🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MPG.ec503b014b9a445989688@news.vnet.net>, nospam@synernet.com
( Ed Stone) wrote:

>In article <david-3110971927110001@lax-ca66-47.ix.netcom.com>, 
>david@sternlight.com says...
>
>> The real position is that if you use PGP commercially in Europe you will
>> be infringing the IDEA patent, which is valid there. You could ask ASCOM
>> if they'd give you a separate commercial IDEA license, and hope that PGP
>> won't press you on any copyright (which are also valid in Europe)
>> infringements .
>
>At http://www.pgp.com/international/international-licensing.cgi you will 
>find:
>
>"Obtaining a License to Use Your PGP International
>Freeware for Commercial Purposes Outside of the U.S.
>
>PGP has recognized that individuals and corporations located outside
>of the United States have obtained copies of special non-commercial
>versions of PGP, such as PGP 5.0i (PGP International Freeware,
>Version 5.0) or other computer software that may use the same
>techniques implemented in PGP or is based upon well known PGP
>standards. Although these versions have the same encryption strength
>and features as their commercial counterparts, these versions are
>published solely for non-commercial use. Nevertheless, many
>companies and individuals desire to make commercial use of such
>software.
>
>In response to this demand, PGP has established a legal way of
>permitting the commercial use of these non-commercial versions.
>Here'�s how it works: Provided that (a) PGP is not required to export
>any export controlled software, (b) PGP is not required to export any
>export controlled technical assistance, and (c) PGP is satisfied, in the
>sole exercise of its discretion, that the software fully complies with
>PGP's policy and quality standards, then PGP will provide for a fee (a)
>a license to use the PGP trademark in connection with the commercial
>use of such software and (b) PGP's agreement not to assert any
>copyright claims against such company or individual for such
>commercial use during the term of the trademark license. 
>
>This license program only applies to software used outside of the U.S.
>(except in countries embargoed by the U.S. government) and does not
>apply to the PGPfreeware version published by M.I.T. (which is
>intended only for use within the U.S.) Further, this license program
>applies only to the use, not to the distribution of the software. 
>
>Individuals and companies located outside the United States interested
>in receiving a license fee quote and applying for a license to
>commercially use a version of PGP originally published for
>non-commercial purposes, may contact our sales department."

This seems to me to be both misleading anhd non-responsive to my comment,
and one would think Stone would know that. The above does not give the
named class of users a license to the IDEA patent. All it does is protect
against PGP's copyright and let you call the thing "PGP". Thus any version
of PGP which contains IDEA would still infringe the IDEA patent unless one
had a license (or an OEM license) to IDEA as well.

What it seems designed to do is allow a company outside the US to get a
copy of PGP in  violation of US export law, negotiate separately with
ASCOM for an IDEA license, and then sell the result as "PGP" in Europe.

If I were the US Government (I'm not) and someone actually did that I'd go
after PGP for contributory violation of US export law, as the thing seems
pretty blatant. It's the same principle as that of contributory
infringement which led MIT to put the kludge in PGP 2.x.

The same doctrine might be used if the European version was based on
typing in the published PGP code. It would make for an interesting case
since the publication itself would only be called into question for its
contributory consequences. It would clarify that area of the law, but the
Justice Department might not wish so to do, since they might lose. (No
arguments about free speech, publication, etc., please--I said they "might
lose".)

David

-- 
"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion."--John Lawton