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.
rachelelise,
The TSS must work to the TPM. The means by which it reports to mid level software (CSPs) and higher level (MSCAPI e.g) appears to be an area of increasing divergence (or else Wave is solving a problem that does not exist). One can work with all TPMs but not necessarily tranlsate all such potentially useful activty successfuly to e.g MSCAPI. CSP is a bridge tool, Wave claims to have the only bridge that can address any TSS. Doma's calim is essentially that interoperability occurs at the level of the CSP, and that no such multi-platform fitness is incumbent upon the TSS (or at least there is no variation in the market place in this regard).
Doma has had brighter ideas IMO.
Regards,
Dig Space.
doma, my point was a simple one,
and that is that folks like you say that the TSS is not interoperable with other TPMs and it IS. You and others then draw a number of false conclusions based on the false premises on the interoperability of TSSs w/respect to TPMs. I may be in the minority, but I believe such errant statements and reasoning should be corrected. There is no "point" other that to relieve the record of your errant encumbrance.
Regards,
Dig Space.
Feel free to let me know of when I can be of help in the future ... LOL!
hamster, I hold stock eom.
doma,
while I agree with this post in general, what prohibits ATML form devloping an interoperable CSP? You seem to think that Wave has developed an interoperable CSP (agree d) and that for some reason anybody else ever developing a CSP for the rest of time is necessarily NOT developing an interoperable product.
Doma: there is more than one car on the road.
Regards,
Dig Space.
ramsey, huh?
yes, if Infineon was to "work with" NTRU's TSS they would have to work with NTRU's TSS (in which case they would have to work with NTRU's TSS). Whew, glad that got cleared up.
Regards,
Dig Space.
gokite,
Put words into somebody else's mouth. Not mine.
Again, from NTRU,
their TSS works with any TCG 1.2 compliant TPM. That is what I said. Doma said I was wrong. Now you cook up misdirection.
Crow time folks.
Regards,
Dig Space.
doma, I'm glad you finally
agree with me and have come around
to the truth I said in the beginning,
the truth YOU said was wrong.
NTRUs CTSS is compatible with
Infineons TPM. That's all I said,
it was and is correct, and I am
glad you finally get it.
Again, if you could restrict your epiphany
to what I said, as opposed to what you
wish I said and what you assume I think,
then you, and any clear headed reader can plainly see,
I said NTRUs CTSS is interoperable with any TPM.
Wave works with NTRU. The TANDEM completes a multi TPM interoperable solution to MSCAPI and PKS11 apps.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Regards,
Dig Space.
doma are you starting to get it?
what one uses is not necessarily explicit of all of what one can use.
I believe Infineon could use the NTRU CTSS product. You insist otherwise. I believe you are in error. Use of the NTRU CTSS would place Infineon in a position of having to either develop an interoperable CSP or license one from Wave.
Regards,
Dig Space.
doma, please
email NTRU and have them amend their public statements to agree with your "facts"
Again, from NTRU their CTSS is "interoperable with all TCG 1.2 compliant TPMs"
they could be wrong ...
Regards,
Dig Space.
Doma, is NTRU wrong as well?
is your argument that Infineon's TPM is not or will not be TCG 1.2 compliant?
Again, from NTRU:
"Highlights of the NTRU CTSS:"
"Interoperable with all TCG 1.2 compliant TPMs"
Regards,
Dig Space.
doma, what data do you have to supprt the notion that NTRUs TSS does not work on Infineon TPMs?
Regards,
Dig Space.
“multi-platform TSS from NTRU provides another tool in the developer's toolkit that will help accelerate TPM adoption,” said David Grawrock, Security Architect, Intel Corporation.”
“The CTSS has been thoroughly tested on Windows and Linux operating systems and will ensure interoperability across platforms using different hardware and software.”
“The NTRU CTSS 1.2 shows NTRU's commitment to bringing flexibility to the trusted computing market. Consumers will benefit from being able to take advantage of trusted computing applications on a wide variety of platforms.” said Kerry Maletsky, Business Unit Director for Atmel Corporation.”
