Re: Patent infringement (fwd)
From: Brian Beker <beker@netcom.com>
From: David Sternlight <strnlght@netcom.com> I found his .plan file contained a PGP 2.3a key. That infringes RSADSI's patents. That this is so has recently been confirmed by an independent inquiry by lawyers retained by MIT.
The patent holder, RSADSI, has said that no only do versions of PGP except the soon-to-be-released 2.6 and the commercially sold Viacrypt version 2.4 infringe in the U.S., but posted keys and key servers constitute inducement to infringe and/or conspiracy to infringe.
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. - Just because the key says "Version: 2.3a" doesn't mean much. This version string is appended by the program which turned the key into ASCII format. It says nothing about the version of the program which used the RSA algorithm. Granted, in practice this suggests that the key was extracted from a key ring using PGP 2.3a, but extracting from a key ring is not a patented process. Only communicating using RSA is patented. The mere existence of this key does not show that patent infringement is going on. - Possession of a 2.3a key does not necessarily constitute inducement to infringe the patent. Perfectly legal programs exist which will work very well with a 2.3a key (versions 2.4 and up). So by possessing a key labelled 2.3a you are not inducing others to violate anyone's patents. - In any case, Sternlight does not have any standing in making this charge. He is not a lawyer and is not affiliated with RSADSI in any way. At best his reports are second- or third-hand interpretations of his understanding of RSADSI's position. Unless or until the patent holder speaks directly to make these charges, there is no need to respond. Hal Finney hfinney@shell.portal.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- Possession of a 2.3a key does not necessarily constitute inducement to infringe the patent. Perfectly legal programs exist which will work very well with a 2.3a key (versions 2.4 and up). So by possessing a key
^^^^^^ (as long as WE code it that way)
labelled 2.3a you are not inducing others to violate anyone's patents.
Especially when considering those not in the United States...RSA patent (however valid/invalid) need not apply; and you're not (necessarily) contributing to "inducement" since that's what's necessary to communicate with those out of the country.
- In any case, Sternlight does not have any standing in making this charge. He is not a lawyer and is not affiliated with RSADSI in any way. At best his reports are second- or third-hand interpretations of his understanding of RSADSI's position. Unless or until the patent holder speaks directly to make these charges, there is no need to respond.
Like (m)any of us can make an official statement on that. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.4 iQCVAgUBLduSoLZspOMRmJBhAQE9ZAP+OEU1HUfzY/oPZFq89pMc5EWdt02jGH+5 nXhd4Rfq79DFGbe1qxXCx+6dsW/+r05olUuP6o7kjaWjDkp4JzHIXJTdNLRUhA9L 6ahOt7Vx1emHYShWI2NiLLY1Fb5i7a6b6xSZm5hBZYSYYrLCM3nx930IzJ+8XhfP CLK7dTcjVtg= =nKxz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- "Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds." -John Perry Barlow, EFF co-founder
C'punks, On Thu, 19 May 1994, Hal wrote after a thoughtful analysis of the patent infringement question:
. . . - In any case, Sternlight does not have any standing in making this charge. He is not a lawyer and is not affiliated with RSADSI in any way. At best his reports are second- or third-hand interpretations of his understanding of RSADSI's position. Unless or until the patent holder speaks directly to make these charges, there is no need to respond.
I think the victims of Mr. Sternlight's accusations of patent infringement may have a cause of action against him for libel. Any thoughts on this issue from the other lawyers on this list? Duncan? Black Unicorn? A few legal shots across the bow might help Mr. Sternlight see his crusade in a sterner light. S a n d y
Sandy Sandfort scripsit
C'punks,
On Thu, 19 May 1994, Hal wrote after a thoughtful analysis of the patent infringement question:
. . . - In any case, Sternlight does not have any standing in making this charge. He is not a lawyer and is not affiliated with RSADSI in any way. At best his reports are second- or third-hand interpretations of his understanding of RSADSI's position. Unless or until the patent holder speaks directly to make these charges, there is no need to respond.
I think the victims of Mr. Sternlight's accusations of patent infringement may have a cause of action against him for libel. Any thoughts on this issue from the other lawyers on this list? Duncan? Black Unicorn? A few legal shots across the bow might help Mr. Sternlight see his crusade in a sterner light.
I'm not familiar with the nature of his accusations. Anyone, perhaps a victim, care to comment more specifically?
S a n d y
-uni- (Dark) -- 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!
participants (4)
-
Black Unicorn -
Hal -
pckizer＠tamu.edu -
Sandy Sandfort