6 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
Dear C'punks I understand from a previous post that if I were to commercialised PGP in a package, I have to pay some royalties(?) to the owners(?) of IDEA. My apologies to the list for repeating the question which is, who do I pay to and how much. Thanks.
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, pclow wrote: > I understand from a previous post that if I were to > commercialised PGP in a package, I have to pay some > royalties(?) to the owners(?) of IDEA. My apologies to > the list for repeating the question which is, who > do I pay to and how much. You cannot commercialize PGP whether you pay Ascom-Tech any royalties or not. Phil Zimmermann grated an exclusive license to ViaCrypt, Inc. a number of years ago to be the sole commercial version of PGP. In the mean time, PGP Inc. was formed and has acquired ViaCrypt. Thus, PGP Inc. now holds the exclusive license on commercial PGP products. Just by chance, Phil Zimmermann is the CEO of PGP Inc. If you bundle ViaCrypt/PGP's commercial offering into a "suite" of some sort, you needn't worry about the license fee as ViaCrypt's stuff is not covered by Ascom-Tech's license arrangement. You would, however, have to get ViaCrypt's permission *and*, I think, if you were to ever get an export capability to Europe, you'd then be liable for the license fee. If you're just interested in packaging IDEA into something, you can contact the owners at: Ascom Tech LTD Morgenstrasse 129 CH-3018 Bern Switzerland Phone: +41 31 999 42 63 Fax: +41 31 999 36 07 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |some people get by | Mark Aldrich | |with a little understanding | GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | |some people get by | maldrich@grci.com | |with a whole lot more | MAldrich@dockmaster.ncsc.mil| | -- Sisters of Mercy | | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich@grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark O. Aldrich wrote: > You cannot commercialize PGP whether you pay Ascom-Tech any royalties or > not. Phil Zimmermann grated an exclusive license to ViaCrypt, Inc. a > number of years ago to be the sole commercial version of PGP. In the mean > time, PGP Inc. was formed and has acquired ViaCrypt. Thus, PGP Inc. now > holds the exclusive license on commercial PGP products. Even the international version of PGP? Thanks.
On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, pclow wrote: > Mark O. Aldrich wrote: > > You cannot commercialize PGP whether you pay Ascom-Tech any royalties or > > not. Phil Zimmermann grated an exclusive license to ViaCrypt, Inc. a > > number of years ago to be the sole commercial version of PGP. In the mean > > time, PGP Inc. was formed and has acquired ViaCrypt. Thus, PGP Inc. now > > holds the exclusive license on commercial PGP products. > > Even the international version of PGP? > All versions of PGP are owned by PGP Inc. The international version is still their product, even if they give it away instead of commercially sell it. From what I understand, Ascom Tech requires a license fee if the product gets sold over in Europe, and I imagine the PGP Inc. will now have to pay up when they begin to shrink wrap the international version over there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |some people get by | Mark Aldrich | |with a little understanding | GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | |some people get by | maldrich@grci.com | |with a whole lot more | MAldrich@dockmaster.ncsc.mil| | -- Sisters of Mercy | | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich@grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 7:32 PM -0400 10/15/96, Mark O. Aldrich wrote: >You cannot commercialize PGP whether you pay Ascom-Tech any royalties or >not. Phil Zimmermann grated an exclusive license to ViaCrypt, Inc. a >number of years ago to be the sole commercial version of PGP. In the mean >time, PGP Inc. was formed and has acquired ViaCrypt. Thus, PGP Inc. now >holds the exclusive license on commercial PGP products. Just by chance, >Phil Zimmermann is the CEO of PGP Inc. It seems a bit strange that PGP Inc. is so fastidious about enforcing intellectual property claims, given the treatment of RSA Data Security Inc.'s similar property claims a few years ago. In other words, I don't worry for one nanosecond about "infringing" on PGP Inc.'s claimed property rights. Nothing personal. --Tim May "The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology." [NYT, 1996-10-02] We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > At 7:32 PM -0400 10/15/96, Mark O. Aldrich wrote: > > >You cannot commercialize PGP whether you pay Ascom-Tech any royalties or > >not. Phil Zimmermann grated an exclusive license to ViaCrypt, Inc. a > >number of years ago to be the sole commercial version of PGP. In the mean > >time, PGP Inc. was formed and has acquired ViaCrypt. Thus, PGP Inc. now > >holds the exclusive license on commercial PGP products. Just by chance, > >Phil Zimmermann is the CEO of PGP Inc. > > It seems a bit strange that PGP Inc. is so fastidious about enforcing > intellectual property claims, given the treatment of RSA Data Security > Inc.'s similar property claims a few years ago. > Is there, however, a notion of legitimacy here? In other words, are PGP's claims valid while RSA's are not? I'm not talking under "The Law", but under notions of what's good and what's not. Many would assert that RSA's IP claims are overstated, invalid, way too far reaching in scope, and that they're being greedy bastards who are not telling the truth about what happened with the agreement with Phil. PGP, as far as I know, hasn't started being "fastidious" about IP claims (in fact, I don't think their position has changed at all), and bases their assertions on Phil's rather straight-forward PGP license and his basic assertion that he owns the rights to the encryption software called "PGP" and he don't want nobody else selling it except he and his licensees. (not taking sides here - just holding up one perspective for discussion) > In other words, I don't worry for one nanosecond about "infringing" on PGP > Inc.'s claimed property rights. Not to pick a fight, but you generally take that position with most IP rights, correct? I _think_ you've voiced opinions that align with some anti-copyright positions in the past, but I may be wrong. Stepping aside from that for the moment, why would you feel that PGP's property rights are not respectable? > > Nothing personal. > Ditto. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |some people get by | Mark Aldrich | |with a little understanding | GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | |some people get by | maldrich@grci.com | |with a whole lot more | MAldrich@dockmaster.ncsc.mil| | -- Sisters of Mercy | | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich@grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------