From: "Scott Loftesness" <sjl@sjl.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:10:09 +0800
To: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <dcsb@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Digicash bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <002401be092a$35bb5b20$bf011712@games>
Message-ID: <004d01be0937$e147c160$0300a8c0@sjl4120>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> Phillip Hallam-Baker
> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 6:08 PM
> Subject: RE: Digicash bankruptcy

...

> 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?

Scott