Replies to post #75338 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[TheBerkshires]

awk,Doma,go-kite.....any long


What do you think of the article referenced ?

[buffetguy]

kisamura two problems with that reasoning:

first, MSFT's software people have their hands full w/ Longhorn outside the security arena

AND

secondly, the consuming public doesn't trust MSFT with their security given MSFT's track record.

It doesn't pay MSFT to do this because the headache(s) involved with public relations would be too great. WAVX is already there and can serve as the agnostic and trusted third party.

Look at it this way: Wave Systems is really now part of INTEL in a matter of speaking. WAVX is sorta a 'division of Intel'.

So, MSFT is going to incorporate Wave because it is part of

W.I.N.T.E.L.

get it?

[go-kitesurf]

kisamura,

I'll say this, MSFT will deliver enhanced security services with Longhorn, but they won't deliver the security, itself.

If you believe what you posted, you are a fool to be invested in Wave. If you are not invested right now, you are a fool to be spending time posting on a messageboard that has nothing to do with your life.

[helpfulbacteria]

Kisamura... That's not quite the case.

Identity software or protocols for establishing identity is not the business that Wave Systems is in. Single sign-on (SS0), whether coming from the BUSINESS side (Liberty Alliance) via federated identity or working from the consumer side (ID-CARDS) is a marvelous convenience. It's truly valuable to consumers and business users alike. SSO (with XML underlying it) presents all kinds of potential privacy threats, which seem to be in the process of being addressed. Indeed, some of this was covered in a New York Times article about Bill Gates' recent "Think Week": a retreat in which he sets the key initiatives for Microsoft in the coming year. (Interestingly enough, Gates is fascinated with the growth in the size of hard drives and seemingly obsessed with video on the Web. The article also mentioned a Microsoft white paper about isolating worms in a novel manner.)

As many here know, I have been following the whole identity movement for a while now... including the work of Phil Becker, Drummond Reed and XRI, and Microsoft's original PASSPORT plan.

I have doggedly tried to establish a DIRECT link to Wave's CURRENT business plan. At various points I wanted there to be a direct link (and Wave and OneName were partners) if only because I saw Reed's visionary work as complementary to Wave's mission. I even went so far as to try to spark new types of conversations between OneName representatives and Wave folks at the first DIDW.

While identity is certainly effected (strengthened/secured) by various aspects of Wave's work... it is NOT, absolutely NOT Wave's business. The topic of digital identity IS very relevant to Wave... as are several other topics. But, it is NOT the company's core or even a tangential business.

How do I know this? Why should you believe me?

One need only look at Microsoft's original PASSPORT work and/or the work of the Liberty Alliance. When you review Microsoft's original plan or the current work of Liberty Alliance--and I have--you will see that HARDWARE-based trust that is managed by middleware certainly helps ensure that credentials are safe/secure and can be trusted. But, that's the ONLY direct Wave connection.

Had PASSPORT gained traction... would that have really changed Wave's "trusted computing" work in any substantive, in-depth ways? Your answer to that question will be revealing. Think about it. Trusted Computing--the use and management of hardware-based trust--would have been an important "safe" for PASSPORT credentials. But, that's all.

It is always good to be somewhat wary of any monopolist... Microsoft, for example. But, if you seriously believe that the ID-CARD supplants Wave's position or is a way of taking business away from Wave, I would suggest that you might need to a tad bit more research. I've had to do that. Week before last, as a matter of fact. So, maybe you should not be spared the exercise.

Now, of course, you will think that I am part of the POLICING action that happens occasionally around here. But, just as I would strongly question a Barge about Janus, I'm not going to accept another cry of "Fire" in the crowded theatre... when there is not even a wisp of smoke to concern us.

Best Regards,

c m

[Da_Deven_Dolla]

Kisamura – You Don’t Get This Investment At All! Heck, you don’t even understand the TC space one bit. Let Microsoft bundle the software applications within Longhorn. That is fine with Wave and probably agreed on years ago dating back to when Sprague said it himself at a Digital ID conference with Peter Biddle of Microsoft. No longer supplying the software to market will not spell the end for Wave. You need to read Awk’s posts a little more before posting such absurdity. Who will provide the Server infrastructure that will backup keys and attest platforms within an NGSCB secure execution environment? Who will work with vendors to write applications that can run in this environment? Who currently owns the only TCG-enabled CSP that is interoperable on every platform? Who is currently writing new applications to be used in the new Trusted Computing grid that will create recurring revenues per a subscription-based model?

You are high if you think that Microsoft will create the complete end-to-end solution for Trusted Computing supplying all the parts mentioned above that Wave Systems just so happens to already own. Remember, Microsoft doesn’t want to supply every part of the TC grid and there has to be money to be made for all parties. If it wasn’t so, no one would ever let Gates get away with it. Heck, just look at the story you referenced. Microsoft tried it alone with Passport and Hailstone and it never went anywhere.

How stupid is it for you to post an article that actually supports the very reason why Microsoft needs Wave.

Good luck with your investment.

Steve

[Wildman262]

kisamura, the fact is, trusted computing has not made anyone any money yet. This includes Wave. It's a common refrain that if every Wave is so great, Microsoft will embed or build it into Longhorn.

Using that arguement, there would little need for any other client software company, because MSFT would embed them all.

Will I don't dismiss the squashing powers of Microsoft, there is a big consortium of companies called the TCG that don't want MSFT to have control of the security infrastructure.