Replies to post #2230 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[SPIN]

nottachance

the structure of exec compensation over 14 years was grossly excessive.

your logic doesn't fly on Wall Street - only in voidland.

it's okay, but the loan was inappropriate.

if they had awarded options w/strikes @ the 52 week high, i woulda supported that b/c it is rooted in performance.

your reverse rationalization doesn't jibe.

but i *know* a lot of people are really happy right now & i'm glad to see so many w/disproportionately high %s of their portfolios in wavx (& most underwater).

my only significant differences are w/mgmt's conduct & philisophical ones w/voids who defend the conduct.

genereally speaking, voids are overall some of the nicest people on the planet (or orbiting the planet, as the case may be).

i'm happy for you BB & every other void from ham & egger to Snack for the swelling of their equity accounts balances.

i truly am happy for you & many others...

best,

SPIN

[24601]

Betsybug: Although I have been disturbed by some things at Wave that seem to reflect a culture of self-dealing, I also try to pay attention to other parts of the very large picture that we all study. Given the complexity of that picture, it is a challenge to maintain a balanced perspective.

Whatever Wave has achieved with Intel -- and the market seems to think it's much more than I currently can discern -- it was not achieved this week. It is the product of a sustained effort. The people at Wave were doing the work last week and last month and last year, all the while being accused of all manner of dereliction. Many who so accused them seem now to hail their achievement of "this week" as though they finally -- suddenly -- got off a dime.

The milestones of this achievement were not entirely invisible. Somebody catalyzed a trusted computing movement that depends on trusted clients. I think Wave played a part.

In the face of those who insisted that software-only solutions would overwhelm Wave's insistence on client-side security-silicon (in today's incarnation, TPM's), Wave persevered. They pressed ahead. They solved problems. And they resolved doubts.

In the face of those who insisted that the server-goliaths would crush Wave's client-side paradigm, Wave persevered. They served as vanguard in the movement to establish trust at the edges of networks.

That battle seems won. The TCPA/Palladium/LaGrande/NGSCB/TCG has yielded specifications for hardware on the client side as requirements for trusted computing.

I think the 5-gorilla consortium that formed TCPA (comprising Compaq, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel, and Microsoft) had its inception in the summer of 1998:

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=WAVX&read=1212

Somebody kept Wave relevant -- and might even have made Wave indispensable -- during the evolution of trusted computing through TCPA/Palladium/LaGrande/NGSCB/TCG.

So I agree, Betsybug: The ledger on the people at Wave really does have two sides. One records some blame, to be sure. But the other reflects credit. Here's hoping that, when we see the whole picture clearly, it won't be hard to discount some of the blame in light of the mass of the credit.

Best wishes,
John