X-Message-Number: 6583 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 02:26:14 -0400 (EDT) From: mark mugler <> Subject: royalties for Prometheus Assume that the Prometheus corporation offers ALL stock purchasers the opportunity to apply their stock at par toward royalty costs -- whether the royalty costs of a licensed cryopreservation procedure performed BY an organization that purchases stock, or the royalty costs of a licensed cryopreservation procedure performed ON an individual that purchases stock. Alternatively, assume that organizations may apply their stock at par toward royalty costs, and further that individual purchasers may assign their shares to cryonics organizations as credit toward the costs of their own cryopreservations. In either case, if a patentable technology is developed, a market for the shares would emerge, and the benefits of the "technology credits" idea, first proposed by Brian Wowk and modified by Paul Wakfer, would be available to all investors. I fail to see how denying these benefits to a class of investor (whether because they are individuals or becasue they purchase too few shares) will ENHANCE the desirability of investing! Of course, Prometheus in the early years would find itself receiving credits instead of cash for royalties. This doesn't bother me. First, the availability of the technology credits would increase demand for the technology, and the price of a license would rise accordingly, increasing the value of shares retained until a sort of equilibrium is reached where many investors become indifferent between holding onto their shares and applying them as technolgy credits. Second, as shares are retired through the technology credits the borrowing ability of Prometheus would rise. If I, as a prospective investor, know that my shares can be applied at par toward royalty costs, I am much more likely to invest, and to invest more. If a technology emerges before I deanimate that is more costly, I've already partly paid some or all of that added cost (and of course I've contributed to a growth in membership that will drive down cost etc. etc. and I'm ignoring the effect of inflation on real value etc. etc.). If a technolgy does not emerge, my shares are worthless, but I don't have to worry about extra cost either. At least I'm not faced with the situation where costs have risen and there is no market for my shares! Let's have a level playing field. In sum, I continue to support the idea of technology credits or their equivalent for every investor. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6583