So to me another way to look at it, after studying
Post# of 82672
(Total Views: 485)
Posted On: 02/08/2019 8:13:34 AM
So to me another way to look at it, after studying the briefs last night, is to re-examine the bank example.
I found it interesting that Judge Dyk mentioned a bank example in his questioning to RG. However in the theoretical example he mentioned, if voice recognition were used to verify if a user is authentic, it would either then transmit to a computer or it would be dealing with a non computer verification.
In prior art, as mentioned several times in the briefs, partial out of band authentication was the most that had been done. SA even uses some partial out of band methods in their 25+ authentication methods they had advertised before. When the transmission goes to an out of band channel, but is then transmitted back through the regular website, all a hacker needs to do is wait on the original channel and gather the additional information. So inherently, while some of this transmission is still in band, the same security problems of the prior art exist.
Computer based out of band authencation, which is completely out of band, is the improvement made here with our patents. When you use transmit the information to an out of band channel which then goes back to a security computer (which is a different computer than the regular website) you then authenticate more information through the computer in a channel free from the inherent risk in the original channel.
If you are using completely out of band authentication and are involving a computer for any use of the secondary authentication, that is what our patents claim. Anything that is verified through a method that is not a computer is a totally separate issue and is not what our patents claim. So I believe that if you are trying to argue that preschool uses out of band and voice recognition uses out of band even without a computer, when it does not use a computer you are not referring to the same thing that our patents have awarded us ownership of. So I believe, that Judge Dyk's bank example was after he read our briefs explaining a bank example but in our case it does use a computer. So this would be covered. I believe it was not a pertinent question for these reasons that needed to be answered, and I believe he already knows the answer.
I found it interesting that Judge Dyk mentioned a bank example in his questioning to RG. However in the theoretical example he mentioned, if voice recognition were used to verify if a user is authentic, it would either then transmit to a computer or it would be dealing with a non computer verification.
In prior art, as mentioned several times in the briefs, partial out of band authentication was the most that had been done. SA even uses some partial out of band methods in their 25+ authentication methods they had advertised before. When the transmission goes to an out of band channel, but is then transmitted back through the regular website, all a hacker needs to do is wait on the original channel and gather the additional information. So inherently, while some of this transmission is still in band, the same security problems of the prior art exist.
Computer based out of band authencation, which is completely out of band, is the improvement made here with our patents. When you use transmit the information to an out of band channel which then goes back to a security computer (which is a different computer than the regular website) you then authenticate more information through the computer in a channel free from the inherent risk in the original channel.
If you are using completely out of band authentication and are involving a computer for any use of the secondary authentication, that is what our patents claim. Anything that is verified through a method that is not a computer is a totally separate issue and is not what our patents claim. So I believe that if you are trying to argue that preschool uses out of band and voice recognition uses out of band even without a computer, when it does not use a computer you are not referring to the same thing that our patents have awarded us ownership of. So I believe, that Judge Dyk's bank example was after he read our briefs explaining a bank example but in our case it does use a computer. So this would be covered. I believe it was not a pertinent question for these reasons that needed to be answered, and I believe he already knows the answer.
(12)
(0)Zerify Inc (ZRFY) Stock Research Links
My comments are only my opinion and are not to be used for investment advice. Please conduct your own due diligence before choosing to buy or sell any investment.
Scroll down for more posts ▼