Øystein Schønning-Johansen wrote:
I think the price indication of the IPR is a bit high. (I guess Xavier reads this)
It might be high, but I don't think that's necessarily the right way to calculate it. First of all, if Xavier doesn't find a buyer, I don't think he loses too much. So he might as well start high and work his way down. Secondly, what I think he's (rightly) counting on is that the value of XG isn't based solely on how much revenue will be generated by sales. XG has managed to establish itself as a standard in the BG community. The BMAB relies on it. Various national backgammon organizations implicitly rely on it to a greater or a lesser degree. They may be willing to pay something just to keep XG alive, even if they don't derive any revenue from sales. Now you might argue that something like the BMAB could keep XG alive in a container, on artificial life support as it were, even if operating systems evolve to the point where XG no longer runs on them. That's probably true, but it's definitely a nuisance, and again, the BMAB might be willing to pay something for that.
Of course, GNU Backgammon is a potential competitor, perhaps now more than ever. This might be an opportune time for GNU Backgammon developers to get their act together and initiate discussions with the BMAB and various national backgammon federations. If said organizations are seriously considering ponying up serious cash to buy XG, not for the expected revenue stream but for the "service role" it plays, then GNU Backgammon developers could potentially negotiate a deal whereby they offer equivalent services for less money. The underlying engine of GNU might not be quite as good as XG, but I think it's close.
Tim
