NODE 057d5910PKP
Doug Porter <dporter@well.sf.ca.us>Sun, 13 Jun 93 09:46:04 PDT
Ok, PKP now effectively has a monopoly. Is an antitrust action
appropriate?
The timing of this announcement, just after Clipper got set back hard,
may be significant. It would have raised far fewer suspicions to put the
license out to bid and then make sure PKP got it. My partner, who rejects
conspiracy theories out of hand, described the action as "stupid". The
folks at Meade may be running scared.
The announcement is viewed by some as unnecessarily verifying PKP as a
previously hidden asset. If someone is overreacting, perhaps those
fighting for freedom are getting to them.
Doug
NODE a460f6fcRe: PKP
peter honeyman <honey@citi.umich.edu>Sun, 13 Jun 93 10:06:12 PDT
> Ok, PKP now effectively has a monopoly. Is an antitrust action
> appropriate?
no. establishing and securing a monopoly is the whole point of patent law.
personally, i plan to continue to infringe on the pkp patents -- protected
by the research use exclusion and the rsaref noncommerical-use license --
while the onslaught of time makes pkp assets ever less viable.
fuck 'em. join me.
peter