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.
The selling of the cookies would be providing goods/ or services to the market.
The buying the ingredients, baking of cookies, packaging of the cookies, and shipping of the cookies would be developing the cookies.
yes, when they are offered or issued to the market. Not before. Before July they were not offered or issued to the market.
Operating activities are the functions of a business directly related to providing its goods and/or services to the market
Yes "Tokens will be part of the goods and services bsafe offers." - Once they are issued. Not before.
it means they did not have anything that was sent to market, they were still developing the tokens.
Did that help?
I am sorry. I can't keep going in circles with you.
"developed" - means done developing
"no operating activities" - means they are not in the market.
BlockSafe has tokens that they have been developing.
The tokens are not issued yet.
So, "As of June 30, 2018, BlockSafe had no operating activities and no cryptocurrency tokens have been developed." is correct.
The SEC approved the STO. The tokens may be ready and considered developed.
When the STO happens it will be considered "operating activities"
Read it however you want. I don't care.
They have tokens, they just have not been issued.
"As of June 30, 2018, BlockSafe had no operating activities and no cryptocurrency tokens have been developed"
"no operating activities" - no tokens have been brought to market
"no cryptocurrency tokens have been developed"- they were still developing the tokens. They had not finished on that date.
"related to providing its goods and/or services to the market" - You might want to lookup the term "market".
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/operating-activities.asp
Operating activities are the functions of a business directly related to providing its goods and/or services to the market.
"As of June 30, 2018, BlockSafe had no operating activities and no cryptocurrency tokens have been developed."
No operating activities does not mean they were not doing anything. For instance, they were developing the tokens and getting them ready to be issued at which time they would be considered developed.
Yes it would.
No idea where you are going with this, but people do lie on their resumes, and bridges collapse, new domain admins make changes they should have known better to not make.
Is your resume 100% accurate?
Then I will wait.
Go to google and search for "strikeforce vs duo discovery"
First Result: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4312470/strikeforce-technologies-inc-v-duo-security-incorporated/
Item 31: SCHEDULING ORDER: that any motions to join parties or amend pleadings, whether by third-party complaint or amended pleadings, shall be made by 1/24/17, dispositive motions shall be filed by 2/16/18, scheduling an in-person status conference on 1/12/17 at 10:00, telephone status conference on 2/17/17 at 3:30 p.m., in-person status conference on 4/19/17 at 10:00 a.m., telephone status conference on 5/24/17 at 4:00 p.m. AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk, all Fact Discovery shall be completed by 11/1/2017; etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 11/30/16. (sr, ) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
Try it yourself.
Now, what would you of liked me to do? Post the entire docket?
Yes, I do know how long penny patent trials can last, I am in another one that has been happening for about 5 years (I recently got into it).
I can wait for SFORs, but I doubt I will have to, if I am wrong, then I wait.
Ok. not exactly sure what you are saying. Are you saying I should have posted the complete docket or something else?
It was the first thing I found when I searched. Look at the response time I had. Does it look like I had time to cherry pick.
EDIT: WHoops, 20 minutes, yes I could of. But I didn't.
Ok, I can buy that. I have not found anything that said "Discovery has started OR was done" for SA or Duo. I will not bring that up again unless I find something.
But why would any discovery that was done before the cases were put on hold have to be redone?
I do a few eDiscoveries every quarter for the mail system that I run. I have never had them have me start over. I have had requests for more email pulls with new search terms, time frames, or new custodians. I have never had the same data asked for.
I am not sure about that.
SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 5/24/2017 at 11:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 500 before Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan. Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/21/2017 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 800 before District Judge Claude M. Hilton. Discovery due by 9/15/2017. Signed by District Judge Claude M. Hilton on 5/5/17. [Transferred from Virginia Eastern on 6/9/2017.]
Sounds like discovery was already done or at least started. Why would they have to do it again for SecureAuth?
Duo was only put on hold so anything that was already done should still stand and it looks like discovery was already started.
Duo:
SCHEDULING ORDER: that any motions to join parties or amend pleadings, whether by third-party complaint or amended pleadings, shall be made by 1/24/17, dispositive motions shall be filed by 2/16/18, scheduling an in-person status conference on 1/12/17 at 10:00, telephone status conference on 2/17/17 at 3:30 p.m., in-person status conference on 4/19/17 at 10:00 a.m., telephone status conference on 5/24/17 at 4:00 p.m. AM before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk, all Fact Discovery shall be completed by 11/1/2017; etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 11/30/16. (sr, ) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
I was just posting the information that you requested. I gave no opinion.
Whatever the outcome of the appeal, I can wait.
I really have no idea what the money was/is for. I was just spit balling because there was an entire thread of how BlockSafe was using SFORs office for free.
Either way, I don't really care. Everything is in black and white in legal documents. If people don't like something then they can sell. I bought more today because I know this is worth the risks for me.
So in summary. Once BlockSafe makes $1m they have to pay SFOR $36k a month for 3 years as a management fee. Correct?
I am not sure why this would be bad. After all, they are using SFOR's offices. So I guess they are not just stealing from SFOR for office space.
