Lawsuits Against PKP

Two lawsuits were recently filed in federal court, northern district
of Calif, which may cripple Public Key Partners.

Cylink v. RSA Data Security, C-94-02332-CW, June 30, 1994, San Fran.
It alleges that the RSA patent is invalid.  RSA Data had denied Cylink
a patent license.

Schlafly v. Public Key Partners, C-94-20512-SW, July 27, 1994, San Jose.
It alleges that almost all of the PKP patent claims are invalid and
unenforceable.  From the complaint:

	Plaintiff makes complaint against defendants for unfair
	business practices, including libel, interference with
	contractual relationships, patent misuse, fraud,
	monopolization, and racketeering, and demands remedies
	available under federal law, including jury trial,
	declaratory judgment, monetary damages, and injunctive relief.

You can probably get a copy from the court by calling
Kinko's, 408-279-0655, 408-295-4336 fax.  Ask for document #1.
It is bulky, at about 270 pages.

Bruce

**************************************************************************
* Bruce Schneier
* Counterpane Systems         For a good prime, call 391581 * 2^216193 - 1
* schneier@chinet.com
**************************************************************************

schneier@chinet.chinet.com (Bruce Schneier) writes:

>Two lawsuits were recently filed in federal court, northern district
>of Calif, which may cripple Public Key Partners.

>Cylink v. RSA Data Security, C-94-02332-CW, June 30, 1994, San Fran.
>It alleges that the RSA patent is invalid.  RSA Data had denied Cylink
>a patent license.

>Schlafly v. Public Key Partners, C-94-20512-SW, July 27, 1994, San Jose.
>It alleges that almost all of the PKP patent claims are invalid and
>unenforceable.

That makes my day.  The name Schlafly sounds familiar (I don't mean
Phyllis).  Roger?  Does anyone know a crypto person with this name?

It would be interesting to know whether anyone else could join in these
lawsuits on a class-action basis, or at least send support to the plaintiffs.

Hal

Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 08:09:30 -0700
    From: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
    
    schneier@chinet.chinet.com (Bruce Schneier) writes:
    
    >Schlafly v. Public Key Partners, C-94-20512-SW, July 27, 1994, San Jose.
    >It alleges that almost all of the PKP patent claims are invalid and
    >unenforceable.
    
    That makes my day.  The name Schlafly sounds familiar (I don't mean
    Phyllis).  Roger?  Does anyone know a crypto person with this name?

Well, FWIW, the woman who spends most of the year traveling around the
country telling other women to stay home has gained at least a slight
interest in crypto lately.  

The Phyllis Schlafly Report <schlafly@netcom.com> recently posted an
announcement taking an anti-Clipper position and referring to an
online `report' that they've prepared concerning Clipper.  I didn't
see anything to indicate that she'd be interested in going after PKP
however, so Roger is probably a better guess.

I have no idea whether Roger is her son or how similar their political
ideas are.

			Rick

If this article (the 270 page fax) is not-copyrighted by Kinko's, could someone
put it up in some digitaly viable form on some anon ftp site?