“Highlights of The NTRU CTSS 1.2:
Interoperable with all 1.2 TCG compliant TPMs “
“The release of this product demonstrates our ongoing commitment to enable trusted computing PCs and embedded platforms throughout the world. NTRU continues to work with TPM vendors, PC OEMs and ISVs to deliver a robust, interoperable, standards-based TSS that works in both Windows® and Linux environments and on multiple hardware platforms,” said Ed King, CEO of NTRU”
it goes on and on.
doma that is not what I meant to imply
I meant to imply that NTRUs TSS was interoperable with Infineon,ATML, and NSMs TPMs ...
Regards,
Dig Space.
khillo,
I beleive, perhaps errantly, that
Infineon has absolutely everything
IBM has everything except the TPM
Wave has everything except the TPM and a TSS
NTRU offers an interoperable TSS
This differs from what you said.
I'm sorry that I did not include the adjective "interoperable" when I referred to Wave's CSP. So, again:
is an INTEROPERABLE CSP oh-so-hard to develop, or does Wave have a solid niche (i.e. much too hard for others to develop the same product).
I fail to see the underlying reasoning behind the 'two should be but three is no good' notion in your last statement.
I can't see IBM giving anything up at this point, they and nobody else are the first mover in this space.
Regards,
Dig Space.
doma, folks are struggling,
this is perhaps your clearest post of what one would suppose had been clear for some time.
and hence Wave+NTRU = a solution without a TPM but interoperable on any TPM (NTRU providing much of that interoperability).
Glad we cleared that up.
Regards,
Dig Space.
PS and you did refer to the Sept 2002 patent as protection for the TAN at one time, no?
and nick, much of what goes on here
hinges on whether (even though Infineon did it just fine for themselves) whether other TPM enabling softstuff e.g. CSP is oh-so-hard to develop (infineon not included) or whether Wave has a solid niche (i.e. it is much too hard for other to develop/except for Wave and infineon that is). Its the sort of thing that might allow one to realise where gregs is coming from.
Regards,
Dig Space.
me too! EOM
ootommy,
Your first assumption is just a question mark to me, maybe, maybe not. It seems to me NTRU would be perfectly happy to cooperate with more than one interoperable CSP provider. From an NTRU perspective it seems to me: Wave today, who cares tommorrow.
As far as the well known thing, well certainly, well known to well more than one person at these behemoths. As they were at CPQ and AMD etc. etc. etc. Its a good thing, not a bad thing, but may or may not mean much in the end.
What Peter said about INTU is best forgotten IMO. Peter thought the platform would be constant (Embassy) and the DRMs would vary. ITRU has tried to make the DRM constant, and allow the platform to vary. Neither will be entirely the case in the near term. Peter's whole notion was based on a the renting-platform-space/applet business plan that is no longer the Wave plan IMO. The PJS statements are currently worthless IMO.
Wave IS currently A missing link. Can they defend their niche?
So relevance? ... is it what gregs says and the gorrillas are basically saying, good deal, Wave took care of that problem for us, we'll use that for now ... or is it Wave has significant durable IP that is hard to develop and can catapult first mover in that niche into a durable business plan?
Regards,
Dig Space.
agreed,
I have always felt the patent was for swapping and might play into SKiSS' idea of independent trust domains.
I should add that some pending patent apps more directly address this notion.
If you still have them in a bunch about whether doma did or did not refer to the Sept2002 patent as protection for the TAN, then for heavens sake, ask doma. That is what I recall. (Your notion of "accuse" and "accusation" seems to be misplaced rhetoric IMO).
I should add that your direct quote of me is in hideous error.
If you believe that my recollection of folks here referring to the Sept 2002 patent as everything from the holy grail to a defense of the TAN is in error, and if you believe that it forms a critical and material component of credibility, then for heavens sake, hit the iggy man!
