[184] in Cypherpunks
Re: RSA patent!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sy Verpunc)
Mon May 3 15:52:34 1993
Date: Sun, 2 May 93 17:34:04 GMT
From: Sy Verpunc <svp@gtoal.com>
Reply-To: cypherpunks@toad.com
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
5) (Misuse) Does RSA telling Phil Zimmermann that they will "never"
license PGP to use RSA constitute monopolistic abuse?
Could you tell us more about this?
6) (Misuse) The underlying purpose of the patent system was to
encourage the creative genius for the benefit of the public. Has the
public benefited in this case?
Don't patent holders *have* to license patents to all comers? If say a rich
sugar-daddy could be found who would put up the same scale of money as Lotus
and Microsoft have, to use these patents - on behalf of Phil and PGP users -
would they be obliged to license it? (I'm assuming if they did they would
have to offer roughly similar conditions, and not charge punitively to force
us out the market)
If yes - then who do we know that's rich? :-)
If no - are they doing anything wrong that we could get them in court over?
G
