Sunday 30 April 2017 The one stop source for free breaking news, expert analysis, and videos on AIM and LSE listed shares


Tern – Cryptosoft update: is it placing ahoy?

By Nigel Somerville, the Deputy Sheriff of AIM | Tuesday 9 February 2016


Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.


This morning AIM investment company Tern plc (TERN) released a ramptastic RNS regarding a new appointment at its investee company Cryptosoft as well as the release of the latest version of its platform. The upbeat quotes were truly gushing, but with net current assets of just shy of £360,000 reported at calendar year-end 2015 one wonders whether we are about to see Tern passing the hat around again.

With plc and boardroom costs to meet £360,000 may be enough for now but it leaves precious little for investing. Cryptosoft has a few more mouths to feed than it did a year ago – and still no big block-busting contract. Tern has funded Cryptosoft but one might wonder how Cryptosoft is doing for cash in the medium term while we await the big deals hoped for.

And so to the appointment of Mr Dan McDuffie as a board adviser to Cryptosoft. Everyone is very excited:

"Cryptosoft is one of the most exciting companies I have seen in a long time," said McDuffie. "Their ability to offer IoT platform providers the opportunity to drive further value to their clients, as well as offer a compelling, competitive security advantage by delivering a completely secure data and authentication platform for IoT, has huge potential in an exploding market. I am fired up to join the team."

"With today's announcement, we are solving a critical industry problem." said Darron Antill, CEO of Cryptosoft. "The many benefits promised by Machine-to-Machine communications and the Internet of Things will not be held back by security concerns. The era of cost-effective, reliable enterprise security, for the IoT and M2M market has now arrived," he added.

 "Our premise has always been that application developers and network administrators must be able to secure data and devices across the IoT and M2M ecosystems in a way that isn't confined by the approaches associated with traditional PKI architectures," said Jon Penney, CTO and Founder, Cryptosoft. "By managing and distributing keys with easy scalability, the Cryptosoft platform, now incorporating the Device Authority technology, is a game changing solution to this problem." he added.

And….

"We are very excited about this important integration with the Cryptosoft platform.  By offering our D-FACTORtm core authentication components Cryptosoft customers have the ability to deploy the strongest security posture around the two principal areas recognised as potential IoT and M2M vulnerabilities; Devices and Data," said Talbot Harty, CEO of Device Authority.

Positively gushing, is it not? (One wonders what the deal between Cryptosoft and Device Authority might be).

Now then, with the shares trading as a massive premium to net assets, when’s the placing?


Filed under:


Never miss a story.




This area of the ShareProphets.com site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of ShareProphets.com. ShareProphets.com does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at ShareProphets.com is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by ShareProphets.com and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.


More on TERN


Comments

4 comments


  1. Mr Ramper Loon

    Device Authority hold a number of US Patents on PKI, Public Key Infrastructure, specifically related to Authentication of Devices..

    http://www.deviceauthority.com/technology/patent-marking

    In respect of PKI,

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=PKI

    Rather than ‘Device Authority’ we get ‘Certificate Authority’. This is all about exchange of ‘Public Keys’ whereby the ‘Certificate Authority’ acts to verify that the owner of the ‘Public Key’ is the ‘Real’ owner of that ‘Public Key’ and can therefore be ‘trusted’ but then of course you have to ‘trust’ the ‘Certificate Authority’ and that trust has been broken on numerous occasions resulting in the opportunity for ‘Man In The Middle Attacks’, MITM.

    Presumably Device Authority’s Patents provide a method specific to IOT and M2M that either totally make this problem go away or make it much harder to perform such an attack. It is likely to be the latter because if their ‘secret sauce’ solved the problem they would not be messing about with CryptoSoft. They would be worth bazillions in their own right because they would own the keys to Cheryl Cole’s Chastity Belt.

    Even if it were to be the latter then consider that IOT/M2M is just a slightly dumbed down example of any computing device so if their ‘sauce’ was truly that good, and protected via granted patents, they would have already Pwned Teh World without having to mess about with CryptoSoft.

    Things to make you go Hmmmmm.

    Of course then we get the problem that these are US granted Patents and as such just provide protection for product sold into the US. I think Tom has an inkling about that one given what is going on with Premaitha. IIRC they have just made progress in the Indian Market and Illumina has no Patent Presence there, not that they, Illumina, night not try to file.

    The other issue with US granted Patents especially in the Computing/Software field is that other Patent Authorities outside of the US set the bar slightly higher and what gets Granted in the US by and large will be kicked out on its ear elsewhere.

    Time for a bit of DYOR..

