From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 09:30:46 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

>This means the ethical position is still unchanged in this discussion. Using
>PGP in the US. is wronging the patent holders and violating the Munitions Act.

>Even for those who have no ethical concerns, suppose you were known to use it.
>It might jeopardize your ability to pass the scrutiny needed to obtain
>government employment, receive government research funds, or work on
>government contracts if somebody, somewhere, has a note in a file about you
>"violated Munitions Act." And you'd never know. Something to think about. Life
>is long, government files last forever, and some of the Yippees of the '60's
>now have government jobs.

Dave, you bounce about better than a superball trying to salvage
your position.  Why not give it up?  I don't suppose it occured
to you that unless someone is convicted of the crime, it cannot
be "known" that someone "violated the munitions act."

>Right. First, that seems to me to be ethically analogous to saying commit a
>crime, and if the police catch you, then you can decide what you want to do
>about it. Second, what if PKP decides you had adequate notice via, say, the
>discussion here and elsewhere, and doesn't ask you to take out a license but
>instead hits you with a lawsuit, gets some judge to put a lien on your
>property (dunno if he can or not, but you get the point), or in some other way
>makes your life vastly inconvenient. It isn't as simple as the Professor makes
>it.

Strange how you intermix ethics and crime.  Even if there is patent 
infringement involved, it is a civil matter so no criminal
ethics are involved.  On the civil side, things are far from as clear
cut as you assert.  The odds of the patent withstanding a challenge
are low.  Based on that conclusion, it is a simple matter of determining
how much financial risk one is willing to take and/or how much one
is willing to invest in fighting what he sees as a bad patent and
a bad process.

As to a judge putting a lien on your property, better hit the law books
again.  A judge may prohibit further infringement.  A judge, after
a trial in which the infringer loses, may fine the infringer and may
even return punitive damages and may seize property to pay said damages
but no lien is involved.  Absent financial gain, I seriously doubt
punative damages would be awarded and no actual damages can be proved
so where does PKP end up?  'Bout where the Prof said they'd be.


>Now a word to my colleagues all over the world. Though you may be able to (or
>think you may be able to) use PGP with impunity, why not voluntarily send RSA
>a reasonable contribution for their invention--think of it as a shareinvention
>fee analogous to a shareware fee. Say $20. A large number of such gestures
>might change the context of the situation overnight. Note that this is my
>personal suggestion, and I have not discussed it with anyone.

why not?  Because the patent may very well be bogus, even if it is,
we Americans have already at least in part paid for it once and 
PKP has contributed nothing toward aiding the development of PGP.
Enough for me.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:5946 alt.security.pgp:317