Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 13:44 EDT From: danodom@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Dan Odom) Is this just for RSA, or for all patents? If PKP wanted to forbid academic use of RSA (or require a license for it), could they legally do so? Assume for now that the patent is valid, which it may not be... I ask all this because I often hear researchers looking for a cure for (insert your favorite aliment here) complain that they have to pay patent royalties on the gentically-modified animals they use in their work, and if, say, two patented rabbits produce offspring, they have to pay royalties on each of the offspring as well. This is academic use (to me anyway; I don't know about legally), but requires royalties. The exemption from patent protection applies only to research which attempts to improve or extend the patented idea. Thus, if you were breeding patented insulin-dependant rabbits with the intent to produce better ones, this would be acceptable. If, however, you wanted to test your new diabetic drug on the rabbits, then you owe the patent holder a royalty. Using PGP (as opposed to writing a new one, or improving it, or attempting to use it in new ways), even by academics, is probably questionable in the US under patent law. Developing new versions of RSA code or algorithms clearly is legal, even for private commercial firms. Patenting the improvements is legal and encouraged. Selling or using a patented invention, even internally, is prohibited. So it all depends. Are you a user or an improver? Can you make a legitimate claim to be testing new ideas, implementations, or applications, or are you just using someone else's implementation. A paper trail showing that you are thinking about ways to improve or further develop the ideas might be a powerful defense. Like, for example, messages to this forum.