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.
you conclude that the claims are without merit b/c you spoke to some legal secretary?!?
Mig - try reading NY Times...
if DJ/Reuters reporting was the manifestation of "actual malice" then maybe there would be a cognizable claim.
why didn't wave sue Barron's?
or Smart Money?
or New York Times?
the answer is in that Brennan opinion.
you are grasping at straws.
yeah, what Mig said!
comical
edit: research the company back to 1996 or so...
old symbol was "SHVA" & the "LanRover" was their flagship product -- it may provide a roadmap for the terrain you are about to travel...
research company history for Shiva
IMO, it is instructive:
http://www.shiva.com/
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 39
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Argued January 6, 1964
Decided March 9, 1964
* Together with No. 40, Abernathy et al. v. Sullivan, also on certiorari to the same court, argued January 7, 1964.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syllabus
Respondent, an elected official in Montgomery, Alabama, brought suit in a state court alleging that he had been libeled by an advertisement in corporate petitioner's newspaper, the text of which appeared over the names of the four individual petitioners and many others. The advertisement included statements, some of which were false, about police action allegedly directed against students who participated in a civil rights demonstration and against a leader of the civil rights movement; respondent claimed the statements referred to him because his duties included supervision of the police department. The trial judge instructed the jury that such statements were "libelous per se," legal injury being implied without proof of actual damages, and that, for the purpose of compensatory damages, malice was presumed, so that such damages could be awarded against petitioners if the statements were found to have been published by them and to have related to respondent. As to punitive damages, the judge instructed that mere negligence was not evidence of actual malice, and would not justify an award of punitive damages; he refused to instruct that actual intent to harm or recklessness had to be found before punitive damages could be awarded, or that a verdict for respondent should differentiate between compensatory and punitive damages. The jury found for respondent, and the State Supreme Court affirmed.
Held: A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice"--that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp. 265-292.
(a) Application by state courts of a rule of law, whether statutory or not, to award a judgment in a civil action, is "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 265.
(b) Expression does not lose constitutional protection to which it would otherwise be entitled because it appears in the form of a paid advertisement. Pp. 265-266. [255]
(c) Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice"--knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth--is alleged and proved. Pp. 279-283.
(d) State court judgment entered upon a general verdict which does not differentiate between punitive damages, as to which, under state law, actual malice must be proved, and general damages, as to which it is "presumed," precludes any determination as to the basis of the verdict, and requires reversal, where presumption of malice is inconsistent with federal constitutional requirements. P. 284.
(e) The evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment for respondent, since it failed to support a finding that the statements were made with actual malice or that they related to respondent. Pp. 285-292.
273 Ala. 656, 144 So.2d 25, reversed and remanded. [256]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are required in this case to determine for the first time the extent to which the constitutional protection for speech and press limit a State's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct.
Respondent L.B. Sullivan is one of the three elected Commissioners of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. He testified that he was "Commissioner of Public Affairs and the duties are supervision of the Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Cemetery and Department of Scales." He brought this civil libel action against the four individual petitioners, who are Negroes and Alabama clergymen, and against petitioner the New York Times Company, a New York corporation which publishes the New York Times, a daily newspaper. A jury in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County awarded him damages of $500,000, the full amount claimed, against all the petitioners, and the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed. 273 Ala. 656, 144 So.2d 25.
Respondent's complaint alleged that he had been libeled by statements in a full-page advertisement that was carried in the New York Times on March 29, 1960. [note 1] Entitled "Heed Their Rising Voices," the advertisement began by stating that, "As the whole world knows by now, thousands of Southern Negro students are engaged in widespread nonviolent demonstrations in positive affirmation of the right to live in human dignity as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights." It went on to charge that, "in their efforts to uphold these guarantees, they are being met by an unprecedented wave of terror by those who would deny and negate that document which the whole world looks upon as setting the pattern for modern freedom. . . .' Succeeding [257] paragraphs purported to illustrate the "wave of terror" by describing certain alleged events. The text concluded with an appeal for funds for three purposes: support of the student movement, "the struggle for the right to vote," and the legal defense of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., leader of the movement, against a perjury indictment then pending in Montgomery.
The text appeared over the names of 64 persons, many widely known for their activities in public affairs, religion, trade unions, and the performing arts. Below these names, and under a line reading "We in the south who are struggling daily for dignity and freedom warmly endorse this appeal," appeared the names of the four individual petitioners and of 16 other persons, all but two of whom were identified as clergymen in various Southern cities. The advertisement was signed at the bottom of the page by the "Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South," and the officers of the Committee were listed.
Of the 10 paragraphs of text in the advertisement, the third and a portion of the sixth were the basis of respondent's claim of libel. They read as follows:
Third paragraph:
In Montgomery, Alabama, after students sang "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" on the State Capitol steps, their leaders were expelled from school, and truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas ringed the Alabama State College Campus. When the entire student body protested to state authorities by refusing to reregister, their dining hall was padlocked in an attempt to starve them into submission.
Sixth paragraph:
Again and again, the Southern violators have answered Dr. King's peaceful protests with intimidation and violence. They have bombed his home, almost killing his wife and child. They have [258] assaulted his person. They have arrested him seven times--for "speeding," "loitering" and similar "offenses." And now they have charged him with "perjury"--a felony under which they could imprison him for ten years. . . .
Although neither of these statements mentions respondent by name, he contended that the word "police" in the third paragraph referred to him as the Montgomery Commissioner who supervised the Police Department, so that he was being accused of "ringing" the campus with police. He further claimed that the paragraph would be read as imputing to the police, and hence to him, the padlocking of the dining hall in order to starve the students into submission. [note 2] As to the sixth paragraph, he contended that, since arrests are ordinarily made by the police, the statement "They have arrested [Dr. King] seven times" would be read as referring to him; he further contended that the "They" who did the arresting would be equated with the "They" who committed the other described acts and with the "Southern violators." Thus, he argued, the paragraph would be read as accusing the Montgomery police, and hence him, of answering Dr. King's protests with "intimidation and violence," bombing his home, assaulting his person, and charging him with perjury. Respondent and six other Montgomery residents testified that they read some or all of the statements as referring to him in his capacity as Commissioner.
It is uncontroverted that some of the statements contained in the two paragraphs were not accurate descriptions of events which occurred in Montgomery. Although Negro students staged a demonstration on the State Capitol steps, they sang the National Anthem and not "My [259] Country, 'Tis of Thee." Although nine students were expelled by the State Board of Education, this was not for leading the demonstration at the Capitol, but for demanding service at a lunch counter in the Montgomery County Courthouse on another day. Not the entire student body, but most of it, had protested the expulsion, not by refusing to register, but by boycotting classes on a single day; virtually all the students did register for the ensuing semester. The campus dining hall was not padlocked on any occasion, and the only students who may have been barred from eating there were the few who had neither signed a preregistration application nor requested temporary meal tickets. Although the police were deployed near the campus in large numbers on three occasions, they did not at any time "ring" the campus, and they were not called to the campus in connection with the demonstration on the State Capitol steps, as the third paragraph implied. Dr. King had not been arrested seven times, but only four, and although he claimed to have been assaulted some years earlier in connection with his arrest for loitering outside a courtroom, one of the officers who made the arrest denied that there was such an assault.
On the premise that the charges in the sixth paragraph could be read as referring to him, respondent was allowed to prove that he had not participated in the events described. Although Dr. King's home had, in fact, been bombed twice when his wife and child were there, both of these occasions antedated respondent's tenure as Commissioner, and the police were not only not implicated in the bombings, but had made every effort to apprehend those who were. Three of Dr. King's four arrests took place before respondent became Commissioner. Although Dr. King had, in fact, been indicted (he was subsequently acquitted) on two counts of perjury, each of which carried a possible five-year sentence, respondent had nothing to do with procuring the indictment. [260]
Respondent made no effort to prove that he suffered actual pecuniary loss as a result of the alleged libel. [note 3] One of his witnesses, a former employer, testified that, if he had believed the statements, he doubted whether he "would want to be associated with anybody who would be a party to such things that are stated in that ad," and that he would not reemploy respondent if he believed "that he allowed the Police Department to do the things that the paper say he did." But neither this witness nor any of the others testified that he had actually believed the statements in their supposed reference to respondent. The cost of the advertisement was approximately $4800, and it was published by the Times upon an order from a New York advertising agency acting for the signatory Committee. The agency submitted the advertisement with a letter from A. Philip Randolph, Chairman of the Committee, certifying that the persons whose names appeared on the advertisement had given their permission. Mr. Randolph was known to the Times' Advertising Acceptability Department as a responsible person, and, in accepting the letter as sufficient proof of authorization, it followed its established practice. There was testimony that the copy of the advertisement which accompanied the letter listed only the 64 names appearing under the text, and that the statement, "We in the south . . . warmly endorse this appeal," and the list of names thereunder, which included those of the individual petitioners, were subsequently added when the first proof of the advertisement was received. Each of the individual petitioners testified that he had not authorized the use of his name, and that he had been unaware of its use until receipt of respondent's demand for a retraction. The manager of the Advertising Acceptability [261] Department testified that he had approved the advertisement for publication because he knew nothing to cause him to believe that anything in it was false, and because it bore the endorsement of "a number of people who are well known and whose reputation" he "had no reason to question." Neither he nor anyone else at the Times made an effort to confirm the accuracy of the advertisement, either by checking it against recent Times news stories relating to some of the described events or by any other means.
