Zeev, Sorry I cannot be more concise.
Using Mr. Aleajactaest’s list of your topics, I would add to his good thoughts and those of others. I’m fairly sure you will realize I have aged (not matured) as a WAVX owner and may be dysfunctional from the last few years of nose bleed highs and bone crushing lows. Still, I am in good shape for the shape I’m in. I am not in love with Wave, but I may be in love with the “promise”. This means I will sell the stock as I feel the promise is fulfilled. I don't seem myself as a great investor (didn't sell enough WAVX in $40s). Bottom Line: That’s sort of who I am and here’s my two cents (is this metered).
1. Does it work?
I don’t know for sure. It works on view graphs. It works in controlled demonstrations. It apparently worked in an EDS test lab. Major OEMs are buying into it as if it works. Large industry groups are certifying that it works (again in the lab). I suspect it works after a fashion, has “features” yet unknown, and will be made to work better with each release. That describes it as a product on a single computer. If we look across products, they seem to have viable ideas in several interesting (money making) spaces. If we go to a distributed environment with complex services using evolving standards - well I think everyone (that includes WAVX) will have a problem for awhile, but I think they will work well enough to make a run on the brass ring. OK, OK, I want it to work.
2. Is it protectable and what is the IP ownership
They seem to have bargained their hardware IP for service rights but that probably was a good move for the long run. I don’t know about patents, but the cynic in me says this is a lawyer (read $$) issue. Wave does not have a lot of $$. Beware of Microsoft. Based on the earlier stated observations, WAVX has viable design IP in the rapidly evolving/changing services environment. They appear to have a head start (a product), but if there were no contenders in the wings, there will be lots after the last few days. Can they hold them off. I don’t know. Lack of money to do research may be a problem.
3. Is there a demonstrated predecessor need?
Yes. It is all around us. We are surrounded by protocols, workflow, documents, value icons, etc. As we move to a wireless, distributed, connected environment there is a on-going need for a trust and privacy infrastructure that is beyond the security sold for computers today. The trust and privacy that is coming electronically already exists in industrial solutions that are a foundation to society and our economy. The trick is to provide what works today cheaper, easier, etc. (your next question).
4. Is it sufficiently better than alternatives? (what I termed "twice as good at half the price")
Too early to tell in definitive manner. However, I think the Cubic agreement underscores industries realization that a new “player” is on the field. They will use the technology for military solutions, but a lot of their business is in commercial sectors and I suspect they see the potential for a much better technical solution at a greatly reduced cost. Otherwise they would not change (trust and privacy systems are usually best for the available $$).
5. Will it be used?
Another great question. My first thought is “not until it is available”. My second thought is it will not be truly available until more infrastructure boot straps up. Putting it in almost every computer should.do the trick. At that point, I think there are so many things that need to be flowed, controlled, validated, verified, maintained secure, kept separate, non repudiated, selectively networked, etc. - it will be used (and I am hoping WAVX is a prime mover in the space for the next three to ten years).
6. Are there potentially better future competitive alternatives?
I am sure there are, but the data point right now is nobody has found them yet. If WAVX gets rolling, they should have the funds to remain competitive - given good management. Have you asked about management yet?
7) Bonus credit: Management -
As near as I can tell, it has been excellent for the last three trading days.
Prior to that, I think Scott Adams would have better ideas than I do.
I like them because they hang in there and stay upbeat.
Some days I get concerned that they are coming up with too many good ideas.
I can live with that.
Heck, I would invite any of them down to the wine cellar if they are in town (Of course, they will get better selection if the stock price goes up - if that is a bribe reportable to the SEC, I formally withdraw the offer).
B.
