🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Dec14.014118.11612@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:


>Bill Stewart corrects my understanding of PGP and IDEA (thanks), which
>suggests that troubles for possession and/or use of PGP2.x in the U.S.
>can also come from the Munitions Act since PGP is based on an import
>of the IDEA implementation, rather than domestic coding of the IDEA
>algorithm.

>If my understanding is now accurate that PGP2.x violates both the
>Munitions Act and PKP's patents, and that this violation is occasioned
>not just by use but also by possession in the U.S., then it would seem
>prudent to get it off one's U.S. computers and any U.S. net
>sites--Internet, Usenet, Fidonet, anynet. Presence on a bulletin board
>system may be just what someone needs to close down that system.

The Munitions Act?  Possibly, as it does seem (according to RSA) that the
Munitions Act forbids import of munitions.  Possession of PGP clearly does
NOT violate PKP's patents.  One might say that possession implies
incitement to use, but that does not seem likely.  (Of course RSA/PKP can
sue anyone they want to.)  Of course, anyone outside the U.S. can use it
unless the exporting site or the user has similar laws to the (U S)
Munitions Act.

>As for the argument that some make that "you" will probably neither get
>caught nor prosecuted for this illegality, the ethics of that position
>are open to the most serious questions (assuming my understanding
>of the underlying situation is accurate).

Use of a patent later determined to be improper is and was always legal. 
It's risky, but legal.

>Finally, given my understanding, the notion that if it's uploaded all
>over the place, what can "they" do seems to betray a lack of both
>realism and ethics. Try the argument that if lots of people take
>cocaine, what can "they" do?  to see this.

Agreed.

>The proposal to produce a de novo version here in the U.S., based on
>the IDEA algorithm (if published and the IDEA folks permit it), and
>RSAREF (assuming RSA will license RSAREF for PGP), in contrast seems
>both ethical and legal, if I understand this correctly.

It seems unlikely that US and foreign programs can be maintained in synch,
without violating the Munitions Act, unless the program being published
makes it not subject to the Munitions Act, which (as far as I know, and not
contradicted by RSA's statement) still open.

>For completeness and to acknowledge a particular position (with which
>I disagree), some feel that it's absurd to prevent use of something
>here that's widespread in Europe, and are willing to take a chance in
>order to press that. Others feel that PKP's patents are over-broad and
>are willing to confront on that issue. That's got to be an individual
>and conscious choice, which should be made clear to others, so nobody
>gets or uses PGP under the impression it's "o.k." My own position is
>that if one thinks a law or situation is incorrect, one moves to get
>it changed, if possible. One does not take the law into one's own
>hands. One particularly doesn't take innocent bystanders down with
>one.

Patent law is self-enforcing; i.e. patent violations are (usually) not
criminal, but civil.  Hence you really can't say that people use PGP are
violating patent law, unless PKP (at their expense) makes that claim in
court.

Note:  I do not have PGP on any machines (I personally) have access to.

--
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.