X-Message-Number: 6965
From: Peter Merel <>
Subject: Reply to Steve Bridge
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 22:10:59 +1000 (EST)

Steve Bridge writes,

>     Then you probably won't be able to donate, Peter.  Inventors do 
>deserve to make profits from their inventions.  Organizations deserve the 
>same.  If one doesn't protect one's inventions by patents, then someone 
>*else* may patent it and make a lot of money.  You could even lose the 
>right to use your own invention.  Your suggestion just isn't practical.

You certainly have a point; if there were no inventive for technological
development, then such development would not proceed. My comments were
specifically directed to developments that are funded by donation - if
they are funded this way, then I don't see why they should not wind up
largely in the public domain, perhaps protected by some kind of
"copyleft" scheme a la GNU. The inventors would already have been 
rewarded by the donations.

I guess the nightmare for anyone contemplating suspension at this time
is that they'll be faced with two orgs, each of which owns some
technique or resource crucial to a good suspension, and neither willing
to license it to the other. Or alternatively that the already-high cost
of suspensions might be driven through the roof by people with no
interest in cryonics except as a cash-cow. I'd prefer to see structures
set up that make these nightmares less likely.

>In fact, there IS the potential of harm for both organizations.  
>If one company should happen to do something illegal or actionable with 
>their half of the suspension, the liability could easily reflect back on 
>the other organization, possibly affecting other patients and personnel 
>unconnected with the action.  

I guess what I was thinking was that a CC customer might employ the CC
structures for management of funds and advocacy, while leaving the
suspension and storage to Alcor - similar to the CC/CI combo. I was not
suggesting any combination of functions between BPI or Transtime and
Alcor - I know enough about the past to know that's unlikely. However a
clear separation of function between CC and Alcor might work out - if
the two companies were able to bury some hatchets. Of course I'm only
speaking as a potential client - it's not for me to tell anyone how to
run their business.

>     A hard-edged contract is still not worth much if basic trust is 
>lacking.

Too true - but I had to ask. If it turns out that Alcor+Visser get a
corner on high-quality suspensions, I'll ask again.

Peter Merel.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6965