🚀 go-pugleaf

Rick Miller makes a couple of legal arguments, that I, as a fellow
non-attorney, think incorrect.

1. He asserts that until a patent is tested in court its status
is indeterminate. I think this is a misstatement of law. I believe
the law is that until a patent is overthrown in court it is valid.
That's a very different matter, and leads to such things as
retrospective damages from the time of the verdict.

2. He seems to make an argument that the RSAREF license, in effect,
puts RSA for non-commercial use in the public domain. It does not.
What it does is permit the use of RSAREF by those to whom RSA
gives the license. Again, legally that's quite a different matter
and as I understand it, in no way reduces RSA/PKP's rights.

By the way, has no one noticed that in the license RSA agrees to
defend any licensee against any lawsuits for patent violation
(for use of unmodified RSAREF) without limit. That, and much else
in the license agreement, seems to me to put paid to the various
nasty inferences made by some (I'm speaking generally, not
particularly about Miller) here about RSA's motives, particularly
since the license is free.

It seems to me that RSA is bending over backwards to make the
stuff available for non-commercial use, while acting as any
reasonable person would to protect their patent and property
rights.

I understand from Jim Bidzos that they're going to go even further.
As soon as they get their administrative act together, those who
request RSAREF directly from RSA (U.S. and Canadians only, I suppose)
will also get anything that uses RSAREF as well, such as RIPEM and
other goodies.

David
-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM key on server