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.
Please post here if/when the CA judge actually signs off on his legal decision. Thanks!
Great! I would appreciate a complete reposting by you of all my opinions here. Thanks!
It is his discretion to reconsider his decision or not.It is not final until he signs off on it.
Really? I did not know the CA Judge had signed off on his decision as FINAL. Source please, I don't see it on PACER do you?
For now my faith in our CEO is still intact. You are entitled to your opinions as I am mine on this message board.
One cannot ignore CA court developments. If that "kicks the can" so be it!
When Microsoft acquired Phonefactor it also acquired responsibility for the ongoing infringment or they would not have paid $9.7 million to SFOR to settle.
No "agenda" I believe the company and its' CEO were overtaken by legal events.
Blank Rome only entered the picture this year. Their entry reset my patience clock. I'm happy to give one of this country's best IP defense firms the time to get the job done. As far as DOD is concerned KTLS would have not even been chosen for their 16 August DC contractors cyber attack exercise unless DISA had approved. Even if KTLS met mission requirements there were no funds to order something not already in the procurement cycle. The POTUS recently signed off on HR 2810 the DOD Appropriations bill. However, funding is not available until the effective date of 1/1/18 assuming Congress authorizes it before the Christmas recess. If they don't, a Continuing Resolution only maintains current spending, nothing new.
Until Gemalto is proven to have infringed by Blank Rome you are correct. They will keep the contract to supply the DOD SIPRNET with MFA/OOBA. Even if BR wins they could keep it under license if they pay damages and ongoing royalities.
With their infringing Microsoft denied the ability of SFOR to sell its product putting it in the grave. With its' $9.7 million settlement it brought it out of the grave.
Of course Mark Kay does not "directly handle the defense". That is in the capable hands of Blank Rome. His business dealings are what is directly impacted by legal events.
Even as a long-term investor I believe this is a reasonable timeframe. I also need those report facts & figures to make a rational investing decision.
Nope! Written in good faith based directly what CEO Mark Kay outlined. He and SFOR have been overtaken by recent CA courtroom developments (which Blank Rome are appealing) which delayed business deal developments until legal resolution IMHO.
So being overtaken by recent events in court (being appealed by Blank Rome) had absolutely no bearing on this in your opinion?
Those financials showed modest, steady, incremental progress quarter over quarter in comparison to past performance. Not bad for a company crawling out of the corporate grave Microsoft had put it in. SFOR had to rebuild it's business from ground zero! However, if the mid-May 10-Q is poor I will be critical of company performance based upon what the CEO has said about the first quarter. Even my patience is not unlimited. Please mark this post Ram. Thank you.
Doesn't it depend on the effective date?
Of course Mark mentioned the 4th quarter. Stay tuned for the April 15th release of the 10-K and mid-May release of the 1st quarter's 10-Q report to see if "it's game over" or not. Until then, I remain long & strong SFOR!
Wrong! Check the average wait time for an international patent.
Let's carry on the conversation once we both have the facts & figures from the 10-K & 1st quarter 10-Q in our hands in mid-May. Then we'll see if "It's a scam" or not.
Yeah, looks like a hungry whale showed up wanting under valued SFOR shares IMHO. More coming?
The application process takes three years on average. SFOR is now over the 36 month point.
MILTECH, published in NATO member Germany, is directed towards a military interested readership not only in the EUCOM AOR but worldwide. It is noteworthy that Strike Force Technologies is mentioned by name in their cyber security headline.
Unbroken ascending triangle on the SFOR 2 year chart encourages me.
A 12% daily gain is little?
Falkenstein,Germany? Why would a European based electronic journal ever be listing Strike Force Technologies? Could it have anything to do with SFOR's pending international patent or is overseas marketing & sales going on? Inquiring minds want to know! Check out the ServerIP for yourself: 148.251.130
CEO Mark Kay said "No R/S!" He's always been a straight arrow with me. The last R/S SFOR did was before the watershed event of the Microsoft settlement hitting accounts receivable's. The company was under financial stress before that settlement was deposited back then.
