From: Chris DiBona <dibona@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 04:47:36 +0800
To: "cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: RSA, PGP IN LEGAL FLAP OVER ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGY
Message-ID: <01BC5ED2.4E86C710@marmoset.loc201.tandem.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


This really came as no surprise to anyone who deals with RSA. Note I am only talking for myself when I write this, but there is a LOT of money to be made by someone (certicom?) if they can give a cross-platform rsa type solution. I mean RSA has a fairly good product,but I can name at elase two other companies who've had this exact same problem with cross-licensing.

Really, does RSA expect Netscape or Microsoft to re-license every time they allow an oem to repackage thier products into or as part of a suite of programs with a third party vendor? RSA has a bunch of bullies at thier helm. They should realize that pulling this kind of crap will only make people jump ship faster when another company comes calling with a similar product and less restrictive licensing. 

I think that RSA should also realize that without PGP, their market would be much smaller, I think every time RSA licenses thier (now renewed) patents, they should think of Phil. I don't mean to saint the guy here or anything, but they owe him a debt that is difficult to quantify. By suing PGP they are basically saying , if I can extrapolate in a rather extreme manner, "privacy is okay, but only if we make money at it." 

And keep in mind , I don't begrudge RSA thier right to make money off thier intellectual property, but suing your customers except in the most extreme situations should be seen as a warning sign to the industry that to deal with RSA as a vendor is to take a risk that may be dangerous. 

    Chris DiBona
    dibona@acm.org