From: HARUP16@delphi.com I know that it was wrong to steal the RSA code for a shareware alternative, but [...]
Nobody stole code. PGP infringes on (at least) U.S. Patent 4,405,829, which covers the RSA algorithm. Personally, I have no qualms about exponentiating in any algebra I please. As to the question of "whether RSADSI are good guys": they certainly could be. 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