Thread View: sci.crypt
3 messages
3 total messages
Started by PAul STevens - MACC - 2-9618
Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:01
Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Author: PAul STevens - MACC - 2-9618
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:01
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:01
63 lines
3610 bytes
3610 bytes
In article <1992Dec14.204408.6485@news.cs.indiana.edu>, Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu> writes...
>Whoever goes to court to test the patent claim had better darn well have
>the resources and circumstances to mount a strong defense or else he'll
>just get creamed and a precedent will be set in favor of PKP. It's not
>something for some random doofus to challenge without significant
>backing and knowledge. Making a frivolous violation and losing in court
>does not help your cause; quite the contrary.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
From: stevens@vms.macc.wisc.edu (PAul STevens - MACC - 2-9618)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Date: 15 DEC 92 12:17:07
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
In article <1992Dec14.204408.6485@news.cs.indiana.edu>, Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu> writes...
>Whoever goes to court to test the patent claim had better darn well have
>the resources and circumstances to mount a strong defense or else he'll
>just get creamed and a precedent will be set in favor of PKP. It's not
>something for some random doofus to challenge without significant
>backing and knowledge. Making a frivolous violation and losing in court
>does not help your cause; quite the contrary.
I can tell I got your dander up. I wish we could get everyone's
dander up. And by implying that I am a random doofus, you have
come close to getting my dander up. So that is two of us...lots
better than zero.
My feeling is that PKP does not have a valid patent. If it turns out
that they do, then more power to them. But by standing around and
doing nothing we make it valid! Have they ever actually filed a
complaint or tried this in a court? My gut feeling is that they
are afraid to. They rely on our fear that they might.
Where can we find a non-random doofus with resources? Does it help
an eventual court case if PKP takes no action when violations
are waved in their face? Violations are being waved every day as
people discuss their use of PGP and publish their public keys. If
I can be put away for computing 5**3 (mod 91) then something is amiss
which I will have to learn to accept. Yet it does appear to be
a violation of the patent. Maybe we should all sign our postings
with PGP (to ensure that we are not being infiltrated by NSA ;-) ).
What can we **DO** except stand around like sheep and bleat? I am
willing to do my part, including taking risks, in almost any agreed
upon plan. I never cease to be amazed by the collective cleverness
of the NET. If everyone thinks the best stategy is to wait for the
patent to expire and for our elected representatives to outlaw private
cryptography then we should all quit using public keys and SHUT UP.
PAul stevens@macc.wisc.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.1
iQBFAgUAKy4lv9hquDfl/NHyAQG8oQF+L4pXlABaq6f92JpMGPf7VTDZ06BvtdJl
uzgjxTDNUDEgYqLWUDTYuLoW6dn8m+5+
=Nox8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Author: Alex Strasheim
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:52
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:52
16 lines
1440 bytes
1440 bytes
In article <1992Dec15.200406.14952@macc.wisc.edu> stevens@vms.macc.wisc.edu (PAul STevens - MACC - 2-9618) writes:
> My feeling is that PKP does not have a valid patent. If it turns out
> that they do, then more power to them.
I'm beginning to become a little frustrated with this discussion. Patent
law is a highly technical field, and unless you're a lawyer who works with
patent law on a regular basis, I think it would be foolish for anyone to
give much creedence to your -- or my -- opinion on the validity of the RSA
patent. Would you pay much attention to a lawyer's pronouncement that a
crypto system is secure?
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Author: Arthur Rubin
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:17
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:17
18 lines
1560 bytes
1560 bytes
In <1992Dec15.215259.10895@samba.oit.unc.edu> Alex.Strasheim@launchpad.unc.edu (Alex Strasheim) writes: >I'm beginning to become a little frustrated with this discussion. Patent >law is a highly technical field, and unless you're a lawyer who works with >patent law on a regular basis, I think it would be foolish for anyone to >give much creedence to your -- or my -- opinion on the validity of the RSA >patent. Would you pay much attention to a lawyer's pronouncement that a >crypto system is secure? It's more foolish to trust PKP's lawyers pronoucement's that the patent they control is valid. (I don't think it's valid either, but I haven't acted on that, except that I do sometimes perform exponentiations modulo composites.) -- Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea 216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer. My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads