edit3: corrected it barge.
doesn't change the point though -- he was CofB during a period where numerous allegations were made which sound very familiar to Wave.
it ended badly.
edit: btw, i noticed that nobody responded to D&O's question.
do you know if Wave resubmitted the secure signature stuff to DoD? as you may recall, it was previously rejected for bugs & it seems there was no follow-up thereafter...
or at least no follow-up that anyone knows about.
do you know?
edit2: Doma, and this is in your learned opinion? what do you make of the FACT that the $1Million+ "loan" (which woulda violated Sarbannes-Oxley if conveyed just a bit later (& mkaybe the "forgiveness" does violate S-O) was not repaid, deemed "uncollectible" & a 100% reserve was booked on Wave's numbers... then a few months later the INTC pop results in a dump?
could one construe that as an insider, he knew the INTC PR was in the offing? as such, could one construe that the timing of the sale is problematic, maybe even in violation of the 1934 Act?
you know he is on the record regarding this matter?
is that "BS"?
edit 3: Doma -- MSFT has somehow managed to book some top line over the years... btw, any chance that MSFT & RNBO are co-developing their own "SSC"?!? & btw2, why hasn't MSFT just adopted the TCG terminology? why does MSFT call it an "SSC" instead of TMP? might they have some plans for their co-developed (& MSFT-branded) device?
is it "BS" that MSFT & RNBO are working on their own hardware security device & that MSFT doesn't officially use the acronym TPM (electing instead to call the hardware device an SSC for NGSCB purposes)?
is it possible that MSFT might have a workaround?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
