edit: again 24
trying to distort what i originally wrote.
which was (to the effect) that the 2 *most* valuable things in a take out of Wave, the 2d was its IP, but then countered it w/the fact that nobody needs to buy the company to have access to any of the the IP that is relevant to the TCG specs.
there is a BIG difference b/tw my stating a "top two" list & your "discounting to zero" scenario.
do you *really* think i could post the explanation of RAND you requested & simultaneously overlook the fact that the royalties would be paid to Wave (or their successor in interest)?
if so, why did i include in my RAND explanation discussion about reasonable royalties paid by licensee TCG members to licensor TCG members?
i think you already know the answers to all these questions before you distort the issues.
the point about this RAND stuff is largely unrelated to what i've been posting about today...
the RAND stuff was about whether Wave makes for a good strategic takeout (e.g. someone like INTC or MSFT) & i argued it is not worthwhile for them b/c they have access to the pertinent TCG IP already by virtue of RAND.
edit:
Ramsey2: could you articulate what you think changed b/tw August & November that permitted Wave to disclose new factors to PP investors? are you implying the PPers were privy to run rates, etc? or are you talking about things like Wave demonstrating their tech @ three booths @ once?
please explain how NDAs prevented Wave from seeking capital when the stock was in the high $3s?
it seems obvious that SKS & Feeney knew the stock wasn't worth $5 as they were dumping shares... why weren't they "leveraging" the "momentum" that they wish we could participate in, in terms of the market cap (which is down roughly 2/3s since then?)
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
