1993-06-13 - Re: PKP
Header Data
From: peter honeyman <honey@citi.umich.edu>
To: Doug Porter <dporter@well.sf.ca.us>
Message Hash: a460f6fc240473c401e05aeb474a7d6277bacb38d695aae397960b7fd4d664f2
Message ID: <9306131706.AA09634@toad.com>
Reply To: <93Jun13.094534pdt.13887-3@well.sf.ca.us>
UTC Datetime: 1993-06-13 17:06:12 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 13 Jun 93 10:06:12 PDT
Raw message
From: peter honeyman <honey@citi.umich.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 93 10:06:12 PDT
To: Doug Porter <dporter@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: Re: PKP
In-Reply-To: <93Jun13.094534pdt.13887-3@well.sf.ca.us>
Message-ID: <9306131706.AA09634@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> Ok, PKP now effectively has a monopoly. Is an antitrust action
> appropriate?
no. establishing and securing a monopoly is the whole point of patent law.
personally, i plan to continue to infringe on the pkp patents -- protected
by the research use exclusion and the rsaref noncommerical-use license --
while the onslaught of time makes pkp assets ever less viable.
fuck 'em. join me.
peter
Thread
Return to June 1993
- Return to “Doug Porter <dporter@well.sf.ca.us>”
Return to “peter honeyman <honey@citi.umich.edu>”
- 1993-06-13 (Sun, 13 Jun 93 09:46:04 PDT) - PKP - Doug Porter <dporter@well.sf.ca.us>
- 1993-06-13 (Sun, 13 Jun 93 10:06:12 PDT) - Re: PKP - peter honeyman <honey@citi.umich.edu>