Alabama law denies a public officer recovery of punitive damages in a libel action brought on account of a publication concerning his official conduct unless he first makes a written demand for a public retraction and the defendant fails or refuses to comply. Alabama Code, Tit. 7, § 914. Respondent served such a demand upon each of the petitioners. None of the individual petitioners responded to the demand, primarily because each took the position that he had not authorized the use of his name on the advertisement, and therefore had not published the statements that respondent alleged had libeled him. The Times did not publish a retraction in response to the demand, but wrote respondent a letter stating, among other things, that "we . . . are somewhat puzzled as to how you think the statements in any way reflect on you," and "you might, if you desire, let us know in what respect you claim that the statements in the advertisement reflect on you." Respondent filed this suit a few days later without answering the letter. The Times did, however, subsequently publish a retraction of the advertisement upon the demand of Governor John Patterson of Alabama, who asserted that the publication charged him with "grave misconduct and . . . improper actions and omissions as Governor of Alabama and Ex-Officio Chairman of the State Board of Education of Alabama." When asked to explain why there has been a retraction for the Governor but not for respondent, the Secretary of the Times testified: "We did that because we didn't want anything that was published by The Times to be a reflection on the State of Alabama, and the Governor was, as far as we could see, the embodiment of the State of Alabama and the proper representative of the State, and, furthermore, we had by that time learned more of the actual facts which the and purported to recite and, finally, the ad did refer to the action of the State authorities and the Board of Education, presumably of which the Governor is the ex-officio chairman. . . ." On the other hand, he testified that he did not think that "any of the language in there referred to Mr. Sullivan."
The trial judge submitted the case to the jury under instructions that the statements in the advertisement were "libelous per se," and were not privileged, so that petitioners might be held liable if the jury found that they had published the advertisement and that the statements were made "of and concerning" respondent. The jury was instructed that, because the statements were libelous per se, "the law . . . implies legal injury from the bare fact of publication itself," "falsity and malice are presumed," "general damages need not be alleged or proved, but are presumed," and "punitive damages may be awarded by the jury even though the amount of actual damages is neither found nor shown." An award of punitive damages--as distinguished from "general" damages, which are compensatory in nature--apparently requires proof of actual malice under Alabama law, and the judge charged that "mere negligence or carelessness is not evidence of actual malice or malice in fact, and does not justify an award of exemplary or punitive damages." He refused to charge, however, that the jury must be "convinced" of malice, in the sense of "actual intent" to harm or "gross negligence and recklessness," to make such an award, and he also refused to require that a verdict for respondent differentiate between compensatory and punitive damages. The judge rejected petitioners' contention [263] that his rulings abridged the freedoms of speech and of the press that are guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
In affirming the judgment, the Supreme Court of Alabama sustained the trial judge's rulings and instructions in all respects. 273 Ala. 656, 144 So.2d 25. It held that, "where the words published tend to injure a person libeled by them in his reputation, profession, trade or business, or charge him with an indictable offense, or tend to bring the individual into public contempt," they are "libelous per se"; that "the matter complained of is, under the above doctrine, libelous per se, if it was published of and concerning the plaintiff", and that it was actionable without "proof of pecuniary injury . . . . such injury being implied." Id. at 673, 676, 144 So.2d at 37, 41. It approved the trial court's ruling that the jury could find the statements to have been made "of and concerning" respondent, stating: "We think it common knowledge that the average person knows that municipal agents, such as police and firemen, and others, are under the control and direction of the city governing body, and, more particularly, under the direction and control of a single commissioner. In measuring the performance or deficiencies of such groups, praise or criticism is usually attached to the official in complete control of the body." Id. at 674-675, 144 So.2d at 39. In sustaining the trial court's determination that the verdict was not excessive, the court said that malice could be inferred from the Times' "irresponsibility" in printing the advertisement while "the Times, in its own files, had articles already published which would have demonstrated the falsity of the allegations in the advertisement"; from the Times' failure to retract for respondent while retracting for the Governor, whereas the falsity of some of the allegations was then known to the Times and "the matter contained in the advertisement was equally false as to both parties", and from the testimony of the Times' Secretary that, [264] apart from the statement that the dining hall was padlocked, he thought the two paragraphs were "substantially correct." Id. at 686-687, 144 So.2d at 50-51. The court reaffirmed a statement in an earlier opinion that "There is no legal measure of damages in cases of this character." Id. at 686, 144 So.2d at 50. It rejected petitioners' constitutional contentions with the brief statements that "The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not protect libelous publications," and "The Fourteenth Amendment is directed against State action, and not private action." Id. at 676, 144 So.2d at 40.
Because of the importance of the constitutional issues involved, we granted the separate petitions for certiorari of the individual petitioners and of the Times. 371 U.S. 946. We reverse the judgment. We hold that the rule of law applied by the Alabama courts is constitutionally deficient for failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press that are required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct.[note 4] We [265] further hold that, under the proper safeguards, the evidence presented in this case is constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment for respondent.
I
We may dispose at the outset of two grounds asserted to insulate the judgment of the Alabama courts from constitutional scrutiny. The first is the proposition relied on by the State Supreme Court--that "The Fourteenth Amendment is directed against State action, and not private action." That proposition has no application to this case. Although this is a civil lawsuit between private parties, the Alabama courts have applied a state rule of law which petitioners claim to impose invalid restrictions on their constitutional freedoms of speech and press. It matters not that that law has been applied in a civil action and that it is common law only, though supplemented by statute. See, e.g., Alabama Code, Tit. 7, §§ 908-917. The test is not the form in which state power has been applied but, whatever the form, whether such power has, in fact, been exercised. See Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346-347; American Federation of Labor v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321.
The second contention is that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press are inapplicable here, at least so far as the Times is concerned, because the allegedly libelous statements were published as part of a paid, "commercial" advertisement. The argument relies on Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52, where the Court held that a city ordinance forbidding street distribution of commercial and business advertising matter did not abridge the First Amendment freedoms, even as applied to a handbill having a commercial message on one side but a protest against certain official action, on the other. The reliance is wholly misplaced. The Court in Chrestensen reaffirmed the constitutional protection for "the freedom of communicating [266] information and disseminating opinion"; its holding was based upon the factual conclusions that the handbill was "purely commercial advertising" and that the protest against official action had been added only to evade the ordinance.
The publication here was not a "commercial" advertisement in the sense in which the word was used in Chrestensen. It communicated information, expressed opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses, and sought financial support on behalf of a movement whose existence and objectives are matters of the highest public interest and concern. See NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 435. That the Times was paid for publishing the advertisement is as immaterial in this connection as is the fact that newspapers and books are sold. Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 150; cf. Bantam Books, Inc., v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 64, n. 6. Any other conclusion would discourage newspapers from carrying "editorial advertisements" of this type, and so might shut off an important outlet for the promulgation of information and ideas by persons who do not themselves have access to publishing facilities--who wish to exercise their freedom of speech even though they are not members of the press. Cf. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452; Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 164. The effect would be to shackle the First Amendment in its attempt to secure "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources." Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20. To avoid placing such a handicap upon the freedoms of expression, we hold that, if the allegedly libelous statements would otherwise be constitutionally protected from the present judgment, they do not forfeit that protection because they were published in the form of a paid advertisement. [note 5] [267]
II
Under Alabama law, as applied in this case, a publication is "libelous per se" if the words "tend to injure a person . . . in his reputation" or to "bring [him] into public contempt"; the trial court stated that the standard was met if the words are such as to "injure him in his public office, or impute misconduct to him in his office, or want of official integrity, or want of fidelity to a public trust. . . ." The jury must find that the words were published "of and concerning" the plaintiff, but, where the plaintiff is a public official, his place in the governmental hierarchy is sufficient evidence to support a finding that his reputation has been affected by statements that reflect upon the agency of which he is in charge. Once "libel per se" has been established, the defendant has no defense as to stated facts unless he can persuade the jury that they were true in all their particulars. Alabama Ride Co. v. Vance, 235 Ala. 263, 178 So. 438 (1938); Johnson Publishing Co. v. Davis, 271 Ala. 474, 494 495, 124 So.2d 441, 457-458 (1960). His privilege of "fair comment" for expressions of opinion depends on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based. Parsons v. Age-Herald Publishing Co., 181 Ala. 439, 450, 61 So. 345, 350 (1913). Unless he can discharge the burden of proving truth, general damages are presumed, and may be awarded without proof of pecuniary injury. A showing of actual malice is apparently a prerequisite to recovery of punitive damages, and the defendant may, in any event, forestall a punitive award by a retraction meeting the statutory requirements. Good motives and belief in truth do not negate an inference of malice, but are relevant only in mitigation of punitive damages if the jury chooses to accord them weight. Johnson Publishing Co. v. Davis, supra, 271 Ala., at 495, 124 So.2d at 458. [268]
The question before us is whether this rule of liability, as applied to an action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct, abridges the freedom of speech and of the press that is guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Respondent relies heavily, as did the Alabama courts, on statements of this Court to the effect that the Constitution does not protect libelous publications.[note 6] Those statements do not foreclose our inquiry here. None of the cases sustained the use of libel laws to impose sanctions upon expression critical of the official conduct of public officials. The dictum in Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 348-349, that "when the statements amount to defamation, a judge has such remedy in damages for libel as do other public servants," implied no view as to what remedy might constitutionally be afforded to public officials. In Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, the Court sustained an Illinois criminal libel statute as applied to a publication held to be both defamatory of a racial group and "liable to cause violence and disorder." But the Court was careful to note that it "retains and exercises authority to nullify action which encroaches on freedom of utterance under the guise of punishing libel"; for "public men, are, as it were, public property," and "discussion cannot be denied and the right, as well as the duty, of criticism must not be stifled." Id., at 263-264, and n. 18. In the only previous case that did present the question of constitutional limitations upon the power to award damages for libel of a public official, the Court was equally divided and the question was not decided. Schenectady Union Pub. Co. v. Sweeney, 316 U.S. 642. In deciding the question now, we are compelled by neither precedent nor policy to give any more weight to the epithet "libel" than we have to other "mere labels" of state law. N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429. Like insurrection,[note 7] contempt,[note 8] advocacy of unlawful acts,[note 9] breach of the peace,[note 10] obscenity,[note 11] solicitation of legal business,[note 12] and the various other formulae for the repression of expression that have been challenged in this court, libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment.
