PGP back in legal limbo?

> WSJ, Sept 19, 1995.
 
> Cylink Claims Right To Key Technology Involving
> Encryption
 

> ... The arbitrators
> ruled that RSA hasn't had the right to sublicense the
> Stanford patents since 1990.


>Since PKP (and Bidzos, now president of
>RSA) always said that DH covered all public key encryption,
>it would seem that any RSA licensee would also need a license
>from Cylink.


So, I suppose this invalidates the RSA agreement that allows PGP to 
be distributed?  What "fortunate" timing for the pro GAK folks! Okay,
everybody in US, erase your copies, before the Feral government comes 
to get you.......
Rick F. Hoselton  (who doesn't claim to present opinions for others)

| >Since PKP (and Bidzos, now president of RSA) always said that DH
| >covered all public key encryption, it would seem that any RSA
| >licensee would also need a license from Cylink.
| 
| So, I suppose this invalidates the RSA agreement that allows PGP to 
| be distributed?  What "fortunate" timing for the pro GAK folks! Okay,
| everybody in US, erase your copies, before the Feral government comes 
| to get you.......

Conspiracy flag on.

Did anyone else but me see the discussion organized by Progress &
Freedom Foundation at SPAN, I believe yesterday night. John Barlow
from EFF was there, and he said a few things that certainly got
my attention.

He said that the "borders to cyberspace had to be protected", and
that the "fight for freedom in cyberspace was fought right now, not in
two years, but right now". And that we should "get encryption be
deployed out there, either in Europe [i think he said] or embedded as
a kind of holographic image in the Net". He also said that he
"expected 'blood' to be shed in this fight" (everything taken from 
memory, not exact quotes)

I was surprised at his intensity and outspokeness. I can't get this
kind of statements into agreement with the negative picture several
other cypherpunkers has painted of EFF.

I wonder whether the effort by EFF to put some sensibel input into the 
official loop is failing, and that is behind his statements?
(I haven't seen/heard him make statements earlier, maybe this is his
usual way of expression?)

Does anyone but me smell an attempt of rewinding part of the
widespread use of PGP, because of a "patent problem".

I got the GAO report on "requirements for the information highway",
and they even included a PGP-encrypted email there. The report was 
rather positive to protect the privacy of the users, noting that it
was a fine balance between many interests - not the "law enforcement
only" point of view.

Conspiracy flag off.

/Christian