In the affadavitB in the dispute between G&SR and Systemics, the following paragraph is found: "Moreover, Ian also is expressing reticence to even allow [G&SR] to proceed with the projects that have been the well discussed goal of this lengthy investment, that is: a) continuation of exclusive right to issue metal denominated currencies (now that the market server exists, which is the whole point of DigiGold's niche as a financial currency)" I find it interesting that anyone wishing to lauch a payment technology with the intent of making it an international standard protocol would limit it contractually by giving oneself a monopoly on using the protocol. This by itself would doom the standard to failure, as the other players in the market who wish to issue metal-denominated currency would be forced to develop or adopt a DIFFERENT protocol for digital cash. If any of these payment systems, protocols, or software are ever to take off and become THE widely accepted payment system on the Internet, they MUST allow anyone to use them. Your software won't become accepted in the market if the licensing erects barriers to entry that prevent a free market. This is why I think the full development of internet currencies will not happen until there is a full separation between the protocols, the software, and the underwriters (currency issuers). e-gold is using Microsoft tactics in an arena that has shown over and over again that freedom of entry produces the most wealth. (Look what happened when PC clones brought the price down on the hardware in early nineties.) Did Microsoft save any money by squashing Netscape? No, they both ended up giving away their browsers. Millions of dollars in software development went down the drain with no return, and the Justice Department broke up Microsoft to boot. The way to beat the competition is to produce a better product and offer better service, not try to run them out of business. Like Microsoft, e-gold has the massive head-start on all of their competitio n. Even though the gold currency market is still just a drop in the bucket, e-gold is a zillion miles ahead of the competition in terms of market share and name-recognition. E-gold has far more to gain from a free market than their competitors because as the market grows in size, they will continue to be the standard setter if they maintain good fiscal policy and customer service. I think that e-gold has done a great thing in creating this market. Doug Jackson is undoubtedly a visionary. However, it would be wise to recognize that in building the infrastructure for the gold economy, there HAS TO BE FREEDOM OF ENTRY in order for it to be successful in the long run. Those financing software development that builds the infrastructure should keep that in mind. It has been proved that the first person or company to introduce a product or service to the internet makes the most money from it, even if it isn't patent protected. E-gold will make the most money from digital gold, even though the market will eventually fill with competitors. No sense in slowing down both growth and profit by trying to suppress the competition. Regards, Ken Griffith --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
