🚀 go-pugleaf

Thus said stevens@vms.macc.wisc.edu (PAul STevens - MACC - 2-9618):
>In article <1galtnINNhn5@transfer.stratus.com>, cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison) writes...
>
>>I went to the horse's mouth and asked some folks at PKP & RSA to comment
>>on PGP legality.  Here's their reply.  I have permission to post it.
>> 
>>Being aware of the RSA patent makes infringement willful and
>>deliberate. Under patent law, a patent holder is entitled to seek
>>triple damages and legal fees from deliberate infringers.  While the
>
>    Once again.  Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk.  Who is going to do
>    something?  For the record I am going to publish a number I
[ ... ]
>    My point is that *someone* has to test this patent claim!  How 
>    can we force this to happen?  If someone does get sued are we
>    all willing to contribute to the defense or are we all talk, too? 

Whoever goes to court to test the patent claim had better darn well have
the resources and circumstances to mount a strong defense or else he'll
just get creamed and a precedent will be set in favor of PKP.  It's not
something for some random doofus to challenge without significant
backing and knowledge.  Making a frivolous violation and losing in court
does not help your cause; quite the contrary.

That was part of why Mark Riordan quietly withdrew RPEM when it was
challenged even though he didn't believe it infringed PKP's patent.  I
suppose you think him a wimp who does nothing but "talk talk talk"
because of that, but it may have been the right decision for the time.
--