Regards,
Dig Space.
while I beg to differ on what is material
if you are stating that this:
Public cryptographic control unit and system therefore
Patent Number 6,449,720 of September 10, 2002
A universally available, public cryptographic control unit (crypto unit) is used in a cryptographic system shared by multiple independent users. The crypto unit, which is installed as a peripheral device to a general-purpose computer, loads and unloads encrypted security applets into an onboard RAM memory of the crypto unit, where each security applet is run. The crypto unit and the system of which it is a part, provides a secure internal environment in which only pre-approved security applets are granted permission to load and run. The computing environment within the crypto unit is secured by a cryptographic operation center (OPC) which communicates with each crypto unit. The software developer submits a proposed security applet to the OPC prior to distributing a given security applet in order to obtain the necessary permission for the given security applet. Only if all necessary permissions are obtained from the OPC will a given security applet be allowed to load and run in the crypto unit. When a first security applet is finished running, the crypto unit unloads (swaps out) the presently loaded first security applet in encrypted form to the PC hard drive, and loads (swaps in) the next security applet. The cryptographic context of each security applet is preserved in the file stored on the PC hard drive. In such manner, a single crypto unit is shared among a plurality of independent users.
has not on occasion been referred to here as the TAN-patent, then we are not reading the same board.
In any event, if you feel pressed to have some sort of credibility brew-ha-ha over it, knock yourself out.
Regards,
Dig Space.
rachelelise, agreed eom
gokite,
1st, your previous post made some legitimate points.
Regarding your latest post, no, not a chance, I am not going to go back and dig thru all of the posts spread out over a year that referred to the Sept02 patent and 1) my efforts to extract meaning from it and 2) the summations made by others regarding that patent.
I've done that kind of backtracking here before, I can't recall ever being wrong on such recollections.
Take it or leave it, it does not matter, the point in itself is entirely immaterial.
Regards,
Dig Space.
summer,
It is difficult to counter what is rationally the case ... Wave offers a small important part of the TCG platform, should that small important part prove to be lucrative, threatenting, or powerful, others will seek to either take, eliminate, buy, or reinvent.
How does one "counter" an argument that Wave plays in a capitalistic market economy?
One can argue that Wave can endure its environment by virtue of poison pills, potent patents, massive brand value, or effectively infinite resources. Wave has none of the above in the niche they have migrated towards. They are, hence, vulnerable in that space.
Datacasting and the Petermeter ain't got nuttin’ to do with Wave’s CSP IP.
And while doma and others once argued that Wave had a patent on the "TAN" ... such notions appear to have faded.
Wave's current best chance appears in my lay opinion to be in an area where they have ZERO patent protection.
And I DEFINITELY could be wrong (but it has been a few CCs since I've heard the Spragues chuckling confidently about their patent portfolio).
Regards,
Dig Space.
Ramblings:
NTRU managed to cull together statements from
Intel, STMicro, Atmel, NSM, Wave and Softex …
It continues to be the case on this board that the relationship between the TPM, the TSS, and Wave’s CSP and what and who is providing “interoperability” and at what level is a bit muddled. I’m sticking with my small important part argument and that NTRU is as much about interoperability as Wave is. TSS is essentially the interface to the TPM, and Wave’s CSP works with NTRU’s TSS. Between the 2 anybody can crank out a MSCAPI of PKCS11 script and address any TPM. Wave’s role is the most vulnerable in this chain, regardless of the confused notions around here regarding what the word “niche” means.
Wave is becoming increasingly dependent on NTRU if NTRU emerges as the consensus TSS.
NTRU appears to be a private co owed by Sony, TI, and a few other investors.
Folks are used to licensing tech from Sony and/or TI for a nominal Fee,
It remains to be seen how well folks will line up for same from the folks of Lee (and again, I’m figuring a average buck a chip, not a buck plus 20).
NTRU could buy Wave. The tide ebbs and flows towards and away from Wave. I know that the fashionable interpretation in these parts is that Wave has notched off ATML, STM, NSM, and only needs Infineon to capitulate before they become the only provider (unless you ask SKS) of interoperability, but surely this is a bit of a pie-eyed interpretation.
Didn’t STM say they had a 1.1 compliant and 1.2 ready chip? And now NTRU says they have a 1.2 TSS. It seems we can assume 1.2 is essentially baked in, no?
Regards,
Dig Space.
24601,
I'm tired of it sending such thingy's too. I'm wondering if my barf bag metaphor is wearing thin in Lee?
Regards,
Dig Space.
barge, with respect,
niche implies nothing about defensibility.
Indeed, focus on the ecology definition from below, and consider a frequent consequence of niche exclusion or collapse. A word frequented in such circumstances is "extinction". The word one uses is business is something like "bankruptcy".