"KNOCK AND DROP" sounds SWEET to me particularly if as you wrote, "the litigation financing percentage disappears because no litigation took place". That would be the frosting on SFOR's settlement cakes, yummy!
I told Senator Angus King's field staff he was right when he said "The next Pearl Harbor will be Cyber & we are already under attack!" on NPR. The Shadow Broker/NSA article underscores that. IMHO SFOR IP can help counter it. If more investors read this article they will realize they are in the cat's seat and become long & stronger!
Sure they can. IMHO it is the stupid thing to do because Blank Rome has stated they may go for treble damages from those infringers who fight every inch of the way. However, it's their choice to settle or fight it in court. The members of their BOD didn't fall off the pumpkin cart yesterday. They know what's at stake. Their lawyers have fully briefed them and perhaps they actually believe they stand a chance in court!
Absolutely chilling but interesting to read Mike McConnell's (Former NSA & Nat Intel Director) statement "We have a train wreck comming, we should have ratcheted up the defensive parts significantly". Shadow-Brokers have caused a cyber security crisis. IMHO they have also created opportunity for small cyber security companies like SFOR that have IP in the "defensive parts" Speak about being a company with the right products at the right time!
Same here. I have patient capital, not hot money. I'm an investor, not a short-term trader. If more time helps put our legal team in a stronger position to negotiate it is well worth it. Like you, I can wait. Longs know what they own!
Agree. That's exactly what happened with Microsoft. We had no clue as to the figure ($9.7 million) until it appeared it appeared in published accounts receivables. Like you I expect an NDA.
I don't know for sure the other infringers are "not at liberty to file another IPR". The US Supreme Court ruled that a corp. has the same rights as an individual. Would that not give them each a bite at the apple at the USPO? I don't know patent law and would appreciate an answer from someone who does on this matter. It may be a fools errand on the infringers part but still an effective delaying tactic IMHO.
That's fine by me. I'm a patient investor. Longs know what they own here. The writing is on the USPO and courthouse walls!
I hope it comes after the bell. That will give people the weekend to find and digest the news. That way, there will be a spike in the pps North at the start of the next trading day. That spike will be observed on a lot of computers generating the higher volume we need to sustain an upward trajectory IMHO.
2 Good US Senate Field Office visits today: Sen Angus King (intelligence subcommittee) and Sen Susan Collins (Armed Services). When I walked in the doors their field staffers had already pulled up my constituent concern file on the issue and were ready for the update. I referred them to the 5 Oct WSJ article "Russia Targets NATO soldiers' smartphones". With that background I emphasized the recent increased GRU threat now to ALL ranks in EUCOM(my old unit) deployed forces and the MFA/OOBA, encryption solution to it. In full disclosure staff has on file I am a SFOR SH. Since the DoD/CIO, US Cyber Command & DISA have evaluated several potential vendor solutions to the military mobile device COMSEC problem AND SFOR KTLS was test run at the 16 August Washington DC DoD Contractor cyber attack exercise the Pentagon procurement cycle is moving on this vital issue. Which vendor they ultimately pick is a decision by the their IT PhDs. Staff assured me the recent WSJ article and my comments would be faxed to their Senators' DC offices for review and updated my contact info for follow-up communications that I will share with this MB when received. If you believe in the increased severity of this Russian COMSEC threat to our troops & that they deserve the best cyber defensive software
on their mobiles please consider visiting your US Senate field offices as I just did mine. Thank you for supporting the troops!
10 November 2017
Understand that SFOR's suit was originally filed against Phone Factor which was then acquired by Microsoft. Consequently, the process dragged on for a couple of years. IMHO "this time is real" because Blank Rome does not waste its time.
Sounds like a reasonable expectation to me! GLTA SFOR longs.
That figure will not be available until late Friday at the earliest, if then. A Non-Disclosure Agreement such as was done with the Microsoft settlement may delay release of that figure until found in court records. You'll recall the Del. court record posted here where the $9.7 million settlement figure was revealed.