    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=singleline&query=DEVICEAUTHORITY%2C+INC&Submit=Search

    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=5&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20101223&CC=US&NR=2010325704A1&KC=A1
    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=US&NR=2010325704A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20101223&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=4&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20101223&CC=US&NR=2010325710A1&KC=A1
    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=US&NR=2010325710A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20101223&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20110421&CC=US&NR=2011093703A1&KC=A1
    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=US&NR=2011093703A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20110421&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20121213&CC=US&NR=2012317622A1&KC=A1
    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=US&NR=2012317622A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20121213&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20150409&CC=US&NR=2015101031A1&KC=A1
    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=US&NR=2015101031A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20150409&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20141204&CC=US&NR=2014359736A1&KC=A1
    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=US&NR=2014359736A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20141204&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

    As per all of the above you can see that these ‘Patents’ have been transferred about the place a bit..

    UNILOC
    UNITAUTHORITY
    DEVICEAUTHORITY

    and from one of the above….

    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=US&NR=2011093703A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20110421&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

    Event date : 2015/01/09 Event code : AS Code Expl.: ASSIGNMENT NEW OWNER : FORTRESS CREDIT CO LLC, CALIFORNIA EFFECTIVE DATE : 20141230 FURTHER INFORMATION : SECURITY INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.; UNILOC CORPORATION PTY LIMITED; UNILOC USA, INC.;REEL/FRAME:034747/0001

    Did someone hock the family jewels and then who are these ‘disparate’ bunch of companies and what are they doing Assigning Ownership of Granted or Applied For Patents back and forth to each other? Surely if the ‘sauce’ is worth something they would be making money on it. Dare I suggest it smells a bit ENRT to me?

    And then…. What do Cryptosoft, who have no Patents themselves, gain by being involved in a Partnership with Device Authority in terms of ‘locking something down’ in respect of these Swap Shop Patents? As I suggest if they were worth anything in ‘Doing What it Says On The Tin’ terms they would have already been snapped up.

    I’ll leave ZZtop to explain things…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uMRpNwelDk

    It certainly makes more sense than,

    http://uk.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread.php3?id=34146865&from=28666#firstpost


  2. Mr Ramper Loon

    In respect of Uniloc…

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=UNILOC+USA

    Assuming it is the same Uniloc…

    I do hope for the sake of the other Ramper Loonies on Still Waiting’s ADVFN thread that they are not relying on Device Authority adding much credibility to Cryptosofts bow.


  3. Mr Ramper Loon

    Good Grief..

    Event date : 2015/01/09 Event code : AS Code Expl.: ASSIGNMENT NEW OWNER : FORTRESS CREDIT CO LLC, CALIFORNIA EFFECTIVE DATE : 20141230 FURTHER INFORMATION : SECURITY INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.; UNILOC CORPORATION PTY LIMITED; UNILOC USA, INC.;REEL/FRAME:034747/0001

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/you-cant-patent-simple-math-judge-tells-patent-troll-uniloc/

    Well.. actually you cannot patent ‘math’ and encryption is based on ‘math’…

    “***Uniloc Luxembourg*** filed 16 suits in the Eastern District in December 2012 and about a dozen in October 2012. Several of those cases have been withdrawn by Uniloc, probably due to settlements.”

    Surely Cryptosoft cannot be involved with ‘Patent Trolls’?


  4. Mr Ramper Loon

    http://www.deviceauthority.com/technology/patent-marking

    US8464059
    SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DEVICE BOUND PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE

    http://www.google.com/patents/US8464059?cl=zh

    Inventors Ric B. Richardson, Craig S. Etchegoyen, Dono Harjanto, Bradley C. Davis

    http://www.deviceauthority.com/company/leadership-team

    “Mr. Harjanto is a founding member of the team and heads up the product and security architecture for Device Authority’s D-FACTOR™ Authentication Engine. He is an avid technical team leader with over eight years of specialized expertise in device authentication technology. He is also the inventor of 8 US patents in Device Authority’s IP portfolio. Prior to Device Authority, Mr. Harjanto has held principle and senior engineering positions in several device-related technology companies, including BlueCava, *****Uniloc USA*****, and Sky MobileMedia.”

    http://www.google.com/patents/US8464059?cl=zh#legal-events

    Jan 9, 2015 AS Assignment
    Owner name: FORTRESS CREDIT CO LLC, CALIFORNIA
    Free format text: SECURITY INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.; UNILOC CORPORATION PTY LIMITED; UNILOC USA, INC.;REEL/FRAME:034747/0001
    Effective date: 20141230

    Who actually ‘owns’ anything within this, ‘Patent Troll Field’, and what ‘rights’ do Cryptosoft really think they have?

    I do note that Still Waiting and His Stalwarts on ADVFN attempt to blither on about, for example, ARM. Are ARM really going to get involved with a company that is associated with a company that uses, lack of patentable, technology that is apparently supported or otherwise owned by a ‘Patent Troll’ other than telling them to fuck off when they come sniffing?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uMRpNwelDk


Enter your comment below. Fields marked * are required. You must preview your comment first before finally posting.




Site by Everywhen