[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
A legal way to use RSA!
To: [email protected]
A Legal Way To Use RSA
----------------------
There is a LEGAL way to establish the free use of PGP and the RSA
algorithm by anyone who wishes to preserve their constitutional right
to privacy. No licensing or fees are involved.
The RSA algorithm is not copyrighted software, it's a patented
technique (presumably in the form of a mathematical algorithm).
Under patent law, it is legal to manufacture anything that someone
has patented for your own use. If the item is an improved can
opener, for example, then you can make one for yourself directly from
the patent office drawings if you like. You cannot offer them for
sale. So anyone is free to create a computer program which utilizes
the RSA algorithm so long as it's just for them.
All mathematical equations, no matter how large and complex, consist
of smaller terms or sub calculations. In the instant case of the RSA
algorithm, these smaller terms consist of prime numbers, Euler's
quotient function, and operations like calculating the greatest
common divisor and modular arithmetic. It's all about as patentable
as long division. No one could be prevented from using such ordinary
mathematics.
PGP performs other tasks besides RSA related calculations. It
supports IDEA and XXENCODE which are in the public domain. So it's
only necessary to rewrite the RSA section to avoid conflict with the
patent. This could be accomplished by arranging the section into a
few mathematical modules or "building blocks." These could then be
rearranged by the user into several different configurations for
encryption ------ with only one supporting the actual RSA algorithm.
After all, large prime numbers can legitimately be used as keys for
almost any encryption technique and the arithmetic operations may be
called as subroutines for a variety purposes.
By stacking the un patentable "building blocks" into the particular
sequence which implements the RSA algorithm, the users would, in
essence, be employing their own tools (the computer and it's
software) to create a copy of the RSA algorithm for their individual
use. Programming skills would not be required since the inexpert
user could simply employ a setup program and select from a menu of
different encryption modes. Alternatively, a DEBUG script could be
circulated separately to appropriately reshuffle the object code.
Legal action to prevent such a program from being distributed could
be very difficult. What reasonable argument could be set forth
against someone using the mathematical functions? Arguing that
someone -might- use the program to create RSA would make no more
sense than arguing that a drill press -might- be used to make a
patented can opener. Besides, if it's legal for someone to make
their own can opener, how can it be illegal to sell them the tools
and materials to do it with? Providing instructions on how to do it
can hardly be attacked because the U.S. Patent Office, itself,
publishes the plans (technically, they appear to violate the law
whenever they send copies outside U.S. borders). By now, you get the
point. There's a well anchored legal loophole in the patent law big
enough to sail a ship through. It may render patents of formulae
used in computer software worthless (as they ought to be).
I sympathize with Public Key Partners. The venture must have looked
awfully good on paper, but their position is fundamentally untenable.
Sooner or later the subject of their exclusive rights over RSA will
reach the courtroom. There is legal precedent for allowing private
corporations to market products developed with public funds.
However, a case might very well be made that MIT erred in granting an
exclusive license. It would be to the greater public good (the
underlying principal) to release RSA into the public domain so a
range of competing businesses could provide it to the public.
Because the right to privacy is involved, rather than valves for a
rocket engine, a federal court could take licensing entirely out of
Massachusetts' and MIT's hands if any federal funds could be traced
to RSA's development.
Once in court, it will make the newspapers. A private company
profiteering from something the taxpayers paid for ----- denying
privacy to the average American with heavy handed tactics. The
simple fact is, I don't like it and I have a feeling most people
won't like the sound of it. The press, a major user of electronic
mail and a jealous guardian of sources, is not likely to take a
sympathetic stance. There is a large organized body of opposed
computer users poised to launch letter writing campaigns and many
congressional "waste slayers" are apt to show real interest in the
matter. Foundations which fund lawsuits on freedom issues abound.
As courtroom and legislative arguments are raised against the license
or patent, what foolish company is going to risk paying the license
fee? The RSA license quivers on a bowl of Jello.
I know financial misadventure when I see it. I'm glad none of my
money is invested in Public Key Partners.
Bon Voyage!