Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I recall seeing the TCG-toolkit a couple of weeks ago. eom
The CB thing looks very similar to the
USMA deal. TCG/TPM platform is not meaninfully deployed. Anybody that is going to deploy such things must develop and evaluate their particular solution/application. Wave is providing the software/service for this front end development work. It may be the case that CB will require less training, but perhaps purchase more seats for such development and evaluation. I perceive it as development and evaluation of the TCG/TPM solution etc and not an evaluation of Wave per se.
Regards,
Dig Space.
doma/SL, does not the appplication you refer to
address the top of the TSS, and the TDDL is essentially at the bottom? Is it not the case that if the bottom fits (as in Infineons TDDL works with Infineons TPM) it does not mean that the top necessarily fits (that a given app will make the correct calls to the top of the Infineon TSS stack). I thought that was the whole point of what NTRU and Wave were providing in this space, that NTRU has solved the bottom of the stack for multiple TPM vendors, and Wave has solved the top of the stack for multiple TSS vendors (and hence all TPM vendors + NTRU compatibility). Perhaps I am overinterpreting what I perceive to be a layered vectoral solution and that the availability and the (again perhaps) use of bypass shunts (so-to-speak) renders my perception errant.
Regards,
Dig Space.
surfs, Utimaco looks like a likely vendor for such services. They are an established leader in providing "ETS-like" software to laptop platforms.
Regards,
Dig Space.
bowWave/Sheldon, it seems an interoperable TDDL is part of what NTRU has brought to the table. I find it difficult to imagine Wave gave this to NTRU. My perception is that various TPM vendors have their own TDDL, and NTRU has a more interoperable TDDL. My understanding is that while the TCG spec essentially assigns the TDDL to the TPM vendor, NTRU has extended their stack lower to incorporate this layer thereby standardizing the TSS which Wave's software runs on top of interfacing the TSS to e.g. MSCAPI.
No?
Regards,
Dig Space.
24601, 10k by March 16th, 2005 IMO ...
http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/form10-k.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/form10-q.pdf
Based on the notion that accelerated filers are those with a mktcap >$75million on the last business day of the most recent Q2, Wave meets the criteria for an accelerated filer. (Wave had 67 million shares which closed at $1.30 on June 30, 2004).
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8507.htm
It very much appears that Wave must file 10-k for fy2004 by March 16th 2005.
At least that is how I read it.
Regards,
Dig Space
24601, I was under the impression that had changed …
although Wave is straddling the accelerated cut-off point of mktcap $75 mill, as I understand it.
http://www.smartpros.com/x45920.xml
"Under the amended rules, for an additional year the deadline for accelerated filers will remain at 75 days after year end for annual reports and at 40 days after quarter end for quarterly reports. The accelerated filing phase-in will resume for reports filed for fiscal years ending on or after Dec. 15, 2005, when an accelerated filer will have to file its annual report within 60 days after year end and file its quarterly reports within 35 days after quarter end. This will complete the phase-in and these deadlines will then remain in place for all subsequent periods."
the point is I thought it was now 75days and 40days not the 90 and 45 that it was when the rule change was adopted in Sept 2002, do I have this al wrong.
(here's another of the same)
http://searchcio.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid19_gci1027318,00.html
Due to the amount of requests, the Securities and Exchange Commission has delayed the deadline for large corporations (with a market cap of greater than $75 million) to file annual and quarterly financial reports
This year, the submission period was to shrink to 60 days from 75 days, effective for 2004 annual reports; and to 35 days from 40 days for 2004 quarterly reports, the SEC said. But these new, accelerated deadlines will be delayed by one year.
Also, regarding the 8-k dell/envoy thingy … seems pretty cut-and-dried after the recent rules changes to 8-k filings
http://corp.jenner.com/alert_details_1098297135281.html
“The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued final rules amending the disclosure requirements and filing deadlines for Current Reports on Form 8-K. The Commission intends the new disclosure requirements to provide investors with accelerated access to a greater range of reliable information, consistent with Section 409 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.”
“1. Item 1.01: Entry Into a Material Definitive Agreement. Under this item, companies must disclose their entry into definitive agreements that are material under the standard currently used to determine when an agreement must be filed as an exhibit under Item 601(b)(10) of Regulation S-K. Material amendments to a material agreement must also be disclosed under this item. Companies must disclose:
• the date on which the agreement was entered into or amended;
• the identity of the parties to the agreement;
• a brief description of any material relationship of the company or its affiliates with any of the parties to the agreement (other than the agreement or amendment itself); and
• a brief description of the terms and conditions of the agreement or amendment that are material to the company.
