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.
barge,
it is my opinion that you are peddling diversion.
Again, for clarity ... I believe Janus has nothing to do with Wave. You feel otherwise.
That HIT or NEC or HP or anybody has ever "acknowledged the Wavemeter" it totally irrelevant or to use your word "specious".
Whether HP has or has not acknowledged the Wavemeter is not germane to whether the MSFT-Sony-Phillips-ITRU juggernaut has elected to license, employ, or plan for Wavemeter inclusion in the Janus monster. I believe they have not. You seem to think that the failed KidCard effort in Belgium has some bearing on this. Again, I do not think so and I believe the market and common sense echoes my sentiments and not yours. I believe the Shear and Palladium patents adequately describe the IP deployed in Janus and adequately provide for the client side use that you errantly call metering. You seem to disagree and point to the failed Zaptronix effort as your proof.
Confusing to me is why you repeatedly cite a failed effort by Wave to argue that Janus=Wavemeter.
I believe any astute reader can easily determine the comparative validity of our differing points of view.
Your rhetoric about me posting 27/7 is nothing but an inflammatory attack with no basis in reality. I post during a narrow time frame, I average around a post or two a day, and rarely eclipse 6 posts in any day.
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
barge, we are now getting somewhere,
... and among the client side digital consumption that is *not* Wave space is consumption under Janus as currently formulated. You feel Janus is WaveMetering whereas I, SKS, and many others feel it is not. I believe you blur Metering into all client-side consumption.
Again, the Shear patents and an evaluation of the patents protecting real time clocks would do well to assist you in amending what I beleive are your errant perceptions.
We all decided a long time ago what gave value to the WaveMeter. It seems that collective evaluation has been lost.
Bigtim was generally better at bringing focus to the limits and strengths of the Wavemeter.
I simply lack the time. Janus is ITRU DRM plus the "Palladium Patent". Period. No Wave, not a speck of Wave.
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
barge, I was not bashing
I said your message was out of step with reality.
Compare Waves statements about the Wavemeter (in my recent post to not until) with ITRU's statements about their DRM portfolio and the degree with which their extensive and well defended portfolio enables client side consumption of digital content.
Look at the dates on the ITRU patents. Seriously, slow down and look at the Shear patents. Read them. Google "real time clock" heck, TOS in DRM on the search. See what you get and what you don't get. You will get Michener and Sprague and TTN I imagine ... and a whole lot more.
You really think that that flimsy TTN/WAVX patent can hold the fort against the plethora of SONY-PHILLIPS-MSFT patents running against it. I think otherwise. Sure, there is a niche for the PeterMeter, and it AIN'T Janus.
Janus is ITRU+The"Palladium Patent". Not a speck of Wave.
Your jest towards equivocating the KidCard/NEC/Zaptronics debacle into the MSFT/SONY/Phillips/ITRU/Janus Tour de force is indicative of a lack of objectivity IMHO.
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
not until
First, the “Licensed Patent” aka the WaveMeter does not establish dominion over all client side consumption of digital content. There is a tendency to overstate the WaveMeter patent (although it is not as bad as the pervasive tendency to overstate the Datacasting patent and to blur the distinction between the two).
From Wave:
We hold non-exclusive patent rights relating to the metered use of encrypted data in local memory under a limited license from Titan Corporation to a patent jointly held by Titan and a third party (the "Licensed Patent"). And then blah blah blah followed by:
“We are aware of four United States patents (the "Third Party Patents") each having some claims that are similar to some of the claims in the Licensed Patent. Based upon information currently known to us, some of the claims of both the Licensed Patent and the Third Party Patents cover certain material aspects of our technology. Therefore, the commercialization of our technology would be subject to the rights of the holder of the Third Party Patents unless we are able to invalidate such claims or license such technology. Also, the holder of the Third Party Patents or a licensee of the Third Party Patents could seek to invalidate such claims of the Licensed Patent and therefore be able to commercialize a technology similar to our technology. In either case, in order to invalidate the other party's patent rights, the party claiming invalidity might need to prove that it invented the claimed subject matter prior to the other party. We cannot provide any assurance that we would be successful in invalidating such claims of the Third Party Patents or that the holder of the Third Party Patents or a licensee of the Third Party Patents would not be successful in invalidating the claims of the Licensed Patent. Furthermore, we cannot provide any assurance that the Third Party Patents could be proven to be invalid on any other basis. Any proceeding involving the validity of the Licensed Patent and the Third Party Patents would be protracted and costly. In any suit contesting the validity of a patent, the patent being contested would be entitled to a presumption of validity and the contesting party would be required to demonstrate invalidity of such patent by clear and convincing evidence.”
