Replies to post #40326 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[barge]

Paul--The only part of your post last night I did not rave about was your speculation that MS would engage in a joint R&D venture (or direct MS capital infusion) with WAVE. In such a scenario, WAVE would be regarded as a transparent front for Microsoft, which would enable them to nefariously try to monopolize not only the PC platform but the Web/Internet Platform, as well, via the Embassy OS.

Of course, a MICROSOFT announcement that they would be using Embassy as a key component of JANUS, is another angle of how MS could massively assist WAVE. A JANUS/WAVE type scenario appears more reasonable and likely, than a simple unilateral infusion of funds (or R&D) into the WAVE coffers.

[nicknamen]

Paul, your posts say what I have been thinking. The part that needs to be addressed are the details.

How would SP2 include or reference Wave, and if it did, would it not be a false solution as there too few actual TPM's out there or shipping to to our knownledge to effect a real answer to Windows security today? Now if Dell announced all products were shipping next week with the NSM super I/O TPM chip /w/ our stuff - well that would be a pretty good solution. Still what would be the Wave tie in to SP2? I don't know.

However, Microsoft is the best at smoke and mirrors and grand gestures, so maybe a Wave investment announcement touting our technology for TC, would give them a glow of credibilty and explain why they delayed NGSCB, saving face.

Besides, my guru, Malagula, said this was coming. So, not to worry.

Nick

[scorpio_esq]

Ipredictnot a joint venture, but a complex licensing agreement withjoint R&D provisions that do not appear to violate Wave's strategic stance of industry neutrality. MSFT knows that the TCG can provide a complete solution, if it goes to a level of chip that provides secure execution, which is not a big technical hurdle, given the extent to which Wave has already accomplished this. MSFT is irrelevant to the successful evolution of secure, hardware-based computing. It's only real relevance is that the consumer cannot conceive of using anything but some version of windows as its required operating system. This is a psychological customer base lock-in, not a technical one. Itsultimately no more a requirement to use Windows as an O.S., as it is to use a car with a standard steering wheel and brake and gas pedallayout. MSFT's genius is that it has convinced the consumer that a mundane technology (Windows) can solely be successfully depolyed as a Microsoft Corporation product. Windows is first and foremost a marketing franchise that has to be protected and promoted. It is a mistake to think that it is a technical franchise that cannot, with effort, be successfully superceded in one or even all aspects. A difficult task? Obviously. An impossible task? Not necessarily. We are seeing a significant attempt in the work and strategy of the 170 members of the TCG. JMO, of course.

[wavelet]

Paul, your post just makes me think ...

that Steven wan't stupid when he was singing a Microsoft song at the TCG infosec meeting last week. He stood up for 20 minutes basically saying you can manage TPM's now with Microsoft Windows Server 2003!

Wavelet