Eli, in his infinate wisdom, says: However, I don't see RSA doing a hell of a lot to promote crypto use -- the opposite, in fact. Their software output is hardly impressive for a corporation of a decade's standing. They won't sell me a license -- they'll sell it to Lotus, but I can't see their source code. The government hasn't banned public-key encryption, but it's banned patent-infringing public-key encryption. And for practical purposes, that's the only kind there is. The combined effect of present patent law and RSA's "sue first, write code later" approach has been to stifle the development of cryptography in this country and in the world. Perhaps if encryption algorithms were not encumbered, they would already be in common use, rendering Clipper untenable. If RSA Inc. wishes to sell me a license I shouldn't have to buy, that would be nice. If they wish to show their change of heart in some other way, that would be nice too, as long as it doesn't come with a licensing agreement like RSAREF's. But if they're going to continue to sit on their patents, I'll do without their blessing. Incidentally, I don't think the issue of algorithm patents is as minor as some have portrayed it. It has blocked the use of RSA, after all, giving Clipper a window. Furthermore, there are patents on approximately every other cryptographic technique: PK in general, exponential key exchange, LUC, IDEA, DigiCash, .... Patents may gut cryptology the way they have data compression, to pick one example. This would be a shame. Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu I have to agree with much of what Eli says. I have been reluctant to speak out against Tim's words until now because I respected Tim's opinions, and value his judgement. I felt I should "reflect" on the issue a little longer, before coming to any hard and fast conclusions. I thought perhaps time would soften the anger in my heart. I thought wrong. I still respect Tim's approach, but I cannot agree with it. Patents were designed to protect the financial interests of inventors. I respect this. RSA Inc. owns the patent on the engine, fine. They deserve to be rewarded for their work, their interest in developing the method, and their investment. I don't mind paying for the right to use PGP, not in the least. I'd happily compensate both Phil and RSA Inc. and PKP or whoever. IMHO PGP is worth a good $200. I think many share my view, in concept if not in degree. When patents become bullshit is when they serve special interests before they serve economic interests, or the interests of progress. Fine, life isn't fair. If the oil companies own a patent on 200 mile per gallon fuel injectors or whatever, fine. They figure they'll make more dough if they bury the "secret plans" in the darkest corners of their sphincters, fine. That's the law. That's cool. But when those plans get out, and someone starts giving away the injectors for no fee, that's progress. Sure, illegal, but progress none the less. At what point do the interests of the oil companies conflict with the environment as a whole? This is the problem I have with the patents on RSA. No one is even interested in money, like the oil companies were. The goal seems to be to RESTRICT ACCESS TO CRYPTOGRAPHY> DES all over again. Cripple it. Weaken it, can't let the real thing out. That's bullshit. Just as the NSA sought to control NSF and restrict funding, it's backstabbing regulation. Thanks be for Dr. Weingarten, an enlightened enough soul to see through the NSA bullshit and keep cryptography out in the open when they tried to shut it away. I see PKP and RSA Inc. as partners in the whole mess. They sit nice and quiet on their patent, making some vague threats everwhy once in awhile until Clipper comes out, and then they start to threaten people with action. Should I be surprised? After all if RSA gets out in any REAL implementation, Clipper is useless, AT&T (those backstabbing two faced snakes with good PR) gets fucked and Clinton looks like an asshole (ok, more like an asshole) for proposing a plan that would never work because private industry had beat him to it. Sound familiar? Like IBM, lucifer and DES perhaps? Bow down to RSA Inc? Gimme a break. Why should they fight the government, they know their patent will get them some dough. I don't even want to begin with Denning. She's got feet in both worlds. The problem is no one is going to see it until shes buried the knife in the libertarians to the hilt. What sickens me the most is the rhetoric that flys around this dung pile like buzzing flies. Crap like "citizens right to privacy" when used in the same paragraph with "law enforcement requirements" Crap like "stronger than most algorithms now on the market." Crap like "to protect us from drug dealers and terrorists." Crap like "we don't plan to outlaw cryptography" Crap like... well anything AT&T says. It all smells the same to me. The bottom line seems to be if you lay with the whore you have to wake up with the whore. Play RSA Inc., AT&T and Dorthy's game today and... what? The'll pay you back tommorow when you need it? Bullshit. Fine, we may lose the battle because business interests are stronger than an internet mailing list and the american people have an average I.Q. of 80, but at lease >I< will wake up and be able to look in the mirror. Don't sell out cypherpunks, RSA Inc. will stab you in the back as quickly as anyone else. uni (Dark)