Xref: utzoo sci.crypt:4845 gnu.misc.discuss:3207 comp.org.eff.talk:2425
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!spdcc!tauxersvilli!alphalpha!nazgul
From: nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: rpem: RSA patent questions
Keywords: RSA patent rpem
Message-ID: <1991May21.164446.5166@alphalpha.com>
Date: 21 May 91 16:44:46 GMT
References: <1991May16.201709.3086@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1991May20.183038.9967@watson.ibm.com>
Organization: none
Lines: 27

>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.

I'm still trying to work this one out in my mind.  I suspect that
if you went and built a clone of, say, a Chevy Corvette, patented
parts and all, and gave it to people for free, with a disclaimer
that it wasn't legal for them to use it - you'd still get nuked
for patent violation.  Is it any different if I poste an RSA
implementation but tell you not to run it?  I'd like to say yes,
but I have a feeling the answer is no.

>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.
I'd be happier with this statement if it hadn't been preceeded by
the first line up above.

-- 
Alfalfa Software, Inc.          |       Poste:  The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com              |       Send Anything... Anywhere
617/646-7703 (voice/fax)        |       info@alfalfa.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.