Indeed, if niche implies anything it implies limited, specialised and hence vulnerable.
My statements have been both consistent and within the meaning of the words. You, my friend, are digging a wee bit of a hole.
Regards,
Dig Space.
niche ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nch, nsh)
n.
A recess in a wall, as for holding a statue or urn.
A cranny, hollow, or crevice, as in rock.
A situation or activity specially suited to a person's interests, abilities, or nature: found her niche in life.
A special area of demand for a product or service: “One niche that is approaching mass-market proportions is held by regional magazines” (Brad Edmondson).
Ecology.
The function or position of an organism or population within an ecological community.
The particular area within a habitat occupied by an organism.
barge, tell me how
"Wave confers to a platform the feature on interoperability"
is inconsistent with
"I believe their [barge et al] trust in the defensibility of this IP [interoperability] is the chink in WAVX armor"
and I will perhaps better understand what you consider to be "wind".
I believe 'to confer' is different than 'to defend', you do not?
Regards,
Dig Space.
greg s, I believe you are correct EOM
Hi Howie,
As you are likely aware, I cannot post on the Jail board except during Happy Hour ... so this is a rare priv.
I completely agree with your statements surrounding SKS, greed, dementia, and incompetence.
SKiSS seemed to indicate (with a wee dose of Feeney) that the 340k was not a codevelopment scheme as you suggest but licensing revs for an off-the-shelf product.
Certainly the credibility gap with SKiSS is as high a such a gap can be.
I'm willing to roll 5% against a 4x-fold appreciation in a year or so.
I see neither ubiquity nor billions. I see a small important part.
Personally I'm more with the croud on the 'question to ask', which is, how much is Xpress costing, when and where are you going to dump it, where are all those Xpress revs, etc.
But that's just me. Otherwise I think SKiSS was more or less consistent Q to Q for the first time. last Q they had 6k and a hint of ca. 20k deferred. This Q they had 44k, my predictions was 26k. This time they more than hinted at 340 deferred, and I expect to see a similar pattern next Q.
But they've sunk some $30+ million into esspress, and that is getting a bit old 9recalling of course I was a Mega-Xpress-Bull.
Regards,
Dig Space.
wavxmaster.
>>"I appreciate that my fellow longs haven't been attacking me like a pack of wolves!!<<
that's what I am here for, glad to be of service.
Regards,
Dig Space.
kevin, I refer not to
others predictions,
I simply offer my own,
and I codify them as
conservative with the
bottom line being Wave in
8 million machines in 2005.
Regards,
Dig Space.
awk, how about a little more conservative ...
... 24 million TPMs in 2005 and Wave products in 30% at an aggregate buck each. 8 million ain't breakeven, but I am again inclined to notice that the last two CCs represent the first two consecutive CCs (IMO) where Wave has not jumped off one boat onto another (You know the: IBM becomes HAUP/ITE/SMSC becomes PCFree becomes CPQ becomes CyberComm becomes Finread becomes KidCard becomes AMD becomes EDS becomes ... you'll forgive me if I've lost track).
Point is:
Q2 CC was INTC, TCG, NSM.
Q3 CC was INTC, TCG, NSM (and STM).
Q2 revs were 6k with (my guess) deferred of 40k.
Q3 revs were 44k with stated deferred of 340k.
Curious that some of the long longs are shaken by a CC that heartens me.
So it goes.
Regards,
Dig Space.
orda, some day
more shares outstanding means more supply which means a lower share price. Market cap is the product of shares outstanding times price. When a company does a 2:1 split the share price falls in half. Sure, future performance can effect that price. And sure, if everybody bought and nobody sold there could be a share price of 1000 and a market cap of 100 trillion, but that is not particularly sensible. Dilution = more supply = less rev per share = less earnings per share = less demand. All serve to erode share price. Certainly, one is inclined to not care about dilution if their investement rises by 100-fold, the point is that excessive dilution stands DIRECTLY IN THE WAY of such a 100-fold appreciation.
orda, I recommend ignoring
share price when considering dilution.
Rather than looking at share price, focus on market cap. Look at what you think Wave is, and what you think it will be. Decide what the fair market value or market cap of such a company is.
