From: uni@acs.bu.edu (Shaen Bernhardt)
Date: Sat, 1 May 93 01:30:01 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Patent Bullshit and Crypto Restrictions.
Message-ID: <9305010829.AA99367@acs.bu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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)