Replies to post #5222 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[WinLoseOrDraw]

i don't think that's what he's getting at. it isn't a question of whether or not the chip *can* get a trustworthy clock, it's a question of whether the method to get a trustworthy clock signal can also be used to shove an unsecure time down the chip's throat.

if so - and i'm saying if, i don't know - that would be a huge hole.

[Zeev Hed]

The beauty (and apparently truly novel and not obvious) features of '202 and '239 is the fact that the co-processor resides with the PC or "extremely close", the fact that one needs a "trusted network" for embassy to be "trusted" negates the major "patent advantages" and from a marketing point of view, creates an "egg and chicken" situation.

Let me try and explain. Security systems using third party "keys" (and a time stamp fetched from a third party, namely a "trusted network", is a third party key) are all old and well known in the prior art. That was indeed the Impetus for Gate Technologies, Inc. to approach Invent Resources Inc. to invent a "third party- less" secure and inviolable time stamp (the #6,209,090).

From a marketing point of view, until their is a deployed trusted network, why would people buy an unusable secure system that is not (fully?) operable without such a trusted network, but if there are no users in the field, who would invest in deploying such a secure and trusted network? The chicken and the egg problem.