🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec17.215323.1154@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

    PGP 1.0 was a violation of the RSA patents. Consider it having a label
   called "fruits of a violation". That label isn't removed simply
   because it passes over some wires to Europe.  Note carefully: a copy
   of PGP 1.0 brought to Europe from the U.S. is NOT ethically equivalent
   to a PGP 1.0 programmed from scratch in Europe.

But it wasn't tainted fruit in Europe because RSA isn't patented
there. Devices that infringe on patents may be confiscated in a civil
action, but if there is no patent, there is no violation. The fact
that PGP is a "fruit of a violation" in the U.S. should cause
Europeans amusement, not guilt. 

I read "Spycatcher" when it came out. I didn't feel any ethical
pressure not to, even though it is banned in the UK. If I read a
blasphemous poem by a Brit I wouldn't feel like a conspirator even
though the author committed a crime in his own country.

   I would agree completely that a programmed-from-scratch implementation
   of RSA in a country where they don't have patent protection is
   perfectly legal and ethical. I would not agree that a copy tranported
   from the U.S., where it is not legitimate, somehow is washed clean in
   the blood of the lamb (have I got the metaphor right?) as it arrives
   at the other end of the phone line.

One should ignore the silly laws of other countries. It is hard enough
to slavishly follow those of one's own.

--
Tim Moore                    moore@cs.utah.edu {bellcore,hplabs}!utah-cs!moore
"Wind in my hair - Shifting and drifting - Mechanical music - Adrenaline surge"
	- Rush