Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WAVX Anyone? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: andrew peterson who wrote (7750)	7/4/1999 1:29:00 PM
From: Sr K	Respond to of 11417

1. In a mobile world "in-home" is too restrictive. 2. I've asked this before: Why are the Wave Patents ["The Wave Patents are material to protecting certain of the Company's technology. The Company's rights to the Wave Patent derive from a license, amended and restated in February 1994, from Mr. Peter J. Sprague, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, of his rights in the Wave Patents (the "Amended License Agreement"), and several agreements with former officers of the Company regarding their rights in the Wave Patents. The Amended License Agreement provides for royalty payments ..."] not assigned to WAVX directly? Why the indirect "his rights in the Wave Patents"? Are PJS's rights less than total rights? He could have fractional, and royalty-based rights the way this disclosure is worded, say for 1% of revenues, and pass it through to WAVE for 2% of revenues. People who do things straightforward can be trusted, people who don't, less so. Where can we read the terms of PJS's rights to the Wave Patents? 3. Why the repetition on this board that PJS was Chairman of NSM? Wasn't Charlie Sporck the real head and real leader of National Semi during that period? And Sprague the 2nd generation leader of SPE Sprague Electric that faltered and got taken over by NSM? It looked like PJS got the title and NSM got the company. Chairman of NSM under those circumstances adds zero credibility to me, and the repetition dilutes whatever may have been there. 4. Despite having changed its name twice, the current choice indicates a poor understanding of trademarkability and reflects a lack of business sophistication, or is meant to obfuscate. It is confusing to have so many other similar sounding names and phrases, covering unrelated areas. 4. I've never been long or short WAVX or its options.

To: andrew peterson who wrote (7750)	7/4/1999 2:48:00 PM
From: genejockey	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11417

andrew, I'm posting to you cause out of the 5 or so replies I'd like to put up, yours will be the quickest and most doable before I take off for some festivities. I must say that, with the exception of that Marty Lee character, the WAVX longs are much more eloquent than the CUST Yahoos, and I'm sure you guys think you got something special over here. Regardless, like I told the guys over at CUST, WAVX is playing a 0 sum game here. If WAVX does not rule the world (I'm sure you guys are willing to admit that for WAVX to make it, it must get significant penetration on the boxmaker and content provider side.), WAVX is heading to 0... which is the same scenario as CUST. For a multitude of reasons, I doubt people will be willing to make large$ purchases on a WAVX system as compared to using a Credit Card for price protection, resolution of consumer complaint reasons, etc. and for the simple reason that most people like to have their purchases itemized on the CC. Now that leaves the market of microtransactions for WAVX. WAVX's plan to recieve 50% of the transaction cost (40% WAVX & 10% to box maker) while giving the other 50% to the content provider is pie in the sky. If there is ever a significant market for microtransactions on the Net, VISA and CYCH will be able to undercut those margins by very significant amounts. For example, content provider wants to make $0.25 per view. Will have to charge $.50 via WAVX (10% Box maker, 40% WAVX and 50% content provider). Now, what would Visa do? VISA is happy and profitable with 2-3% margins, and EVEN AT THIS TIME, has no problems with accepting purchases in the $4 range. Let's see, 2-3% of $4 is $0.08 - $0.12, SO EVEN AT THIS TIME, Visa is more than happy to just make approx. $0.10 off a transaction. So here is the scenario, Content provider charges $0.50 thru WAVX or $0.35 thru Visa on a digital wallet set up on your browser? Which choice is the consumer going to take? What if Visa decides to play hardball and is willing to take 16% of the total on microtransactions meaning a content provider wanting to bring in $0.25 would only have to charge $0.30 with Visa? Where would that leave WAVX who would be contractually obligated to hand over 10% to the box maker? If WAVX would have to match say the $0.30 and the content provider ain't budging and the box maker wants 10%, then that would leave just $0.02 for WAVX! That 10% to the boxmaker is what is going to kill WAVX, because neither Visa nor CYCH nor any other software based payment mechanism needs to give away 10%, and can therefore easily undercut WAVX who will always be burdened with that extra premium on all transactions. The only reason that a major player such as Visa is not in the microtransaction arena is because at this time, the volume of microtransactions is not there to make it worthwhile nor profitable, but believe me, if and whaen such transactions look to pick up, a company such as Visa will come in to mop up the likes of WAVX.----gj

To: andrew peterson who wrote (7750)	7/4/1999 2:57:00 PM
From: ecommerceman	Respond to of 11417

Andrew: Yeah, the attack for the A@P shorts has been interesting, and actually kind of fun. It sorta gets boring parsing the same press releases for new meaning all the time, but these assaults get the juices flowing. You hit the nail on the head: it comes down to deployment, and risk/reward ratio. If we deploy, we kick ass; if we don't, then we're out a good chunk of money. I believe the reward is so great that the risk is worth it, and so I'm staying long. Our charming A@P friends might well make some money, too. I suspect the Barrons article will knock us down a point or two on Tuesday, but I'd advise them to cover quickly and move on--I wasn't kidding when I said that shorting this stock could be the equivalent of a market order on an IPO (cliche' or not, although I've sure as hell never heard it...). This stock could easily double in a day, given the right announcement. Oh, and one other thing: click on Anthony@Pacific's personal profile sometime. What a sanctimonious asshole!! By the time I was through reading it I was weeping in gratitude that somewhere, somehow, another human being exists that combines the heart of Mother Teresa with the macho of Eliot Ness...