I think the ball's already in Bidzos's court. Consider the following Bidzos quote a few days ago on the "billcryp" list: You have it correct, but let me expand a bit. It would be a bad business decision for us to try to keep *anyone* out of the market with patents because we disagree with their approach. Remember, personal choice crypto isn't outlawed yet. Now the context of this quote was whether RSA could use its patents to try to squash the more objectionable aspects of Clipper (particularly key registration), but his wording is (perhaps unintentionally) much more revealing. It implies to me that licensing PGP would be in RSADSI's best business interests. And so it would, if not for the personal animosity between Bidzos and Zimmerman. I sent a note to Bidzos asking him this exact question, but I have not yet received a reply. I am yet another person who would be glad to pay RSADSI a reasonable fee to use RSA in the form of PGP. Cost is really not the main issue here; PGP is the product I want to use, plain and simple. Nothing else matches its features, especially the "web of trust" model for certificates and the widespread availability of source code for inspection. Mailsafe isn't even in the running. I use PGP only occasionally, in a personal and educational mode. I would very much like to be able to recommend it to my company for business use, but I can't do that under the present circumstances. And that's too bad. Phil