Voids call this paragraph boilerplate legalism. It is not (or it is that but it is more than that). The patents made under DRM and real-time clocks (both areas exploited by those other than Wave) are well funded, well claimed, and well defended. To ignore the funding, spirited litigation, and ongoing marketing of devices and technologies based on the “third party patents” and to rest so much on the increasingly hollow expectations surrounding the Titan (WaveMeter) patent is ambitious at best. To most it is simply a foolish idea. Hence there is no built-in, anticipated, or realized value of the WaveMeter patent in the trading of Wave Systems Inc Class A common stock.
The important point is, EVEN IF the WaveMeter patent covered all client-side consumption of digital content (which it does not, e.g. my use of this browser on this machine is client side consumption and Wave is not getting a penny for it) but even if it was such a carte blanc, there are others ALREADY THERE, and they have money, lawyers, products and revenues based on this space (or at least that component of the space that voids so frequently and errantly ascribed to Wave).
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
barge, no /e
barge,
your summary of the WaveMeter patent contains major oversights and flaws that require your urgent attention. That the CEO of Wave has told you this is not the WaveMeter is a good position to start from in the exploration of the notion that perhaps it actually isn't the WaveMeter.
The facts are SKS has always overstated his hand, and here he is stating it is NOT the WaveMeter.
Review the Wave patents. The notion that the WaveMeter entails dominion over client side consumption of digital content is massively out of step with reality. The notion does, however, do much in explaining your unabashed bullishness on this equity.
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
weby,
this is already rather unproductive,
I simply answered the questions you posed to player. Your last question didn't state competition. It asked who "else" is creating a global trust network or something to that effect. I said TCG is. I believe the gorillas that created TCG are creating a global trust network. I believe that Wave hopes to be a small part of that. I hope they are successful in that effort. I believe HbG's comments regarding the role of attestation to be valid and so far unrefuted in this venue, as such I said "who cares" in response to your attestation question
Apparently the deliberate almost heavy handed irony and absurdity of Baltimore Technologies remark failed in its humorous intent.
So it goes.
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
doma, I asked you
to substantiate the Wave relationship. Your next post did that ably so I deleted my question.
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
weby
how bout
plenty
Baltimore Technologies
iPod
who cares
TCG
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
Snackman, time /e
awk, it is worth noting that
there are many who have tried to organize or galvanize sentiments in a proactive fashion to effect such a change (ditching Feeney). It is curious that it is through the organized and concerted efforts of those complaining here today that those voices to which I refer are banned from this board.
So, was it wrongly repetitive to try to focus on something that mattered: FEENEY?
Is it sensible to ban the voices that point out that FEENEY is more worth talking about that dots-of-fantasy?
Was the possibility that a barge of surf-chips hypothecated to have departed Norfolk for Zimbabwe to find fine homes in Kid-Cards a more sensible use of time and effort than opposed to giving reasonable consideration to DEMANDING a shake-up ... or is the notion that a somewhat likely 6.5 million shares of dilution at 93 cents a share just another round of the dilution that the board leader has so often referred to (although not recently) as not mattering or otherwise diminishing after the several inevitable splits. (I am only assuming we are not talking reverse splits here).
Those that focus on what matters get run out of town, and a bunch of bandwidth fantasizes about Janus and Wave (a fantasy that necessarily requires that one DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WAVE OR ITS PATENTS).
I know, its really the people that have spoken against Feeney and a somewhat arrogant and confused management that don’t get it … and I guess I am firmly among the confused who feel that “due diligence” includes things like assets, liabilities, intellectual property including patents, market size, market share, management effectiveness, management compensation, BOD independence, etc. Dot connecting is great, but only AFTER, once again AFTER one performs due diligence.
Your friend,
Dig Space.
good heavens barge,
I made that claim years ago .... less the word "easy" that is.
