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.
If it contains a clock function, it has to contain a secure clock function. If it contains a secure clock function it has to contain a (secure) hardware clock function... Do you guys see where this is going?
Falestiiniyeen? Wavoids? Meen, yaa achii - khubbarni.
Good chance, so check it out.
Rachel, One of the main ways one manages 'a whole network', as you say, is on a machine by machine basis, essentially, on a peer-to-peer basis. It's like making an omlette, you have to deal with one egg (PC) at a time. It is true that one machine in that peer-to-peer pair is usually configured as a server machine, but that does not negate the fact that the management software is still running on what is essentially one half of a peer-to-peer pair when the relevent management tasks are being performed.
I know what the waiting game does to you. My suggestion: turn off the computer and have a beer. My new next door neighbor is a nice guy, and after sharing a few beers together... yeah, you know what... :I started educating him about Wave. He's at the point that Bob Gund is, that is seeing the total reach of the Wave vision, and how far it is today. He's going to make his first WAVX share purchase first thing Monday morning. He has a Porsche in the garage, and I told him he needs to get in on the party so he can buy a new one.
The terms are also designed to protect the licensee in the most important way: the patent holder cannot 'hold up' any potential licensee by only offering exhorbitent or unworkable terms. A strong patent is basically a license to economically extort, and the RAND restriction is designed to take away that power of the patent licensor. In short, RAND terms are not assymetrical, and were never designed to be.
Hey guys, re RAND licensing. First things first: first, you have to accurately identify WHAT PORTIONS OF Wave's TOTALpatent portfolio are necessary to acheive the industry-wide purpose which is felt to be unable to be implemented, without licensing on 'reasonable and non-discriminatory terms'. Until you can do that first analytic step, it is not that productive to speculate about any particular licensing terms that may/will follow and be incorporated into the RAND licensing agreement. There is a lot of Wave IP. What specific patents need to be licensed subjact to RAND terms. Answer that question first. That may help bring some intellectual clarity to the questions and speculated answers regarding RAND licensing terms.
On pouring money down a dead end road... Yeah, you're right, but then there are always a few foolish, or arrogant companies just as there are foolish or arrogant individuals. A lot of patent interference cases take place because one company (usually an industry-dominent one) doesn't think it has to license some small company's critical, or enabling technology. The key is in knowing the ethics of the players and industry you are dealing with!
After googling, did you whip out your tattered copy of the encyclopedia of electrical and electronic engineering terms, and read the definition of FPGA/field programmable gate array? Just kidding.... No wavoid should suffer the indignity of sand being kicked in his or her face. Relax, guys. Last week the bears' litany was: "the jobless recovery". Well, you see what happened to that. A day is coming soon, when we will be as spectacularly vindicated.
Thanks. There are a lot of us old-timers here that want to help. My own posting is constrained because of health reasons now, but I want to see all of us reach 'Las Vegas'.
Not detracting from your comments or financial analysis at all, but just adding a comment which should be keep in mind: People (lay investors) can immediately understand TASR's 'product'. They cannot understand Wave's product. That iswhat confounds and belies any mathematical comparison of TASR's p/e versusus Wave's.
Bob, that was succinct. I couldn't have said it better. myself.
Not until it matters.
Yep, last night, at 2:00 a.m.
You are basically concerned for nothing. To understand why, you would have to familiarize yourself with the basic computer hardware and software architecture, and more specifically, the role that the so-called bootstrap' ROM and the BIOS plays. That's the area of the PC architecture that Phoenix is working in, and ultimately, it does involve Wave, as well as anyone who uses a PC, but in in any immediate technical,or competitive sense, what they are doing is something you can ignore.
Amen! And everything else posted (at this point) on this board is just useless hand-wringing, or a distraction from looking at daytime TV. In fact, I hate TV, but for amusement, I have abandoned posting, and taken to looking at the daytime court-TV type shows. They are more fun than either posting is now, or law school was 40 years ago! LOL
I bought a chunk today too. So, if you feast on steak, I'll bring the rolls, steak sauce and a good vintage wine. Actually, I discount the gloom and doom around here, and expect to be rewarded soon.
Mig, You'd make a good lawyer if you understood the law you cite, and have posted here..
I don't see how the elimination of edge/core boundaries in network infrastructure is going to adversely impact Cisco. The netwok topologies are still going to be based on heirachical tree-and-branch -form meshes that distribute or concentrate network traffic as appropriate. Cisco's routers will still be sitting on the nodes where transmission paths diverge or converge.
Nope! Verizon was the resulting company from the merger of Bell Atlantic and NYNEX.
Class action certification has NOTHING to do with the merits of the case to be (or not be) certified). It is procedural, not substantive. Please desist from confusing other Wavoids by this discussion.
