patent licensing

[Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>]

>It means that PKP could
>choose not to enforce against PGP (or any other freeware program) without
>losing any rights to enforce against others.  

This is correct as stated.  I don't think that loss of patent is a
motivation, though, for the suppression of PGP.  I think it is
perceived to cut into licensing revenues.

PKP is a partnership of MIT, Stanford, RSADSI, and Cylink.  Those
first two academic institutions are out to make money, plain and
simple, from their patent portfolio.  They are large corporations and
behave like such.  The other two companies are smaller and are more
accessible, but also have investors and a default requirement to make
money for their shareholders.

Any lobbying for better licensing practice needs to extend beyond just
Jim Bidzos to the owners of all these companies.  I presume that
Stanford and MIT both have patent licensing offices, and that each
also has a representative assigned to a particular patent account.  It
would be extremely beneficial to know the names of these people.  They
may be able to speak publicly where PKP is bound by confidentiality
agreements; PKP, remember, is in a subordinate position with respect
to its owners.

List of principals and investors in RSADSI and Cylink would also be
useful.

Eric