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