pgp 2.6 legal hassles
peter honeyman
the summer studying the issues surrounding pgp and rsaref licensing,
and have yet to produce their judgment.
from all appearances, though, they will _not_ agree to some of the
terms in the rsaref license without modification -- petty stuff, like
being subject to california law (they want michigan law -- *as if*
there is likely to be litigation over our use of rsaref!).
naturally enough, pkp is not in the least bit interested in negotiating
the terms of a zero-cost license. my understanding is that the umich
lawyers approached them with some proposed changes, and the pkp lawyers
refused (naturally enough).
since the time bomb went off, i have found it impossible to maintain
some of the private and authenticated correspondence that i rely on in
my work and in my research. sigh. grumble. mutter.
i am grateful, therefore, for mathew's efforts in producing pgp 2.6ui,
which is unencumbered by legal scaffolding. i shall use that, and
shall continue to rely on the well established exclusion from patent
infringement penalties for non-commercial research (*).
thanks, mathew!
peter
* Rebecca S. Eisenberg, "Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive
Rights and Experimental Use," University of Chicago Law Review 56:3,
pp. 1017-1086 (Summer 1989).
David Sternlight
peter honeyman <ho...@citi.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>i am grateful, therefore, for mathew's efforts in producing pgp 2.6ui,
>which is unencumbered by legal scaffolding.
Oh? And just what is PKP's patent, chopped liver?
>i shall use that, and
>shall continue to rely on the well established exclusion from patent
>infringement penalties for non-commercial research (*).
If your citation is to case law, let's see it. I'd also be interested in
your defense of "well established". If Eisenberg makes arguments which have
not been validated by the courts, you should say so.
In any case, as a law teacher, you bear a heavy responsibility not to assert
an example that isn't based on court decisions, in my view. If Eisenberg's
arguments can be vitiated by a court (rather than being based on solid case
law), your message is, uh, er, subject to misinterpretation.
Tell us more.
David
--
People who post newsgroup flames
Must have flammable gas for brains.
Burma Shave.
peter honeyman
heap of gratitude here. i regret that the umich.edu lawyers are making
it impossible for their clients to benefit from mit's contributions.
peter
David Sternlight
peter honeyman <ho...@citi.umich.edu> wrote:
>which is unencumbered by legal scaffolding. i shall use that, and
>shall continue to rely on the well established exclusion from patent
>infringement penalties for non-commercial research (*).
>
>
> Rights and Experimental Use," University of Chicago Law Review 56:3,
> pp. 1017-1086 (Summer 1989).
I'm appalled that someone who claims to be a law professor has such callous
disregard for the law, and attempts to muddy the waters with a reference
rather than specifics. The reference either doesn't say what Honeyman claims
it does, or is an "argument" rather than the law. I passed Honeyman's post
to Jim Bidzos (who is, himself a lawyer), for his reaction. Here's what Jim
says in its entirety:
----------------begin quoted material
I don't see how his position squares with USC 35, Section 271, para
(a): "...whoever without authority makes, uses or sells any patented
invention, within the United States during the term of the patent
therefor, infringes the patent."
and (b): "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be
liable as an infringer."
and (c): "Whoever sells a component of a patented machine,
manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus
for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part
of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially
adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, ... shall be liable
as a contributory infringer."
He may have his opinions, but that's what the law says, pure and
simple.
--------------end quoted material
David Sternlight
>
>1. Where does Honeyman claim to be a law professor?
It was mentioned in past posts, if memory serves.
>
>2. Even if the USC provisions for experimental use don't cover the way
>Honeyman is using 2.6ui, I believe the University of Michigan as a
>contractor to the US government is entitled to use RSA without a
>license, because the government (that's your dollars and mine, David)
>paid for RSA's development. Do you have any contrary information?
You may believe what you like, but the law, current practice, and the
current case bear no resemblance. RSA was paid for first by private funds,
and then by mixed private and public funds. In such cases the agreement
which is signed to get the public funds applies. The usual agreement in such
cases was signed--the government gets a non-exclusive right to a
royalty-free license for internal use, and MIT/Stanford get the patent.
