[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NYT on NTT/RSA Chips
At 08:53 PM 6/4/96 -0400, Ted Garrett wrote:
>At 09:12 AM 6/4/96 -0800, someone claiming to be <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Maybe it's just me, but the solution to NTT's problem is obvious. Even
>>assuming that the export of this software would be against the law, why
>>doesn't somebody simply violate that law? RSA would publish that software,
>>possibly encrypted with NTT's public key, on a public system protected
>>against direct export. "Somebody" would download it, write it to a floppy
>(...)
>>As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with NTT using this software even
>>if it is assumed to have been exported illegally. Obviously, NTT won't
>>_ask_ for somebody to do this, because then the government will claim it was
>>all a conspiracy, but that doesn't prevent NTT from being the beneficiary of
>>somebody else's activities.
>
>What is wrong with this is that, because RSA did not, in practice deliver
>the software to NTT, they can have no expectation of payment.
No, the copyright is still valid, and NTT couldn't use the software without
appropriate payment.
> Thus begins
>a trumped up lawsuit in international court, and it will eventually cost
>RSA more to collect on the sale than the sale was worth. As many rock-solid
>implementations of the RSA algorithms as are out there, all NTT has to do
>is go to an FTP site in the netherlands. Done deal. But what about the
>copyrights (which are still unclear) and the US patents? NTT would not be
>able to market their system in the US without losing face.
The purpose of the strategem I described is NOT intended to allow NTT to use
software without paying. NTT and RSA are probably on very friendly terms,
anyway. The purpose is to compartmentalize the illegality to an
unidentifiable person, allowing NTT to use the software without having
violated any law.
Jim Bell
[email protected]