🚀 go-pugleaf

David Sternlight replies to Eben Moglen's article on the reality of the
situation regarding PGP legality.  He clearly believes that his own idea
of ethics is absolute when he says, "Using PGP in the US. is wronging the
patent holders and violating the Munitions Act." (sic)

He continues his tirade by bringing up hypothetical situations with no
basis in fact about how using PGP could impact one's life/career in a
negative manner.  Naturally, he leaves out the hypothetical situations in
which it could impact one's life/career in a positive manner.

Next he begins his feeble attempt to discredit Eben Moglen's ethical and
professional standing.  He makes a ridiculous comparison between Moglen's
suggestion that one might use PGP until one receives notification from PKP
directly that one is in violation of their patent and "to saying commit a
crime, and if the police catch you, then you can decide what you want to do
about it." (sic)  This comparison seems to imply that he doesn't understand
the difference between patent law and criminal law.  I'm not a lawyer, so I
would encourage anyone that uses PGP to check with an attorney, but my under-
standing of the law is that a patent holder must notify anyone they believe
is in violation of their patent before pursuing remedies under the law.  This
sentiment seems to be echoed in Moglen's posting.

His attack on Moglen continues when he questions Moglen's statement, "I very
much doubt that PKP really believes that the domestic circulation of PGP violates
the ITARs"  He claims Moglen is "winging it" by making this statement.  He
doesn't seem to consider the possibility that Moglen is basing this statement
on his knowledge of the ITAR and the assumption that PKP's attorneys possess
similar knowledge and are likely to draw similar conclusions based on legal
experience rather than wishful thinking.

He concludes his attack on Moglen by suggesting that Moglen's characterization of
PKP's attempt to protect their property rights as a "temper tantrum" shows that
Moglen must be a party at interest.  This seems improbable at best.  In fact,
as Brutus' once said, "Methinks thou doest protest too loudly."  In fact, Mr.
Sternlights motives are drawn into question by his lengthly exposition on "The
Ethical and Legal Reasons not to use PGP in the US."  He backs up this possibility
when he concludes, "I've been in communication with Jim Bidzos [of PKP] on a
regular basis..."

Not everyone shares Sternlight's opinion that "RSA has patents on a wonderful
invention and they are entitled to the fruits of their work."  See esp. the FSF's
position on algorithmic patents for an opposing view.

---
Bill Dorsey      "Most people mistake law for justice and authority for
dorsey@lila.com   liberty.  You will hear them talk of 'liberty under law,'
ripem public key  and they are content to see it so deep under the law that
on request        it is completely obliterated." -- Herbert Spencer