Replies to post #3256 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[Zeev Hed]

bluefang, I was referring to the patents I run into few years back and that related to encryption using third parties, I think I am getting the drift that some of the new patents (I mentioned two yesterday) relates to security systems residing on each individual unit without the need for a hand shake with a third party. I have not read these in detail (they are not assigned to Wave, and I was hoping someone would clear the ownership issue and how they became part of Wave's IP, before I spend a lot of time studying these).

By the way, to clear the air here, I see your referring to yourself a "wavoid", am I right to understand this term is not irrisory but indeed a term of "endearment"?

Last, I am not "looking" for flaws, I do try and understand the business strategy and evaluate whether the resources required to actualize such strategy are in place (IP, finance, marketing and management), but I think that for the time being, I'd like to learn more about , the six queries, above. Oh as for the Fort Knox vs the small castle, I am quite familiar with that differentiation, that was exactly the goal set by Gate Technology for their own "infallible" notary public on your computer.....(#6,209,090) mentioned before.

[scorpio_esq]

As a legal cynic, I'd say that a patent estate is not a reliable basis for constructing a comprehensive or potentially successful business strategy. Ultimately, patents are a factor in costing a competive strategy in the same way one makes a "make or buy" decision, except in the case of evaluating the saliency of a competitor's patent estate, one might call it the "license or circumvent" decision. Bootom line, because Intel decided to license Wave's services, one must assume that they were satisfied with their rational financial calculations in this regard. Whether you are satisfied or not is, frankly, irrelevent to most on this thread.

scorpio_esq