🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Nov19.103737.16070@netcom.com> tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:

>In article <a_rubin.722037007@dn66> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:
>> ...
>>(3) Distributing source code with appropriate disclaimers (possibly as RSA
>>claims) is exactly what patent law was intented to encourage...
>>experimentation with concepts/ideas to create new ideas.

>Au contraire.

>The patent law says that "whoever without authority makes, uses or
>sells any patented invention ... infringes the patent" and "whoever
>actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an
>infringer".

Very well.  Let's look at it.  The patent seems to cover encryption of
messages.  Private encryption of files, even with a "public" key system
seems NOT to be be covered.  Hence, any code which does not include a
mailer is allowable; hence desirable, because it allows further research on
the concepts described in the patent.

>Distributing copies of a patent is aok.

>Writing a book about it, discussing the whys and hows is aok.

>But, once you have a program, things are different -- perhaps unclear,
>but at least different.  Executing the program is clearly using the
>patented invention and potentially an infringement.  Nothing in the
>patent law encourages experimentation by infringing.  It is clear
>that the purpose of distributing such source code is to USE the
>patent.

As I said, executing the program and then transmitting the encrypted file
is covered.  Use of the program itself, is not.  (And it is clear that the
primary purpose of the code is either to use in violation of the patent or
to discredit the patent, but discrediting the patent IS allowable.)

>Again, if you want to understand the ideas, or help others to understand
>them, then go write a book.  There is NO WAY that a book can be
>construed as making or using a patented invention.

>Plus, any site making the code available might also find themselves
>infringers.

That's why no US sites make the code available.  The patent is only valid
in the US.  (It's apparently not valid even in Canada, which normally
recognizes US patents, but "software" or "algorithm" patents are NOT
allowable in Canada.)

--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.