There is NO right by government contractors for use without permission of
the patent holder.
If you don't like this standard practice, which is not unique to RSA,
complain to Congress, not here.
Finally, Honeyman is not "The University of Michigan" just because he works
there.
In sum, your "belief" is error more representative of ignorance of the facts
and inattention to logic than of any realistic situation. What is more, it
has been discussed here before, at length, and you may wish to do your
homework to avoid this kind of error in future. If you can't or won't, at
least ASK, and DIFFIDENTLY, rather than asserting.
David
Glen Roberts
: In article <34kib3$l...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
: ----------------begin quoted material
What are hiding in the "..."'s above, and what are the court decisions
under these statutes?
--
--------------------------------------
Glen L. Roberts, Editor, Full Disclosure Magazine
Host Full Disclosure Live (WWCR 5,810 khz - Sundays 7pm central)
email g...@rci.ripco.com for information on The Best of Full Disclosure,
four volumes to blow your mind. Voice/Fax on demand: (708) 356-9646
email for uuencoded .TIF of T-Shirt Honoring the FBI
-------------------------------------
peter honeyman
|> 2. Even if the USC provisions for experimental use don't cover the way
|> Honeyman is using 2.6ui, I believe the University of Michigan as a
|> contractor to the US government is entitled to use RSA without a
|> license, because the government (that's your dollars and mine, David)
|> paid for RSA's development. Do you have any contrary information?
paul, i have no idea whether this holds water; it is for lawyers to
make this sort of argument. however i have read eisenberg's treatise
on experimental use of patented inventions and recommend it to all
interested parties.
naturally, anyone interested in making a legal fuss is welcome to
contact the university's legal staff. we're in the phone book.
peter
David Sternlight
>In article <strnlghtC...@netcom.com>,
>David Sternlight <da...@sternlight.com> wrote:
>>In article <phrCvt...@netcom.com>, Paul Rubin <p...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>1. Where does Honeyman claim to be a law professor?
>>
>>It was mentioned in past posts, if memory serves.
>
>your claim. Show such a past post.
This is a side-show. Whether he is or is not a law professor is irrelevant
to the main substance of this thread. If you say he isn't, fine. Actually,
he's listed as an associate research scientist in response to the finger I
just did. So my comments that as a teacher of law he bears special
responsibilty for his errors is inaccurate and I retract. He bears only
ordinary responsibilty for his errors, assuming that he doesn't teach any
courses in law.
Now we take readers back to the main event:
Since you failed to reply to my refutation of your substantive claims in
this discussion, I take it you concede the points in my most recent message,
and this discussion is now over.
Hal
>[...]
>peter honeyman <ho...@citi.umich.edu> wrote:
>>[...]
>>* Rebecca S. Eisenberg, "Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive
>> Rights and Experimental Use," University of Chicago Law Review 56:3,
>> pp. 1017-1086 (Summer 1989).
>I'm appalled that someone who claims to be a law professor has such callous
>disregard for the law, and attempts to muddy the waters with a reference
>rather than specifics. The reference either doesn't say what Honeyman claims
>it does, or is an "argument" rather than the law. I passed Honeyman's post
>to Jim Bidzos (who is, himself a lawyer), for his reaction. Here's what Jim
>says in its entirety:
>----------------begin quoted material
>I don't see how his position squares with USC 35, Section 271, para
>(a): "...whoever without authority makes, uses or sells any patented
>invention, within the United States during the term of the patent
>therefor, infringes the patent."
>[...]
Of course, asking Jim Bidzos about patent law is like asking O.J. Simpson's
lawyers about the legality of DNA testing. They probably know their stuff
but you're not necessarily going to get the whole story.
