🚀 go-pugleaf

dik winter says following the logic of my message that PGP would
infringe ITAR only if it infringed the patent and thus the patent
case would have to be decided first.

That's not the way the law works. The patent is presumptively valid
unless and until it is overturned. Thus a conviction could be
obtained under ITAR (assuming the argument is correct), and the
issue of the patent's validity would have to be raised separately
or on appeal.

In any case, as I read the ITAR, it says what's permitted in
this area, not what's forbidden. Thus PGP (assuming the
argument) would not be permitted. Thus it's a violation,
since it's not included in what's permitted.

Before someone is tempted to respond with counter-arguments,
let me say that only an attorney can probably get to the
bottom of this, and the thread is already tiring many.

Out of respect for the sensibilities of those individuals,
let me say to make it easy to terminate this part of the
conversation that it's all speculation, counter-arguments
are perfectly valid, and let's move on. We're not going to
decide this one based on smart non-attorneys exercising
what they think to be logic, since the logic of the law
is quite different (and specialized) compared to "layman's
logic."

I have a position that says that at least it's risky, and I'm
not going to do it. Others have positions arising out of quite
different assumptions and motivations.

David
-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail