Talk:Next-Generation Secure Computing Base

message: User:66.92.75.2 removed the sentence "However, this interpretation is inconsistent with trademark law in the US, in which it is usually possible for two or more marks to be held on the same name so long as the rights-holders do not use the marks for trade in the same industry.", on the basis that the possibility of using NGSCB to strengthen copy protection on e-books is a potential crossover area between the business of Microsoft and Palladium books.
I find this an extremely weak argument, because NGSCB itself has nothing inherently to do with DRM or e-books and simply provides secure storage, curtained memory and secure remote attestation. While these things can certainly be built upon to implement secure DRM on e-books (along with many other distasteful things), there is no evidence to suggest that Microsoft would ever have marketed technology which directly implements DRM under the Palladium moniker, and so no evidence to suggest that trademark law would have been a realistic issue.
It is in my opinion far more likely that Palladium was merely an internal codename which was always destined to change, that the name lost favour within Microsoft, that it was changed for political reasons, or any combination of the above.
If someone disagrees adequately to remove the sentence again, however, I will see no need to put it back. --Lezek 04:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademark issue edits 

message: Just encountered this article. Palladiation. Is (or was since the name change) this a real word in use? Since there are no links that that article and google only finds a few hits. Mostly to wiki mirrors. If not, I will put it up for AFD. Garion96 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do. It sounds like someone's pet neologism to me --Lezek 04:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, will do. It's up for afd now. Garion96 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palladiation 

message: "and so will not operate on contemporary PCs." Contemporary means what in this case- PC 2001? MarkMLl (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporaneity 

message: I've spent a hour searching the MSDN site and have not found anything mentioning ngscb or nexus kernel since march 2004.  I also searched for curtained memory. Nothing.  
With two major OS versions (Vista and 7) completed since NGSCB was described, and still no appearance of its features, I suspect that it is dead. It is at least dormant. 
Of course, Vista and 7 have the bitlocker drive encryption feature, which depends on the Trusted Computing Module (TPM), but NGSCB was a much larger proposal than mere drive encryption. 
Leotohill (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe reference the old page, if it still exists? It seems factual that their page isn't updated, but speculative as to why. My 2¢.
Mmernex (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is NGSCB dead? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Next-Generation Secure Computing Base. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/2002-07-05.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://download.microsoft.com/download/c/f/1/cf1806ad-5a4f-4f7d-a5b2-07fdb59a7adb/WH03_TPT11.exe
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified