🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CKD.92Nov2104215@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
}Tim> == Tim Starr <starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu> 
}
} Tim> You're apparently ignorant of any distinction between
} Tim> command-and-control regulation from the "public sector" and
} Tim> contractual terms in the "private sector".  You don't have to deal
} Tim> with RSA if you don't consent to it.  If you refuse to deal with
} Tim> the government, it deals with you.
}
}What if RSA brings a patent infringement suit against you?  It's not as
}simple as you paint it.  You can't simply "refuse to deal" with RSA if
}you're using public key encryption in the US.

What I meant was that you don't have to use public key encryption.  Patents
are irrelevant (and I don't believe in 'em, anyways.  Copyright, yes, patents,
no).  You and RSA are both freely contracting parties.  However, if you want
to use RSA in a prohibited fashion, you have no choice about whether you will
deal with the enforcement agency of that prohibition.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire