	This is a very good point.  AT&T obviously knew and participated in the
development of the Clipper chip.  This amounts to unfair business practice and
gives AT&T an early monopoly on the market [hopefully a non-existant market].
Other companies that compete with AT&T in the cellular market (Motorola, NEC, etc)
have grounds to file a complaint over this.


It would seem that the one fact that the government has overlooked in this
whole fiasco is the economic standpoint.  As others have mentioned, the most
difficulty the Clipper chip faces is an economic one.  Let's face it, the
average consumer doesn't care or know that the Clipper is a bad idea.  If
there is a perceived need for cellular encryption, then the companies will
provide one.  Most likely, a standard will emerge.  But if the Clipper is
too expensive (and $25 a chip is way too much) then they will develope their
own or buy a cheaper one.  I give SCT my full support, and hope the
Clipper chip goes the way of the Beta video tape format.

Also hope they get sued over re-using the name Clipper.

-- 
 ---------------------------------------Cyberspace:--------------------------