I took a look at the law review article Peter Honeyman quoted. Here is
what the author says in the introduction regarding the "experimental
use" exemption:
"While the United States patent statute does not provide such an [experimental
use] exemption, the courts have long recognized, at least in principle, that
a purely 'experimental use' of a patented invention, with no commercial
purpose, should be exempt from infringement liability." This is footnoted
with the following citations:
"Roche Products, Inc. v Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F2d 858, 862-63
(Fed Cir 1984); Pfizer, Inc. v International Rectifier Corp., 217 USPQ
157, 160-61 (C D Cal 1982). See generally Donald S. Chisum, 4 Patents
section 16.03(1) (Bender, 1988); Ronald D. Hantman, Experimental Use as
an Exception to Patent Infringement, 67 J Pat Off Soc'y 617 (1985);
Richared E. Bee, Experimental Use as an Act of Patent Infringement, 39 J
Pat Off Soc'y 357 (1957)."
The author adds, "But since the use of patented inventions in
noncommercial research rarely provokes a lawsuit, most of the judicial
decisions considering the scope of the experimental use exemption have
involved disputes between commercial competitors. Within this universe
of cases the experimental use defense has been frequently raised but
rarely sustained." Reading between the lines what I imagine is that when
a commercial competitor is accused of patent infringement they claim
every possible excuse, including the experimental exemption, and those
kinds of shotgun defenses inevitably miss on most counts.
So apparently there is not a great deal of case law which really tests
the exemption. This is not surprising; even in the case of PGP,
apparently PKP has not actually tried to haul anyone into court for
using it, but they have sent out some warning letters, from what I've
heard. It would certainly be interesting to see how such a hypothetical
court case would fare, and whether precedents like Roche v Bolar would
apply.
Best -
Hal Finney
hfi...@shell.portal.com
Paul Rubin
>
>>
>>1. Where does Honeyman claim to be a law professor?
>
>It was mentioned in past posts, if memory serves.
I don't think your memory serves. I assert that you are wrong. Prove
Paul Rubin
David Sternlight <da...@sternlight.com> wrote:
>In article <phrCvu...@netcom.com>, Paul Rubin <p...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Since you failed to reply to my refutation of your substantive claims in
>this discussion, I take it you concede the points in my most recent message,
>and this discussion is now over.
I am still under the impression that government contractors don't need
licenses, but need to check into it unless you can cite a reference.
I may be mistaken but I'm not going to take your word for it.
David Sternlight
Since I posted the above, Jim Bidzos (the President both of RSADSI Inc. and
PKP, the RSA patent holders and licensors) has sent me the following:
----------begin quoted material
It seems that this statement from Peter makes it quite clear that he
1) imported RSA software without a license, and 2) uses it for his
correspondence - possibly implying inducement to infringe as well as
direct infringement.
----------end quoted material
Note that both quotes from Jim Bidzos are with permission.
My own bottom line is that the law (USC 35 Section 271), as Jim quoted it,
seems clear and unambiguous, and Peter's claims are, at best, uh, er, to put
it politely, questionable.
Note in the law the points that some here seem not to understand: to MAKE is
an infringement, to USE is an infringement. Note also that USC 35 Section
271 does not contain an exemption for research of any kind, nor for
non-commercial as distinct from commercial.
David
Paul Rubin
>peter honeyman <ho...@citi.umich.edu> wrote:
>>i am grateful, therefore, for mathew's efforts in producing pgp 2.6ui,
>>which is unencumbered by legal scaffolding. i shall use that, and
>>shall continue to rely on the well established exclusion from patent
>>infringement penalties for non-commercial research (*).
>>
>>
>>* Rebecca S. Eisenberg, "Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive
>> Rights and Experimental Use," University of Chicago Law Review 56:3,
>> pp. 1017-1086 (Summer 1989).
>
>
>I'm appalled that someone who claims to be a law professor has such callous
>disregard for the law, and attempts to muddy the waters with a reference
>rather than specifics. The reference either doesn't say what Honeyman claims
>it does, or is an "argument" rather than the law. I passed Honeyman's post
>to Jim Bidzos (who is, himself a lawyer), for his reaction. Here's what Jim
>says in its entirety:
1. Where does Honeyman claim to be a law professor?
2. Even if the USC provisions for experimental use don't cover the way
Alan L. Bostick
>2. Even if the USC provisions for experimental use don't cover the way
>Honeyman is using 2.6ui, I believe the University of Michigan as a
>contractor to the US government is entitled to use RSA without a
>license, because the government (that's your dollars and mine, David)
>paid for RSA's development. Do you have any contrary information?
