Xref: utzoo sci.crypt:4794 gnu.misc.discuss:3180 comp.org.eff.talk:2418
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!bywater!arnor!metzger
From: metzger@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: rpem: RSA patent questions
Keywords: RSA patent rpem
Message-ID: <1991May20.183038.9967@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 20 May 91 18:30:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: watson.1991May20.183038.9967
References: <1991May16.201709.3086@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Sender: news@watson.ibm.com (NNTP News Poster)
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Lines: 61
Nntp-Posting-Host: halley

The following article will be considered contraversial. It contains
only my own opinions, and the opinions should not be construed as
being those of IBM, or of the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center.

In article <1991May16.201709.3086@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> riordanmr@clvax1.cl.msu.edu (Mark Riordan) writes:
>As you can see from the message below, RSA is unhappy with my releasing
>a public key encryption program.  
> 
>I claim that the algorithm here does not closely resemble RSA and
>therefore should not infringe upon the patent(s).  They claim otherwise.
>
>I seek advice, or pointers to advice, in this real-life situation.
[Elided: a letter From jim@RSA.COM (Jim Bidzos), which describes the
fascist hammerlock on public key encryption that "Public Key Partners"
has established., including..]
>	WE HEREBY PLACE YOU AND ALL USERS OF YOUR IMPLEMENTATION OF
>PUBLIC KEY, ON NOTICE THAT THEY ARE INFRINGING ON THESE PATENTS AND WE
>RESERVE ALL OF OUR RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AT LAW.

Warning: I'm not a lawyer, but...

You have done nothing by simply implementing the algorithm. ONLY USE
OF, OR SALE OF, A PATENTED INVENTION IS ACTIONABLE.

Besides, RSA and "Public Key Partners" have effectively destroyed the
ability of the American public from benefiting from public key
encryption. They are a revolting group, and its time that we forced
them in to court.

I say that we form the Mark Riordan legal defense fund, and force RSA
in to court. If the patent stands, well, we aren't in any worse a
situation, and it is likely that only the most miniscule of damages
can be claimed against Mark Riordan as at worst, as I see it (I am not
a lawyer!), he could be held liable for his personal use of the
algorithm, but not for the creation and distribution of code which
could, when compiled, be used to execute the algorithm. NOTE THAT THE
RSA PATENT COVERS ONLY A COMPLETE DEVICE THAT EXECUTES RSA, AND NOT
MERELY AN UNCOMPILED PROGRAM WITHOUT A DEVICE TO EXECUTE IT.

Assuming that a good lawyer agrees that Mark would be, at worst,
liable for the comparitively small license fees that RSA and PKP wish
to extort from him, it would be well worth the while of the community
to support him through a court case which could potentially break the
patents and the resulting hammerlock of a company that exists only to
extort license fees from people for manipulating large numbers in the
privacy of their own home computers.

I know that this statement is contraversial, but I am making it
anyway. IBM is anal retentive, so let me state for the record this is
MY opinion, which has nothing to do with IBM or IBM's opinions:

     Software and Algorithm patents are immoral and unnatural. RSA,
     and "Public Key Partners", are parasites who extort money from
     people and impede technological progress. They do nothing for a
     living but collect license fees from patents that should not have
     been granted in the first place. It is as unnatural to permit the
     patenting of RSA is it would be to permit the patenting of
     Euclids GCD algorithm. Its time that RSA was brought into court
     and the patent was broken.

Perry Metzger