The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said, "was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484. "The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system." Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369. "It is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions," Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270, and this opportunity is to be afforded for "vigorous advocacy" no less than "abstract discussion." NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429. [270] The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, "presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly, but we have staked upon it our all." United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1943). Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:
Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law--the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Thus, we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. See Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, [271] 365. The present advertisement, as an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection. The question is whether it forfeits that protection by the falsity of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent.
Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth--whether administered by judges, juries, or administrative officials--and especially one that puts the burden of proving truth on the speaker. Cf. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525-526. The constitutional protection does not turn upon "the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered." NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445. As Madison said, "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." 4 Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution (1876), p. 571. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310, the Court declared:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html
AWK - it's not your fault!
whatever...
tt - yeah, fascinating huh?
posted some analysis, but it was the sort that yer ilk don't wanna reconcile b/c of the rampant cognitive dissonance.
redacted it b/c un-Lucky chose to post erroneously about electrons.
edit: listen up Oliver...
i had zero to do w/these claims filed against Wave, though they don't surprise me & i did predict them months ago.
btw, guess which wavoid intrigued me into buying Quarterdeck back in 97?
wave, ahem, duke... i'm free to post here just as much as anyone is free to rubberneck @ grisly highway carnage.
does that indicate SEC approval?
ain't registered until it is "effective."
that filing is an application.
dontcha mean neurons, "lucky" moe-ron? / e
you can't be serious?
first, i have consistently stated that i would not contemplate taking a position in wavx until the conclusion of the SEC investigation. never said anything about any posting embargo (as much as some might wish for that).
second, Q2 revs of $1M would not only be "meaningful" it would be historic. if i recall correctly, a Q rev # of $1M would almost equate this company's entire top line combined for somewhere around 60 Qs! if Wave did $1M in Q2, wavoids would be in full-blown euphoria. but it ain't gonna happen per today's filing which stipulates no meaningful revs "for the nest two Qs" whether that is this Q & the next, or the next Q & the one thereafter is unknown.
Rachel - re: 10 paragraphs of "balanced response"
¶ 1 -- hardly hysterical dear, unless you meant in the laughing sense. yes, you did have the benefit of reading the posts in reverse order & after the fact. math & accounting are definitely not strong suits for me, but the filing is a maze & i still wonder about the 42,042 warrants discrepancy.
(btw, "write to incite" quite clever)
¶ 2 -- you wrote, "we all knew that Wave would run very low on funds." do you find it appropriate mgmt to allow the tank to get to fumes 3 or 4 times per year & be vulnerable to the vagaries of the market?
¶ 3 -- "Big mistake or good idea to manage dilution." when has this company ever been concerned w/the dilution of your shares? they can (& do) always issue more for themselves whenever they want, performance is irrelevant. so as for "manage dilution" i don't think there is anything you can cite in this company's history that supports that contention.
¶ 4 -- you assert that a claim that "3 or 4 or 5 million drowning us" is overdone & in support you cite an "unknown" amount has already been shorted (isn't there a UPC restriction?) & another "unknown" amount in long hands. nevertheless, the filing clearly indicates that just under 4 million shares will not be beneficially owned after the offering. IMO citing such "unknowns" is underdone.
¶ 5 -- if the warrants are exercised. for all that is known, Wave may well not even be an entity three years from now.
¶ 6 -- can't argue w/selling the SSPX, but as for covering the "nut" for the next year, that's a stretch based on the avg. price they have rec'd so far & the piece-meal doling eliminates the potential "control premium." IMO, "assuming no revenue" is a sound practice after roughly $250M in accumulated losses over 1.5 decades.
¶ 7 -- "just shipping" -- well, today 24 impugned my post about the Intel site's "coming soon" status & cited the possibility that "1022" in the HTML code reflected the date when Wave announced they were shipping. okay, let's assume that is accurate. if so, that is the equivalent of a full Q that they have been available & yet Wave has cautioned in this filing that revs are now another 2 Qs away when most here were espousing revs now. as for, NSM, that's a joke... there has been zero to support that NSM has sold anything that benefits Wave, except for wavoid anecdotal stuff & overly generous interpretations of e-mails.
¶ 8 -- yep. it suggests to me that the company won't be unwound by the SEC, but nobody here knows. every time i posted the question, the hecklers' voice was loud & staunch, spouting that one had no relation to the other. now, conveniently, others are coming out of their foxholes to write that they weren't sure whether the registration could be permitted during the SEC investigation or not.
¶ 9 -- ummmm, you think i overlooked this fact. i submit to you Rachel that not only was i well aware of this issue as it relates to the adoption of a new technology, but IMO SKS was well aware of it too, as was Feeney. My understanding of the "breakeven in 2004" slogan fully incorporated that into the meaning of the slogan.
SKS pushed the benchmark date back a year (or two) @ the mini-SHM & i contend that it was doubletalk & a function of the slow deployment (& resultant adoption) rates, not of some epiphany where mgmt realized they had forgotten to include increased SGA costs w/initial deployment. seriously, c'mon Rachel, this guy talks all the time about "planting flags" all over the universe, they knew about increased variable costs when he first represented breakeven in 2004. given that it went from 2004 to 2005 (& maybe 2006), IMO it is entirely reasonable when considering the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome of this company, that, yes, 2007 may well be uttered @ some future CC.
¶ 10 -- i'd say it's not only not a "dream" filing, it's approaching Freddy Kreuger territory. many here posted for months in the late summer & fall that the revs would be here now. well, now it's now & the company just revised their forecasts to reflect another six +/- month delay in any meaningful revs. what that also says is that over the last 3 months, not too many widgets flew off the shelves of the hobbyist PC stores & presumably even fewer were assembled into OEM PCs. So, the thneed has been on the market for a full Q & there has been no word of anything meaningful, let alone even an announcement from the likes of NSM, etc.
as for the "hysterical commentary" one might consider that the wild-eyed rev predictions that came from the most zealous of the zealots.
but you didn't mean "hysterical" as in funny did you? SO, why would i be "hysterical" in the way in which i think you meant?
i won't be holding wavx @ the open tomorrow...
nighty-night!
edit: slang but what about Zen's find?
1,095,227 warrants?
the warrant #s you have (931,309 + 146,905 + 14,690 + 44,365) = 1,137,269
that leaves 42,042 warrants difference b/tw your #s & Zen's quote.
your #s definitely add up to 4,862,532, but where does the 42,042 fit in to this?
edit: Gee Doma, if i was up to my eyeballs in this stock like i suspect you are, i doubt there'd be much to laugh about after reading the filing, especially when it's down 10% from yesterday's close right now & the 3-4-or-5 million shares haven't even been sold yet & then you have to look forward to the next PP (which will require another $8.5M) & those shares will have to sold too.
you've been carping about the imminent success of the Intel MB & it doesn't seem from mgmt's discussion in the prospectus that you have been even close to correct.
the company needs another $8.5M just to stay alive for another year & just stated that there won't be any significant revs for at least the next 2 Qs. depending on how the "next two Qs" is defined, at the earliest you can even hope to see any revs is 5 months from now & maybe it means 8 months from now?!? which wouldn't be reported until sometime in June @ the earliest (that's assuming it comes true).
yeah, you have plenty to laugh about - especially how the "breakeven" date was just pushed even further back right before your very eyes.
yep, that is funny.
edit3: my calculator is smoldering...
okay, take the increased # of warrants that Zen just noted (1,095,227), add in JP's 146,905 cut + the stated 3,725,263 & it STILL doesn't add up!!!
using the new warrants # i get 4,967,395, not 4,862,532 (an unaccounted difference of 104,863).
IMO something is seriously messed up w/this filing & an amendment would not surprise me in the least.
one thing seemed unequivocal in the filing, Wave will need another $8.5M (after the proceeds of this PP) w/in the next year just to keep the lights flickering.
as much as some love to post how misguided my views are, seems clear that my belief is more accurate that the adoption curve is flatter than the wavoid adoption curve, based on the ongoing need for more & more operating capital.
& wouldn't be a bit surprised if the "breakeven" date eliminates 2005 altogether & it is moved back again to 2006-07 in the next CC.
edit: 24, as much as i'd like to insult you right now, i will instead ask you yet again to explain this filing for everyone as you are certainly the smartest void in all of wavedom.
the filing does NOT add up & you know it!!!
& if anyone "takes himself seriously" ...
nevermind.
edit2: Internet, i included all the shares you referenced (incl. those for Ms. Sandra West) & it still does not add up to the figure stated in the filing. still curious about the comments you made this afternoon.
edit3: how dare you Internet?!?! are you an apostate?!?
"my gut tells me that Wave would not had been able to officially register the shares until they had been cleared..."
have wondered the same thing but the government lawyer prefers to toss insults instead of explaining it... maybe he doesn't know either?
edit: Zen, maybe i am wrong.
it wouldn't be the first or last time.
but the offering states that 4,862,532 shares are included in the offering.
the # of warrants disclosed is 931,309
4,862,532 - 931,309 = 3,931,223
it *still* doesn't add up & one has to assume that 100% of the warrants were exercised (which makes no financial sense given the $2.62 strike v. a $2.01 close (now $1.87 in AH)) just to get even close to your premise.
even assuming 100% exercise of the warrants & backing out the 146,905 shares going to JP Marlin, errr, Carey, i still don't get to the 3,725,263 shares first stated in the Nov PR. i get 3,784,318 which still leaves 59,055 shares unaccounted (AND one has to assume that every single warrant @ $2.62 is reflected there, which given the price & the 3 year term, it doesn't make sense to me).
there's more going on here IMO...
