I drove down to the courthouse in Redwood City today and took a look at the court file for RSA v PGP. The complaint is already online at <http://jya.com/rsavpgp.txt>; there are two exhibits which accompany the complaint in the file, Exhibit A is a 30-page patent license agreement (which I didn't bother to have copied at $.75/page), the second is Exhibit B, a letter from RSA's attorneys to Leonard Mikus of Lemcom Systems dated 4/16/97, which describes the basics of the dispute between RSA and PGP. I copied the letter and have placed it online at <http://www.parrhesia.com/rsapgp.html>. The lawsuit itself is not for monetary damages, but for declaratory and injunctive relief - RSA is asking the court to declare that the license agreement's provision regarding arbitration did not survive the termination of the license; that the royalty, payment, and accounting provisions of the license agreement did survive its termination; and for an injunction ordering PGP to comply with the agreement's terms for paying royalties and accounting for sales. What I find interesting is what is not included in the suit - a claim for patent infringement. (Such a claim can only be filed in federal court, and this suit was filed - at the plaintiff's choice - in San Mateo County Superior Court, a California state court.) The letter identifies several areas of disagreement between the parties: 1. RSA believes it had the right to approve or reject the PGP/Lemcom merger 2. RSA says that PGP has licensed the patent to OEM customers, in violation of the license agreement 3. RSA says that PGP has licensed certain source code to some customers, in violation of the license agreement 4. RSA says that Lemcom has not made a royalty payment since the third quarter of 1996. (But I'm sure I saw something - in the media? - where PGP says they've been making royalty payments.) And the letter says that RSA is immediately terminating PGP's license to use/make software including the RSA public-key algorithm because of those breaches. PGP hadn't filed a response yet - they'll have 30 days to do so from the date of service, and I think they were served with the suit somewhere around the 10th of May. (There was a proof of service document in the file, but I didn't bother having it copied.) -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles@netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.