Gee. Does that mean that a demolition contractor that does government
work can use nuclear explosives to clear property because nuclear explosives
were developed by the University of California under government contract?
--
| "...In 1988, Richard Berry, [composer of the
-- Alan Bostick | song `Louie Louie'], finally confirmed there
abos...@netcom.com | is no comma in the song's title, laying to
| rest a question that had baffled copyeditors
| for three decades."
| Greil Marcus, MYSTERY TRAIN
Paul Rubin
Alan L. Bostick <abos...@netcom.com> wrote:
>p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>
>>2. Even if the USC provisions for experimental use don't cover the way
>>Honeyman is using 2.6ui, I believe the University of Michigan as a
>>contractor to the US government is entitled to use RSA without a
>>license, because the government (that's your dollars and mine, David)
>>paid for RSA's development. Do you have any contrary information?
>
>Gee. Does that mean that a demolition contractor that does government
>work can use nuclear explosives to clear property because nuclear explosives
>were developed by the University of California under government contract?
In the case of nukes, the laws restricting nuke devices surely would
get the feds a lot more excited than any possible infringement of the
(long expired?) Teller-Ulam patent.
However, re contractors using patents, I checked and it turns out that
Sterno is for once partially right about this one. There is no
general rule about whether contractors can use patents; it depends on
how carefully the govt writes a particular research development contract.
In the case of RSA, contractors can use it without a PKP license if
they have a govt contract that specifies RSA.
bj...@oslonett.no
Michael Crichton lets one of his characters note that
the US has 20 % of all the lawyers in the world.
After reading Usenet for a while, I have come to believe that
otherwise preposterous figure.
Bjørn
--
--
| bj...@oslonett.no at home - +47 2227 0103 | Linux and cats - |
| cts...@kcs.se at work - +47 2266 6915 | what else ? |
| pgp key available ¦
David Sternlight
Apparently I was mistaken and Honeyman is not a law professor. I withdraw
the portion of my comment suggesting that he bears special responsiblity for
accuracy in this domain--he bears only the ordinary responsibility for
accuracy we expect of people associated professionally with academic
institutions.
I stand by the rest of the message.
David
thomas keller
>In article <34kib3$l...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
>peter honeyman <ho...@citi.umich.edu> wrote:
>>i am grateful, therefore, for mathew's efforts in producing pgp 2.6ui,
>>which is unencumbered by legal scaffolding.
>Oh? And just what is PKP's patent, chopped liver?
David, as you know FULL-WELL, many people dismiss PKP's patent as
invalid. I am one of them. If PKP wishes to sue me for patent infringement,
let them.
Richard Johnson
Alan L. Bostick (abos...@netcom.com) wrote:
> Gee. Does that mean that a demolition contractor that does government
> work can use nuclear explosives to clear property because nuclear explosives
> were developed by the University of California under government contract?
Absolutely. There would be no patent restrictions preventing them from
doing so.
Of course, getting the materials together, obtaining the necessary
environmental clearances, building the devices, and all the other things
they'd have to do would be a mite difficult....
Rich
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a-sterno-bait
iQCVAwUBLnDwCvobez3wRbTBAQFqMgP/SjMABtpW2VeKIR1tDLllo81u18tSg2Op
NDhOVqbUDB2vAu9K1YV+A1gFK4v4WHTBB+upczJVdKFFNHs0Hvdpdgca+n+ZKDGn
7+MoFex/TAUVmEObVj37pOi1Pw/kZHnCmRDLPxCsKF2ZM7m8Qv4HUdr7KQ6OZoYU
Xo4b26seYLA=
=BcrP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Loudyellnet: Richard Johnson | Sneakernet: ECNT1-6, CB 429, CU Boulder
Phonenet: +1.303.492.0590 | Internet: Richard...@Colorado.EDU
RIPEM and PGP public keys available by server, finger or request
Speaker to avalanche dragons. Do you really think they listen?
