metzger@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger) (05/21/91)
The following article will be considered contraversial. It contains only my own opinions, and the opinions should not be construed as being those of IBM, or of the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center. In article <1991May16.201709.3086@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> riordanmr@clvax1.cl.msu.edu (Mark Riordan) writes: >As you can see from the message below, RSA is unhappy with my releasing >a public key encryption program. > >I claim that the algorithm here does not closely resemble RSA and >therefore should not infringe upon the patent(s). They claim otherwise. > >I seek advice, or pointers to advice, in this real-life situation. [Elided: a letter From jim@RSA.COM (Jim Bidzos), which describes the fascist hammerlock on public key encryption that "Public Key Partners" has established., including..] > WE HEREBY PLACE YOU AND ALL USERS OF YOUR IMPLEMENTATION OF >PUBLIC KEY, ON NOTICE THAT THEY ARE INFRINGING ON THESE PATENTS AND WE >RESERVE ALL OF OUR RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AT LAW. Warning: I'm not a lawyer, but... You have done nothing by simply implementing the algorithm. ONLY USE OF, OR SALE OF, A PATENTED INVENTION IS ACTIONABLE. Besides, RSA and "Public Key Partners" have effectively destroyed the ability of the American public from benefiting from public key encryption. They are a revolting group, and its time that we forced them in to court. I say that we form the Mark Riordan legal defense fund, and force RSA in to court. If the patent stands, well, we aren't in any worse a situation, and it is likely that only the most miniscule of damages can be claimed against Mark Riordan as at worst, as I see it (I am not a lawyer!), he could be held liable for his personal use of the algorithm, but not for the creation and distribution of code which could, when compiled, be used to execute the algorithm. NOTE THAT THE RSA PATENT COVERS ONLY A COMPLETE DEVICE THAT EXECUTES RSA, AND NOT MERELY AN UNCOMPILED PROGRAM WITHOUT A DEVICE TO EXECUTE IT. Assuming that a good lawyer agrees that Mark would be, at worst, liable for the comparitively small license fees that RSA and PKP wish to extort from him, it would be well worth the while of the community to support him through a court case which could potentially break the patents and the resulting hammerlock of a company that exists only to extort license fees from people for manipulating large numbers in the privacy of their own home computers. I know that this statement is contraversial, but I am making it anyway. IBM is anal retentive, so let me state for the record this is MY opinion, which has nothing to do with IBM or IBM's opinions: Software and Algorithm patents are immoral and unnatural. RSA, and "Public Key Partners", are parasites who extort money from people and impede technological progress. They do nothing for a living but collect license fees from patents that should not have been granted in the first place. It is as unnatural to permit the patenting of RSA is it would be to permit the patenting of Euclids GCD algorithm. Its time that RSA was brought into court and the patent was broken. Perry Metzger
metzger@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger) (05/21/91)
Warning: I'm not a lawyer; I may not know what I'm talking about. In article <1991May19.184905.3760@hellgate.utah.edu> hollaar%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) writes: >>But WHO is the infringer by *using* ??? > >From Title 35 of the United States Code, Section 271: >"(a)... WHOEVER without authority makes, USES or sells any patented invention, >within the United States during the term of the patent therefor, infringes >the patent." [emphasis added] > >>If I implement a program using the method, publish it stating that it is >>just an example as part of an explanation of how the patent really works, >>then someone USES that implementation, then WHO has infringed? > >At least the person who uses the implementation has infringed. As I recall, the RSA patent specifically covered a device that executed the RSA algorithm. RSA was patented before software patents became all the rage. Therefore, it may be that distributing the source code for an RSA implementation, without providing an executable or an executable for the program to run on, might very well not be covered by the patent. Then, using the program would violate the patent, but distributing the source would not. It would be useful to get an actual lawyer to comment on this. Perry Metzger
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (05/21/91)
>Warning: I'm not a lawyer, but... > >You have done nothing by simply implementing the algorithm. ONLY USE >OF, OR SALE OF, A PATENTED INVENTION IS ACTIONABLE. I'm still trying to work this one out in my mind. I suspect that if you went and built a clone of, say, a Chevy Corvette, patented parts and all, and gave it to people for free, with a disclaimer that it wasn't legal for them to use it - you'd still get nuked for patent violation. Is it any different if I poste an RSA implementation but tell you not to run it? I'd like to say yes, but I have a feeling the answer is no. >could, when compiled, be used to execute the algorithm. NOTE THAT THE >RSA PATENT COVERS ONLY A COMPLETE DEVICE THAT EXECUTES RSA, AND NOT >MERELY AN UNCOMPILED PROGRAM WITHOUT A DEVICE TO EXECUTE IT. I'd be happier with this statement if it hadn't been preceeded by the first line up above. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
alan@hilbert.uucp (Alan J. Coppola) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May20.183038.9967@watson.ibm.com> metzger@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes: > >Warning: I'm not a lawyer, but... > Ditto...but... > >I say that we form the Mark Riordan legal defense fund, and force RSA ^^^^^^^^^ >into court. ^^^^ ^^^^^ > I would love to see this happen pertaining to a clear algorithm patent. The 'expert witness' testimony alone would make for a mini soap opera., similar to the Intel vs. NEC microcode case. In my personal brush with SW algorithm patents, it became VERY clear that no definitive judgements have been given, in court... ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, yet claims have been made for items as simple as representations of the laws of Boolean Logic. A patent today is no more than a LICENSE to sue. An algorithm patent today is no more than a fear & doubt factor. > > Software and Algorithm patents are immoral and unnatural. RSA, > and "Public Key Partners", are parasites who extort money from > people and impede technological progress. They do nothing for a > living but collect license fees from patents that should not have > been granted in the first place. It is as unnatural to permit the > patenting of RSA is it would be to permit the patenting of > Euclids GCD algorithm. Its time that RSA was brought into court > and the patent was broken. > >Perry Metzger I don't have the same fervor as Perry, but my sentiment is similar in wanting to resolve this growing fear & doubt factor in court. All of the algorithm patents I've heard about sound pretty silly, given the essential 'abstract nature' and large body of 'prior art' that led to the 'invention'. I must admit that five to ten negative decisions would go a long way in re-adjusting my business attitude towards SW patents. My philosophical attitude would take much longer to change...perhaps never. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Coppola | alan%hilbert@cse.ogi.edu Cypress Semiconductor NW | or 12225 SW 2nd Ave | {uunet, ogicse}!nosun!hilbert!alan