From: anon-remailer@utopia.hacktic.nl (Name Withheld by Request)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 18:10:21 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Q&A on the RSA/Cylink legal dispute
In-Reply-To: <9508288123.AA812314973@snail.rsa.com>
Message-ID: <199509290110.CAA23301@utopia.hacktic.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


baldwin , Robert W. Baldwin <baldwin@RSA.COM> wrote:

>Q. Why can't RSA and Cylink simply settle their differences?
>
>     A. That's a good question. The fact is that RSA recognizes this
>     litigation is not beneficial to anyone and has offered to settle the
>     dispute by granting Cylink a license to the MIT patent.

Real Answer:  Because they're all a bunch of crooks.  PKP was formed
for the purpose of monopolizing the market and screwing the customers. 
Unfortunately, RSA and Cylink were too busy trying to screw each other
that they forgot what their real mission was.

>     Cylink has consistently overestimated the strength of its legal
>     position and has refused all reasonable offers.

According to the settlement, RSA made only one offer, which Cylink
refused.  (Which was all that RSA was obligated to do.)

>     Cylink now finds itself in the unenviable position of trying
>     to sell its security products without RSA technology - which
>     is the de facto industry standard.  No amount of "spin
>     doctoring" in press releases by Cylink changes that fact.

Maybe not, but it looks like RSA has their own spin doctors working
on it as well.