Obviously someone doesn't understand IT and/or SFO
Post# of 82672
(Total Views: 795)
Posted On: 05/08/2018 7:06:46 PM
Obviously someone doesn't understand IT and/or SFOR IP methods for processing! They are also throwing in another '698 Claim "53", before it was Claim 54 -- the Greek God and WWII era had nothing to do with '698 Claim 54, so they change gears to more modern, but still dumber than a box of ROCKs challenge!
SA Team are definitely HIGH on something out there in CA, but came down long enough recently to realize they needed a good Attorney that can handle the settlement with licensing!!
This is a SFOR SLAM DUNK! I look forward to litigation wins/ "funds" pouring into the SFOR coffers from SA and ALL current litigations say by around the SEP/OCT timeframe MK mentioned in the Uptick interview!
The "FED" Court Judge will most likely laugh himself so hard right out of his chair!
And not only the above ridiculous challenge, then with recent Supreme Court ruling PTAB IPR validates and don't bog down the courts with nonsense challenges - JUST LIKE THIS ONE BY SA!
So SA's challenge is now that pre-school admin calls parent on the telephone (not cell, but would NOT matter anyway!) to confirm the relative standing in front of them can pick-up their child. Relative at school provides ID to admin person. When admin calls parent the info is then matched.
'698 Claim 53:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8484698
SA is trying to compare Hemp Apples to Florida Sunshine Oranges! The Judge will toss this SOON! I guess SFOR needs to reply this month by 21 MAY and be done with this ridiculous SA tactic delay!
Thank you for posting ZPaul!
$SFOR/ BST STRONG!!!!
SA Team are definitely HIGH on something out there in CA, but came down long enough recently to realize they needed a good Attorney that can handle the settlement with licensing!!
This is a SFOR SLAM DUNK! I look forward to litigation wins/ "funds" pouring into the SFOR coffers from SA and ALL current litigations say by around the SEP/OCT timeframe MK mentioned in the Uptick interview!
The "FED" Court Judge will most likely laugh himself so hard right out of his chair!
And not only the above ridiculous challenge, then with recent Supreme Court ruling PTAB IPR validates and don't bog down the courts with nonsense challenges - JUST LIKE THIS ONE BY SA!
So SA's challenge is now that pre-school admin calls parent on the telephone (not cell, but would NOT matter anyway!) to confirm the relative standing in front of them can pick-up their child. Relative at school provides ID to admin person. When admin calls parent the info is then matched.
'698 Claim 53:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8484698
Quote:
53. A software method for employing a multichannel security system to control access to a computer, comprising the steps of:
receiving in a first channel a login identification demand to access a host computer also in the first channel;
verifying the login identification;
receiving at a security computer in a second channel the demand for access and the login identification;
outputting from the security computer a prompt requesting a transmission of data;
receiving the transmitted data at the security computer;
comparing the transmitted data to predetermined data; and
depending on the comparison of the transmitted and the predetermined data, outputting an instruction from the security computer to the host computer to grant access to the host computer or deny access thereto.
SA is trying to compare Hemp Apples to Florida Sunshine Oranges! The Judge will toss this SOON! I guess SFOR needs to reply this month by 21 MAY and be done with this ridiculous SA tactic delay!
Thank you for posting ZPaul!
$SFOR/ BST STRONG!!!!
(7)
(0)Zerify Inc (ZRFY) Stock Research Links
$SFOR/SFT and BSAFE/BST STRONG!!!!
Parent: https://www.strikeforcetech.com
Subsidiary: https://www.blocksafetech.com
Parent: https://www.strikeforcetech.com
Subsidiary: https://www.blocksafetech.com
Scroll down for more posts ▼