& Zen, if i'm 100% wrong, i'll 100% acknowledge it.
edit: & Zen, i don't really care what "Mark & Teri" or "Michael & Lisa" told you about their desire to hold the shares. of the two, only "Michael & Lisa" have declared they will be beneficially holding any shares after the offering.
fact is that 4,862,532 (- 335K -335K - 750K - 65,790 - 9,539) = 3,367,203 shares are declared to be sold upon the offering... moreover, the filing doesn't seem to say anything about the 931,309 warrants being exercised. why would anyone pay $2.62 for a stock that last traded at a $0.75 discount ($1.87)?!?
it just doesn't add up Zen...
edit3: still doesn't add up Uncle...
it was previously 3.7M shares +/- & now it's 4,862,532 shares.
the proceeds ($7,078,000.00) remains the same in this filing, so it might even be worse than i first posted.
4,862,532 / 7,078,000 = $1.45
SO, was the pps adjusted down $0.45 (24%) ?!?
& no matter how you slice it Uncle, whenever these shares are officially registered, you have almost 5 million coming on the ask to digest.
AND the quirky trading spike the other day (in light of the time frame of the registration price calculation you noted) smells way fishy IMO.
i know, i know...
Things are Good!
edit: 24, i would spincerely appreciate it if you could explain the math. Wave gets $7.078M, yet there are 1.1M more shares coming than first disclosed.
what am i missing?
edit 2: that number doesn't add up either 24 -- there were only 931K warrants disclosed in the filing & i didn't read anything about any of those warrants being exercised. this filing registers 4.8M shares. the original disclosure was for 3.7M shares & 931K warrants. that's 4.6M +/-
tia!
edit 3: i just did a quick calculation of the table in the filing & backed out the # of shares to be held after the offering & the # i got was 5,037,532...
edit: ouch.
"We do not expect to realize significant revenues for at least the next two fiscal quarters..."
(SO, is that Q1 & Q2, or is that Q2 & Q3?)
-- eamonnshute might wanna readjust his rev prediction model.
Class A Common Stock, $.01 par value
4,862,532 Shares @ $1.70 $8,266,304
Concerning the Class A common stock being registered for the Investors, Wave entered into the Purchase Agreement, pursuant to which Wave sold and issued 3,725,263 shares of Common Stock and the Warrants in a private placement to the Investors for an aggregate purchase price of $7,078,000 (the "Financing").
*** it'll might require an S-3/A based on this error alone ***
looks like the PPers get floating pricing to take advantage of the SEC decline?!?
must be nice to have that sort of insurance for common stock... never saw that before!
it settles that Wave was able to register the shares during an SEC formal investigation. i repeatedly posted that i didn't know whether they could or not. big difference from posting that they couldn't.
before y'all start doing the happy dance, might wanna read the filing, b/c first glean ain't positive IMO. more dilution than first announced & a considerably lower issue price...
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/031119/195420_1.html
Press Release Source: Wave Systems Corp.
Wave Systems Completes $7.1 Million Private Placement Financing
Wednesday November 19, 9:22 am ET
LEE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 19, 2003--Wave Systems Corp. (NASDAQ:WAVX - News), a leading developer of trusted computing solutions and services, announced today that it has completed a $7.1 million private placement of Class A common stock and warrants with a group of institutional and accredited investors. The financing is intended to fund Wave Systems' ongoing operations, specifically its sales and marketing efforts, as well as its engineering, development and customer support teams and its general corporate overhead.
The private placement consists of 3,725,263 shares of common stock priced at $1.90 per share as well as warrants to purchase 1,095,227 shares of the company's common stock at an exercise price of $2.62 per share. If exercised in their entirety, the warrants would generate an additional $2.9 million in gross proceeds to Wave. J. P. Carey Securities acted as the agent for the private placement.
In conjunction with the private placement, Wave Systems has agreed to file a registration statement on Form S-3 to register the common stock issued in the offering as well as the shares underlying the warrants.
This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy securities of Wave Systems Corp. This press release is being issued pursuant to and in accordance with Rule 135c under the Securities Act.
About Wave Systems Corp.
Consumers and businesses are demanding a computing environment that is more trusted, private, safe and secure. Wave is the leader in delivering trusted computing applications and services with advanced products, infrastructure and solutions across multiple trusted platforms from a variety of vendors. Wave holds a portfolio of significant fundamental patents in security and e-commerce applications and employs some of the world's leading security systems architects and engineers. For more information about Wave, visit http://www.wave.com.
Safe Harbor for Forward-Looking Statements
Except for statements of historical fact, the information presented herein constitutes forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include general economic and business conditions, the ability to fund operations, the ability to forge partnerships required for deployment, the success of partners in their deployment of Wave's technology, changes in consumer and corporate buying habits, chip development and production, the rapid pace of change in the technology industry and other factors over which Wave Systems has little or no control. Wave Systems assumes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
Wave Systems Corp.
Gerard T. Feeney, 413/243-1600
info@wavesys.com
or
Investor Relations:
Jaffoni & Collins
David Collins, Richard Land
212/835-8500
wavx@jcir.com
quite sure -- poster is "go-kitesurf"
caveat empty.
"I saw a window of opportunity, and it was trading in such huge quantities that selling 100,000 shares didn't make much of a difference."
fmr. Wave CofB & CEO, Peter J. Sprague
edit: mjan112 - written by a wavoid poster
if you weren't already aware of that, it demonstrates points made earlier about the article in question & the lack of disclosure by the author as to a potential conflict of interest.
sven, was there a recent Oliver Stone movie marathon where you live? the juxtaposition of your post & the one to which i reply would suggest the polar opposite to what you posit were true. moreover, i recall your prior Sentivision post where the CTO noted to you in reply that updates would be made available by the company on this board.
do you really think some super-secret cabal is holding down the price of wavx?
btw, that recent trading spike wasn't based on pure T/A IMO. nor are the strangely confident posts on yahoo that intimate that "wavx will be a lot more expensive" on such & such a date, etc.
it would seem that the longs are the highly organized faction, but that's JMO...
edit: Bertha, you know how easy it would be to do a parody on wavx longs along those lines? i won't b/c it'd get deleted.
hey wait, the U.S. financial press (including the New York Times) has already done it repeatedly!
http://www.smartmoney.com/onthestreet/index.cfm?story=20030826
On the Street
A Wave of Delusion
By Scott Patterson
August 26, 2003
DAVID STONE DOESN'T like to give stock tips. But in 1995, Stone, who owns a company that makes digital-camera cleaning products, came across an investment he couldn't resist. "I told anybody who would listen that this was a long-term stock," says the 53-year-old from his home in Cape Cod, Mass. "I really think the potential that Wave Systems has is phenomenal. Just think if you'd bought Intel in '78."
Tech fever, it seems, is alive and well in Lee, Mass., a sleepy town nestled in the heart of the Berkshires, a continent away from Silicon Valley. This is where tiny technology outfit Wave Systems (WAVX) was founded in 1988 under the name Indata. It's also the spiritual home of a small, fanatical group of investors known as "Wavoids" who see Microsoft (MSFT)-like potential in Wave Systems' future.
No matter that the company's share price fell from an intraday high of $50.75 in March 2000 to a low of 75 cents in March 2003. No matter that Wave Systems, which makes digital-security hardware and software products for the Internet and e-commerce, has never posted a profit since going public in 1994, and, as of June 30, had racked up $246 million in losses.
Despite this grim reality, Wavoids continue to display an unwavering commitment to their beloved investment. And it seems to be paying off. For some Bubble-era nostalgia, take a glance at the stock's recent activity. In late July, Wave seemed doomed to the corporate bone yards of the over-the-counter bulletin board, its shares having changed hands for less than a buck for most of the year. (The Nasdaq delists companies whose stock trades below $1 for more than 120 consecutive days.) Then came news of a software-bundling deal with Intel (INTC) and a partnership with IBM (IBM) — twin events that caused Wave's stock to spike more than 500% over the course of several days, reaching an intraday peak of $5.24 on Aug. 5.
The numbers tell only part of the story — but what numbers they are. On July 30, Wave closed at 84 cents a share on volume of 136,700. On Aug. 1, it closed at $3.65 on an astonishing 63.7 million in volume. (By way of perspective, Microsoft, a company nearly 2,000 times larger than Wave, sees average daily trading volume of 55.8 million.) The activity seemed to be fueled by two sources: momentum traders who had long ago written off the company for dead, and frantic covering by short sellers who had bet on the company's demise. There's little evidence that institutional investors played much of a role; according to Media General, just 3.8% of Wave's 52 million outstanding shares are institutionally held.
After the dramatic rally, Wavoids took to Internet message boards to boast of their vindication. "The time for caution is past," wrote one fan on Raging Bull. "Those who have eyes to see let them see. But remember to wear sun glasses. Cuz this is going to be white hot."
"Where do we go from here?" wrote another on Investor's Hub. "My bet is onward and upward."
'The Fun Thing About Wave'
Wave's followers continue to believe that the company's digital-security products — primarily its Embassy suite of cryptographic hardware and software — will play a central role in a burgeoning sub-industry known as trusted computing. The movement, called "TC" in the trade, is being heavily promoted by a not-for-profit organization called the Trusted Computing Group (TCG). Backed by such tech behemoths as Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), IBM, Intel and Microsoft, the TCG is coordinating what some say will be the biggest technological shift in the computing world since the advent of the Internet. Wave's July 31 announcement of the Intel deal fell under the TCG umbrella.
If the TCG achieves its far-reaching goals, nearly every computer made in the next few years will contain hardware and software that provide advanced encryption and decryption services for online transactions. In Wave's most starry-eyed vision of future glory, its software and its Embassy chips would be included on most of those computers.