Bell Atlantic merged with NYNEX to form Verizon.
Just think, SKS p*ss*d away $100+ million on all of the progress you describe, according to some posting on this board today. What an embarassment of a 'rich-boy' CEO. Disgusting isn't it...?
SPIN, You've proved your point.... It's 'old'. So you are brilliant, honest and totally prescient. So what eles do we need to know that's new?
scorpio_esq
Why not 'cut to the chase'? The good stuff is at the very end of this spec sheet, i.e.:
QUOTE
SOFTWARE
Intel Express Installer CD including: Norton Internet Security, Intel Active Monitor, NTI CD-Maker,
Software drivers with easy Web updates, Product Guide.
Also Wave Systems EMBASSY Trust Suite with Document Manager, Private Information Manager,
SmartSignature.
ENDQUOTE
OT I probably misspelled it yesterday. But I can't see what I misspell, anyway.
With this stock, I've been saying it for the last five years! Even Lady Exec has stopped posting her tag line. (i.e. "p=p").
rosie There's SEC C.Y.A., and there's DOUBLE SEC C.Y.A. Get It ?
OT - Retirement means never having to wait for the arrival of 'happy hour' to get a drink. How's the booze at DuPont Circle these days? LOL
'de minimus'.
These fees refer to what is paid by the customers in two different sets of circumstances, which I will try to differentiate -- without getting overly complicated, when an enterprise has its own internal network which is thevsitus of the TPM-equipped PCs, it will want, presumably to itself handle the trusted PC management functions internally, by its on IT staff, on its own enterprise servers. For this, it will get a license from Wave, and fork up the $10. For the trusted TPM-equipped PCs that are not managed by an enterprise customer, and have to be managed by Wave, the $30 per seat per year fee applies. The real, and only relevent question is predicting the breakdown among total managed trusted PCs between those managed by enterprise customers (the GMs and Merrill Lynches of the world, hopefully), and those not a part of any enterprise's internally managed network.
I 'get it', too, FWIW. But only a bit less enthusiasitically than Bage. With respect to patent matters, I never use the words "can't" and "cuircumvent" in the sane sentence, without adding the caveat, "at a commercially reasonable or justifiable cost (in defensivpatent e litigation expense, etc.).
scorpio_esq
What do you mean by "there is no need for interoperability here..."? Have not you heard of interactive multi-player,on-line real-time games, deployed on broadband-capable incompatible PC platforms??? For the record, that's exactly the Holy Grail of PC gaming, and the Infinium platform portends great commercial success.
Comments...?
Lucky and go-kitesurf _-I'm a 'Chicago guy' though I live in rural Southeastern Wisconsin right now. And Lady Exec, though not a Chicagoan, lives in Madison, so you might count her, if there is ever a get-togather or the like.
Would you sell on a $1or $2 PR spike?If not,then what's the big deal?
Convicted in the court of class envy. Think about that, because if your investment yeilds financial reward, YOU'RE NEXT!
You are100% correct, Weby But be forgiving, as most laymen are confused, and unable to distinguish between a copyright, a trademark, or a patent. (Let alone, the legal pre-conditions for obtaining (or being granted, in the case of a patent), each.
When I read the Infinium announcement, I got exectly the opposite apprension of what games would be available on their platform: what kind is exactly the existing games, those which exixting game developers and publishers would NOT HAVE TO CHANGE, in order for them to be deployed on the Infinium platform. What changes with the change to the Infinium platform is the distribution modality, not the 'content' that is distributed.
For the confused, or non-technical, the change is like that which occurs when one puts a game's distributed content that is on an obsolescent medium, onto a newly developed distribution medium. For example, the content is the same, whether you use a a huge set of punch cards as the distribution medium, or a magnetic tape reel, or a floppy disk or a CD or a DVD or a wireless modem, or a pair of blankets and smoke signals. what is obvious is that the new infinium platform incorporates a TPM-equipped, PC-based, secure platform to add the function of WaveXpress-like digital security, with its attendant new business models, a point that in no way pre-judges the kind of games capable of being distributed or played.
In fact, it sounds like Infinium's initial marketing will focus on signing up existing 'mainstream' game publishers., who could thereby access an additional distribution channel, one that does not now exist. That, was what the whole discussion about 'canabalizing' existing existing game sales was all about.
RE-read the Infinium PRs.
You want us to tell you about 'the next thing'? If you can't manage your own disappointment, why do you expect us to help to manage it for you?
Give me a break! If there are no meaningful revenues, it means that there were no MEANINGFUL sales, not that "there were no sales". (How many pins can dance on the head of an angle? This board will find out.) LOL