home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!news.service.uci.edu!beckman.com!dn66!a_rubin
- From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
- Newsgroups: sci.crypt
- Subject: Re: Complete ITAR Available
- Message-ID: <a_rubin.726793682@dn66>
- Date: 11 Jan 93 23:08:02 GMT
- References: <1993Jan10.215609.3109@convex.com> <1993Jan11.003432.15501@netcom.com>
- Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.
- Lines: 27
- Nntp-Posting-Host: dn66.dse.beckman.com
-
- In <1993Jan11.003432.15501@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
-
-
- >Putting it another way, if PGP infringes, then the author does not
- >have the legal right to declare it public domain, in that he doesn't
- >own the infringing portion. To see this clearly, suppose I upload a
- >copy of Microsoft Word and declare it public domain. Saying so doesn't
- >make it so, and Microsoft could not only prosecute me, but also anyone
- >with a copy.
-
- Copyright law is different than the ITAR and (as you pointed out) patent law.
-
- >Some have tried to argue that if they weren't the person uploading PGP
- >originally, they could download and use it with impunity. As one can
- >see from the above reduction ad absurdum, this cannot be or the only
- >person Microsoft could go after would be the original uploader, but
- >not those with copies of that upload. Worked examples include
- >successful piracy prosecutions in the courts.
-
- Your quote of patent law on imports appeared to state that ONLY the
- importer can be prosecuted importing objects made with a process subject to
- a process patent.
- --
- 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.
-