Wave Chief Executive Steven Sprague isn't afraid to speculate on his company's upside possibilities. "This is a technology that could ship on 40 or 50 million PCs and realize an installed base of users that's measured in the tens of millions," he says. "The fun thing about Wave is that it has the potential of tremendous scope."
Burn, Baby, Burn
Unfortunately, Wave has many short-term hurdles to overcome — problems the Wavoids seem willing, even eager, to ignore. For all the talk of paradigm-shattering killer-apps, Wave will have to pull off a minor miracle just to stay in business. Its meager $50,131 in revenue during the first half of the year led to a net loss of $9.8 million, or 24 cents a share. The company has just $6.6 million in cash, and is burning through about $1.2 million a month, according to CEO Sprague, down from $1.6 million earlier this year after layoffs, slashed marketing budgets and other cuts.
Wave has floated the idea of selling additional shares to solidify its capital structure — but the company has given few specifics as to when any offering will take place. HC Wainwright has served as an underwriter in the past, but it's not clear which investment banks will underwrite the next offering. Wave doesn't have much of a relationship with Wall Street, and no analysts cover the stock. In fact, most of the semiconductor analysts we called for comment hadn't even heard of Wave Systems — a reality that flies in the face of claims of Microsoft-like growth potential.
The company's cash troubles were partially allayed when several managers exercised stock options after the early August run-up, adding a quick $2.6 million to company coffers. An additional $1 million was recovered when Wave's former chairman, Peter Sprague, Steven Sprague's father and the founder of the company, repaid a loan Wave had previously written off as uncollectible.
This is no cause for celebration, however. Wave's liberal use of financial-engineering techniques to benefit its officers has long been a sticking point even among its most devout shareholders.
Board of Protectors
In 2001, certain executives took out big personal loans from the company to pay various outstanding debts. Wave's board later approved bonuses matching the amounts of some of the loans executives used to pay down their debts — a maneuver similar to the one at the heart of the Tyco International (TYC) accounting scandal, which has resulted in criminal indictments of three Tyco officers who, prosecutors allege, used the company as their "personal piggy bank." The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 made the practice of granting personal loans to officers illegal.
Wave made a loan of $250,000 to the company's chief financial officer, Gerard Feeney, in 2001 so he could pay capital-gains taxes on exercised Wave stock options. After extending the due date on the loan in 2002, the company approved a bonus on March 27, 2003, "in an amount equal to Mr. Feeney's obligations with respect to such loan and accrued interest," according to Wave's 2003 Schedule 14(a) proxy filing. Feeney repaid the loan with the funds from the bonus.
Wave also made loans in 2001 to then-Chairman and CEO Peter Sprague totaling about $1.06 million — during a year in which the company lost $48.7 million and saw its stock price plunge 40% to $1.33. In 2002, Wave's compensation committee approved a payment of a bonus of $174,391 so that Sprague could repay part of the debt. This left Sprague owing $999,518. On March 31, 2003, Sprague resigned as chairman and chief executive and assumed the CEO post of Wave subsidiary WaveExpress. His son, Steven Sprague, was named CEO. The company put in place a loan-loss reserve against the elder Sprague's debt in a Nov. 15, 2002, 10(q) filing with the SEC, essentially forgiving the loan.
Then, on Aug. 5, Wave announced that Sprague would repay the loan in full. Why would he pay back a debt the company had already written off? Look no further than the company's skyrocketing shares. "Before [the run-up], the stock was under a dollar," says the 64-year-old Sprague, who served as chairman of National Semiconductor (NSM) from 1965 to 1995. "I saw a window of opportunity, and it was trading in such huge quantities that selling 100,000 shares didn't make much of a difference."
"He just wanted to put [the issue] behind him," says Wave spokesman David Collins, of Jaffoni & Collins, a PR firm. "The loan wasn't only a problem for the company from a cash-flow standpoint, it was increasingly a problem from a shareholder-perception standpoint."
Wave says it made the personal loans to Feeney and Sprague so that they wouldn't have to sell shares to pay their debts. But the record shows that the Spragues have a long history of insider selling. On Jan. 7, 2002, for instance, Peter Sprague sold 60,000 shares of Wave at $2.46 for $147,800. The following month, he sold an additional 10,000 shares at $2 each, and on March 5, as the stock's price continued to fall, he unloaded another 10,000 shares at $1.83. Steven Sprague, meanwhile, on Aug. 6, 2003, exercised options on 150,000 shares, most of which he sold for a total of more than a half a million dollars. And on Aug. 5, CFO Feeney sold 100,000 shares at $5 a piece — right near the stock's 52-week high.
Against the backdrop of Sarbanes-Oxley, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the loans were suspect moves for a company that was hemorrhaging cash. James Fisher, director of Emerson Center for Business Ethics at Saint Louis University, says that in such situations, the company's board of directors is often to blame for being too pliant. "If the board is under the thumb of management," says Fisher, "then there's some justification for concluding that these are ill-considered policies most likely designed to enrich the managers, who, from all appearances, haven't been able to guide the firm successfully."
There can be little doubt that at the time many of these decisions were made, Wave's management exercised significant influence over its board. Peter Sprague was chairman of the seven-member board during his reign as CEO. Steven Sprague, formerly the president and chief operating officer, was a director when his father was chairman. Notably, the board also includes George Gilder, author of the popular 2000 book "Telecosm" and a lead cheerleader of the tech boom, who has been a director since the company's IPO. "Having insiders sell stock in a company that's precarious is more damaging than having the company make loans to its officers," says Gilder in defense of the board's decision. (Gilder declined to comment on Wave's future prospects, citing concerns about potential class-action litigation if the company should fail.)
Steven Sprague isn't unaware of the power he and his father have wielded. "Put yourself in the shoes of any board of directors that has to make that call against somebody who probably hired all the people that are on the board," he says. "[Complying] was the right thing to do."
The Clock Is Ticking
So what of the Intel and IBM announcements, which sparked the furious run-up in Wave's stock in recent weeks? The IBM partnership seems to have been misread by the markets; it will generate no direct revenue for Wave, according to the company. The Intel deal, meanwhile, is difficult to quantify, since financial terms weren't disclosed. Intel said it would bundle Wave's software and services on an industry-standard TP-enabled chip known as the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) embedded on a future Intel desktop motherboard, the internal chassis that holds the chips that run personal computers. The deal is similar to a March agreement for National Semiconductor to bundle Wave's software on its PC21100 SafeKeeper security chips, but nothing has been released about the financial terms of that arrangement, either.
Intel, for one, doesn't seem to view the contract as earth-shattering. Spokesman Robert Manetta says the motherboard's rollout will take place in the fourth quarter, but declines to give any further details. "We have a lot of motherboards," says Manetta. "This is just one."
Wave says it's unable to release financial details on the deal because of a nondisclosure agreement with Intel. During its second-quarter conference call with investors on Aug. 14, however, CEO Sprague hinted that it could be worth around 50 cents to $1.50 per motherboard. At potentially millions of units, the deal could indeed be quite lucrative for Wave.
But in typical Wave fashion, management hinted at grand potential while declining to give specifics. The company left its revenue and earnings guidance for the rest of the year unchanged. This doesn't sit right with some. Pacific Growth analyst Brian Alger, who dropped coverage of Wave in August 2002, says that while the company can't release specific figures on the Intel agreement, it should update its revenue guidance for future quarters in which it expects to book sales from the deal. "If there is an expectation for X amount of revenues, and that has materially changed, isn't there an obligation for [management] to inform shareholders?" (Alger doesn't own shares of Wave; Pacific Growth has had an investment-banking relationship with the company in the past.)
Perhaps the problem is the unpredictability of the TC movement itself. Given all of the various players and their competing agendas, it might take years for TC activity to ramp up significantly, says Peter Glaskowsky, editor-in-chief of the trade journal "Microprocessor Report." In all likelihood, Intel won't roll out a dramatic number of TPM-enabled motherboards in the foreseeable future. "The value [of the deal for Wave] a year from now or two years from now I think remains very, very low," says Glaskowsky. He estimates that TC won't be a ubiquitous application for at least four or five years, after Microsoft launches its new operating system, code-named Longhorn, which is expected to carry broad TC capabilities. By then, of course, Wave could very well be out of business.
And with giants like Microsoft and Intel devoting resources to the effort, it's not difficult to imagine smaller players like Wave being marginalized or squeezed out completely. Microsoft, for one, has a long history of this sort of thing.
Ross Anderson, head of the Computer Laboratory at Cambridge University, is unmoved by Wave's claims of a future as a TC titan. "I don't think Wave Systems is a big deal," says Anderson. "From the point of view of the big TC picture, Wave is below the radar." Anderson, a vocal critic of the TC movement for its willingness to cede control of the Internet's information flow to a few big companies, thinks Microsoft has used Wave merely as a "competitive threat" in its dealings with Intel.
Yet Wave's CEO proudly defends the company's all-or-nothing approach. He says he favors big, home-run deals that will cement Wave's status as a TC goliath to short-term deals that would offer much-needed cash now. "If you're looking for me to provide security for a midsize medical-services provider, that's not what Wave Systems is about," says Sprague. "While I could do that and collect a few hundred thousand dollars in revenue, I'll do that at the jeopardy of the broader opportunity. And the broader opportunity has been close enough to touch."
Such thinking played well during the Bubble — but seems hopelessly out of date in 2003. Most investors nowadays would scoff at the notion of a nearly insolvent company turning away easy business. "You have to question that," says Saint Louis University's Fisher. "The promise of a long-term bonanza can cover a lot of short-term shenanigans."
A Few Warts Among Friends
Diehard Wavoids remain undaunted by the company's many shortcomings, and downplay the late-1990s-style excesses. "Sure, I think [management] is a little rich in compensating itself," says Wallett Rogers of Palmyra, Wisc., a retired corporate attorney who's been invested in Wave since the late 1990s. "But it doesn't bother me. You have the warts on the one hand, and on the other hand, you have a company that's potentially the size of a Microsoft three or five years from now. I've made a rational decision based on the relative importance of the warts and the company's potential."
