🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec19.211405.22406@netcom.com>
strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

>I like the phrasing I came up with for this message: "using RSA's
>invention without compensation".  And the notion in that phrasing is
>at the core of my ethical argument...

Every day, we use inventions without compensating their inventors.
For example, when I make a telephone call, I feel no obligation to pay
money to the heirs of Alexander Graham Bell.  This is not because of
"self-interest", or a philisophical objection to hardware patents, but
because the patent which Bell received was of only limited scope.  The
most obvious limitation is time, and the duration of Bell's patent has
expired.  However, there are other limits on the scope of a patent,
which go hand in hand with the duration limit.

One of the most fundamental limits is the nature of the patent itself.
This may be best illustrated by contrasting patent and copyright
protection.

  A copyright is the "exclusive right" to do certain things with a
  copyrighted work.

  A patent is the "right to exclude others" from doing certain things
  with a patented invention.

Copyright infringement is, in itself, a violation of the copyright
holder's "exclusive right".  Patent infringement makes the infringer
subject to the patent holder's "right to exclude others", which the
patent holder may or may not exercise.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that the PKP patent is valid and its
subject matter is appropriate for patent coverage.  If PKP does not
exercise its "right to exclude others" by filing an infringement suit,
what *specific* right of PKP's is a PGP user in the USA violating?  If
the use of PGP is violating no rights, how can it be unethical?
--
Jim Olsen  --  olsen@mit.edu  --  Vote Marrou in '92!