NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/7833

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-21 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7833 sci.crypt:5953 alt.security.pgp:318 alt.society.civil-liberty:6983
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp,alt.society.civil-liberty
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!funic!nntp.hut.fi!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: [sci.crypt, et al.]  Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
In-Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Sternlight)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.security.pgp,alt.society.civil-liberty
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet pseudouser id)
Nntp-Posting-Host: lusmu.cs.hut.fi
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:58:39 GMT
Lines: 55

In article <[e-mail]> David Sternlight writes:
>This means the ethical position is still unchanged in this discussion. Using
>PGP in the US. is wronging the patent holders and violating the Munitions Act.

What does "violating the Munitions Act" have to do with "ethical
position"?  Or even "infringing on a patent" with "ethical position"?
You seem to be confused about the distinction between law
and ethics.

You seem also to be confused about the difference between "property"
or "property rights" and patents, you talk about "stealing".  Patent
infringement is not stealing, at least according to the philosophy of
the U.S. Constitution.  You might want to read the part where the
limited monopolies are mentioned.

>It might jeopardize your ability to pass the scrutiny needed to obtain
>government employment, receive government research funds, or work on
>government contracts if somebody, somewhere, has a note in a file about you
>"violated Munitions Act." And you'd never know. Something to think about. Life
>is long, government files last forever, and some of the Yippees of the '60's
>now have government jobs.

This hardly is an argument about ethics, btw, but rather about the
practicalities.  Analoguous to "No matter if you don't care about it
being unethical to break the law against marriages of people of
different races, you should consider the implications to your possible
government employment."  Not a bad idea per se to consider the
implications, but it hardly makes you very credible when you keep
talking about ethics in the same posting.

>My position is clear. RSA has patents on a wonderful invention and they are
>entitled to the fruits of their work.

Not all people feel the same.  Some people think some or all of
positions that software and algorithm patents are a bad idea, against
the U.S. patent law, and overstepping the mandate of the U.S.
Constitution.  They don't believe MIT/RSADSI/PKP are entitled to
anything.  Even if you acknowledge patent rights on algorithms, it's a
bit hard to argue for the ethics of being "entitled" to something
since the work was done on U.S. government money.

>Now a word to my colleagues all over the world. Though you may be able to (or
>think you may be able to) use PGP with impunity, why not voluntarily send RSA
>a reasonable contribution for their invention--think of it as a shareinvention
>fee analogous to a shareware fee. Say $20.

A practical note against this wrt people under U.S. jurisdiction -
such an act might be legally harmful for you.  Also, I personally
recommend against it for the abovementioned reasons.  If you want to
contribute, contribute something to the folks who wrote PGP, or any of
the EFF, FSF, any ftp server / public access system funds, etc.

Followups directed out of sci.crypt.

//Jyrki