Thanks for the info. I will not be commenting on this thread. I have the information that I needed.
Can you show me where the $665,500 is shown as being used as revenue? Looks to me like is was classified as a notes payable. Or are you referring to something different from BlockSafe?
https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=78090230
Between January 2018 and June 2018, BlockSafe issued promissory notes payable to fifteen unrelated parties aggregating $665,500 (see Note 4). The notes mature one year from the date of issuance, are unsecured, and bear interest at 8% per annum. As part of each promissory note agreement BlockSafe agreed to pay a financing obligation to the note holders equal to the note principal in cryptocurrency tokens to be issued by BlockSafe.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=142992704
"Lol give him it. He’s saying they can’t secure their own token" - Where did i say anything about them not able to "secure their own token". What happened to them stealing them and moving them to an offshore account with the name of Mark on the account and now they cant even get to them?
"then why did you leave out the As of June 30, 2018?" - Because it is not important.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/operating-activities.asp
Operating activities are the functions of a business directly related to providing its goods and/or services to the market.
https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/blocksafe-technologies-first-to-market-with-cybersecurity-solution-for-crypto-wallets-2018-07-10
As of June 30, 2018 CryptoDefender had not been released. So "BlockSafe had no operating activities"
"it says right there as of June 30, 2018 blocksafe hasn't done a damn thing. Nothing, no operating activities, and no tokens....." - So nope. Operating activities does not mean they were doing nothing. It only means there were not doing "business directly related to providing its goods and/or services to the market"
Before you say i didnt speak to the "There is no assurance as to whether, or at what amount, or on what terms, tokens will be available, if ever." - "As of June 30, 2018" was also before the SEC approved the STO.
Also read from https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=78090230&symbol=SFOR:
Between January 2018 and June 2018, BlockSafe issued promissory notes payable to fifteen unrelated parties aggregating $665,500 (see Note 4). The notes mature one year from the date of issuance, are unsecured, and bear interest at 8% per annum. As part of each promissory note agreement BlockSafe agreed to pay a financing obligation to the note holders equal to the note principal in cryptocurrency tokens to be issued by BlockSafe. At June 30, 2018 and through the date of filing, BlockSafe has not developed or issued any tokens and there is no assurance as to whether, or at what amount, or on what terms, tokens will be available to be issued, if ever. Nonetheless, management determined an obligation is bundled with the note agreements and determined that 100% of the face amount of the promissory notes, or $665,500, is probable of being settled. Accordingly, the Company recorded a liability for $665,500 as a financing obligation.
"BlockSafe has not developed or issued any tokens and there is no assurance as to whether, or at what amount, or on what terms, tokens will be available to be issued, if ever." - not a fan of "or at what amount, or on what terms" but there isnt much i can do about that.
Looks like the appeal can be remanded, vacated, reversed, or affirmed.
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-does-it-mean-when-a-court-affirms-vacates-or-remands-a-case/
A court of appeals hears cases that have first appeared in a state or federal trial court. In most cases, a court of appeals will issue one of three different possible responses after it hears a case: it may “affirm,” “vacate” or “reverse,” or “remand” the case. Usually, the court of appeals will release a written opinion that explains whether it is affirming, vacating or reversing, and/or remanding the case, and the reasoning the court used to reach its conclusion.
https://answers.justia.com/question/2013/01/09/what-does-vacated-and-remanded-mean-50299
A: The term "vacated" means that the Court on appeal reviewed the lower court's decision, found error, and overturned it. The term "remanded" means that the appellate court sent the case back to the lower court to decide the case again using the rulings of the appellate court as a guide.
Yes I do, same as you. I could sell. My average is .75 so I could easily sell and take the small lose now if I thought there was an issue with this company. Instead, I am buying more to even decrease my average more.
Again, I am in this for the long haul.
EVIO the Quest Diagnostics of Cannabis (eventually)
Thank you. At least is isn't just me.
I am down in this stock with a good chunk of shares, but I am here for the long haul. I invest, I don't trade.
"I see youre an apologist for WW" - I am not apologizing for anyone. I was just stating what that company is.
Do you see anywhere that EVIO has had any contact with that company? That company does not seem like they do consultant work.
Just because a guy bought a house does not mean it has ANYTHING to do with EVIO. He has financial interests in other companies. That is not breaking any laws in of itself.
I will wait for what thehumanchessmachine finds out before I jump to any conclusions.
"Are you willfully blind or are you trying blind us from the question? " - How did I try to do that. I posted information about a company that you asked about. What did I say to give you this impression
I don't know, but if EVIO uses their services I would expect them to be paid.
Do you have a concern if they are?
Interesting. Does not look like a EVIO competitor, but could be a help to EVIO. I didn't see WW connected to it. Where did you see his name?
http://ipurelabs.com/
iPure Labs seeks to invest into technology companies that specialize in improving the relationships between companies and their customers.
It looks like it was a shell company like SGBY initially was.
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=9394909
"iPure Labs, Inc., an exploration stage company, engages in the acquisition, exploration, development, and production of oil and gas projects..."
