: This is the argument Schiller's message on 2.6 foreshadowed. However, : there are some counterarguments you can make: : - It's not clear that RSADSI has actually said that merely posting a key with : the words "Version: 2.3a" in and of itself constitutes inducement or : conspiracy to infringe the patent. Schiller speculated that running a key : server which accepted pre-2.4 keys could represent contributory infringement : but I haven't seen any statements from Bidzos that agree with this, let : alone the stronger statement Sternlight is making. Excuse me folks - I think we're missing a big point here: there's no such crime as 'conspiracy to infringe' nor is it a civil offense. What PKP are talking about is agrravated damages - *if* you are *breaking* one of their patents, eg by *running* pgp, then because you are encouraging others to do so by, say, also offering a keyserver service, they can ask for larger damages because they'll say you're *flagrantly* violating their patent and encouraging others to do so. However, if you're *not* violating their patent, there's nothing they can do about the 'encouraging others to do so' part. Running a keyserver, as long as it doesn't run pgp to do its key management, is not infringing PKP's patents, and they can't do anything about it - it's a question of publishing and free speech. It's not even the more restricted commercial speech - keyservers aren't a business. I think if you read the MIT announcements closely you'll see what they say is compatible with this view. G