From: gtoal@an-teallach.com (Graham Toal)
Date: Fri, 20 May 94 07:56:06 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re:  Patent infringement (fwd)
Message-ID: <199405201454.PAA06361@an-teallach.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


: This is the argument Schiller's message on 2.6 foreshadowed.  However,
: there are some counterarguments you can make:

:  - It's not clear that RSADSI has actually said that merely posting a key with
:    the words "Version: 2.3a" in and of itself constitutes inducement or
:    conspiracy to infringe the patent.  Schiller speculated that running a key
:    server which accepted pre-2.4 keys could represent contributory infringement
:    but I haven't seen any statements from Bidzos that agree with this, let
:    alone the stronger statement Sternlight is making.

Excuse me folks - I think we're missing a big point here:  there's no
such crime as 'conspiracy to infringe' nor is it a civil offense.  What
PKP are talking about is agrravated damages - *if* you are *breaking* one
of their patents, eg by *running* pgp, then because you are encouraging
others to do so by, say, also offering a keyserver service, they can
ask for larger damages because they'll say you're *flagrantly* violating
their patent and encouraging others to do so.

However, if you're *not* violating their patent, there's nothing they can
do about the 'encouraging others to do so' part.  Running a keyserver,
as long as it doesn't run pgp to do its key management, is not infringing
PKP's patents, and they can't do anything about it - it's a question
of publishing and free speech.  It's not even the more restricted
commercial speech - keyservers aren't a business.

I think if you read the MIT announcements closely you'll see what they
say is compatible with this view.

G