Ok after a significant amount of time thinking about our case. As iI h ave said I am behind this company in a big way. The battle against SA and DUO for a win can be had by going into SA and Duo’s website. SA reads as follows:
SecureAuth uniquely provides:
One integrated platform for access management and identity governance – enables continuously, adaptive identity security by monitoring and responding to threats across entire identity lifecycles.
Hybrid deployment – enables organizations to choose which deployment model (cloud, on-premises, or a combination) is right for them as opposed to being told how they must deploy.
Flexibility - in use case, in workflow, in components— aligning security to risk tolerances, risk appetites and how a company does business (B2E, B2B, B2C).
Best user experience – adaptive work flows, passwordless authentication, the broadest choice of MFA methods and when to apply them – all mean there’s no unnecessary compromise between security and user experience.
Increased visibility – via a revolutionary, visual approach to governance that makes it significantly easier and more accurate to spot provisioning, access, and authorization issues including segregation of duty (SoD) violations.
Automated protection – immediate actions engage once malicious or anomalous behaviors are identified, which help eliminate identity-related breaches in milliseconds instead waiting 100+ days to realize a breach has occurred.
Open design – embraces custom and third-party extensions that can be deployed seamlessly as integrated components of the ISA platform.
Find out how SecureAuth can profoundly reduce your threat surface without sacrificing user experience. Because security without continuous identity security is effectively no security at all.
The last sentience is critical to SA argument that should be used against them. Though they quote Greek and Roman and Kindergarten reteric in simplistic terms to the judges they completely destroy there creditability by saying “Security without continuous Identity security is effectively no security at all” so their own simplified argument that they made to the judges is quite a bit different to what’s on their site.( Much more complicated and talks about the need for automatic change) It is not simple and needs to change in order for there to be security. I don’t see how that can be done by the Greeks and Romans and Kindergarten scenarios. Counsel for SFOR and Mark should look to revise the case as SA says it’s very complicated and not as simple as they represented and misrepresented the truth.. Now the question goes back to validation of them infringing on our patents. If we use their own public information as being highly critical in two factor authentication and they are using our Patents that we can easily prove, then we need to slam them and maybe look at the lawsuit in different way. SA council is committing an unethical argument by talking about the simplicity of our patent and how it’s very easy and logical. Their website which is public is saying the complete opposite and goes against their argument and confirms SFOR’s position as SA is representing it. So if SA is infringing on our patents then use their corporate reputation of presentation to the judges and they will understand it’s not a simple concept that has already been presented and argued in multiple courts and is much more technical. (SA agrees with that technicality iin a public forum and explains its reasons for the need of complexity as a public message)Their argument goes against their public message of what two factor authorization does and that’s misleading to the judges and in my opinion very problematic to their case. Someone please send to council and or Mark. Ty Bear
SecureAuth uniquely provides:
One integrated platform for access management and identity governance – enables continuously, adaptive identity security by monitoring and responding to threats across entire identity lifecycles.
Hybrid deployment – enables organizations to choose which deployment model (cloud, on-premises, or a combination) is right for them as opposed to being told how they must deploy.
Flexibility - in use case, in workflow, in components— aligning security to risk tolerances, risk appetites and how a company does business (B2E, B2B, B2C).
Best user experience – adaptive work flows, passwordless authentication, the broadest choice of MFA methods and when to apply them – all mean there’s no unnecessary compromise between security and user experience.
Increased visibility – via a revolutionary, visual approach to governance that makes it significantly easier and more accurate to spot provisioning, access, and authorization issues including segregation of duty (SoD) violations.
Automated protection – immediate actions engage once malicious or anomalous behaviors are identified, which help eliminate identity-related breaches in milliseconds instead waiting 100+ days to realize a breach has occurred.
Open design – embraces custom and third-party extensions that can be deployed seamlessly as integrated components of the ISA platform.
Find out how SecureAuth can profoundly reduce your threat surface without sacrificing user experience. Because security without continuous identity security is effectively no security at all.
The last sentience is critical to SA argument that should be used against them. Though they quote Greek and Roman and Kindergarten reteric in simplistic terms to the judges they completely destroy there creditability by saying “Security without continuous Identity security is effectively no security at all” so their own simplified argument that they made to the judges is quite a bit different to what’s on their site.( Much more complicated and talks about the need for automatic change) It is not simple and needs to change in order for there to be security. I don’t see how that can be done by the Greeks and Romans and Kindergarten scenarios. Counsel for SFOR and Mark should look to revise the case as SA says it’s very complicated and not as simple as they represented and misrepresented the truth.. Now the question goes back to validation of them infringing on our patents. If we use their own public information as being highly critical in two factor authentication and they are using our Patents that we can easily prove, then we need to slam them and maybe look at the lawsuit in different way. SA council is committing an unethical argument by talking about the simplicity of our patent and how it’s very easy and logical. Their website which is public is saying the complete opposite and goes against their argument and confirms SFOR’s position as SA is representing it. So if SA is infringing on our patents then use their corporate reputation of presentation to the judges and they will understand it’s not a simple concept that has already been presented and argued in multiple courts and is much more technical. (SA agrees with that technicality iin a public forum and explains its reasons for the need of complexity as a public message)Their argument goes against their public message of what two factor authorization does and that’s misleading to the judges and in my opinion very problematic to their case. Someone please send to council and or Mark. Ty Bear
11
