🚀 go-pugleaf

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>Note--this discussion applies to the U.S. situation.
>
>Toward the end of his latest message, Arthur L. Rubin finally reaches
>a point on which we can agree. It is a legitimate question to ask if
>the RSA patents are "legal" (whatever that means). One can ask
>such a question about any patent, or indeed law.
>
>The way to handle that, in my view, is not by reciting an incantation
>("I don't think it's legal.") and then violating the patent (which IS
>legal until ruled otherwise). Where I come from we call that "taking
>the law into one's own hands", and despite the attempts to cloak that
>act in legitimacy by citing civil disobedience of a historically
>ethical character, this isn't about civil rights or freedom--it's
>about whether one may use a specific patent for personal advantage
>without paying.

Bull. I would gladly pay Public Key Partners for a license for their
patent so I can use PGP. They will not grant me or anyone else a
license, and I don't feel safe with any other software. I doubt that
their patent is valid, but I'm willing to part with $20 or $50 or even
$100 for a personal license to use RSA any way I like, if only so I
won't be in a legally ambiguous state. Thus, you can't argue that I'm
"violating the law for pecuniary advantage", as I'm willing to forgo
any pecuniary advantage. The issue here IS freedom, pure and simple.
Public key cryptography is one of the most important ways around to
protect your privacy, and I will not do without it. I suspect most
other people on the net feel the same way.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.