Unlike the proposed Form 8-K amendments, the final rules do not require disclosure of letters of intent and other non-binding agreements. Only agreements that are material to and enforceable by or against the company must be disclosed”
Regards,
Dig Space.
Why file an 8-k, perhaps to comply with Reg FD ...
as Wave is under SEC investigation, the following is perhaps worth considering (from good ol' www.sec.gov):
"The first step is determining what information is material under the rule. Reg FD prohibits selective disclosure of material information. As a result, liability under Reg FD hinges on the element of materiality. As the Supreme Court defined it, a statement is material if "there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important in deciding how to [act]."11 The Court declined to provide bright-line guidance, stating that a determination of materiality is one based on facts and circumstances.12"
You seem to clearly agree that it constitutes a material event by saying
"$5M is admittedly a ton of revenue from a historical perspective as far as Wave is concerned"
Regards,
Dig Space.
bill, selling stock at "huge discounts" is a bit off
Look at the 3 month chart and look at the company's position ... most fools would have expected financing well below a buck. Certainly any fool would also agree with you that the financing was timed to coincide with news that would likely generate a MoMo run creating a spike and liquidity to short against the PP box and complete the financing.
But to pick a point on the knife of the spike and call the financing a huge discount to that very momentary shprice during the spike is not really looking at things from the perspective of a shareholder on, lets say, Dec5th. From the Dec.5th perspective financing was achieved at a massive *premium* and resulted in a (so far) durable share price appreciation to boot.
Personally I think this company has way too much baggage of the moment for significant interest from VCs.
If you want to know why there is such a following, just check out this chart on this header! LOL
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=2069
Regards,
Dig Space.
surfs, surely this has nothing to do with trusted computing.
Wave ORC,
The more one looks at it, it appears Wave is hitching a ride with ORC. Fancy that.
e-shute MLK eom
surfs, inded you did ...
I was apparently in skim mode at that time.
Me, I'm inclined to seek a floor under my more speculative investments ... the sort of thing that can allow me to forget about them or double-up so to speak.
Wave is still a tease IMO because of no real data behind the revenue model rather than for the presense or absense of desirable products and a adequate market.
The apparent convergence into the gov space of a number of Waves efforts over the last few years is encouraging. Nothing has yet kicked me out of my "small important part" mode giving a ca. $500mill mkcap, but that could change.
Dig Space.
barge, you've nailed it
Dig Space ... the Group Thinker !
surfs, certainly you remember
“independent trust domains” (SKS)
and then from the Butler link:
“Create a Federated credentialing system between government and industry where the information on individuals remains with, and under the control of, their parent organizations.”
barge,
understanding the you most certainly recognized that my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek regarding PC imbedded harware .... It is obviously and certianly the case that TPM-type hardare will underpin DRM within the next couple of years.
How many of the such PCs sold will actually be USED for the delivery of such content remains to be seen.
Nobody buys a iPOD to write an manuscript. One can assume very high usage rates with iPods. I write manuscripts on my Media PC. Fancy that. Its got hardware I can't even remember the name of. But the thing can also allow me to run CAD, assemble a *.xls projecting the value of my Wave holdings, and yes ... write manuscripts. Word was the killer app for the PC followed by the spreadsheet. My car has a cigarette lighter. I guess that means I smoke.
Sure, moving these boxes is good for Wave and good for TC. The rate of goodness delivery remains to be seen.
There seems to be an assumed stance that millions of people are sitting at home all bent out of shape because they can't have a rich PC-driven remote-controlled Premium Content home digital experience TODAY. The FACT IMO is they already have a rich premium content experience, through a variety of distribution channels, and sure, TC will lead to significant content moving through TPM PCs ... BUT, didn'tyou hear ....
Blockbuster just got rid of late fees!
My point. "Premium Content:" is Wave 3 (of revs). Wave 1 is basic royalties, Wave 2 is enterprise and gov buying active secure seats and variable buying TPM-aware apps then *later* retail content delivery/infrastructure/protection.
I know, I know, ... in the end you are still a meter guy + applet space rental guy, more or less. And so it goes.
Regards,
Dig Space.
barge,
I have a Media Centre PC, and MSFT indicates there *may* be an upgrade availble from a 2004 (my machine) to this newfangeled 2005 machine through the OEM.
No dice.
