Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!tenney
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: HELP! Some nut is threatening to sue!
Message-ID: <tenneyC6E4LD.LG5@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <9304292001.AA20252@memexis.memex.com> <a_rubin.736125803@dsg4.dse.beckman.com>
Date: Sun, 2 May 1993 08:22:25 GMT
Lines: 44

I don't wish to rehash the PGP patent issue at all, but I do feel
that some potential misconceptions in interpretting intellectual property
laws need to be raised.

In article <a_rubin.736125803@dsg4.dse.beckman.com> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:
>
>If PGP violates RSAs patents, then only executing PGP could be a violation.
>Distributing PGP could be contributory infringement, but the PGP
>documentation seemed sufficient to me to protect distributors (before I
>deleted it -- using PGP might be a patent violation in the US, so I have no
>need to keep it.)

You are correct that executing PGP would be a violation (unless the patent
were declared invalid by the courts), but...  there is a question as
to when, how, or if distributing PGP would be a violation.  If the person
or company distributing PGP receives money for doing so, then it is
clearly a sale (for example, if it were on Compuserve, they charge you
for access so they would be selling PGP).  When there is no charge for
PGP things get less clear, but there would still be a reasonable view
that it is inducing an infringement.

> ... [nb re: Jim Bidzos]
>You have no legal action you can take, unless you believe you can prove
>someone is using PGP in the US, for a purpose other than that specifically
>allowed by patent laws.  (Not entirely correct, anyone can sue for any
>reason, but, you cannot prevail unless you can prove that by a prepoderance
>of evidence).  Under patent laws, PGP does have legitimate uses, as a means
>to study your algorithm, in order to produce improvements (which would
>still require your approval to execute, until the patent runs out around
>2000).

This is a common misconception.  The patent laws do not mention any valid
purpose for infringing a patent.  Although it is clear that in order to
create a new invention either based on a prior patent or to avoid infringing
a prior patent, one must perform research on an existing patent.  To
just say that you infringed a patent (assume we're not talking the RSA
patent) only for research purposes (wink wink, nudge nudge) and then never
develop any related invention (ie. only use it), would be a clear
infringement.

-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER
