At 10:00 PM +0100 5/19/98, Axel H. Horns wrote:
On 9 May 98 at 9:29, Steve Schear wrote:
The issue of applicable patents opens up the topic of locations
where these patents are and are not enforceable. After discussions
with several well-known crypto developers, its my understanding that
a number of countries (e.g., Australia, New Zealand and South
Africa) do not recognize algorithmic patents. This would seem to
give a considerable advanage to companies from these locations
fielding OpenPGP products. This might apply whether or not their
customers were in countries which did recognize the patents, other
than major corporations which are nearly always 'good citizens',
since enforcement of patent infringement against end-users is
considered impractical.
You should not misunderstand that issue. If in a particular
jurisdiction *algortithms* cannot be subject-matter of a patent claim
this does not mean that you can't infringe a particular patent by
loading a piece of software into a computer.
What I'm saying is that the infringement, if there is one, will occur at
the user's end where (especially if the software is for personal use)
effectively unenforceable. I don't believe that storing the software on a
server disk (especially in a non-executable format), not in the RAM as an
application which is in execution, is covered by U.S. and international
patents, since it not reduced to a tangible form upon which the 'hardware'
implementations are based.
--Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
reply to schear - at - lvcm - dot - com ---
PGP mail preferred, see http://www.pgp.com and
http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html
RSA fingerprint: FE90 1A95 9DEA 8D61 812E CCA9 A44A FBA9
RSA key: http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=0x55C78B0D
---------------------------------------------------------------------