Your Friend,
Dig Space
Spin,
So which is it, is the registration "effective" as SKS said, or did SKS commit a "criminal offence" by asserting it was effective if it was not?
Didn't Callahan e-mail a void and also state it was effective?
It sure is annoying the way that Wave management dodges clear speak.
In my experience whenever Sprague Inc is vague, the real news (when it comes out) is remarkably disappointing.
Either way it matters little IMO. Wave is sucking fumes from SSPX, hoping to coast to some minimal revs (6 digit) and hoping that the SEC has the same values as the Voids and will forget everything for a 6-digit rev line, and then the shelf and friends will in theory be leverageable.
They could always exercise more options ...
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
weby, no doubt about it ...
this is a domino game. The exceptions are few. It adds to the binary nature of this and many investemnts like it. Wave is not alone in being a binary crap shoot, and seeing that exec comp is consistent with the notion that they have already landed black double zet ... well then , maybe they have and we just don't know it. Doesn't seem like a clear-headed way to "invest" but at least one gets some entertainment for their entry fee.
I mean, everybody is having fun, aren't they?
CL, SKS has wandered a bit in his statements on revs for bundling:
FIRST TIME:
Wave Systems 1Q03 Conference Call, 05/15/03
Larry Kravinsky, Private Investor: Hi, Steven. First thing, how much is the pure licensing revenue from NSM and what will you get for the basic services per unit?
SKS: So it depends on specific units, but in general it's less than a dollar.
Kravinsky: Less than a dollar. I mean, is that fifty cents? Sixty cents? A dollar seems like a lot.
SKS: A dollar is the top end of the range. Twenty cents is the bottom end of the range. And most of it's in the middle.
** So read it carefully, the range is 0.20 cents at the bottom and 1 dollar at the top **
NEXT TIME:
Wave Systems 2Q03 Conference Call, 8/14/03:
SKS: So what we've said about pricing is, so we're not supplying a chip, we're supplying software to Intel that they're allowed to bundle with their motherboards, or they're licensed to bundle with their motherboards. And our general product pricing, this is not specific to the Intel contract, is in the $0.50 to $1.50 per seat basis.
Stein: I see there's no
SKS: That's true with National, Intel, etc. They fall in that bracket.
** Now th range is 50 cent to 1.50, but supposedly the same as NSM, which was 0.20-1.00 **
LAST TIME:
Wave Systems 3Q03 Conference Call, 11/13/03
We make $.50 or a dollar per platform for bundled software, we believe we can make 20 or $30 a year off of the services relationship with an end user desktop.
** and now we are back to 50 cents to a dollar **
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
PS. Doma, I know you know more than SKS but I’m looking at quotes of 0.2-1, 0.5-1, and 0.5-1.5
Based on the performace of the CEOs comments in the past I am willing to go with a 20% mark-up on the CEOs botrtom of the range for these deals ... 25 cents a platform.
doma,
The CEO (you should pay attention to the CEO) said $0.50-1.50, and then AFTER THAT, MONTHS AFTER THAT it BECAME $0.50-1.00 and was couched in what even a Wavoid would have to call massive slippery speech.
You and I both know it is more like a quarter, but we also both know the number will never become public, so you are safe in both ignoring the CEO and ignoring common sense regarding INTC's clout and leverage versus Wave.
But look at the revs. Tell me, if the whole 1st quarter saw circa 65K in revs and the ceo said that INTC MoBo bundling was circa 12% and you insist that its 1.50 a board .... then
the quarter was 5200 INTC TPM boards.
If you take my line instead you get over 31000 boards!
So, who's being more bullish here! LOL
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
PS and doma, you know as well as I that Wave changes business models faster than Bush does reasons for War. I am aware of Wave's flavour of the day, understand it recurring revenue angle, it is interesting, but I am past getting obsessed about Wave's "business models". I will reiterate, I do not believe Wave's customers or the market has had this adequately communicated to them. You seem to feel it is and has been done.
micro,
agreed, albeit the "recurring" part of that is yet to be meaningfully explained to the market and potential consumers much less actually existing.
So yes, they get a quarter for bundling with INTC/Infineon, and so far that is it.
We've been talking "recurring" for a long long time.
