Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[SPIN]

24 - RAND Licensing:

= "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms.

Standards-setting bodies, trade organizations, collectives & the like, typically in the formation of the org & via its charter or articles (or whatever formative docs they use), agree to a pre-negotiated/pre-determined set of conditions to "level the playing field" & further the common goals of the entire organization (in this case, the TCG).

The term "reasonable & non-discriminatory" is likely more than enough for most here to understand the essentials of a RAND agreement (& thereby draw basic conclusions about that ingredient in the Wave/TC stew). TCG members who provide IP that contributes to the standards set by the org (e.g., TCG 1.2), in a sense, "contribute" the IP for the greater good of the whole.

The contributions, or what the TCG calls, "Necessary Claims", are provided for the benefit of all members, "restriction free" (more or less) where in this case, the TCG member/patent holder (could presumably also include copyrights & trademarks), irrevocably waives the right to apply restrictions to the use of the IP in question within the defined scope of the TCG's "open standard," as a condition to their membership in good standing & in exchange for the right to share other member's "Necessary Claims."

Generally, the TCG contributing members can't impose new or additional conditions/restrictions on the use of the TC tech/IP rights, or other restrictions on the activities of the licensee (in the scope of the TC tech/IP in question). It probably permits for the "care & feeding" of the licensee-licensor relationship for stuff like ADR, choice of law, rev/profit audits, etc. The TCG also provides for reasonable royalties to be paid by the licensee-members to the licensor-member for use of the so-called "Necessary Claims." Stuff like extra-territorial enforcement & monopoly term expiration are certainly not within the scope of powers of the org, but rather vested w/the respective sovereigns, so there are definitely some restrictions...

The TCG stipulates in Sec. 16.4 of its Charter: "...under reasonable terms & conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination, a non-exclusive, non-transferable, world-wide license under its Necessary Claims to such Specification to allow such other Members and their Affiliates to make, have made, use, import, offer to sell, lease and sell and otherwise distribute Compliant Portions, provided that such agreement to license shall not extend to any part or function of a product in which such a Compliance Portion is incorporated that is not itself part of such a Compliant Portion." There are also provisos for Reciprocity & to prevent circumventing Sec. 16.4.

https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/about/tcg_bylaws.pdf

As i'm unaware of what Wave IP (if any) forms a (partial) basis for the TCG specs, i can't comment on how it may, or may not, impact future revs. As there has been no disclosure from the company (which is perhaps precluded from doing so by membership terms, NDAs, etc.) & there is just a general accounting entry for "licenses" in the operating statements, i have no clue what degree of influence Lee has upon the standards (though i suspect there is some). It is, howiever, one of the reasons to infer that if the TCG prevails, Wave would likely see revs from RAND (& those revs might be significant if the end game results in billions of TC devices).

Thanks for asking - i woulda thought you already knew about this. Maybe it was just another one of yer many attempts to try to make someone look stoopid or discredit them? Only you know that though.

Personally, i'm much more interested right now in which Bill is gonna prevail tonight, Tutor or Protegé. SO, pardon me if i don't stick around for more banter this evening. BTW, can you explain the nuances of a "Cover 2" scheme? Strengths & weaknesses? What sort of personnel is best suited for the approach & what schemes are effective against it?

SPIN

PS Cheers to the '72 Dolphins!