Case in point:
Imagine TCG compliant TPM products ship in 60 million devices next year.
Imagine Wave will be in 30 million of those devices.
Imagine that at that time Wave will be able to project ending up in an additional 60 million devices in the following 12 months (essentially 2006).
Then guess what Wave's presence will be worth ... call it a buck.
So, 30 million bucks next year, 60 million the year after (this is all nonsense obviously, but bear with me)
NOW: What is 30 million in revs next year and 60 million in revs the following worth?
Let’s say margin is 50% and it’s actually 15 million in profit next year and 30 million in profit the year after.
Pick a price to earnings: let’s say 50.
So next year the company might have a market value of 750 million and the next year 1.5 billion (e*PE=p). So what?
So here enters dilution! If that 1.5 billion is divided by 25 million shares outstanding (more or less where it was at when I invested that gives a share price of 60 dollars, but at the rate that Feeney and company are printing shares (DILUTION) the divisor will not be 25 million but more like 100 million shares outstanding giving a share price of 15 dollars INSTEAD of 60 dollars.
That my friend is dilution. Much of it is bonuses, options and other such gifts to senior management. It is not just their 750k salaries that they are paid, they are paid stock which dilutes your ownership if the check ever arrives.
Get it?
Regards,
Dig Space.
doma, once again, as it was obviously unclear last time ...
… you assume much.
Was I or was I not a net purchaser of Wavx Class A today, yesterday, this week, last week, last month, etc.?
In any event, carry on.
I suggest that your content regarding the organisation of the technical components of a TPM-based trusted computing platform in lay terms is definitely your strong suit, and that your forays into opened-ended, albeit deniable, suppositions about others is perhaps best left at home.
Regards,
Dig Space.
bingobrother,
My understanding of the average AOL customer is, yes, email and news as you state, but also airline tickets to Bermuda, and flowers to mom, once a year each.
This average customer uses travelocity or cheapfares directly, as do they 1800flowers.
AOL does not then serve these transactions, but only serves as the ISP (and if you ask, these people think of AOL as unsafe, but are willing to trust travelocity and 1800 flowers.)
Wave is notorious for failure to exploit. There are plenty of AOL users that are very uptight about security. Indeed, to the extent that you argue AOL is only about news and mail I would argue that it is BECAUSE they feel it is insecure, not because they are simply uninterested.
People are trying to open this door. Wave is losing leadership.
Regards,
Dig Space.
doma, you assume much eom
howardjoel, you are in error,
Wave had signed contracts in the past ...e.g for $10 million from LTNX (which eventually became SFLK)
What is notable is theat the LTNX was really a one-time deal, even then ... this current statemnt is arguably the sale of itmes off the shelf of which you have more of, and expect to sell more of. A durable prodcut line as opposed to a one time developement contract.
Its not the signed contracts that distinguish this latest pice of Lee-speak ... it is that they are items for which there appears to be a broad market and a relatively low cost ability for Wave to deliver MORE.
(this does require believing at least some of what comes out of Lee, which is arguably difficult for some of us).
Regards,
Dig Space.
could not Wave be dumping SFLK
as I described in the last post and also be dumping WAVX from the shelf, gettting essentialg a better deal than another PIPE round?
Regards,
Dig Space.
RWK/zen musings on SFLK
SFLK has 78 million outstanding.
At the end of Q3 Wave held 1.2 million shares.
I believe this places Wave well below reporting requirements.
SFLK durably trades ca. 250ksh/day.
I suspect Wave is dumping around 50k shares of SFLK per week.
Beginning Oct1 this would mean their current holdings are in the 1.0 million range.
These 200k share would have yielded something like $500k. Essentially my point is I expect Wave to continue to do what I speculate they have been doing which is to dump 4% of the traded volume on any given day, which is downward pressure, but not extreme.
This gives Wave “revenue” (in Feeney Speak) of $500k a month, essentially providing for half the burn.
This program would last for another 20 weeks (ca. end of Feb) after which the SFLK holdings would be exhausted.
Of course, if the market bears it the whole thing could run at 2x meaning Wave holds only 800k sh now and will run out in 10 weeks, or around the end of the year. Under this program SFLK fully provides for burn (more or less).
Regards,
Dig Space.