This may be the same company.
https://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=IPLB
And...
https://investorshub.advfn.com/iPure-Labs-Inc-IPLB-5804/
iPure Labs, Inc. through its subsidiaries and investments, is a technology company advancing solutions which enable brands to engage, manage and monetize their audience. iPure Labs, Inc. was incorporated in 2014 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Your going to love this one...
You argument rests on the word "developed." Correct?
"BlockSafe had no operating activities and no cryptocurrency tokens have been developed."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/develop
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-ed
The "ed" means done or past tense. If they have started the process and not finished then they are developing.
When they finish (ie issued) they will be "developed"
For instance "Rates are thought to be similar in developed countries around the world." - They are done developing they are now developed countries.
It is semantics I know. But again, this is a legal document and the EXACT wording matter. Every word and every comma matters.
This is my last post today. I will respond tomorrow if someone can show my grammar knowledge is incorrect.
(No I am not a grammar teacher)
Hi SissyJane1.
Read the patents, read the cases, and READ the appeal. Then decide if you think SFOR has a case.
Don't take anyone's else word for it. Ignore the billions in settlements and ignore the they will lose. Make that decision on what you have read.
If you have question on what you find, ask them and evaluate the answers.
Oh, also look at what is happening with the companies that are being sued.
Hint: How could these all be settled where all parties in the cases don't lose, the only losers would be the infringers that knew they were infringing (losers are not the companies but will be the companies management).
It is a CYA statement. No tokens have been issued, but they had to have them created for the SEC to approve. It would be like trying to get a house inspected before the house is built. The bold statement below is for is the SEC did not approve it.
In December 2017, the Company formed a subsidiary, BlockSafe Technologies, Inc. (“BlockSafe”). BlockSafe is owned 49% by the Company and 31% by three executive officers of the Company, which combined represents an 80% controlling interest in BlockSafe. BlockSafe plans to focus on providing security solutions to protect blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Additionally, BlockSafe plans to create its own cryptocurrency tokens. During the six months ended June 30, 2018, BlockSafe received $665,500 from the issuance of unsecured notes payable (see Note 4). As of June 30, 2018, BlockSafe had no operating activities and no cryptocurrency tokens have been developed. There is no assurance as to whether, or at what amount, or on what terms, tokens will be available, if ever. Moreover, there can be no assurance how such technology will function, which could expose the Company to legal and regulatory issues. In addition, legal and regulatory developments could render the technology impermissible, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company.
I am pretty sure I responded to that post with the speculation that that was the seed tokens.
Regardless, all of the tokens are trackable so at some point SFOR/BSAFE will have to explain where they went and go. If there is something illegal in what they did I will have an issue.
Until then, I don't care if they spread the tokens into 1000 accounts with names like "Mark Key Retirement Fund".
Yes, ACS paid little, but since we don't know what is happening with the deals (if they exist) we don't know why it was that number. As I stated before, I am not happy with the whole ACS thing, but I understand why it was done.
It very well could fall below a penny, but that does not mean there will be a reverse split. SFOR would have 180 to get the stock back above a penny for 10 consecutive days before a R/S would even be considered.
I am only responding to your post. I do not have private messaging.
Yes, I am annoying. Like an itch you can't scratch. That is why I am here.
People post DD without proof and then I research it. If I see something differently I question them. If they can't supply that proof I consider the DD BAD.
A standard CYA statement and your only looking to the past. I am done with this topic.
The BSAFE that I just posted about was from someone else (I_Am_Ram I think)on this board saying it was SFOR's BlockSafe.
I tend to believe it is since the numbers matched to the announcement that BSAFE would sell the Pre-ICO (now STO) for $.35 to raise $35m. Since 0xA659f537db8cd64292736E9Ef4B9c917db0253a6 contains 100,000,000.00 BSAFE coins it matches.
Kay did a PR saying they were having issues with all the legal stuff to get the SEC approved. Then later the SEC approved. So all that is remaining is the issuance.
Why do you speculate that they will not be issued?
These are two posts that I did when people first brought this up showing where the bitcoins are.
Note: It is a SEC approved STO and not a ICO now for BlockSafe.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=142157709
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=142178943
Summary:
4,000,000 in 0xA659f537db8cd64292736E9Ef4B9c917db0253a6 (Seed $.35?)
8,400,000 in 0x14fDA3B1e131ad2d40E98CfF2722e7D22B96F88e (Seed $.50?)
96,000,000 in 0xA659f537db8cd64292736E9Ef4B9c917db0253a6 (Pre-STO $.35?)
111,600,000 in 0x14fDA3B1e131ad2d40E98CfF2722e7D22B96F88e (STO $.50?)
It sounds like to me, the money from Blocksafe to SFOR will be paid back with the Seed Tokens once they are issued.
You never proved it. You do understand we can't find posts you never posted right?
Telling the SEC and Attorney Generals does nothing for you. If you really want to do this right you would hire a lawyer and file a class action suit. Have you looked into that avenue yet?