The vision. And it's slow consummation:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=13099708
Mags,
Well good luck to you with those thoughts!
Because I see the world and the history of this marketplace rather differently, I have another perspective on the things that are happening now.
The things that we've discussed these many years about the development of the trust architecture appear to be coming to fruition. The need for a neutral trust agent knitting the whole structure together. Wave's place on the digital roundabouts and in the gaps between the industries. The early signs of the trust matrix. The submission of EFF. The all-encompassing nature of TC which draws multiple networks together and needs to provide interoperability across all kinds of equipment to function at all. The idea that you need to protect information as it is used (ETS), stored (ETDM) and exchanged (EEE).
Wave's role in the crystallisation of TC and it's place now in managing the TPM are very clear and match neatly with what we'd hoped might happen.
I remember when it was all a pipedream of the Wavoids, and when TCG appeared, that Wave would be marginalised by the gorillas. I remember when it was said the industry wouldn't accept TPMs and then when it did, that MS would crush Wave. I remember when MS dropped Palladium, people said no one would work with Wave and that the entire market would go to Infineon. I remember when Dell and Gateway selected Wave, and people said it was only a stop-gap measure.
And now I hear the wheel has come full circle, and the Wavoid's pipedream was not theirs at all, that Steven's evangelism had no effect, that people will not activate their TPMs, that at any rate they were just lucky, and that those who denied the plausibility of Wave's vision are not the ones in need of the spectacles.
As I look around the museum of my memories, the behemoths are all neatly pinned and labelled. They appear in their proper display boxes just where one would wish them to be. And to view the exhibits, all you need to get hold of is a key.
Funny, that.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=13057217
Mags,
Maybe I am missing your point. But I have read your posts and I disagreed with the points I thought I was reading. And I think I am reading some new ones here.
Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough. I'm going to highlight your points and then address them so you know what I'm responding to.
"My point was and remains that TC took off because of perceived financial benefit derived from Microsoft's NGSCB announcement. Without the capitulation of Microsoft the entire initiative would have likely stagnated or at best limped along, as it had been doing for years."
From my point-of-view, you are still trying to make an either-or out of a both. Wave was one of a small group that initiated the TC discussion. MS was a late and reluctant participant. But I acknowledge it has its own diaspora, which doubtless was heavily influenced by their NGSCB design and Bill Gates' trustworthy email. Both of these things can be true.
MS was manouevred out of its power of veto by the creation of TCG. This is what had generated the stagnation you correctly identify. But the progress which followed resulted in no small part from the removal of MS as an obstacle rather than form its motivation. The Vista sticker and 1.2 requirement (where it operates) will help. I don't dispute this.
The hardware industry was committed to delivering TC before MS decided to deploy its own Palladium solution, which was itself an attempt to pervert the existing force of the industry to their own ends. Intel, AMD, IBM, HP - they were committed to TC BEFORE MS was. TC continues to exist after MS abandoned its original TC effort.
Re cooperation.
"Is it not obvious to you that there remains no master plan for TC where the players are working together for mutual benefit?"
Mags, no one has said this, except to the extent they all benefit from the introduction of a common layer of trust. The standard is a blueprint for the creation of a more secure architecture for using, storing and exchanging valuable information. It needs to be interoperable. This is a public good which the participants acknowledge.
They are working together to create a standard. What do you think an industry standard is? Everyone who joins has realised they cannot compete in the architectural layer. They agree on the framework of trust, and how it needs to be delivered. They then create their own products that attach to TC's extensions. These products may, indeed, be competitive with those created by other companies. But by submitting to the common standards, they render their products compatible and essentially they cooperate in the structural layer of the marketplace.
"Read SKS's own words...they make clear that TC is a difficult initiative because the industry is fragmented by a number of key players each seeking the best financial outcome for themselves."
Of course. The standards drop out of a discussion that gradually eliminates these proprietorial interests. It takes time to do that. Companies aren't used to being in the position of building a trust framework. That is usually the role of government. But we don't have a global government to set the terms of trust for everyone in cyberspace. So we have had to go the consensus route. Get a sufficient number of expert eyes and they will eventually spot someone trying to make something proprietorial out of the standard.
"This is capitalism not socialism."
No one has said TCG eliminates companies working for their own profitability. And no one, from Adam Smith to Friedrich von Hayek, has said capitalism demands we compete in the architectural underpinnings of the marketplace. These are not contradictory things.
It is capitalism to cooperate in the development of trust. It is capitalism to compete in the marketplace created by trust.
Capitalism relies for its exchange on the existence of currencies, on the existence of markets with their rules, on the existence of laws and law enforcement, on the existence of property rights and the securing of those rights by practical methods. These are not things derived through competition. They are the architectural underpinnings of the free market. They are the trust layer that enables capitalism. And they are developed as a result of authority and/or agreement. TCG is this kind of thing.
Walmart competes with KMart, say, on one level. On another, they use the same currency, pass their goods through the same customs controls, submit to the same minimum wage laws, have their trucks roll along within the same speed limits etc. Is this socialism?
In fact, the development and extension of monopolies such as Microsoft's could not be further removed from capitalism. They have been found to be anti-competitive. Allowing them to subvert the industry standards for their own gain would be profoundly uncapitalist by any definition I am aware of.
"That Microsoft made the commitment is indicative of a financial benefit to Microsoft, not the persuasive salesmanship of Wave Systems."
Again, these two things are separate statements. The one does not prove the other. Wave may have sold MS on the idea. And MS decided to act because it thought it would benefit.
All the same, just because MS decides to act does not necessarily tell you they see a financial benefit? Profit is an important motive. It is not the only one. AMD committed to TC before it was aware of any gain it could make as a result of it. Strongin specifically talked about the public good of TC as its most attractive element and that at that time he could NOT see how AMD would itself derive a benefit from it. Everyone acknowledges cyberspace needs a fix. Maybe some people are motivated by making benefits to society as well as to themselves. Ultimately, I suppose, everyone benefits when the infrastructure is reliable.
MS, of course, has damaged itself by getting a reputation for being selfish and/or untrustworthy. This is not the optimal methodology for competition in game theory. If you haven't, you should read The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley, which explains this stuff better than I can. You do better in the long run by being seen to be a straight shooter.
| 