Its hard for me to tell what is a OS diff and what is a hard spec diff inthe Media Centre PCs. Sounds like WMP v10 is one, but that is a free MS upgrade.
I bought the thing cause I can very easily burn home DV while watching football on the same LCD. There is tons of hareware on this thing I don't use ... ooops can't say that here ... "nobody buys a PC equipped with hardware they don't use, activation will be 100%" I keep getting lost in the details.
I'm curious if 2004 won't run TvTonic (as per XP SP2).
Golly, golly, tis better to follow than lead in the consumer PC space.
Snackman,
as Larry Dudash's charts and trading info has been asked to leave, could you afford the board an explanation of how your content differs?
Regards,
Dig Space.
Dig Dancer, there was a
*very* brief run to 1.20 with a quick surge in volume ...
it looked kinda like one of your "smart money" folks jumped in for a 150k :)
jaybeaux,
From one who knows less than a lot about this it looks like the first list had some 3481 listings and the second list (5 hours later) had 392 listings. This simplest explanation is that finding shares or otherwise satisfying Reg SHO was rather easy for 3089 of the listings (accomplished in a few hours with no perceptible market consequences).
One could imagine a number of other bureaucratic or technical reasons for the first list to essentially be errantly all inclusive.
The second list does seem to dry up the rocket fuel hypothesis (at least as it pertains to *naked* shorting on markets regulable by the SEC).
It further confirms the lack of value of being on a list that essentially everybody is/was on.
Regards,
Dig Space.
Indeed WAVX IS on the list!
along with some 3,480 other NASDAQ listings.
Pretty unique space!
So, RiverCityWave ....
What content to which you refer is so extraordinarily worth reading? We are talking about a day of high-fives to tmcfadden (self included). There is some speculation about the Xpress PR (although very little speculation, but at least "some")
So when you were done doing your iggy-fest, what was left that made this space "worth reading the board again" versus the general content pre-iggy-fest. Those that opine for genuine statements want to know.
My apologies if I am incorrect in my estimation that in fact the matter is that you were disingenuously posturing towards something that simply did not exist.
Regards,
Dig Space.
yes bertha, and as argued by one BTK/Dig Space ....
Wave is next.
e-shute,
notable is the fact or notion that your site has a measuable Wave Spin, and yet it is *still* referenced ... it does seem to imply that TCG believes in Wave (and Wavoids for that matter you bloody Wanker).
I'd buy more, but seriously, I really have been backing up the truck over the last couple of weeks, and I'm going to have some explaining to do.
Regards,
Dig Space.
bowWave, under the "datacasting patent"
content requires a filtering element for the exercise to be well protected by Wave IP.
“when the information corresponds to criteria individually selected by the user”
In other words, one cannot just fatpipe to a secure HD until its full and say it is Wave patent protected. Filtering, that e.g I want to see sensible liberal ideas and others want to focus on greedy polluted conservative ideas can be a component of a user-directed filtering event. This would satisfy my perceptions of the filtering requirement to the datacasting patent. The PeterMeter is a separate issue, and depends on untethered payment i.e. distribution in the clear, payment on consumption and calculated/recorded on the client side.
TVTonic has always postured itself towards leveraging the filtering component. While there was a window where the value of this patent appeared to diminish (the pipe was getting fatter, real-time selection and payment becoming more viable) the flip side is the content is getting richer, and hence squeezing the pipe once again.
Nobody has been more bullish on the datacasting patent than I. Unfortunately it is not as well understood as it should be, and many false leaps towards the notion that a particular tech is covered by the patent have frequently been made. Your post, and barge's agreement with it, fall "smack dab in the middle" of the considerable misconceptions surrounding this patent.
All IMO of course.
Regards,
Dig Space.
micro, there is something about your content ....
Few here impress me as genuine souls, but you are safely among those few. It is likely my error that I so poorly estimate so many, and I am thankful for the fact that even though unintended you do give me a decent civilty/reality check all your own.
You, Sir, (or Madam) are one with whom I would welcome with relish a Vegas moment.
Regards,
Dig Space.
weby,
or a million posts, depending on one's spin.
malagulu is about above along among around at before below beneath beyond but by concerning down during except for from in inside into like near of off on out outside over past since through to toward under until with within without, or something to that effect.
