the contradiction that is wavoid logic
whenever anything is posted that has a negative slant as to Wave, it is attacked by guard dogs & must be linked & proven & proven & proven again. yet, bargey, you post this unsubstantiated claim (which has been tossed around for years as "fact").
"WAVE was largely responsible for writing the TCPA specs."
please proffer something independent of drooling wavoid speculation to support this claim... & while yer at it, why not throw in some support for the contention that Wave co-chairs a critical TCG sub-committee? that too has been passed around as if it were fact, yet nobody seems to be able to provide anything (not even a year old PDF schematic!) to prove it.
as to Weby's point about "...most standards groups are to PREVENT the writing of new standards," IMO that is true about TCPA b/c the founding members each had a veto (like the U.N. when the U.S. or U.K. would veto anything brought forth by China or the USSR & vice versa & nothing progressed), so in effect, the TCPA structure was preventing the writing of new standards (somehow v. 1.1 did manage to wiggle through TCPA, but IMO the writing was on the wall that the TCPA structure was doomed from its inception). it was always MSFT v. the hardware crew & understandably so b/c there is potential billions & billions at stake in TC.
internet & cpa - yeah, i don't doubt that there were tons of those sorts of predictions & IMO those predictions came from those that don't seem to fully appreciate the gravity of Wave's current quagmire (many of which would rather post nonsense about what jackals the law firms are & how BS! all the investigations are & how wavoids should sharpen their pitchforks & file a countersuit against MW (that'd get bounced on a 12(b)(6).
meager volume & a downtrend just before the big annual hype-fest says it all. sorry to spidey for calling him on it, but hype is hype...
Zen - you may be comfortable residing in Firenze, but IMO Wave's inner circle has placed their own interests in front of yours as a shareholder time & again & it has finally caught up with them. you can rationalize it all you want, but if the family biz was run like a publicly-traded company, this mess wouldn't exist. they own a ton of stock, why can't they just participate on a level playing field w/you & anyone else who owns shares (in addition to their non-performance guaranteed bonuses, free apartments, etc)?
that is s'posed to be the deal when a firm leverages public equity markets... the days of family biz cookie jar grabbing end w/the IPO, or at least they should end. yer entitled to rationalize it all & figger that if "the prince" gets rich, so will all the peasants, just as i am entitled to criticize what is IMO a naked disregard for fiduciary duty.
THAT is my "gripe" w/Wave... as it always has been.
& contrary to c_m's Valentine theories, i don't hold it directly against the shareholders, i hold it against the executives that IMO have consistently stripped away publicly held resources for fifteen years.
what i do oppose in terms of S/Hs is the sprague-apologists & double standard-bearers who will say anything to hype the stock & sweep anything negative under the already lumpy rug. "DD" necessarily includes both sides of the coin & if voids weren't so quick to sweep more & more lumps under the rug, maybe mgmt wouldn't act as if they were exempt to the constraints of fiduciary duty IMO.
apparently you (c_m) take issue w/people you perceive to be posting from one perspective, yet trading opposite to the posting perspective. you are entitled to take up that cause & it's not all that unlike mine ('cept mine is focused on the execs who IMO mislead & gorge at the trough - essentially the same thing albeit on a much larger scale).
& btw, c_m, i haven't been long, short or holding any puts or calls of Wave Systems since well before the SEC investigation was announced.
that's it fer tonight.
kisses,
SPIN
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
