X-Message-Number: 6494
From: Peter Merel <>
Subject: Pricing Prometheus
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:13:54 +1000 (EST)

Ken Stone wrote,

>The answer: that provider should own 100% of Prometheus in order to 
>do this.  Granting royalty-free use to any cryonics companies would 
>erode the financial interests of all other shareholders.  Proceeds 
>deriving from Prometheus should be split equally amongst all 
>of its investors.  Anything else is a form of fraud, even when it
>is legally acceptable.

Fraud is definitely too strong a word to use here, but this is an issue
worth discussing. I guess the trouble is that any org that can use the
technology royalty-free has a pricing leg-up on the other orgs, which
may make things less competitive if the cryonics industry ever gets off
the ground.

On the other hand, such an incentive might be just what's needed to get
the suspension orgs to part with their cash, and that cash is, I guess,
sorely needed to get prometheus off the ground.

But I should think that prometheus should be of vital concern to all the
orgs regardless of this incentive - after all, if an org didn't own shares
in the thing, they'd certainly be in trouble on two fronts; firstly they'd
be giving up what may be a tremendous future source of funds, and secondly
they'd be pretty much admitting that they had no real interest in doing their
best to make cryonics actually succeed. 

So, although I disagree with Ken's terminology, I think I agree with his 
reasoning - no freedom from royalties unless you buy the whole kit and

Greg Stock wrote,

>One additional point: A few days ago Paul Wafker wrote something to the
>effect that pledgors would be allowed to increase their pledges in the
>future, and thus purchase more shares if they saw fit AT THE ORIGINAL SHARE

I don't know if Paul actually said the capitalised bit - it was my idea
that today's minimal pledgers be permitted to increase their holding at
a latter time ... but I agree that pricing the thing is quite problematic,
so maybe this one isn't such a good idea, at that.

Peter Merel.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6494