🚀 go-pugleaf

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

>Hugh Miller's article is filled with so many inaccuracies it's hard to
>know where to start, so I'll treat only a few; the remainder is left
>to others as it's pretty late at night. I'm going to digest, since the
>message is so long.

>He then decides to interpret Bidzos' comments as "threats" instead
>of statements of fact about Bidzos' interpretation of the PKP patents
>and the Munitions Act. 

I thought Miller's arguments well thought out and pragmatic.  Fact is
Bidzos IS saber rattling.  If he thought he had a case, he'd prosecute
it and forget about the munitions act angle.  Patent law gives overwhelming
bias toward the holder  including early injuctive relief.  Bidzos and
PKP know that they are likely to lose the whole shebang if they 
press the case.  Statistics alone play against them if my patent
attorney is accurate in stating that about 75% of all patent validity 
challenges succeed.  RSA is neither particularly novel nor unobvious
to one engaged in the trade.  That alone should do the trick without even
delving into the legal issues involved with algorithm patents.  Lastly,
they stand a great chance of losing by virtue of lack of due dilligence
in protecting their patent.  PGP has been out, what, 2-3 years?
No suits yet.  Appears they don't care too much.

Bidzos is trying a package deal.  One part to scare those who fear a patent
suit and to get the rest, he throws in a specious Munitions Act 
threat.  Saber rattling at its finest.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.