mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) (05/23/91)
metzger@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes: > >You have done nothing by simply implementing the algorithm. ONLY USE >OF, OR SALE OF, A PATENTED INVENTION IS ACTIONABLE. Can you prove that I did, in fact, encrypt my data with an RSA scheme, in court, without my being forced to incriminate against myself? The intuitive argument: the way to prove that in fact I had been using RSA to encrypt my data would be to decrypt it, thereby proving that you know the encryption scheme. Otherwise I can just claim that I used a one-time pad, and that you're just reading what you want to see out of the noise. Am I totally off base? My uderstanding of cryptography is limited, but I thought the better cryptosystems tend to make the ciphertext look like random noise. How, then, do you tell? (code-breakers must have a reasonable array of tools that can certainly imply what kind of system you used, but can you *PROVE* it to a jury of ignorami?) mjr.
ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May23.005453.4406@decuac.dec.com> mjr@hussar.dco.dec. com (Marcus J. Ranum) writes: > Can you prove that I did, in fact, encrypt my data with an RSA > scheme, in court, without my being forced to incriminate against myself? You would testify, alright ... the section of the Bill of Rights which allows you to refuse to testify or incriminate yourself applies to *CRIMINAL* matters ... not civil cases. It applies when there is a potential loss of your freedom, i.e. a prison sentence. In civil cases, people do not go to jail. You'd be sued in a civil action, not a criminal action ... and you would give a deposition when requested, or possibly be held in contempt for refusing to do so. > Can you prove it to a jury of ignorami? I wouldn't have to. Again, in a civil case, BOTH SIDES have to agree on having a bench trial or jury trial ... I'd insist on having the judge decide the matter. Really, criminal trials are not the way to go. When possible, deal with these things in a civil trial for the best results. Patrick Townson
smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May23.032146.10692@eecs.nwu.edu>, ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > > Can you prove it to a jury of ignorami? > > I wouldn't have to. Again, in a civil case, BOTH SIDES have to agree > on having a bench trial or jury trial . I'm not a lawyer, but... Here's the wording of the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Since patents are a matter of Federal law, this amendment presumably applies. (Besides, in my discussions with a patent lawyer he repeatedly stressed that it could be a jury trial if it ever came to that.)
ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) (05/24/91)
In article <14880@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes: > I'm not a lawyer, but... Here's the wording of the 7th Amendment to > the U.S. Constitution: > In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed > twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no > fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the > United States, than according to the rules of the common law. > Since patents are a matter of Federal law, this amendment presumably applies. > (Besides, in my discussions with a patent lawyer he repeatedly stressed > that it could be a jury trial if it ever came to that.) But I am not (assuming I was the one suing him) asking for money, other than of course my attorney fees and expenses, which are NOT counted in the 'twenty dollar rule' ... I am merely asking the judge to order him to refrain from continuing to engage in the behavior which brought him there in the first place. I do think that since there is no 'amount of money in dispute' we must both mutually agree upon a jury trial. PAT
louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) (05/29/91)
In article <1991May24.041906.3787@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >But I am not (assuming I was the one suing him) asking for money, >other than of course my attorney fees and expenses, which are NOT >counted in the 'twenty dollar rule' ... > >I am merely asking the judge to order him to refrain from continuing >to engage in the behavior which brought him there in the first place. > >I do think that since there is no 'amount of money in dispute' we must >both mutually agree upon a jury trial. You don't need a trial. You petition the court for a restraining order. The defendent (in this case, there is none since no one is being sued yet) is not present since it's almost like a warrant. You just get it signed. What company would drag someone to court just for legal expenses? They want damages or it's not worth the time and effort. If they just want to stop him, they don't even have to sue. Louis > > >PAT -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ! "As above, so below; as below, so above" -- The Kybalion ! ! "I don't trust him; he has dark hair" -- My girlfriend's mother ! ! "So I'm stupid; what's your point?" -- Me !
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (06/02/91)
In article <1991May23.032146.10692@eecs.nwu.edu>, ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > In article <1991May23.005453.4406@decuac.dec.com> mjr@hussar.dco.dec. > com (Marcus J. Ranum) writes: > >> Can you prove that I did, in fact, encrypt my data with an RSA >> scheme, in court, without my being forced to incriminate against myself? > > You would testify, alright ... the section of the Bill of Rights which > allows you to refuse to testify or incriminate yourself applies to > *CRIMINAL* matters ... not civil cases. It applies when there is a > potential loss of your freedom, i.e. a prison sentence. ^^^^^^^ > > In civil cases, people do not go to jail. You'd be sued in a civil > action, not a criminal action ... and you would give a deposition when > requested, or possibly be held in contempt for refusing to do so. ^^^^^^^^ > You just said that his freedom was not at stake then said his freedom was at stake. Which is it? dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) (06/02/91)
In article <4750.28479e8e@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: >>> Can you prove that I did, in fact, encrypt my data with an RSA >>> scheme, in court, without my being forced to incriminate against myself? >> You would testify, alright ... the section of the Bill of Rights which >> allows you to refuse to testify or incriminate yourself applies to >> *CRIMINAL* matters ... not civil cases. It applies when there is a >> potential loss of your freedom, i.e. a prison sentence. > ^^^^^^^ >> In civil cases, people do not go to jail. You'd be sued in a civil >> action, not a criminal action ... and you would give a deposition when >> requested, or possibly be held in contempt for refusing to do so. > ^^^^^^^^ > You just said that his freedom was not at stake then said his > freedom was at stake. Which is it? His feeedom would not be at state regardless of his deposition in the civil case. In other words, he could deny the allegations against him (and possibly have it proven otherwise), or he could admit to the allegations against him. In either case, he would not wind up going to jail, i.e. losing his freedom. His REFUSAL to give deposition could be a possible cause of criminal action against him. In civil cases, do not confuse the *nature* of your deposition (testimony) with the fact that you gave it or did not give it at all. PAT
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (06/06/91)
>In article <1991May23.032146.10692@eecs.nwu.edu>, ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >> In article <1991May23.005453.4406@decuac.dec.com> mjr@hussar.dco.dec. >> com (Marcus J. Ranum) writes: >> >>> Can you prove that I did, in fact, encrypt my data with an RSA >>> scheme, in court, without my being forced to incriminate against myself? >> >> You would testify, alright ... the section of the Bill of Rights which >> allows you to refuse to testify or incriminate yourself applies to >> *CRIMINAL* matters ... not civil cases. It applies when there is a >> potential loss of your freedom, i.e. a prison sentence. A loss of freedom does not mean prison sentence. If the govt. takes away my livelihood, (say a $500,000 fine) and forces me to lose my home and live on the streets, I think that is a loss of freedom. -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM