> From: Kathy Gill[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > ---Phil Agre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [With the bankruptcy of Digicash, it is time to assemble the definitive > > list of underperforming Internet technologies. The received wisdom is > > that the Internet lies at the vortex of a historically unprecedented era > > of intensive and disruptive technological change. A sober reading of > the > > evidence, however, supports something much closer to the opposite > thesis, > > viz, the Internet is a modest and useful new tool that, despite itself, > > has given rise to an astonishingly wasteful mania whereby perfectly > > good capital is plowed into one ill-conceived technology after another. > > Consider: interactive television, VRML, Active X, network computers, > > "push" technology, agents, "social" interfaces, resource visualization, > > cryptographic payment mechanisms (aka "electronic commerce"), and others > > that I hope you'll remind me about. Each of these has been the object > > of a frenzy that has compelled all manner of smart people, and a whole > > lot of dumb ones such as myself, to say things like, "boy oh boy, the > > world is going to be completely different a year from now". This has > > been going on continuously since the PR hype that accompanied therun-up > > to the (failed) Communications Act of 1994 and then the (passed but then > > catastrophically failed) Communications Act of 1996. It has been fanned > > by Wired magazine, whose capitulation to Conde Nast has ended an era > that > > should never have begun, and now it is marked by the bankruptcy of David > > Chaum's Digicash. All right-thinking people were in favor of Digicash, > > whose technologies were as intellectually elegant as they were socially > > responsible. The problem is that the Digicash people were living in the > > world of Alice and Bob -- a place where a mathematical proof can change > > the world in perfect defiance of the dynamics (if you can call them > that) > > of large, highly integrated institutions. Like many Internet-related > > startups, Digicash existed only to the precise extent that the press was > > writing about it, and now it doesn't exist at all. So right now would > > be an excellent time for us to renounce the false idea that we are > living > > in a time of unprecedented technical change. Yes, the Web has been > going > > through a period of exponential growth. But no, that growth is not at > > all unprecedented, and in fact it is running behind the penetration > rates > > that earlier technologies such as the radio and gas cooking achieved > once > > they started being adopted on a mass scale. (See, for example, Ronald > C. > > Tobey's scholarly and absorbing "Technology As Freedom: The New Deal and > > the Electrical Modernization of the American Home", Univ. of California > > Press, 1996.) Nor has the underlying Internet changed at all quickly. > > The Internet protocols that we use today are unchanged in their > essentials > > from about 1982. In fact, once the real history of this era is written, > > I think that 1982 will shape up as the true annus mirabilis, and 1994 > will > > simply be seen as the era when the innovations of ten to fifteen years > > earlier finally caught public attention and reached the price point that > > was needed to achieve the network externalities required for its large- > > scale adoption. If we get out the rake and drag away all of the > detritus > > of the underperforming technologies that I listed above, and compare our > > times on an apples-for-apples basis with other periods of technological > > innovation -- including the Depression era, for heaven's sake -- then I > > think we will have a much healthier perspective going forward. As it > is, > > people the world over have been propagandized into a state of panic, one > > that encourages them to abandon all of their experience and common sense > > and buy lots of computer equipment so that they will not be scorned by > > their children and left behind by the apocalypse that is supposedly > going > > to arrive any day now. No such apocalypse is going to occur, and all of > > the TV preachers who have been announcing this apocalypse should > apologize > > and give the people their money back. Yes, the world is going to > change. > > Yes, information technology will participate, and is already > participating, > > in a significant overhaul of the workings of most major social > institutions. > > But no, those changes are not going to happen overnight. The sad > line-up > > of underperforming technologies should be understood not as serious > attempts > > at innovation but as a kind of ritual, an expensive and > counterproductive > > substitute for the chants and dances that healthy societies perform when > > they are placed under stress. Maybe once we get some healthy rituals > for > > contending with technological change ourselves, we will be able to snap > out > > of our trance, cast off the ridiculous hopes and fears of an > artificially > > induced millennium, and take up the serious work of discussing, > organizing, > > and contesting the major choices about our institutions that lie ahead.] > > > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service > (RRE). > > Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field > below. > > You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not > use > > the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions > > for (un)subscribing, see > http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html > > or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with Subject: > info rre > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > > > Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:02:08 -0500 > > From: Robert Hettinga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Digital Bearer Settlement List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED], > > [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: DigiCash Inc. to File Reorganization, Seeks Partners to > Drive eCash Forward > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > > > Okay. > > > > Contrary to my own previous -- and painfully recent -- opinions on > the matter, > > Digicash, Inc., is, more or less, in play again, or it will be if > there is > > enough money chasing it. Whatever "enough" means. > > > > Putting on my Gordon Gekko hat, here, I'm interested in finding out > a few > > things. Yes, I have seen the greater fool theory of the blind > signature patent > > operate more than a few times, but I am, nonetheless, driven to > think about > > this, and I might as well be public in my musing, at least for the > time being. > > > > > > For expenses of any new company, it should be pretty clear by now > what I would > > do with the DigiCash technology portfolio. I would put a real good > > intellectual property lawyer on the payroll, keep the cryptographers > who would > > still consent to stick around, keep or improve whatever software > test people > > they have left, and do nothing but sell licenses and implementation > > certifications, using the the underwiting model at > > <http://www.philodox.com/modelpaper.html> as a roadmap. > > > > For this imaginary company's revenue, aside from direct fees for > validating a > > developer's, and possibly an underwriter's, implementation of the > protocol, > > the trustee would be the only point of patent royalty collection and > payment > > from the underwriters and developers to the new patent holder. > > > > As far as the current installed base is concerned, I would probably > spin off a > > company to support those customers, and give it a non-exclusive > license as if > > it were any other developer. > > > > This assumes, of course, that DigiCash BV/Inc. didn't issue > > exclusive-by-country licenses. While it appears on the surface that > they have > > done exactly this, I have been met with what seems like incredulity > from > > various DigiCash folks when I talk about it, so, for the time being, > I'll take > > them at their word when they tell me it isn't so. Actually, when I > think about > > it, it may be immaterial, as there are lots of countries on the > internet to > > park underwriters and trustees in, and they can denominate their > bearer cash > > instruments in any currency they want. > > > > One way or another, the software side of DigiCash would be gone. We > figure out > > what the net present value is of the current licenses, and hope that > a company > > can be formed around that cashflow and spun off into a separate > software > > development company. If we're lucky, we make money on the spinoff > and keep the > > patent. If we're not lucky, DigiCash will probably have to get rid > of it's > > current obligations before *anyone* clueful would step in to pick up > the > > patents, and just the patents, alone. > > > > > > Obviously, what has been spent so far building DigiCash, BV or Inc., > is > > immaterial to any discussion of the future. Just like what happened > to Chaum, > > et. al., when Negroponte and companies um, executed, the purchase of > last > > version of DigiCash, we have to completely forget the all the money > which > > has been spent on Digicash BV, now Digicash Inc., so far, and ignore > the > > howls of the current investors, as painful as that may be to listen > to. :-). > > They knew the job was dangerous when they took it, anyway... > > > > > > Okay, that's a nice story. How about some actual data? I expect the > best way > > to get a handle of royalties is to start soliciting actual projected > royalty > > estimates from potential developers and underwriters, but, frankly, > I think > > that most developers and underwriters, like the rest of us, have no > real idea > > how much money they're going to make. Nonetheless, if anyone's > interested in > > telling me, offline, what they think they would would be fair royalty > > payments, either as an underwriter or as a developer, I'd like to > hear their > > estimates. My PGP key is attached. > > > > My own rule of thumb, for cash anyway, is that an underwriter can > probably > > charge no more than a bank charges to one of their non-customer ATM > > transactions. That's probably no more than $3.00 a withdrawl. They > also get to > > keep the interest on the reserve account, if any, of course. > Frankly, if the > > royalties are low enough, that may be more than enough revenue to > bootstrap a > > business with, and I would personally lobby for as low a royalty > structure > > as possible. That, of course, is driven entirely by the cost/revenue > picture, > > but it might be that a majority of the short-term operations can be > > bootstrapped out of validation fees. > > > > > > That leaves all the other potential markets for blind-signature > macroscale > > digital bearer settlement, everything from long-duration bandwidth > purchases > > for IP or voice dialtone on up to actual securities transactions > themselves. > > Most of these potential applications will occur after the patents > expire, > > but whoever owns these patents should allow not only licenses to all > comers, > > but, more to the point, should allow all *licensees* to worry about > the > > legal ramafications of the patents' use. > > > > If a particular licensee can find a legal jurisdiction to offer > utterly > > anonymous digital bearer instruments backed by totally anonymous > reserves, > > then, as long as the licensee pays up, god bless 'em. The patents > should be > > licensed within the law, certainly, but, other than that, their use > should be > > considered value neutral, like all technology. As in all bearer > markets > > before them, the digital bearer trustee will be the point of maximum > legal > > compliance, and, as such, will be the functional "policeman" of the > system. I > > leave the interesting solution of bearer-backed trustees for some > other day, > > probably after the patents have long expired. > > > > > > Okay. There's lots more to talk about, of course, but I'm kind of > tapped out > > on this for the time being. > > > > If you're an intellectual property lawyer, and you fancy yourself > running the > > DigiCash patent portfolio, contact me directly. I'm not sure exactly > what I > > can do, if anything, but I'd be very interested to hear your > thoughts on this, > > as the potential core person of this as yet imaginary enterprize, up > to, and > > including what it would cost for you to sign on for this much fun as > at least > > in-house counsel, if not the actual CEO. :-). > > > > In addition, if someone has a reasonable non-proprietary(!) estimate > of the > > projected revenues on all those outstanding ecash contracts, that > would be > > nice to know as well. The terms of those contracts, are, of course, > probably > > unknowable at the moment, at least until someone has enough known > scratch to > > belly up to the table, sign an NDA and take a peek. Of course, then > they > > couldn't tell us anything anyway... > > > > Isn't this fun? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Bob Hettinga > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> > > 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA > > "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, > > [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to > > experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' > > > > > > --------------160D55EEEBD38D036F141A24-- > > > > > > > > > > == > > Kathy E. Gill > http://www.dotparagon.com/R65/ > > Failures are finger posts on the road to achievement. > ~ Charles F. Kettering > > _________________________________________________________ > DO YOU YAHOO!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > ____________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done directly from our website for all our lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
