[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MIT has released PGP 2.6
To: Jeffrey I. Schiller <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
Jeffrey,
I received your announcement of PGP 2.6 on Cypherpunks. I have one
question I hope you will address. You said,
In order to fully protect RSADSI's intellectual property rights in
public-key technology, PGP 2.6 is designed so that the messages it
creates after September 1, 1994 will be unreadable by earlier
versions of PGP that infringe patents licensed exclusively to
Public Key Partners by MIT and Stanford University. ...
Because earlier versions of PGP (including MIT's Beta test PGP 2.5
release) will not be able to read messages created by PGP 2.6
after September 1, 1994, MIT strongly urges all PGP users to
upgrade to the new format.
The intent of the format change is to discourage continued use of
earlier infringing software in the U.S., and to give people
adequate time to upgrade. As part of the release process, MIT
commissioned an independent legal review of the intellectual
property issues surrounding earlier releases of PGP and PGP
keyservers. This review determined that use of PGP 2.3 within the
United States infringes a patent licensed by MIT to RSADSI, and
that keyservers that primarily accept 2.3 keys are mostly likely
contributing to this infringement. ...
The problem is that messages generated by PGP 2.6 after 9/1/94 will
also be unreadable by PGP 2.4 (VIACRYPT PGP) which is completely
legal for both private and commercial use in the USA because it has
a license issued by RSADSI. This is the -only- version of PGP which
may be legally used commercially.
They will also be unreadable to users of PGP 2.3 who reside overseas.
These persons are not violating RSA's patents because those patents
are not valid overseas.
I will not willingly give up my current ability to exchange encrypted
e-mail with commercial entities, or with users outside the USA/Canada.
What is the legal status of PGP 2.5, which does not have this delayed
action crippling "feature"? Is the 2.5 license valid? If so, why
would anyone in their right mind switch from 2.5 to 2.6?
Why is RSADSI and MIT acting against the interests of their own
licensee, ViaCrypt? (And shooting themselves in the foot by reducing
their ViaCrypt royalty income)?
Enquiring minds want to know!
--
[email protected] (Edgar W. Swank)
SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005 Cupertino, Ca