🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec17.150409.17696@news.columbia.edu> em21@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Eben Moglen) writes:
>I have been following with interest, and distress, the conversation
>about legal risks in using PGP set off by Carl Ellison's posting of
>a document said to reflect the legal position of PKP.  Perhaps a
>Columbia Law professor's views on these questions may be helpful.  I'm
>going to discuss the realities of the situation, without jargon,
>rather than the legal technicalities.  Those who want to discuss the
>legal detail should feel free to contact me, but for legal advice I
>usually get paid.

A couple of questions, then:

>PKP says that any user of PGP is "inducing" infringement.  Here's the
>reality of the situation.  PKP is the licensee of a presumptively
>valid US patent, which it claims PGP 2.1 infringes.  If the patent is
>valid, and PGP infringes, every user is not just inducing
>infringement--he/she/it is infringing the patent.  

My understanding of US Copyright law is that to be held valid, a copyright
holder must take action against known infringers.  If the holder fails to
do so, the protection of copyright is lost.  Does this hold true for
patents as well?

>The Munitions Act bluster contained in the post is not even that
>important.  It's just ridiculous.  

Using the munitions act to restrict import/export of information not "owned"
by the government seems a clear abridgement of freedom of speech and the
press.  Has the law ever been challenged on these ground?

                                       James Parker
                                       jap@cb1focus.att.com