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