[79934] in Cypherpunks
RE: RSA, PGP IN LEGAL FLAP OVER ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGY
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris DiBona)
Tue May 13 07:06:16 1997
From: Chris DiBona <dibona@acm.org>
To: "cypherpunks@toad.com" <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 12:45:00 -0700
Reply-To: Chris DiBona <dibona@acm.org>
This really came as no surprise to anyone who deals with RSA. Note I am =
only talking for myself when I write this, but there is a LOT of money =
to be made by someone (certicom?) if they can give a cross-platform rsa =
type solution. I mean RSA has a fairly good product,but I can name at =
elase two other companies who've had this exact same problem with =
cross-licensing.
Really, does RSA expect Netscape or Microsoft to re-license every time =
they allow an oem to repackage thier products into or as part of a suite =
of programs with a third party vendor? RSA has a bunch of bullies at =
thier helm. They should realize that pulling this kind of crap will only =
make people jump ship faster when another company comes calling with a =
similar product and less restrictive licensing.=20
I think that RSA should also realize that without PGP, their market =
would be much smaller, I think every time RSA licenses thier (now =
renewed) patents, they should think of Phil. I don't mean to saint the =
guy here or anything, but they owe him a debt that is difficult to =
quantify. By suing PGP they are basically saying , if I can extrapolate =
in a rather extreme manner, "privacy is okay, but only if we make money =
at it."=20
And keep in mind , I don't begrudge RSA thier right to make money off =
thier intellectual property, but suing your customers except in the most =
extreme situations should be seen as a warning sign to the industry that =
to deal with RSA as a vendor is to take a risk that may be dangerous.=20
Chris DiBona
dibona@acm.org