Not to SPIN OUT here, but I haven't even seen it Occurring, which is what I think something has to do before it recurs. :)
The bottom line is (IMO) whether or not Wave has real protection or durable uniqueness in its current product line (which again is a noteworthy demonstration of flexibility given previous foci of WAVX ambitions). I believe that there is a bit of self-absorption occurring on occasion here which has diminished the considerable value of a number of HBG’s avenues of exploration. HBG has been arguing for some time that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and loyal voids appear to think that is nonsense. But then, loyal voids insisted that only a big fat power hungry programmable goliath of a coprocessor stood a chance and meaningful market penetration. Returning to the seed statement of this thread “Wave won the OEM TPM war” it seems loyal voids have back-peddled considerable, and as you will of course well recall, it began with the ‘vanilla as a start’ notion.
There is still more than one way to skin a cat.
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
hi micro,
its been awhile,
while I agree with your post is most senses, I think that there is a lot of Lee-derived pre-approved-apology for failure lack-of-accountability running through it as well.
Wave built E2100 at considerable expense. ATML was building security co-processors at the time. Then Why Blow a Big Hunk of the $120 million in building up E2100? Why do it when you KNOW ATML is doing it? Why do it when you know that ATML is working with IBM.
It O.K. to say Wave didn't want the hardware space. So help me out on this: Why drop the $millions on it as recently as they have? (I know why, and you and weby know as well but Wavism makes for cloudy vision here)
My answer: poor leadership. Weak board of directors. Lack of experience. Wandering focus. (and of course the real answer ... they WANTED TO BUILD THE TPM, to RENT EXECUTION SPACE for APPLETS). O.K., out with the old plan in with the new, now its all about key management and TC services ... fine, but it's a lie to say that their vision was anything other than to build the HARDWARE platform and to charge a fee to run applets in that protected space. Agreed, this is years out of date now, much has happened ... but what has happened is not the Wave Vision, its what the OEMs wanted and what Wave WOULD NOT PROVIDE.
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
Weby,
(from last to first)
Yes I'm still a Mercan in the UK (I've noticed Pr Bush condenses any and all things to two syllables max, hence "My Fellow Mercans"
I actually thought Dig Space and BTK were DECLARED as a duality albeit much too subtlety and privately to Matt, and I was a bit stunned when he used the ample information I supplied to make a "discovery" and a lengthy jail sentence, but I royally pissed him off when I insinuated in my demand note to have the BTK account withdrawn that his outfit leaked personal details.
As I have indicated I would rather post as BTK, but that option does not appear to be available to me although it is not a venue I have pursued with any vigour.
We are not both wrong, but we are indeed both premature although I tried to identify current leaders (ATML, Infineon) and not crown a winner (other than to reject Wave as the Winner of the Day).
On the ‘getting the hardware in idea’ … this is part of Wavoid myopia. Scores perhaps hundreds of companies have been trying to effect this and driving products into the market that are essentially limited versions of client side hardware security. Even the dingles and the dongles of which likely millions have been sold are part of this as are many varieties of smart card readers and so on. Indeed, while this is an old dead horse of a company that appears to have failed, Corvadis was ready to deploy level 5 programmable client devices earlier than Wave was. This notion that Wave somehow won a war and made TPMs happen is rubbish. If everybody in Lee was in a barracks in Lebanon in 1982(?) this all would have more or less come off exactly when and how it did.
Wave had little to do with it. And I think, if you settle down to a cosy congac and chill for a bit, you would likely agree.
Yes, we are defining the war differently. The days of "validation" and all the associated wank are gone to me. Wave stated that they planned to make $1 per chip for TPM (E2100) deployment in amounts measuring in the millions years ago. They planned to later pile applets on top of that deployed base. That was the CyberCommm/Finread debacle, the point is ... Wave has said everything, they have said they want to give the chips away, ... and they've said that are going to bag tens of millions selling chips (see CyberCOMM … and they said this AFTER the give-it-away bit).
Keep track. Be accountable. Provide sensible rationalisations. Earn respect. Lose the non-performance bonuses. Its people like you that can make this happen if you just ask the driver for a transfer (which allows reboarding) and get off the wagon for a day.
