Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[barge]

dig space--WRONG! You write: "Whether HP has or has not acknowledged the Wavemeter is not germane to whether the Whether HP has or has not acknowledged the Wavemeter is not germane to whether the MSFT-Sony-Phillips-ITRU juggernaut has elected to license, employ, or plan for Wavemeter inclusion in the Janus monster. has elected to license, employ, or plan for Wavemeter inclusion in the Janus monster."

Last I heard MSFT JANUS DRM was in direct COMPETITION with Sony/Phillips DRM protocol. Therefore your attempt to lump the companies together as a "juggernaut" that will collectively be responsible for deciding whether to include the WaveMeter in the "Janus monster" is patently ridiculous, to say the least. Microsoft alone will decide what to include in the "Janus monster." Not Sony. Not Phillips. Not Interturst. (And I might add that the mere fact that MS settled with Intertrust doesn't obligate MS to use the DRM protocol of Sony/Phillips.)

But I suppose what you are really trying to claim is that the MS/ITRU settlement included MS receiving licensing rights from ITRU related to content metering. And if that is your claim, then your claim is specious. Such a claim assumes that ITRU even claim rights that specifically covers encrypted/local storage of Content Metering on the Client Side. But such an assumption would be FALSE. Why? It is FALSE for the obvious reason that WAVE would be LEGALLY MANDATED to discuss this potential competition in their 10-K. And WAVE DOES NOT DO SO!! Do you believe this was an OVERSIGHT on WAVE's part, especially in view of the fact that WAVE and ITRU have been partnered together in the past? Give me a break.

In a prior post you claimed that you lacked the "TIME" to support your case that ITRU owned the rights to metering. Is the reason really related to "TIME" or the lack of "FACTS"?