From: kelsey@mdd.comm.mot.com (Joe Kelsey)
Subject: Re: Software Patents: Promotion of science and the useful arts?
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:15:13 GMT

In <1992Nov5.074758.29460@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
>It is certainly possible.  But I think that it is also possible that
>not many people would care. Many mail systems have had cryptology
>built in  for years.  But they aren't widely used. In general, it
>isn't the debate over whether the particular crypto system they employ
>is "secure enough" but the absence of a widespread standard, i.e. not
>enough critical mass, that has hampered them.  If everyone were
>developing their own variants of RSA with different key lengths, etc.
>we might be even further from this.

Since people who use the Internet and Usenet actually *pioneered* the
use of electronic mail and also created most of the standards used
today, I think we can clearly state that if RSADSI and PKP had not
actively prevented the implementation of public key cryptography, a
standard PEM could have existed years ago.  We might even have
privacy-enhanced netnews!  The very existence of the medium we use to
discuss this issue shows how standards arise from the very real need
to interoperate with a wide variety of computers in a network.  Your
argument about too many different implementations preventing
standardization has no basis in the history of the very networks you
use now!

However, the history of PKP shows an agressive posture over tha past
ten years or more.  Only recently has PKP softened its tone and now
suddenly allows the so-called personal use of the RSA protocol.  Why
did they suddenly change their tune?  I think that they finally
realized that their policies have actually prevented any products
based on their precious patents from gaining widespread acceptance and
now realize how much they have hurt themselves and everyone else in the
business!

The policies of RSADSI and PKP show how a patent holder can prevent
innovation in the software industry.  PKP now must realize how much
they have lost through their policies, since, in spite of thier much
vaunted list of licensees, we still see absolutely no widespread use
of licensed software based on these protocols, and thus no license
fees accruing to the patent holders!

>But we have a patent tradition, and given that it is built into
>the way many aspects of our economy work, tinkering with it puts the
>good aspects of our economic system at risk.  I'm for greater
>understanding of their minuses AND plusses, and not for a runaway
>train for or against patents, or software patents.

So now we argue about tradition?  Clearly, the policies of RSADSI and
PKP have hurt the general software economy by preventing people from
producing products based on their IDEAS, so in this case patents do
not help the economy work!

I think we need to change the argument from using the word benefits to
using the Constitutional terms: promotion of science and the useful
arts.  Then the question becomes, how has the RSA patent promoted
science and the useful arts?  The answer: the policies of PKP have
STIFLED progress on implementation of public key cryptography in the
USA.  So this patent does not fall under the purpose stated in the
Constitution.

I believe that patents have both good and bad sides.  Clearly,
traditional patents provide incentive to invent and market products
for personal benefit as well as making the ideas available for
everyone to (eventually) use.  I, however, can make a clear
distinction between the traditional patents and the mental process
patents that have served to slowly stifle growth in software over the
past few years.

So Scott, please tell me exactly how software patents serve to promote
science and the useful arts.  Clearly, software engineering qualifies
as a useful art, but your promotion of RSA shows how this patent has
stifled progress.  You also continue to claim that Dolby holds some
sort of mythical software patent.  Please quote patent numbers so we
can all try to discuss your latest example.  Also, according to your
evidence so far, the Dolby patents mostly promote consumer electronics
and we haven't (yet) seen Dolby actively suppressing software
developers.