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
NewWave, I am in complete agreement with your views
as stated or implied,
in other words:
I expect NSM TPM embedded super I/Os to swamp the efforts of ATML and Infineon,
I believe that the IP licensing between NSM and WAVX to be durable through the reporting of that tech to the I/O chip
I agree as you and I stated that NO CURRENTLY SHIPPING TPM HAS INBEDDED OR INTEGRATED WAVE IP (as seemingly asserted by Weby and weets), but that NSM looks promising for such an opportunity.
And I agree that currently ATML and Infineon are in the lead with regards to TPM OEM sales, not WAVX.
If there is something you and I disagree on, I am not aware of it. Keep up the good work.
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
Weby,
So we are agreed, Wave didn't win the "TPM OEM war", I've always thougt there was more common ground here than the trench building sometimes allows.
Regarding the Dig Space = BTK, that has been part of the record for about 7 months. About as long as gokitesurf=surfsup, not as long as zen=h+p, and so on.
I would prefer BTK, but I am not afforded such a privilege.
So it goes.
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
Weets,
Are you actually arguing that Wave is taking a cut from Infineon, ATML, BRCM and friends for their TPM deployment? Did I miss something? I would be delighted if you could correct me on this matter, but AIR NSM’s thingy didn’t work, they are dumping safekeeper or whatever it was for the super I/O implementation (a sensible strategy IMO), and that is the only TPM that had licensed Wave IP, and as it isn’t yet out there, Wave is not getting revs from TPMs sales. Support services, sure. But TPMs? Nah, don’t think so.
Perhaps you are arguing that revenues are being realised as a consequence of TPM deployment, and Wave is taking part in that revenue stream. I do not dispute that.
But the TPM is a module, a chip, a thing you can pick up and throw, and the only Wave based revenues that were IMBEDDED in that thingy were going to be in the NSM product which has apparently returned to the drawing board (albeit likely for a brief stint, NSM isn't going to slog through this as some). But the chips that actually are selling and that are moving are made a number of hardware manufacturers and none of them are paying Wave for any IP that I am aware of (or that is in the public domain) AIR.
If anybody has won the "TPM war" as weby has opined it is currently ATML in first with Infineon likely closing fast.
Sure, Wave gets a quarter or something for that CD etc dropped in the box with the INTC MoBos going (hopefully) into White Boxes. Again, Wave gets a quarter for the bits on the CD, not for the TPM.
If folks are going to gurgle kool-aid and chortle about, should not not at least feign accuracy?
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
(and carl, I've given up on luck, I've been going with reason lately, and it is treating me much better than luck).
Weby, I respectfully disagree,
(re: "What all the naysayers NEVER say is that we Won the OEM TPM game...")
Wave had a product for the OEM TPM game called E2100, it was a big, costly, and heavy (large die power hungry) chip.
It is not deployed.
Competing TPMs are deployed instead.
That Wave had enough services built up around their chip and was able to port those services to complement competing TPMs is admirable and maybe even promising.
But the TPM game (specifically) was lost. The TPMs are not Wave’s. Revenues for TPMs are being realised. Such revenues are not being realised by Wave Systems Inc. They are being realised by other companies. There were naysayers (you may recall) that repeatedly stated that the size and cost of E2100 was prohibitive. There was a kool-aid crowd that said that was nonsense. There were naysayers that said that simpler, smaller, cheaper client security modules (TPMs) were going to win. The kool-aid crowd was wrong. You may recall Wave taking a significant charge against assets when it wrote off the significant investment/inventory it had made in building TPMs that it could not or did not sell.
Just trying to correct some revisionism.
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
Matt,
I have no other aliases. I have only posted here as BTK for a few months and then as Dig Space.
We are clear on the one alias thing.
Thanks Matt, I'll be good.
Matt, I suspect that clicking me outa jail, even if only for a furlough,
would carry with it for you the same relief realised with a 120-decibel oesophageal venting ala Kreme (that I suspect you know only too well).
No bag required less that for the capture of the occasional Krispy aerosol.
Your Friend,
Dig Space.
Matt, you can't believe how it pains me
to see you suffering like this.
Breath deep, grab the mouse, and click me outa here. You want me posting on stocks, and heck .. so do I!
You'll find it as liberating as I.
Your friend,
Dig Space.
Matt, I can tell …
this is tearing you up inside ... and I feel your pain.
Sometimes the best remedy is just to take a deep breath, let the POS out of jail, and fry them if they misstep again.
Your friend,
dig space
matt, I believe you are actually causing harm
Barge has again dominated the WAVX board and (again) thrown it into a false frenzied belief that the MSFT Janus initiative depends on (imply: licenses as stated by other's implications) WAVX "metering" technology.
I am a long shareholder in WAVX, but this fancy of Janus=Wavx is a delusion. I could point to the patents held by other companies that speak towards the lack of WAVX involvement in the stated aspects of Janus, or make a more substantive counterpoint to Barge's REJECTION of the WAVX CEO's plain statement "WAVX metering technology is NOT involved in Janus" (I'm paraphrasing, I would actually bother to find the quote were I not an inmate).
This is stupid Matt.
So I lost it with awk and snack, minutes later "demanded" you delete my account, got over it a month later and created a new account ... and I've spent the last 6 months here. You've pegged me as a multiple account TOU violator. But I have never had multiple accounts, I had one>performed a significant TOU rant>requested closure of the account (as part of the rant)>walked away, settled down, and later opened a new account DELIBERATELY using the same IP and surname ... and obviously massively underestimated the degree with which you would mistake a comparatively obvious identifier into some deeply disingenuous chicanery that only you and Sherlock Holmes could identify.
Sorry, Matt. In hindsight I clearly should have opened the account first and then, before anything, PMed you stating my identity and intentions.
Oops.
barge, O.K.,
I checked out the link, although I didn't read it *again*. Has there been a *change* in it since the last time I read it? I mean, does it have some Janus bits added all of a sudden?
Or are you just trying to confirm that INTC is likely getting at least 30 cents per shipped INTC TPM board?
barge,
I was simply sdaying Wave is not Janus and provided patent links indicating that Janus is the "palladium" patent plus a bunch of ITRU and likely some RTC/TS patents I didn't include.
Point is, your "meter"/RTC gambit for Janus/Wave is DOA.
Now, does Wave have protect IP? Yes.
Is it Janus? No.
Does the Wave/INTC bundling likely include protected Wave IP? Sure.
Does it have anything to do with Janus (in so far as the Janus abilites you and others have described)? No.
Nice effort at misdirection.
Does this mean MSFT and Wavx won't come to SOME agreement? No. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Let's face it barge, MSFT is a very fickle dance partner with a rich history of rape and a thin one of partnership.
And seeing that Booth can bend SKiSS over, ... well, you can understand a little bit of skepticism.
e-shute, barge has lost it
he should actually read this,
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&am...
and read the patents referenced therein (noting that 6 of them belong to Shear), and swing by
US #5189700
Barge is constantly referring to other peoples property as if it were Wave.
Metering was a DRM idea, Wave had DRM ambitions, Shear golfed with Sprague and the latter lost out. Sure, Wave morphed into a platform thingy, first as an applet host and hard-client, then as a key services thingy for other peoples hard-clients, and so on, and yes ... they do continue to try to dabble in the content delivery platform space (where these days they likely license Shear tech to get there) ...
nd Matt,
are you ever going to let us out of here?
yours truly,
man and pet.
eamonshute, would you please
relieve barge of the Janus nonsense.
Barge lives by this quote:
"The DRM uses a secure time stamp from an onboard real-time clock and links to a system-specific ID or serial number to track when a song or movie from a rental or subscription service has expired."
It is usually bold-faced in his ever-repetitive rants.
But, as always, barge doesn't read his own content.
The DRM uses a secure time stamp ... to track when [content] ... has expired."
WavEnabled content DOES NOT EXPIRE. Janus content appears to be PRE-PAID. Yes, it can be USED UNTEHTERED ... but it does not appear to be PURCHASABLE UNTETHERED.
This is pre-paid and then metered use (well, really just subscription control and not really metered). In other words PAID-FOR and then used remotely. This is much more ITRU than WAVX. Wave was about untethered payment and occasional accounting. Wave was about all sorts of content that DOES NOT EXPIRE in the mail, on the net, in magazines and so on.
My cat could tell you that, but Matt has the gag on my cat.
Of course, I haven’t actually read any of this Janus stuff, so maybe you could implore barge to indicate where Janus does actually indicate Wave. His above *BOLD* favourite quote does not (and that is all I read).
