🚀 go-pugleaf

*Sigh*  Here we go again.

In article <1992Dec27.094105.1@zodiac.rutgers.edu> leichter@zodiac.rutgers.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.010544.5369@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jap@cbnews.cb.att.com
>(james.a.parker) writes:
>> The claim apparantly made by PKP is that it holds sole ownership
>> of all implementation of public key cryptosystems.  This seems a rather broad
>> claim, and one which could certainly be attacked on the basis of its being
>> overly broad and/or an "obvious" act of someone skilled in the appropriate
>> art
>
>Really.  Can you then explain why, when Diffie and Hellman came up with public
>key cryptography, their work was published by high-quality peer-refereed
>journals?  Why their peers considered this an important piece of work?  Why
>even Scientific American thought it interesting and novel enough to publish
>an article on it?

The reason, (which is down a few lines) is that no one knew *how* to effectively
do it.  Discovering that was extremely important.

>And just how many papers on cryptography have *you* published in peer-reviewed
>journals.?  Just how many of your papers have received, oh, 10% of the cita-
>tions that Diffie and Hellman have received?

Ad hominem attack.  Irrelevent.

>Just because you can understand something AFTER someone else has invented it
>and explained it to you doesn't make it obvious.  Frankly, I see nothing to
>make me believe that you are competent to comment on this issue.  Just what
>interesting cryptographic ideas did *you* publish in the late '70's?

Ad hominem attack.  Irrelevent.

>You are not competent to comment on what "the trick" might or might not be.

Ad hominem attack.  Irrelevent.

>Even if you were, you will not that PKP holds the licenses to the RSA patent
>as well.

This was, I believe, not in debate.

>[...]
>> PGP (although they know of its existence); this gives some merit to the
>> theory that PKP *knows* it has no legal standing.
>
>Bullshit.  Neither PKP nor anyone can "know" whether the patent is valid, but
>I have yet to see a reasonable argument, here or elsewhere, that it is NOT
>valid.  The fact that a bunch of second-rate hacks congratulating each other
>on their ability, 15 years after the fact, to code up ideas that their betters
>invented, seem to believe that had THEY been there they could have done the
>same thing, proves nothing.

One can certainly "know" if it is invalid; for example, having knowledge of
prior art.

>Besides, your claim is false:  PKP HAS defended its patent, as a recent
>message here from someone who was a target of such a defense made clear.
>The fact that no defense of the patent has ever gone to trial is mainly the
>result of the high cost of such a trial to everyone concerned.  So far as I
>can tell, everyone who PKP has challenged has folded WITHOUT going to trial.

My claim was that PKP had not taken action against PGP.  I did not state that
PKP had never taken action.  This lends credibility to the theory that
PKP does not believe its case could stand up in court, inasmuch as
it leads to the question, why take action against others, but not PGP?

>> legally binding.  The case can be made on constitutional grounds:
>> 
>> [Constitutional theories omitted]
>
>There's really no point in looking at the details since they have NOTHING to
>do with the issue being argued.  You don't understand how the legal system
>works.

Ad hominem attack.  Irrelevent.

>Until such time as the patent or the ITAR is ruled unconstitutional,
>they ARE the law.  Laws are not "invalid until ruled valid", whatever list of
>objections you may have to them.  They are "valid until ruled invalid".  Most
>invalidations of laws on constitutional grounds are NOT retroactive; even when
>they are, those convicted earlier can't effectively recover what they've lost.
>A ruling that a patent is invalid doesn't invalidate previous voluntary
>agreements to, for example, stop producing a competing product, and whoever
>entered into that agreement has to eat the resulting loses.  (Yes, there can
>certainly be exceptions, such as fraud; and I think an agreement to pay
>royalties is dissolved if the patent disappears.  But the money already paid
>is probably gone.)

Laws are indeed not "invalid until ruled valid."  They are presumed valid
until ruled otherwise.  This, however, is not the same as being valid until
ruled otherwise.

As to your discussion of whether or not revocations of prior convictions are
retroactive, your points are reasonable, but seem a bit off the topic.

Other than to "vent your spleen", I'm not sure what purpose this posting had.
I have certainly come to the conclusion that those opposed to the use of PGP
seem reticent to discuss it calmly and rationally.  Face it -- name calling
and ad hominem attacks neither win arguments nor "win friends and influence
people".  Ironically, they tend to turn people against you.

                                     James Parker
                                     jap@cb1focus.att.com

P.S. -- Since there is little, if any substantive posting on sci.crypt, I am
        unsubscribing for the moment.  I would like to point out, however,
        that I have never even used PGP.