From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: Legal Stuff!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 06:09:24 GMT

In article <a_rubin.725045922@dn66> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:
>> (I said)
>>If you import a box made using
>>a patented process, that box can become an infringing device.
>
>Wrong again.  Using PGP to read or send email appears to violate the
>patent.  Using something made by a patented process (as opposed to the
>object itself being patented) is not illegal.

You might not like the law the way it is, but you are just plain WRONG.

35 USC 271 (g)
"Whoever without authority imports into the United States or
sells or uses within the United States a product which is made by a
process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer, if
the importation, sale, or use of the product occurs during the term of
such process patent.  In an action for infringement of a process patent,
no remedy may be granted for infringement on account of the non-
commercial use or retail sale of a product unless there is no adequate
remedy under this title for infringement on account of the importa-
tion or other use or sale of that product.  A product which is made by
a patented process will, for purposes of this title, not be considered to
be so made after --
  (1) it is materially changed by subsequent processes; or
  (2) it becomes a trivial and nonessential component of another product."

>
>>As I started to mention above, your comments here about software
>>patents is bogus.  The RSA patents are not patents of an algorithm.
>>They are applications of an algorithm.  Fine line?  Perhaps, but
>>many physical inventions are nothing more than applications of
>>various equations.  The point is:  Writing a book about a patent
>>is NOT infringing.  Providing something that has the utility of
>>exercising (performing) a patent is likely infringing.
>
>Yes it is a fine line, and you are on the wrong side of it.  PGP is an
>algorithm, so cannot be covered by a patent.  "Making" the patentable
>process would be loading PGP onto a computer that can execute it, IF PGP
>has no non-infringing uses.  "Useing" would be a specific infringing use.
>
>>>(2>) We've gone through this.  I haven't tracked the exception to the
>>>exception to the exceptions in the regulations, but it is unclear whether
>>>"public domain" (meaning essentially, published) crypto software is covered
>>>by ITAR.
>
>>This is *VERY* clear.  You may personally choose to ignore the ITAR,
>>and no one may come after you, but...  Any company who wants to stay
>>in business has got to try to follow the laws.  Let me give you an
>>example that I know to be true:  A friend of mine published a
>>public domain FORTH system.  This was widely available in bookstores,
>>by mail order, etc.  This included books with full source code, and
>>machine readable disks.  When they got an order to send one to the
>>USSR (this was 5-7 years ago), the Feds told them "No Way!".  Could
>>they have sent it?  Yes.  Would they have gotten into Federal trouble?
>>Who knows?  Did they?  NO.  Does it make sense?  Not for computer
>>software, but this is a Federal bureaucracy.
>
>That doesn't mean the Feds read the law.  I think we all agree that
>exporting PGP, and probably importing PGP, is in violation of regulations. 
>Whether the regulations are legal (consistent with the authorizing law and
>the Constitution) is still open.

I've kept the above in here so that I can say the following:

You are constantly mixing your views of how you want the
laws to be rather than commenting on how the laws
apply.  Again, if you wish to partake in civil disobedience, that
is your choice.  The patent laws have been fairly heavily
used in other areas and have been proven quite consitutional.


-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:5990 alt.security.pgp:342