If enough investors feel the same way, Wave may actually survive. But will it be the next Microsoft? Don't bet on it.
edit: ok -- are you thinking of Barclays?
http://www.nadig.com/Professional/NadigCV.html
Vanguard is a very large & highly respected fund family & its founder, John Bogle, is a "Main Street" / Wall Street heavyweight.
the fact that Vanguard is holding 800K+ shares (& added last Q) is actually one of the few things that voids can really champion right now IMO (& i must admit it gives me pause) as a "done deal" fact. (e.g., Intel site still says "coming soon" & yeah, i know, awk & 24601 & one or two others purportedly purchased 865 MBs from e-bay & the like...)
http://www.intel.com/buy/wtb/wtb1022.htm
24, sure there's a chance. have you seen any other Intel pages that use a similar date-based html rubric?
but assuming arguendo that is accurate, is it the least bit disconcerting that Intel hasn't bothered to update the page in 3 months?!?
maybe the MB isn't the priority to Intel that some here would contend?
maybe Greg S was correct that it is a "test" or a "placemarker"?!?
maybe it's a joke?
"We may see a change in an officer and perhaps a penalty"
Internet, you wrote:
"2) SEC investigation...although none of us can really state with any degree of assurance that they know what the outcome will be....personally...I don't think anything significant will come out of the investigation. We may see a change in an officer and perhaps a penalty...but nothing more imho."
care to elaborate?
which officer, for instance.
what if the penalty is a couple Mil & disgorgement of transaction/s?
can Wave withstand that sort of financial hit?
IMO bouncing an officer & paying a fine would hurt in many ways.
http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/af/content/atom_208
The Darker WAVE 4: Ping Pong
In most instances, ping-pong is a game requiring speed and dexterity. However, when our favorite martini-swigging, nicotine-chugging roach picks up the paddle, blood pours.
http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/af/content/atom_208
Interview with Joe Trippi
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001428.shtml
I’ve been talking to a bunch of people about blogs and their effect for a book I’m supposed to be finishing this week. This is an interview with Governor Dean’s campaign manager, Joe Trippi. Feel free to use it as the Creative Commons Attribution license permits. And corrections appreciated.
(pdf)
L: Did blogs come to Dean, or did Dean come to blogs?
T: That's an interesting question.
For almost 2 I've been an avid reader of blogs — commenting occasionally, but mostly a lurker. About 18 months ago I was reading a myDD.com blog, and there was some comments that this guy Howard Dean might be running for President. I made a comment or two and I came back a couple days later and then began reading the blog pretty constantly. When I came on as campaign manager, I knew we wanted to do a blog, but I didn't have a big sense of urgency about it. I had a bunch of other things to worry about, but then two things happened that I think are interesting.
The first was meetup.com. I was reading the myDD.com blog one day, and saw this interesting thing called meetup.com that some of the Dean people from around the country were trying to use to meet up about Howard Dean. That caused me to check the meetup.com site. Within a few weeks, we'd made the decision that we were going to encourage people to do meetup.com. That idea came straight from a blog — myDD.com.
The second was another little twist of fate, or maybe destiny. A guy named Matt Gross came wandering into my office one day. He told me he had just driven from Utah because he cared so much about Howard Dean. He had decided to drive to Burlington without calling first, looking for a job. He managed to maneuver past the receptionist's desk and stuck his head in long enough to scream out, "I wrote for the myDD blog.com"! I immediately said, "You're hired!" And I think about 48 hours later he had this really ugly blog up that was on Blogspot. He was going to run back to Utah and get all his belongings and come back, but I said he had a job on the condition that he got a blog up before he left. And so in 3 or 4 hours, he created what was then the "Call to Action" blog. It was cute and ugly at the same time, but I think it was the first blog of a presidential campaign.
L: What kind of pushback did you get about the idea?
T: Well, I think first on even things like meetup.com, it was "why would we put an icon for meetup.com on our site?" and that was from the IT department. And I'd have to explain it and it would take a week to get things like meetup.com on the site.
About the blog, there really wasn't any resistance. But in the early days, there were many things that we had to get going. To get the blog going needed somebody like Matt. It needed somebody who was going to be able to care for it every day and make sure it happened while people like me and the governor were running around Iowa. Until Matt showed up, we just didn't have that person.
We're now onto our second blog. We had to retire the "Call to Action" blog. It was really a sentimental thing. We knew it was cute (and ugly), but it didn't have a comment section. We wanted to have a blog where people could comment — where there was interaction, and where we were building a community and a narrative of the campaign. So the day finally came when we had to retire the "Call to Action" blog. It was exciting to come out with a spanking new "Blog for America."
It was an interesting emotion retiring that little baby that got it all going — retiring it for this much cooler blog with a comments section, but still.
The response we are getting and the ideas that come off of it are just amazing. The comments section is just such an amazing thing. Little things you never would have thought of: Zephyr [Teachout] came up with the idea of having a poster that was downloadable and printable for each state, with a goal of getting a million of these posters put up — for example, "New Hampshire for Dean" — as a way to get visibility going. We put that up with the links of all fifty states and immediately afterwards, one of the first comments was, "I'm registered to vote, I'm working overseas in London, there's a lot of American expats here, and you know, you really, I'd love to have an Americans Abroad for Dean poster that I can put up and that my friends overseas can put." Two minutes later another post comment was, "I'm in Spain, and you guys shouldn't forget about us, you should do Americans abroad."
This is my 7th presidential campaign, but in every other campaign, the campaign never would have known that it had screwed up by not just creating the fifty-first sign. It's a small thing, but within ten minutes we had an "Americans Abroad" poster up with the rest, blogged about it, said, "hey, you're right, you caught that." And then right after that, someone posted, "Hey, you know, Puerto Rico's not a state, but it votes for President of the United States — votes for the nominee — and there's a lot of us down here, could you make a Puerto Rico for Dean sign?" All this is happening in the space of an hour.
There's this interaction going on between the campaign and every hole that we haven't plugged, or thought about. They're plugging it for us and saying, "Hey, you forgot this, you need one of those," and we're building them on the spot and putting them up for everybody to download.
I used to work for a little while for Progeny Linux Systems. I always wondered how could you take that same collaboration that occurs in Linux and open source and apply it here. What would happen if there were a way to do that and engage everybody in a in a presidential campaign?
L: So is this an open-source presidential campaign?
T: Yes. That moment when that was all going on made me think, "That's sort of what we're building here." I guess it's about as open as you can do it in modern-day politics.
L: From the perspective of a campaign manager, your objective is to motivate people to help spread the word and to build excitement around the campaign. How does the blog help you do that, different from what other campaigns have been able to do before?
T: Well, there's a real connectivity being created. There is no way you would be able to get these ideas. So many of the ideas that we're building the campaign around are coming from people who there would be no real way for us to communicate with directly.
All blogs are important because of the point of view of the world or insight that you get if you become a regular reader on an issue that you care about. I think that many of them do that, and I think it's really important to have one place where people can go constantly, and understand what this campaign is about, what our thinking is on things, and where we can have that feedback.
And we know immediately when we do something wrong. I had an appearance on CNBC last night, on the Capital Report, and as soon as I walked off the set, I just turned to everybody and said, "That was the worst television appearance I've ever, that I've had in this campaign." Well, I didn't even have to go look at the box to find out. You know when you mess-up; you know when you're hitting it right. You know when there's something you've got to think about that you haven't thought about because they make — the people make — you think.
L: So let's say I'm a campaign manager of a different presidential campaign, and I say to you, look, I've got an email list that is ten times the size of your blog list, and I accept feedback, people can send me email back telling me where I screwed up. Why is what you're doing better than what I'm doing, if my list is ten times bigger than yours?
T: One, it's faster — sometimes almost in real-time, if you sit there and read the comments while you're doing it. You can really talk-out the ideas.
But I think more importantly, there's a sense of community that forms around the blog. That's really what the Net is about. It's about building a community. There may be zillions of communities within the Net, but you know, your own community builds around that blog.
L: So it's a community because people are both reading and writing at the same time about these ideas?
T: I think they're both reading and writing the ideas, but the other thing is that there is a sense of community. There's a sense of, "We're part of each other, and we're trying to find our way." No matter whether it's an issue of importance to the campaign or the nation, we're all exchanging these ideas in common cause — except for the trolls, of course.
L: Let's talk a bit about the trolls. If I'm a traditional campaign manager, the first thing I'd say is, "My God, you're giving up control here, and look what you're going to face: you're going to face a world of trolls and how are you ever going to get over that?" How do you answer the trolls?
T: Well, actually, they came up with that ingenious thing over at the blog. They actually created a Dean Team. We have a team-raiser thing where you can contribute money, and they created a "troll team-raiser," Dean-raiser, so that any time a troll comes on, everybody automatically goes and contributes to the troll Dean-raiser account. It's actually been pretty effective. Thousands of dollars have been raised because of the trolls. And this is no joke. It's not one of those things where they go, "Oh, a troll, everybody go pay the troll Dean-raiser." They actually go do it. So if you come on our blog and trash Dean, what you've done is help him raise $500 that half hour. So that's done some job in discouraging them.
But in terms of the control thing: that's one of the reasons I don't think the other campaigns are having any success on the Internet. This is my 7th presidential campaign. In all of them, everything I ever learned was that you're supposed to have strong community control — military command over everything in the organization. You give commands to your state directors who give it to the county directors who order the precinct captains around.
I've worked with enough tech involving the Net to know that you will absolutely suffocate anything that you're trying to do on the Internet by trying to command and control it. It's hard to let go, but you know, we've decided that's what we were going to do. I don't think the other campaigns can do that.
