🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Dec22.092736.21737@netcom.com> tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:

>In article <a_rubin.724977120@dn66> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:
>> ...
>>(1>) Do you have any basis for your premise that a computer program CAN
>>infringe a patent?  My understanding of the law (confirmed by some experts)
>>is that, as we don't have algorithm patents in this program, a computer
>>program alone cannot be covered by a patent.  The program must be RUNNING
>>on a computer before there is any infringement.

>When asking for legal advice, omitting even a tiny detail can
>make all the difference.  For example, you need to ask whether
>using something produced USING a patented process can violate
>that patent.  In other words, technically of course, importing email
>encrypted using PGP, *if* PGP violates a US patent, is something
>that is not allowed by US patent law.  Cut through all of this
>software patent red herrings.  If you import a box made using
>a patented process, that box can become an infringing device.

Wrong again.  Using PGP to read or send email appears to violate the
patent.  Using something made by a patented process (as opposed to the
object itself being patented) is not illegal.

>As I started to mention above, your comments here about software
>patents is bogus.  The RSA patents are not patents of an algorithm.
>They are applications of an algorithm.  Fine line?  Perhaps, but
>many physical inventions are nothing more than applications of
>various equations.  The point is:  Writing a book about a patent
>is NOT infringing.  Providing something that has the utility of
>exercising (performing) a patent is likely infringing.

Yes it is a fine line, and you are on the wrong side of it.  PGP is an
algorithm, so cannot be covered by a patent.  "Making" the patentable
process would be loading PGP onto a computer that can execute it, IF PGP
has no non-infringing uses.  "Useing" would be a specific infringing use.

>>(2>) We've gone through this.  I haven't tracked the exception to the
>>exception to the exceptions in the regulations, but it is unclear whether
>>"public domain" (meaning essentially, published) crypto software is covered
>>by ITAR.

>This is *VERY* clear.  You may personally choose to ignore the ITAR,
>and no one may come after you, but...  Any company who wants to stay
>in business has got to try to follow the laws.  Let me give you an
>example that I know to be true:  A friend of mine published a
>public domain FORTH system.  This was widely available in bookstores,
>by mail order, etc.  This included books with full source code, and
>machine readable disks.  When they got an order to send one to the
>USSR (this was 5-7 years ago), the Feds told them "No Way!".  Could
>they have sent it?  Yes.  Would they have gotten into Federal trouble?
>Who knows?  Did they?  NO.  Does it make sense?  Not for computer
>software, but this is a Federal bureaucracy.

That doesn't mean the Feds read the law.  I think we all agree that
exporting PGP, and probably importing PGP, is in violation of regulations. 
Whether the regulations are legal (consistent with the authorizing law and
the Constitution) is still open.



--
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.