Bob Smart
|> In sum, your "belief" is error more representative of ignorance of the facts
|> and inattention to logic than of any realistic situation. What is more, it
|> has been discussed here before, at length, and you may wish to do your
|> homework to avoid this kind of error in future. If you can't or won't, at
|> least ASK, and DIFFIDENTLY, rather than asserting.
|>
|> David
|>
|>
|>
|> --
|> People who post newsgroup flames
|> Must have flammable gas for brains.
|> Burma Shave.
Is anyone besides me entertained by Mr. Sternlight's having followed that
particular passage with that particular .sig?
Heiko Recktenwald
strn...@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>>>* Rebecca S. Eisenberg, "Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive
>>> Rights and Experimental Use," University of Chicago Law Review 56:3,
>>> pp. 1017-1086 (Summer 1989).
>>I don't see how his position squares with USC 35, Section 271, para
>>(a): "...whoever without authority makes, uses or sells any patented
>>invention, within the United States during the term of the patent
>>therefor, infringes the patent."
>>
>>and (b): "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be
>>liable as an infringer."
>>
>>and (c): "Whoever sells a component of a patented machine,
>>manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus
>>for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part
>>of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially
>>adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, ... shall be liable
>>as a contributory infringer."
>It seems that this statement from Peter makes it quite clear that he
>1) imported RSA software without a license, and 2) uses it for his
>correspondence - possibly implying inducement to infringe as well as
>direct infringement.
>Note that both quotes from Jim Bidzos are with permission.
>
>My own bottom line is that the law (USC 35 Section 271), as Jim quoted it,
>seems clear and unambiguous, and Peter's claims are, at best, uh, er, to put
>it politely, questionable.
>David
>Burma Shave.
Bom Shankar!
Big tour, Dave, and what is with so called fair use? Tell us about it. H.
BTW: the problem isn't Peter but wheather PKPInc can keep their claims
against big money, if big money finds those thingles usefull. So what???
Jay Ashworth
>>1. Where does Honeyman claim to be a law professor?
>It was mentioned in past posts, if memory serves.
Hmmm... really? I thought he was a CS wonk. Something about HoneyDanBer,
maybe?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Ashworth
Designer & Associates
ka1fjx/4 High Technology Systems Consulting
j...@baylink.com +1 813 790 7592
Jay Ashworth
>Since you failed to reply to my refutation of your substantive claims in
>this discussion, I take it you concede the points in my most recent message,
>and this discussion is now over.
Behave, David. It doesn't mean that at all, and you know it.
Jay Ashworth
>My own bottom line is that the law (USC 35 Section 271), as Jim quoted it,
>seems clear and unambiguous, and Peter's claims are, at best, uh, er, to put
>it politely, questionable.
Well, I'm afraid I (and probably many others) must construe Mr. Bizdos' opinion as subjective. He may be a lawyer, but he's also an interested party.
>Note in the law the points that some here seem not to understand: to MAKE is
>an infringement, to USE is an infringement. Note also that USC 35 Section
>271 does not contain an exemption for research of any kind, nor for
>non-commercial as distinct from commercial.
No. But modifications and exemptions to the coverage of a statute are not
required to be noted at the location of the statute excepted. This is why
we need lawyers, not just law books.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... there may be such an
exemption, either in statue, or in case law. Of course, you'd probably
have gotten away with this, even here, because most people don't know
anything about law.
Just exactly what type of law does Mr. Bizdos practice, anyway? Please
note, that if you tell us it's patent law, you're only going to add fuel
to the "They're a litigation company" fire... :-)
Mike Meyer
> Possibly so. I recall that one of the seriously-considered
> proposals for digging a new "Panama Canal" involved doing the
> ditching with nukes. I think there have been other
> "constructive" ideas for application of nukes as well.
There's a fair-sized book of detailing usefull things to do with
nukes. It's from "Project Plowshare", and includes the canal idea,
creating oil storage facilities, and other things that involve
removing lots of earth quickly.
<mike