There are a number of reasons this thing's working for Howard Dean. First, Howard Dean is who he is. He's different than these other guys. He's open, makes decisions based on facts, and really does believe that this is about engaging people in their democracy again.
Second, the campaign says, "Okay, we're willing to put the bat in people's hands, or put the blog in people's hands, and let them help us get there."
And third, regardless of where you are in healthcare, regardless of where you are on copyright or any of the issues that we've got out there, unless people stop complaining about them and actually get engaged in the democracy — unless this campaign can get them to participate in it — almost regardless of what our position is, there's no way those issues are ever really going to get addressed and solved. Because right now, in the end, it's all about the money.
This campaign is trying to say, "Look, you can do this differently. It doesn't have to be about the 33 lobbyists for every member of Congress in Washington. People actually have the power to engage and make a difference."
I think our blog helps do that. People get involved. They're actually participating in the campaign. And to the extent we keep building this community, then even people with positions different from the Governor understand that we're building this together. So that when we get into the White House, you know you're going have a fair hearing, and that we're actually going to have a discussion about some of these issues.
[Governor-on-the-phone break]
T: You know, there are all these issues that just never get solved, including a lot of the issues that that I've read you on — copyright and public domain. Part of the reason is that there's no one who can listen. When you have a system where there are 33 lobbyists for every member of Congress, and where it's all about raising tons of money to buy TV ads, the participation of the people doesn't really count. There's no one really encouraging them in the process. Then there's no way for people to have an impact on the debate.
That's one of the things this campaign really is about: the Governor believes strongly, and we believe strongly, that there's a responsibility for citizens to be involved in their democracy. You can't have self-government without it. That what's been missing for a good 2-3 decades now. It isn't something George Bush made happen. He's just put a magnifying glass on what we've lost.
What we need to do is to get people to participate in their democracy again. If people did that, and if thousands of them take small actions — a few hours of their time, a few dollars out of their wallet — there's a real chance that when a candidacy like ours wins the White House, the people will actually own their government again. And we'll actually have an honest discussion about all the issues that always get ground-down by the powers that don't want them to be raised.
We're trying to do a campaign that's on a different level than your standard presidential campaign — that's more than two people screaming at each other about who has employer mandates in their healthcare plan or not.
L: So when the Democratic Leadership Council attacks your campaign, are they attacking your campaign because they're not comfortable with this form of democracy?
T: Yes. I really think that's a good part of it. I think the one reason we have so much opposition — even within our own party — is because they like being in charge. They like it the way it is, or at least, too many of them do. And they're actually afraid of what would happen if people actually gave a damn again and started becoming involved and actually demanded that issues like healthcare got addressed without special interests whacking it down.
So yes, I have come to believe that a large part of why the DLC attacks Howard Dean so vehemently has a lot more to do with the power of what they're saying this campaign is about. They're not real thrilled with it.
L: One of the most surprising things that's happened in the last six months through the Internet — other than your campaign — was the extraordinary response to the FCC's decision about media concentration. One very salient feature of that response was that it cut across party lines. There was a real groundswell of support, both Democrat and Republican. Is that the sort of thing that you're hoping to build inside the Dean campaign, too?
T: Yes. Exactly. Because a lot of the problems are not ideological, even though broadcast politics makes them seem ideological. Broadcast politics has made the vocabulary of politics meaningless. Everything's quick and easy: "he's McGovern, he's a liberal." It's just two-word things. But the world's a little bit more complex than that. People are more complex than that. Howard Dean is definitely more complex than that. And the issues certainly are.
Many of these issues have broad support across the spectrum of our political discourse. The FCC decision is a good example of that. But they still don't get addressed. With the FCC decision: they were still trying to sneak that one by, but what was amazing was the response. That's exactly what we're trying to do in this presidential campaign: harness that desire for people to actually have a voice again. Our campaign is a platform for them.
If we do that, we will have made a huge change in the political process. A huge change in how campaigns are funded. A huge change in how people are participating again. And we'll have a participatory democracy again, in which the people demand that these issues are addressed, and they will be.
Our biggest hurdle is getting people over their disbelief that they can make a difference. And the one place where I think people are starting to get over that disbelief is on the Internet: because of the sense of a community they're getting when they go onto a blog, or when they participate in something like responding to the FCC, more and more people every day are starting to realize, "Hey, wait a minute, we do have the power to do something here." They saw it with the FCC, and how Congress reacted. I think people are seeing it in our campaign too.
It isn't just each person giving $25. The act of one person giving $25 alone isn't that much. But that so many people believe that by doing something, just a small amount, they could really rock and shake the Democratic race for President, meant that they did it. I mean, that was totally that same sense of "We do have the power to make change in the system."
The other part of that, though, is that it's harder when you're a candidate. There is some natural cynicism about whether he really does mean it. Is he really for real? Or is he just one of those other guys?
Our campaign strives every day to make clear that that's not the case. But that's the other thing the blog does. Every day, day-in and day-out, you go over there, you can check what's going on, and you get that human feeling for the people who make up this campaign. For who and what they are. And somewhere along the line you hope that when you have that kind of connection, the people will begin to realize, "You know what? Maybe they really are different. Maybe this campaign really is different."
How you would get that over on a sort of flat, wallpapered website, I don't know. But on a blog, there can actually be that depth of a connection with people, as they communicate and exchange ideas together over months and months.
At least, I hope so, anyway.
L: So you believe the actual architecture of the blog is something that is enabling a deeper engagement with these issues than the television or the standard way?
T: Yes, absolutely. I really believe that there's a deeper connection on the blog for the exchange of ideas than I think you get over television or just a flat website.
L: One more question. Let's talk about the money issue. Just what are the numbers now? What are the averages that you are seeing? Has the success been a surprise, or did you expect it? And talk about the Cheney lunch.
T: On the numbers: We're up to 224,000 signing up to support Howard Dean.
On the Cheney lunch: the Vice President had something like 125 people who gave him $2000 each, for a total of $250,000. We had 9700 people, giving roughly $53 on average, totaling $508,000.
But there were a couple things that surprised us. We really didn't have much doubt that our supporters would respond to that and meet the 250,000. But we never thought it would happen as fast as it did. We weren't even sure that half the people would open their email, and even know that we were doing it. We thought a lot of people would go away for the weekend, get back, and not even know the thing happened, because of how late we sent the email out on Friday. So we were surprised by that.
On the other hand, yes, I think we knew the whole time that we'd been building this not for the money. That was the interesting thing. We've really been building this from Day One because we believed it wasn't enough to organize something on the Net. We wanted people to organize, to use the online community, to organize in their offline community. And we've seen amazing, absolutely amazing, things there.
We had, for example, an email list of 481 people in Austin and we emailed them and said "We're coming." We get to the event, and there are 3200 people there. The reason there are 3200 people there is that those 481 people went out, downloaded flyers, leafleted the Latino community, leafleted polling places for a city election that was occurring, made phone calls, and did all those kind of things on their own.
This happens all the time. In Seattle, we showed-up and there were 1200 people, half of whom have never been involved in politics before, all organized by small groups of people who had come to the blog, or somehow used our organizing tools, but are all part of this Dean community that we're building.
So that's why we were building it. You know, obviously it was not lost on us that if we built that, contributions would follow. But yes, we were absolutely stunned at the size. We knew the contributions would follow, but never did I think it would be 83,000 contributions by June 30th, totaling, millions of dollars.
So to have the Cheney Challenge, with Howard Dean sitting ready to blog with his $3 turkey sandwich versus Cheney sitting down at his $2000 a plate lunch — that really does juxtapose the point that we're trying to make in this campaign. If we can keep that going, and get even more people to understand it, then that will be the difference here. If these guys are going to depend upon corporate soft-money and thousands of dollars from PACs, and it becomes a campaign of $2000 donors versus a campaign that gets $25 and $100 from thousand and thousands of people, and that adds up to be competitive with George Bush, then that's the way we will beat him. Then he is running against the American people, and the American people are running against a system that isn't listening to them. And then they are willing to get involved to fix it.
And then you can really get down to some of these critical issues that really do matter but that no one is going to do — if the FCC could have gotten away with it, they would have. And frankly, if 750,000 people hadn't rattled Washington, probably the President and his folks would've been able to push it through.
So that's what this campaign's trying to do.
We're still learning every day. When the Governor first got here, he didn't know what a blog was. But he's gone from "what's a blog?" to "Hey, how come the White House doesn't have a blog?" The whole thing has been a learning process for him, and I think it's been great. And it's great for both communities. It's great for him that he's learning more and more about this. And it's great for folks who use the Net to understand some of the core issues that are facing us. And that there's a guy running for President that at least has got an interest, and is at least trying to experience it. Some of it for the first time, sometimes not up to people's expectations, but I think it's kind of cool watching him. He's discovering things we knew three years ago, but it's cool to see a candidate for President discovering the same thing you discovered. It's pretty cool.
So watching that happen and watching him learn is fun. I was one of the early people on the Net, when the Net was something most people didn't know. I've gone through all that. And so it's kind of cool to watch. I've worked for guys who had no curiosity about stuff at all. It's just the way people are.
And we're learning too. I'm learning. I'm still trying to figure out what's working and what isn't working. And we've still got a lot of learning to do.
But the blog has been amazing. We just learn so much and get so many good ideas about how to move forward. Even with the Cheney thing: We were sitting there with $250,000 raised on Sunday. Half of them were saying to us, "I'm not giving till Monday. I refuse. Don't set this down because I'm waiting till Monday, I'm going wait till Dick Cheney is sitting there and then I'm giving my money." And the other half was saying, "We've made it." And we really didn't know what to do. And then all of a sudden, we started reading the comment sections, and it all became suddenly really obvious what we should do. And it worked. Everybody was happy. Everybody had collaborated, in nearly real-time. And we had a huge success.
