[3599] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
RE: Digicash bankruptcy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Phillip Hallam-Baker)
Fri Nov 6 13:59:02 1998
From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
To: <sjl@sjl.net>, "Robert Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com>,
<cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>, <cryptography@c2.net>, <dcsb@ai.mit.edu>
Cc: "PhilAgre" <pagre@alpha.oac.ucla.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 22:58:23 -0500
In-Reply-To: <004d01be0937$e147c160$0300a8c0@sjl4120>
> > Finaly I have difficulty regarding Digicash as being all that socially
> > responsible. Chaum's problems had a lot to do with the business terms
> > he insisted on. What he had was a technology which allowed an
> improvement
> > to a payment system. He imagined he had a monopoly on the only feasible
> > solution. He was very baddly mistaken. The monopoly rents he demanded
> > were more than the market was willing to pay for a working and deployed
> > system - let alone for a patent license.
>
> Where does the "monopoly rents" comment come from?
>
> In other words, on what basis are you making that statement?
Chaum's reported demands for patent licensing fees were consistently
above 10-20% of the service revenue plus a significant up front fee.
Those levels are more usually associate with a monopolistic patent,
hence 'monopoly rent'.
The fact that Chaum didn't have the monopoly he appeared to imagine
is probably why nobody was queuing up to pay his demands.
Phill
