From: Ted Garrett <teddygee@visi.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 15:51:49 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: NYT on NTT/RSA Chips
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960605005329.0076a668@mail.visi.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:12 AM 6/4/96 -0800, someone claiming to be <jimbell@pacifier.com> wrote:

>Maybe it's just me, but the solution to NTT's problem is obvious.  Even 
>assuming that the export of this software would be against the law, why 
>doesn't somebody simply violate that law?  RSA would publish that software, 
>possibly encrypted with NTT's public key, on a public system protected 
>against direct export.  "Somebody" would download it, write it to a floppy 
(...)
>As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with NTT using this software even 
>if it is assumed to have been exported illegally.  Obviously, NTT won't 
>_ask_ for somebody to do this, because then the government will claim it was 
>all a conspiracy, but that doesn't prevent NTT from being the beneficiary of 
>somebody else's activities.

What is wrong with this is that, because RSA did not, in practice deliver
the software to NTT, they can have no expectation of payment.  Thus begins
a trumped up lawsuit in international court, and it will eventually cost
RSA more to collect on the sale than the sale was worth.  As many rock-solid
implementations of the RSA algorithms as are out there, all NTT has to do
is go to an FTP site in the netherlands.  Done deal.  But what about the
copyrights (which are still unclear) and the US patents?  NTT would not be
able to market their system in the US without losing face.

Not gonna happen.

Just my $.02...
--
PGP key available on the keyservers --
A wise man said that if one seeks to preserve his security by giving up
a measure of his freedom, he shall not have either one for long...
Dude's Dead.