Can Janus allow me to download a bunch of stuff, go into a coma for 10 years, wake up on Mt Everest, and USE the content as an authorised unpaid user for settlement in the near future?
Client Time Stamping is a way AROUND the Wave ideas. It is not Wave Ideas. It is more the vision of a bloke named Victor Shear.
BTK
Wavoids are barking up Barclays again,
The notion is that as a "large" institutional investor in Wave (3rd?, which might be ... well certainly more than my 7 shares) obviously lead to the conclusion that (and bear with me Matt, Irealise this is a bit fast for you) Barclays is buying 41,000 TPM equipped machines and a KTM and all sorts of ETS thingys.
My stupid thought is this (and it is purely from memory and perhaps errant but by no means as errant as the DD Voids), again my thought is this ... isn't Barclay's the administrator of the small/midcapp fund offering of an employer usually referred to as The Federal Governemnt of The United States of America. Again, my thinking is that the "S" fund for their 401k look-a-like mirrors the Wilshire 4500 (that is the 5000 minus the SP500 wich is the "C" fund).
From the GOV:
What is the S Fund?
The Small Capitalization Stock Index Investment (S) Fund is the TSP's medium and small company stock fund. The objective of the S Fund is to track the returns of the Wilshire 4500 stock index, which includes those U.S. stocks that are not included in the S&P 500 index. The S Fund meets this objective by investing in the Barclays Extended Market Index Fund, which holds common stocks of companies in the Wilshire 4500 index. A small portion of the Barclays Extended Market Index Fund is invested in futures contracts to provide liquidity.
Because the Wilshire 4500 index contains such a large number of stocks, including illiquid stocks (stocks that have low trading volume) and stocks with prices less than $1.00 per share, it is not practical for the Extended Market Index Fund to invest in every stock in the index. Barclays holds the stocks of most of the companies in the index with market values (i.e., a company's market price per share multiplied by the number of shares outstanding) greater than $1 billion. Barclays buys the stock of a company in the same proportion as the market value of that stock relative to the market value of the rest of the index. For stocks with market values below $1 billion, Barclays uses a sampling technique to select stocks that represent the various industry sectors that the Wilshire 4500 index comprises. The Barclays Extended Market Index Fund held stocks of 3,276 companies, as of December 31, 2002.
So the point is, can somebody please divest Wavoids of the Barcalys dillusion, and indeed, that of *ANY* stock. The world's largest employer parks 401k money there. Is there a US stock where Barclays is *NOT* a big holder?
While weby has gone into an "I hate everybody mode" (the last gasp of a disappointed long, and awk has long lost it, e-shute represents a strange albeit vacuous grasp at consistency. oops, but then I forgot, we lost rachelise as well.
Once the voids actually put together the body count of the 80-90% miss in revs, and notice the absent "loyal longs" this anchor is going south.
My current suspicion is that 24601 has sensibly dumped his WAVX holdings.
Having have hiked in the Lake District,
I find this DD post from the land-of-the-ever-considered to be most remarkable:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=3099118
Perhaps dizzy is a better word than remarkable.
Seems E-shute has recovered without comment from his 80-90% underestimation of revs, all of course based on solid DD of which he maintains a website essentially broadcasting the inevitability of these things.
I am loath to imagine what would be the demise of myself or another "basher" were I to miss by such a margin. But all is well and the ca. 80% miss was bullish to our friend from Singapore.
It is a cult, all news is good news: stock goes up, that is good, stock goes down that is good.
There could be a plurality on this MATT. Were you to allow it.
Reread all of dig space’s posts and tell me what you have a problem with.
Does that work for me too?
Is that what your secretary is waiting for?
Earnings consensus is $300k with some range
eamon is in at $300k
soros ca. $200k+
snackman is out on a limb saying somewhere between about $65k and $100K and $1 million in under 8 years (now that is one cowed void)
the rest are calling for $300kish some Chicago types it seems and the surf-ethicist.
tofu went for $65k (he, like random1, always willing to back up the purportedly obvious with the absolutely pathetic).
I’ll weigh in at around 85k this time, have underestimated last time.
The real question, and the obvious ethical breach that 24 likely has defended somewhere is the lack of reporting of exec comp for the last year in the annual report.
What arrogant dogs.
Uh, matt, ...
you and I have the same secretary? these secretary pools, stuff in, nothing out.