SureTrader
Home > Boards > US OTC > Computers - Software > StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (SFOR)

The case never made it to court.

Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (22) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
Koog Member Profile
 
Followed By 40
Posts 3,899
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/06/07
160x600 placeholder
Initial Statement of Beneficial Ownership (3) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 1/12/2018 3:45:12 PM
Annual Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership (5) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 1/12/2018 3:40:29 PM
Annual Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership (5) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 1/12/2018 3:37:50 PM
Annual Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership (5) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 1/12/2018 3:33:10 PM
Current Report Filing (8-k) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 12/7/2017 10:57:17 AM
Current Report Filing (8-k) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 11/20/2017 12:19:02 PM
Quarterly Report (10-q) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 11/15/2017 5:13:02 PM
Notification That Quarterly Report Will Be Submitted Late (nt 10-q) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 11/14/2017 5:09:04 PM
Proxy Statement (definitive) (def 14a) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 10/24/2017 10:41:08 AM
Amended Statement of Ownership (sc 13g/a) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 10/23/2017 6:02:11 AM
Vita Mobile Systems (OTC Pink: GMUI), Final Phase Prior to Beta Launch of VITA InvestorsHub NewsWire - 10/16/2017 6:42:43 AM
Current Report Filing (8-k) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 9/15/2017 11:13:17 AM
Current Report Filing (8-k) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 9/11/2017 12:00:13 PM
Quarterly Report (10-q) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 8/14/2017 10:07:52 AM
Current Report Filing (8-k) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 5/19/2017 6:04:50 AM
Quarterly Report (10-q) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 5/12/2017 4:00:55 PM
Annual Report (10-k) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 4/14/2017 2:58:20 PM
Notification That Annual Report Will Be Submitted Late (nt 10-k) Edgar (US Regulatory) - 3/31/2017 10:42:07 AM
Koog   Friday, 10/21/16 05:58:18 PM
Re: Gold49er post# 105814
Post # of 199763 
The case never made it to court. No one ruled on the efficacy of the patent claim. Microsoft settled out of court.

Large firms often settle with a patent troll (or patent assertion entity if you prefer the more polite term) if the cost of settlement is less than the expense of going to trial and the concomitant business costs of having the issue drawn out over a lengthy period.

For the troll, the direct costs are kept down by hiring law firms on contingent fees… they get paid only when they win or get a settlement. This can lower the up-front legal fees by 75%. To further mitigate this cost, PAEs often name multiple defendants, spreading the net while keeping the direct legal fees down. That can also lower the risk of losing a judgement. This is EXACTLY what this troll is doing.

The issue is not who found Microsoft in violation. The issue is that NO ONE has found Microsoft in violation.

You said: "I'm afraid you are wrong, It has been tested in Court with PhoneFactor." How can anything be "tested" when the case was never adjudicated in court? There was no verdict of any kind. There was simply an out-of-court settlement. Kay was desperate for funds. Microsoft knew this. Microsoft settled with a patent troll for a cost that was probably insignificant to Microsoft.

You continually throw around the $9.7 million settlement/license fee? Is there any second party (Microsoft) corroboration of this figure. Is there any independent third party corroboration of this figure? Or is this figure only an unsubstantiated utterance from Strikeforce?


Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (22) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
Follow Board Follow Board Keyboard Shortcuts Report TOS Violation
X
Current Price
Change
Volume
Detailed Quote - Discussion Board
Intraday Chart
+/- to Watchlist