"Dan O'Reilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>However, they DO have the right to do
>business, no matter how much people think they shouldn't.
Read this:
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1170.txt
The *only* reason this list is continually afflicted with software patent
arguments is because the protocols this list is devoted to discussing were
developed under an erroneous assumption.
To wit: when Public Key Partners gave "its assurance that licenses
to practice RSA signatures will be available under reasonable terms and
conditions on a non-discriminatory basis", that this assurance was given
in good faith.
Had the licensors been honest at the time, and simply said "once our
intellectual property becomes a key architectural component of the Internet,
our license policy will be $100,000/per, plus 2% of sales", then this
intellectual property would never have been permitted to become a key
architectural component of the Internet. Period. Full stop. End of
discussion.
>However, they DO have the right to do
>business, no matter how much people think they shouldn't.
Yes, they DO have the right to conduct their business by means of fraud and
deceit, just so long as they break no legally binding agreement.
And everyone else DOES have the right to dance a happy jig and flip the bird
in the general direction of RSA Data Security, Inc. when the patent finally
expires next year.
-Michael Robinson
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
