SFOR PATENT will win "EVERY CASE" at least Somethi
Post# of 82690
Posted On: 08/06/2016 1:34:02 PM
SFOR PATENT will win "EVERY CASE" at least Something!
Poster named Small Buy on Ihub argues below the
SFOR PATENT is so solid its a SLAM DUNK it will
WIN EVERY CASE. Its only a question of HOW MUCH
SFOR will win in each case depending a lot on how
good the lawyers are on the infringer side.
..................................................................................................
As far as patents go this one is a definitive win no matter what.
The "discovery" and following procedure "may" reduce the damages if they have good enough attorneys.
but there is no way this case is lost without a priority date earlier than 2000 for a very similar idea.
no chance.
if you read the patent. It will apply to everything OOB/multifactor with a biometric type authentication
https://www.google.com/patents/US7870599?dq=P...mp;f=false
This patent wins something in every case...
Its too beefy and has 2 much clout in the contemporary IT and security fields... There is no way to argue out of this patent by anyone using biometrics for authentication... NONE.
QUOTE from patent
*************************************************************
This is in contradistinction to present authentication processes as the out-of-band security network 40 is isolated from the corporate network 38 and does not depend thereon for validating data. The first shows a biometric validation which, in this case, is in the form of voice recognition and is within voice network 42. While voice recognition is used herein, it is merely exemplary of many forms of recognizing or identifying an individual person. Others include, but are not limited to fingerprint identification, iris recognition, retina identification, palms recognition, and face recognition. Each of these are similar to the first embodiment in that these are a requirement for monitoring the particular parameter of the individual person; including the parameter to a mathematical representation or algorithm therefore; retrieving a previously stored sample (biometric data), thereof from a database and comparing the stored sample with the input of the accessor.
Because many varying and different embodiments may be made within the scope of the inventive concept herein taught, and because many modifications may be made in the embodiments herein detailed in accordance with the descriptive requirement of the law, it is to be understood that the details herein are to be interpreted as illustrative and not in a limiting sense.
Poster named Small Buy on Ihub argues below the
SFOR PATENT is so solid its a SLAM DUNK it will
WIN EVERY CASE. Its only a question of HOW MUCH
SFOR will win in each case depending a lot on how
good the lawyers are on the infringer side.
..................................................................................................
As far as patents go this one is a definitive win no matter what.
The "discovery" and following procedure "may" reduce the damages if they have good enough attorneys.
but there is no way this case is lost without a priority date earlier than 2000 for a very similar idea.
no chance.
if you read the patent. It will apply to everything OOB/multifactor with a biometric type authentication
https://www.google.com/patents/US7870599?dq=P...mp;f=false
This patent wins something in every case...
Its too beefy and has 2 much clout in the contemporary IT and security fields... There is no way to argue out of this patent by anyone using biometrics for authentication... NONE.
QUOTE from patent
*************************************************************
This is in contradistinction to present authentication processes as the out-of-band security network 40 is isolated from the corporate network 38 and does not depend thereon for validating data. The first shows a biometric validation which, in this case, is in the form of voice recognition and is within voice network 42. While voice recognition is used herein, it is merely exemplary of many forms of recognizing or identifying an individual person. Others include, but are not limited to fingerprint identification, iris recognition, retina identification, palms recognition, and face recognition. Each of these are similar to the first embodiment in that these are a requirement for monitoring the particular parameter of the individual person; including the parameter to a mathematical representation or algorithm therefore; retrieving a previously stored sample (biometric data), thereof from a database and comparing the stored sample with the input of the accessor.
Because many varying and different embodiments may be made within the scope of the inventive concept herein taught, and because many modifications may be made in the embodiments herein detailed in accordance with the descriptive requirement of the law, it is to be understood that the details herein are to be interpreted as illustrative and not in a limiting sense.
(0)
(0)