From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 09:25:09 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (cypherpunks)
Subject: Re: Precedent for PGP legality
In-Reply-To: <199402141739.JAA06467@mail.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199402161724.JAA19112@netcom9.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Timothy C. May sez:
> 
> Yes, this is well-known and is mentioned, I believe, in the PGP docs.
> Private use for experimental purposes, or for the purposes of
> improving an invention, are recognized legit uses. Implementing RSA as
> a class project or textbook problem is common, and RSADSI will not
> bother with such cases. (Nor has RSADSI bothered any users of PGP, if
> truth be told, unless they were involved in the hassling of Zimmermann
> vis-a-vis the grand jury investigation...which hasn't been established
> one way or another.)

It is true that there was a great deal of enmity between RSA's
president, Jim Bidzos, and Phil but that was just starting to thaw a
year or so ago when I let Jim know that Phil was interested in
licensing RSA's patents (for those that haven't bothered to check,
RSA's fees are incredibly reasonable) because there were some
businesses interested in using PGP that wouldn't because of its
geurillaware status.  I believe that they worked something out or Phil
would not have been pursuing the commercial work he got busted/hassled
for by the fed.  I don't think that RSA deserves any suspicion with
regard to Phil's troubles.

> 
> Where it gets dicey is when people are using an invention in a way
> that circumvents the patent rights of the inventor. The common use of
> PGP is clearly for communication, for most people, not for study on
> their home machines of how the algorithm works, how it might be
> improved, etc.
> 
> I'm not arguing RSADSI's side, merely pointing out that calling the
> growing use of PGP for communication and the signing of articles an
> "experiment" is misleading, and even disingenuous. Not to sound like
> Sterno here, but I think the lawyers here will back me up on this.

Yes, I was told by a patent attorney that the way we use PGP is
not within the experimental guideline and we are probably standing
in violation of these patents.  Not that that means much, RSA 
is not about to joust windmills by trying to mess with anybody.

> 
> Now maybe the RSA patents are invalid, maybe the fact that public
> money was used to support the researches at Stanford and MIT that led
> to public key and RSA means "we" own the patents (not supported by
> decisions, though), etc. 

A whole lot of precedent for this.  It is in effect one way that the
federal government helps support research without direct taxation.
I read recently that Stanford rakes in an obscene amount each year
from the patents it holds but I really have no problem with that
since it benefits education as a whole.

> 
> In any case, I think PGP is the best thing that has ever happened to
> the popularity of RSA and RSADSI, and I have told Jim Bidzos this.

That's funny, in a weak moment *he* told me that a year ago.  :-)


Peace,

Bob

-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-354-8021


           "I used to be different.  But now I'm the same."


--------------PGP 1.0 or 2.0 public key available on request.------------------