From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:15:36 +0800
To: <dcsb@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Digicash bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <004d01be0937$e147c160$0300a8c0@sjl4120>
Message-ID: <002701be0939$b34ce720$bf011712@games>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain





> > 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