🚀 go-pugleaf

de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) writes:

>>Use of a public key (or other) cryptosystem by the public is not threatened
>>by the holders of the RSA patent(s).

>How's that again?

Use of a public key (or other) cryptosystem by the public is not threatened
by the holders of the RSA patent(s).

Apparently more than one person is misinterpreting this.  I tried to keep
it brief and concise, but I guess that doesn't do any good on Usenet.  There
are too many different kinds of people reading.

I will rephrase:

There exists a threat against ANY use (free or commercial) of any form of
cryptology by the general public.  It would be in the interests of anyone
who holds a patent granting monopoly or royalty for any form of cryptosystem
to fight against that threat, and to not support such a threat.  They would
certainly have an interest in diverting all the profits to be made in a
commercial system by reducing or eliminating any unlicensed competition in
either commercial or free systems.  What I am saying is that they are not
threatening the existance of using cryptosystems, but rather are wanting to
simply specify it in ways that maximize their profits.

Personally I don't believe the social good is gained by this.  At one time
in history, the people as a whole benefitted by the disclosure of technology
which was otherwise doomed to not be disclosed.  Today technology is so
widespread and progressing so rapidly that even if someone who invents
something wonderful wants to withhold it from the people, someone else will
eventually end up independently inventing the same thing anyway.

The patent system ha it is TODAY is beginning to actually stifle invention
by virtue of the fact that the possibility that someone else has invented the
same exact thing (and got the patent on it just days before you apply) is much
more likely.  I am asserting that had the RSA cryptosystem been withheld by
its inventors, that someone else would have, within just a few years or even
months, invented the same thing.

Further, software and many other kinds of systems are so complex, depending
on so many little small inventions, that all the legal negotiations and fees
charging even just bureacratic costs just to get all the necessary patent
licenses could very well be greater than the costs of actually developing the
system itself.  Just because of the complexity, patents are therefore a very
bad thing.  And this problem is going to only get worse as the pace of
technology tries to increase.
-- 
 /***************************************************************************\
/ Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu   |  Guns don't aim guns at  \
\ Lietuva laisva -- Brivu Latviju -- Eesti vabaks  |  people; CRIMINALS do!!  /
 \***************************************************************************/