Re: Patent infringement (fwd)

[Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>]

From: Brian Beker <beker@netcom.com>
> From: David Sternlight <strnlght@netcom.com>
> I found his .plan file contained a PGP 2.3a key. That infringes RSADSI's
> patents. That this is so has recently been confirmed by an independent
> inquiry by lawyers retained by MIT.
> 
> The patent holder, RSADSI, has said that no only do versions of PGP except the
> soon-to-be-released 2.6 and the commercially sold Viacrypt version 2.4
> infringe in the U.S., but posted keys and key servers constitute inducement
> to infringe and/or conspiracy to infringe.

This is the argument Schiller's message on 2.6 foreshadowed.  However,
there are some counterarguments you can make:

 - It's not clear that RSADSI has actually said that merely posting a key with
   the words "Version: 2.3a" in and of itself constitutes inducement or
   conspiracy to infringe the patent.  Schiller speculated that running a key
   server which accepted pre-2.4 keys could represent contributory infringement
   but I haven't seen any statements from Bidzos that agree with this, let
   alone the stronger statement Sternlight is making.

 - Just because the key says "Version: 2.3a" doesn't mean much.  This version
   string is appended by the program which turned the key into ASCII
   format.  It says nothing about the version of the program which used
   the RSA algorithm.  Granted, in practice this suggests that the key
   was extracted from a key ring using PGP 2.3a, but extracting from
   a key ring is not a patented process.  Only communicating using RSA
   is patented.  The mere existence of this key does not show that
   patent infringement is going on.

 - Possession of a 2.3a key does not necessarily constitute inducement to
   infringe the patent.  Perfectly legal programs exist which will work very
   well with a 2.3a key (versions 2.4 and up).  So by possessing a key labelled
   2.3a you are not inducing others to violate anyone's patents.

 - In any case, Sternlight does not have any standing in making this charge.
   He is not a lawyer and is not affiliated with RSADSI in any way.  At best
   his reports are second- or third-hand interpretations of his understanding
   of RSADSI's position.  Unless or until the patent holder speaks directly
   to make these charges, there is no need to respond.

Hal Finney
hfinney@shell.portal.com