do! Please review the legally binding clause of the DART/Citgo note that restricts the company's ability to do so. You honestly think the note holder is going to stand for dilution into oblivion which would greatly diminish their financial position without taking legal recourse to prevent it?
That WMA meeting is make or break time for CCTC. I just hope they are on top of their game or it is game over!
True. However, that million dollars isn't chump change! It is awarded or granted to prime the pump. A lot can happen once private industry has seen Uncle Sam belly up to the bar with a million dollar vote of confidence in the technology.
Disagree "CCTC's government lifeline may be dead." That demise happens on 1 October which is the start of the new US Government FY. Until then, CCTC still has a chance of getting a slice of DOE pie in the form of an award or grant.
Disagree. Just one infringer's settlement would drive the pps North! Just look where the pps was before and after the Microsoft settlement of $9.7 million was seen in the fins.
However, some of the best DD can be done at the US Patent Office site. Once I read Ram's filing date and the specifics on his MFA/OOBA for mobile devices patent I became long & strong SFOR. There in no denying that he has a foundation stone of cyber security. Others are going to have to pay to play with it either by license fees/royalities, settlements or trebel damages. It's their choice!
O.K. Look at that 1 year chart. It's hard to argue with an ascending triangle!
Agree. All it will take is one catalyst and SFOR is off to the races!
Just what we need! No deletion of the details. The point goes to Ropes and Gray. Will it be set, match Monday? Stay tuned to Pacer for that.
It is T minus 4 and counting then! Thanks for that correction on the SFOR case timetable.
No defection necessary. Singapore Telecom owns 97% of Trustwave so they are on the hook to cough up the settlement or treble damages if awarded. Sing/Tel also rolled out its MFA/OOBA service for their Asian mobile banking customers in Oct. Once SFOR gets an international patent (pending) that cuts them out from offering that service (through their US subsidary, Trustwave) in the lucrtive US and European markets. Finally, with their balance sheet, being Asia's largest Telecom provider, they could easily afford to buyout SFOR.
Warren Buffett once said "When it is raining money put out buckets, not thimbles!" Are those nimbus clouds I see on the SFOR horizon? I better make sure my buckets are out and uncovered.
That "storm" could start on June 6th IMHO. That is when SFOR is schudled to submit its decision on whether the infringer's settlement offer is acceptable or not.
"How did the parties get to this point so quick?" Answer: Markman Hearing. Infringers are seeing Ropes & Gray not hesitate to go for a Markman Hearing. That speaks of their confidence in the strength of SFOR IP and their casework. Infringers also could be hesitant to have some of their trade secrets being made public in a court of law. You'll recall Microsoft settled with SFOR shortly after Blank Rome had initiated a Markman Hearing. In the IP legal defense world that is bringing up the heavy guns. It is a high risk, but high potential, legal tactic that won the day for Blank Rome and hopefully will do so again for Ropes and Gray in the near future.
T Minus 5 and counting until a settlement offer is tendered. Then SFOR must accept or reject the next day, June 6th. GLTA
Gemalto announced "its" DoD SIPRNET enhancement, MFA/OOBA. So, it doesn't surprise me at all that Mr. Waller had Gemalto in his browsing history in the demo example. Gemalto is currently being sued by Ropes and Gray for SFOR IP infringment. Bear in mind, Uncle Sam doesn't knowingly deal with thieves! I wonder how he is going to react when that IP theft comes out in court along with the fact Gemalto has made millions off Uncle Sam with that infringment.
Cash flow increases are completely discounted in that scenario of course!
Bingo! "How do you afford R&G" Funny that multi-billlion market cap Intel has the same expensive lawyers, R&G, as small cap SFOR does. Also funny what ZPaul found about their general availibility rollout of Authenticate based on SFOR IP yesterday in his post # 166525.
In excess of $360,000 according to the last Q is over ten times what they had left before Microsoft settled. No telling what the cash flow has been since the info cut off of 3/31. I think it has been good.
Sales presentations are not doing business, they fall into the category of information gathering by contracting officers. If this were not true then the DoD/CIO could not have taken the briefing on the potential SFOR solution to the mil-issue I-Phone COMSEC problem which he did. (can be verified by Mark Kay)