FWIW
dig space see for malagulu for one people. malagulu for only strong noise of small voice. for malagulu say in noise all thing of malagulu for special notice. dig space wanks liberally in the general direction of pseudo-savant pseudo-insider malagulu. dig space through window for chip peak with of not the k.c. rivulet. fuzzy bear of mega-rivulet special of not prickly pine of same.
player, agreed
The accuracy of those numbers is only incidental to the content of the post. And yes, Etrade puts money in my account when I short. Yes I do short. Yes I have shorted Wave (albeit against the box). And yes, I would have been wiped out had I not done it.
Think about it kids, shorting can be a remarkably efficient hedge when the poop hits the blender.
Regards,
Dig Space.
bertha,
My math only strived towards a general point, the point being there is no real difference per se in *reward* potential in shorting a buck stock and shorting a hundred buck stock. That was the underpinning assumption of the post to which I responded, and I believe I adequately dispelled that errant notion.
Your point about *risk*, albeit a different point, is well taken.
I have always enjoyed your content.
Regards,
Dig Space.
kant,
that is a snackman type response (and before you delete it snack note that it is a point you have made many times).
Kant, please do the world and yourself a favor and recognize that this is a percentage game.
If I short a stock at a buck and it goes to 90 cents I made 10 percent.
The same effort with a similar investment with IBM requires it to drop by 10 bucks for me to realise what I get from Wave.
There are billions of pin-headed perceptions (none of which the board leaders here have not championed)
1. dilution is good, it diminishes share loses
2. options and dilution don't matter, splits make it go away
3. spending half of your last PP financing on the salaries of the founding family is good, the opportunity cost of that capital means nothing.
So (contrary to such idiocy), get this, shorting 1 buck stocks is perhaps the most profitable thing to do as they are most likely to go to sub penny. I could list thousands ... but the point is, shorting at 1.20 and covering at 0.002 happens ALL THE TIME. So you take out your calculator and tell me gains, how and why there is better opportunities. (e.g. short Wave at 1.20 expecting bkt at .002 is 600% AND IT COULD hapend in a heartbeat //SEC//Lawsuits//) Compare to IBM, IBM would have to drop to 15 bucks.
So, what do you think is more likely that Wave goes BKT or IBM drops to 15 bucks (from its circa 100/share range). Huh?
O.K. lets drop to a 30% gain. wave to 90 cents or IBM to 70 bucks ... again ... what do you really think is a better bet? huh, who is really taking the risk, huh?
Why is math so hard?
again, you are a shorter and you want 30% ... do you look to Wve to go to 90 cents ot IBM to fall to 70 bucks. Seriously.
doma, the average investor on my side of the pond makes no hopes of ever getting a line item report for revs ...
how is one to observe whether the sophistry of a wanker such as yourself is born (or should I say bourne) out
Regards,
Dig Space.
doma, I'm afraid I don't understand your question.
I was referring to revenues by Wave Systems Corp and speculations toward the revenues they would book.
Do you expect line item booking of revs, or are you just playing around?
jas and 24601,
ahhh, c'mon, I'm all for the feel-good bullish moment, but seriously, really, positively, ... nothing in the post-AMD mega-financing mega-bubble had you at least as bullish (of-the-moment)?
I mean, I'm with you and every other MaundayMondayVisionary ...
but certainly, this is not the long Wavoids (or your) first high. 24601, you are correct in implying that jas has been of the rare sort that exhibits the occasionally critical moment (indeed far more than your own, as you prefer to take your critical moments privately, and short of being graphic, I am inclined to agree) but that aside, like the better voices (DooWop, SDR, ducati, and lately rachelelise) I will always find it difficult to find considered voices in the place.
I've been told that he who talks incessantly self-spoils the opportunity to hear.
Perhaps true.
But barfing makes a lot of noise too.
Imagine both@#$%
Regards,
Dig Space.
unix,
if you are right, and it is 39k, who's to say the deferred is not entirely that part?
So, allshore,
in you "pro" opinion, what aspect of trading on comparatively low volume in a 2-3 cent range leads you to a "phantom" conclusion?
Regards,
Dig Space.
LD, I'll stick with the first, simply tried to recapitulate the first on a repost, so those to which you refer leading to a 05=3.8 million banner year.
LD rev projections
Q404 0.320 million
Q105 0.65 million
Q205 0.85 million
Q305 1.0 million
Q405 1.3 million
Sum Yr05 = 3.8 million
tex, considering how little I "get it"
(from the resident official sources that is)
it is nevertheless the case that I added 10% a few days ago and another 15% todayon top of the 20% in the .80s a lil' bit ago, so who knows ... maybe there is something to this accumulation thingy, (embarrassing as it is) LOL!