Who can argue with $508,000 coming in over a $3 turkey sandwich?
http://www.wfs.org/2004tec.htm
The Future Impacts of Technology on Sex, Politics, and Religion
Sex, politics, and religion. Taboo? Perhaps. But also very important topics to consider when thinking of the future. In this session, the speakers will discuss new and emerging technologies and their potential impacts and implications on the future of sex, politics, and religion. Questions regarding the role of government, legal considerations, religious and ethical challenges, and social practices will be considered.
Who should attend: Anyone with an interest in the future of sex, politics, and religion.
What you’ll learn: Attendees will learn how new and emerging technologies could change the nature, meaning, and practices of sex, politics, and religion in the future. You will gather an understanding of the new issues and challenges that new and emerging technologies could pose to religious beliefs, politics and laws, and to sexual practices.
How this knowledge can be applied: These insights could be applied to businesses for consideration of new product ideas and launches as well as problems such products might encounter. They can be applied to political and religious organizations for policy and position development, and to individuals for thinking/clarification of personal beliefs and positions.
Amy J. Oberg, principal, Oberg & Associates, Maynard, Massachusetts
Ian Pearson, futurologist, BTexact; editor, The Macmillan Atlas of the Future, Ipswich, Suffolk, United Kingdom
isn't Nielson in Fla this week?
from Altos BanCorp site:
Current Deal
Acquisition, business development, strategic advise, & access to equity & debt financing for a publicly traded, regional computer hardware firm seeking to grow by acquisition & organic means.
http://www.altosbancorp.com/mainframe.html
hover "Portfolio" & click "Clients" (macromedia flash req'd)
FYI - Nielson is CEO & Founder of Altos.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1156784/000114420404000334/v01254_nt10-q.txt
Due to unanticipated delays in completing its financial statements for
the quarter ended November 30, 2003, registrant has only recently provided such
financial statements and related data to its independent accountants for review.
Registrant expects its Form 10-QSB to be filed on or before January 19, 2004.
Prolly an oversight of the MLK holiday, but i wanna see that filing TODAY Martie!!!
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=&CIK=1156784&filenum=&State=&SIC=&am....
"Do you believe everything you read?"
no, Snack, i do not...
http://www.wave.com/news/news_archive.html
Rivet... nice / e
Snack, still 5.5 months till June -- i'm still interested in Wave & will keep watching.
need some more clarity on a few of the issues i've written about, especially the SEC.
don't mind missing a bit of upside in exchange for fresh info on that matter & others.
& yep, i do consider you a friend... but still think the Tigers would have dismantled the Trojans on a neutral field.
right yaya?
awk, John Bogle is about as savvy as it gets / e
orda, if you like biometrics, take a look at BioKey (BKYI). nice little company & their tech has recently had successful bench testing. many "relationships" like Wave & are beginning to get noticed.
JMO
edit: Tampa, nicely put...
the *only* reason i posted in the first place was to rebut an incomprehensible comparison between Dr. King's & the wavoid dream.
the *only* reason i posted my recent wavx trades today was to rebut ronle's (& many other misguided voids') presumption that my opinion is dictated by my position (which necessarily implies that i'm using my posts to attempt to influence the price which is not the case).
the exact inverse is true -- i only own wavx when i can stomach it & (usually) when the stench of the BS reaches a certain point (such as when Wave was supposedly gonna do breakeven biz in '04 & that morphed into either '05 or '06 (translation: '07)), i dump. the occasions where i have been burned by wavx have *always* been when i just "trusted."
i have "posted against my position" more times than i can count over the years & the norms & mores of wavetopia are such that almost anything written that is negative or worrisome is generally perceived as "manipulative."
is it even possible here for positive posts to be considered "manipulative"?!?
anyway, here's some substance --- according to their website (posted on yahoo), Intel *still* has not released the MB:
Intel® Desktop Board D865GRH (coming soon)
http://www.intel.com/buy/wtb/wtb1022.htm
why do i still participate? why do i still read this board, let alone yahoo? why do i still do semi-regular google searches? why do i still pull a wavx quote 5 times during any given trading session & review the chart?
maybe it's b/c i still think there could be good reasons to own this stock @ some point in the future... just not right now.
you wrote: "I want to know when Wave's gonna make money." that is & has always been the vexing question T-123.
the pace of the adoption curve seems suggested by the pace of the deployment curve. Intel still says, "coming soon" & there is no clarity as to the NSM sitchy & the potential market for IBM/ATML TPMs (as well as the Infineon/HPs) remains completely unknown.
there has also been no info related to the DOD initiative which was rejected for bugs. has it been resubmitted?
finread seems to be in the toilet & SKS stated Wave has done everything it can to push it forward, so i can't imagine too many euros will be flowing into the coffers anytime soon.
the PP shares are still not registered, but on the plus side, SSPX provided sufficient liquidity last week to buy about another month's burn.
Wave has also been awfully (uncharacteristically) quiet since the SEC investigation began. my guess is the radio silence is SEC-related.
almost everything i've seen posted here DD-wise lately has a feel of stuff only relevant years into the future & i doubt highly that NextBend (or Ukrania TV or Mastery TV) is what will push Wave into the black. what is magical about the coming June is unbeknownst to me, though Snack seems awfully confident.
& here is something from my own little pea brain that i'm surprised nobody DDed yet, considering its potential drool factor.
JP Morgan buys BankOne --->
BankOne bought beTrusted --->
beTrusted made a deal w/Wave --->
does Wave end up working w/the "new" fully integrated JP Morgan?
PS i did find it rather interesting that Joe Trippi "doesn't know" if he still owns wavx or not. what wasn't surprising is that nobody here even touched the subject, 'cept Howie of course. one explanation might be that Trippi established a blind trust prior to the Dean campaign, but that's just a supposition.
PPS awk, if my opinion doesn't matter, why do you waste any time reading my posts? i know, i know, Things are Good!
tradetek's artificial intelligence model
http://www.tradetrek.com/NN/default.asp?symbol=HYTT
it projects short term movement (5 days) based on algorithms & provides a high/low range. the 5 day low range is virtually flat & the high is mid 6 range (+30%) w/a 45 degree angle upside bias.
itsonlymoney, IMO it is definitely time to accumulate!!!
no, you have it backwards ronle
whether i'm in or out changes w/my opinion, not the other way around.
got out when SKS fudged the "breakeven" representations during the CC & brushed aside the Nat. Semi inquiry. was SKSeptical of both issues & when he confirmed there was good cause for caution in his well worn Spraguespeak way, i acted accordingly.
got back in on day BofD member bought in & dropped it when there was no follow through (giving it the appearance of a trading aberation) & haven't been in since, which is fortunate IMO b/c it hasn't been above my last sell 'cept for a few pennies on that last spike up (& looks like it's trending back down again).
"the obvious sentiment of [my] present line of postings" was prompted by wavoid correlation w/a dream of "get rich & retire" (albeit one where the dreamer has an unenviable plight) & a dream of a color-blind America.
if you hadn't noticed, been sorta quiet lately.
ciao!
ronle if my opinions comported with yours i suspect you'd have gobs of regard for mine.
if my opinions were favorable to your investment, i suspect you would opine that i oozed substance.
reasonable minds can disagree.
smug?
no, it really isn't smugness, it's incredulous.
don't think i characterized anything SKS has done as "lie" that was your word Zen, not mine.
"It was the times, much more than the company."
i disagree & mainstream media coverage of this company (despite many inaccuracies in much of that coverage) has almost consistently portrayed the company in a decidely negative light. maybe much of that inaccuracy is due to the fact that understanding precisely what this company does, what is its business model, etc. is difficult b/c the subject is so nebulous.
i definitely do agree, howiever, that Wave still has a pulse & a chance to recover & prosper. if the Intel relationship bears fruit, you'll prolly have a winner.
"it seems to have all fallen under the bounds of safe harbor."
that really remains to be seen, doesn't it?
good luck to you, oknpv, et al.
edit: "It may have been a poor analogy"
it certainly was Zen...
ok's post was indeed touching & if this company's mgmt took their fiduciary duties seriously, there would be no criticism from me (nor from most i suspect) towards them. think about the subject matter of most of the critics -- it has one common baseline.
i suspect Stevie Wonder's embellishments, misdirection, exaggerations, hubris, etc. led to many families' struggles.
if SKS was a "straight shooter," i wonder if the brothers McCoy would have ended up dot bomb poster boys on the front page of the New York TImes financial section. wonder what their wives think of Spraguespeak?
wonder how many others were decimated by the decline b/c their belief in all things Sprague was so rose colored that they were certain that WAVX would hit new highs any day?
btw, didn't SKS recently make some such comment about how WAVX would be @ new highs again soon?
"I realize you have little time for such niceties."
dude, you definitely don't know what i'm all about.
edit: it's possible that the SEC investigation just might delve a bit deeper into Wave & its mgmt than just the early august trading. nobody here knows how it will be resolved.
sorry Zen but that doesn't cut it
oknpv has my empathy, but you equated his "dream" of risking his money in Wave w/MLK's by noting how appropriate it was today.
it is highly offensive to say the least that you would seek to draw any comparison whatsoever.
i surely won't TOS the post b/c i think it's far better for it to remain as an illustration.
as to ok's post, while i took issue w/it, i wasn't about to reply. IMO this company's principals couldn't care less about his plight. they have demonstrated their utter disregard for shareholders' rights for years & years. asserting that blame somehow lies w/individuals who express opposition to that conduct is beyond ludicrous.
Weby recently impugned HhH about how his posts may have kept some people from buying wavx when it was $0.82, but i'm left wondering how many people rode it down from $50 ----> $0.82 b/c of things like SKS standing firm in the face of Brian Alger's CC questions about the tens of millions rev forecast.
i hope things work out for him.
i truly do.