In article <33169CA5.7...@sternlight.com>, da...@sternlight.com
> Ed Stone wrote:
> > <snip>
> > I find nothing that appears in any way to confess any patent
> > infringement of RSADSI's patents by anyone. I have sought any filings
> > of accusations of same, and can find none. I will be grateful to be
> > referred to any judicial filings of complaint, if such exists, by
> > RSADSI on this matter. To the best of my knowledge, RSADSI has never
> > made formal complaint of infringement by PZ or by PGP in any judicial
> > venue, nor a has any judicial entity made such finding, or even
> > considered such an accusation. I am advised that infringement cannot
> > be deemed to have transpired simply by virtue of an allegation by an
> > unrelated third party, rather it is a case that must be made by the
> > one infringed upon in a court of competent jurisdiction, and a
> > finding rendered. Again, please refer me to such filings if I am in
> > error.
> Your legalistic nit-picking has no validity as far as I can tell.
I do not believe it is nitpicking to ask what entity has
1) determined that the ITAR-related felony you mention has transpired;
2) determined that the patent-infringement you mention has transpired;
3) determined that PZ or PGP were involved in either.
Again, I cannot find any finding by a judicial entity (they are the
exclusive finders of the commission of a felony, are they not?) of an
ITAR-related felony involving PZ or PGP. If you know of same, please
refer me. I do not doubt that some bandy accusations of felony. Some
bandy anything you can imagine. Again, I cannot find that RSADSI ever
made any filing in a court to dispute, or accuse, or litigate against
PZ or PGP for any patent infingement issue. If they have, please refer
me. If no court has found that the above referenced felony transpired,
and RSADSI has filed no legal protest alleging the above referenced
infringement, then exactly what axe is being ground here?
> can violate the law or commit a tort without having to be sued, charged,
> or convicted.
With regard to tort, since a legal term is being used, it is useful to
be legally precise. Specifically, a tort action has three elements:
1) existence of a legal duty from defendant to plaintiff;
2) breach of that duty;
3) damage as proximate result;
I can find no filing from RSADSI before any court alleging, must less
proving, any of the above. If such exists, please refer me. I do not
doubt that some may bandy accusations loosely. But we must distinguish
between loose accusation and more founded, disciplined, and documented
charges as would be found in a legal filing, which in this matter, to
the best of my knowledge, are non-existent.
"one can violate the law... without having to be ... convicted". One
is specifically and precisely not guilty of the violation of a law
until charged, tried, and convicted thereof.
> Can you distinguish between committing a crime, and being
> charged with it or convicted of it? Have you never heard of the legal
> definition of "the elements of a crime"?
Ever heard of due process?
> The murderer got off during his first trial,
1) two murders were determined to have been committed
2) a person was indicted for those murders
3) by what many would call bizarre twists, the person indicted is
found "not guilty" of murder.
4) did murders occur? yes
5) was anyone convicted of murdering them? no
6) did the indicted person commit murder?
a) if by murder, you mean the act of murdering someone, it sure looks
like it to anyone who understands PCR and standard deviation.
b) if by murder, you mean the *crime* of murdering someone, no, he did
not. How do I know? A body has been constituted and granted the
exclusive power to determine if he committed the *crime* of murder,
and they said "not guilty".
> but almost all jurors
> during the second trial were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt (some
> "beyond a shadow of a doubt") of his culpability
They did not look into whether or not he *murdered* the persons.
Murder is a crime. The second jury did not consider the issue of
commission of any crime. They looked into culpability for the
commission of a tort. The defendant was not found "guilty", as guilt
is not the issue here. He was found liable. Different.
> after deliberating
> meticulously (unlike the first jury) over the evidence. It seems clear
> to most Americans (according to current polls) that he's an unconvicted
> murderer. Is it your view that if he actually did it but got off, then
> he didn't do it?
> Next you'll be telling us that all those drivers going 70 in a 55 mile
> zone aren't speeding until they're arrested, charged, and convicted.
Depends on your definition of speeding. If it is the same as the legal
definition of speeding, then no, they are not *guilty* of speeding
until they are charged and convicted, or plead guilty. I've driven 70
in a 55 frequently. The signs said "Speed Limit 55". Am I speeding? Am
I *guilty* of violating DMV 43.997(c)? What if I am an ambulance
driver? A police officer? Taking birthing wife to hospital? Stuck gas
pedal? Brake failure at Cajon Pass? Gun to my head?
> They may very well be uncharged or unconvicted but they're darn sure
They are going faster than the posted limit. If we are speaking
colloquially of speeding, then to most, yes, they are speeding.
However "speeding" has both a colloquial and a legal application.
"Felony" does not. Felony is exclusively a legal term, with legal
definitions. If I say to the public about a non-public person, "Harry
is a felon, because he committed a felony.", surely I do not get off
the hook by saying, "well, I just meant "felon" and "felony" in the
non-legal, colloquial, loose-talk sense".
> As for "third party", Jim Bidzos, the President of the company holding
> the patent is on record that Phil infringed and had sent him a "cease
> and desist letter" with which Phil presumably complied.
Presumably? presumed by whom. If I send you a letter, as president of
a company holding a federally-registered service mark, telling you to
"cease and desist", exactly what standing does that have? To what
extent does it serve as proof that
1) you have infringed my service mark
2) I have evidence thereof
3) anyone in the world agrees with me
If the president of RSADSI is on record in this matter with any
judicial entity (those with the exclusive power to determine
infringement) please advise. There is a great difference between
loose, informal accusation, and legal process. The step of beginning
legal process frequently stops frivolous claims, since the accused can
> Phil knew it was patented, applied for a license, and without getting
> one proceeded to distribute anyway.
conjecture as to state of mind
> He is on record elsewhere as having
> decided to go ahead anyway when he didn't receive the requested license.
> Seems pretty clear to me.
> Here's a quote a Wall St. Journal article on April 24, 1994 as reprinted
> in "Building in Big Brother", ed. Prof. Lance J. Hoffman, Springer
> Verlag 1995:
> "RSA Data Security Inc. is also angry at Mr. Zimmermann. The computer
> security firm says that in creating PGP, Mr. Zimmermann used one of its
> patented cryptographic algorithms (sic) with out (sic) permission, after
> RSA had denied him a free license.
> ""We sometimes joke that PGP stands for 'Pretty Good Piracy'" says James
> Bidzos, president of the Redwood City, Calif. firm. "What he did was
> simple. In this business, you simply don't rip off people's intellectual
Why no suit? more loose talk, in the absence of legal process to
resolve the matter through due process...
> Later in the article a very novel view of patent law is presented: "Mr.
> Zimmermann says that technically he hasn't violated RSA patents because
> he didn't sell the software until he signed the deal with ViaCrypt,
> which does have a licence to use the algorithm". The notion that you
> don't infringe when you make or give away an unlicensed version of
> someone else's patented intellectual property but only when you sell it
> will come as news both to patent attorneys and to the US Congress.
I have heard one make exactly that argument with regard to the Pretty
Safe Mail beta. I didn't buy it then, and don't buy it now. The basis
of PZ's non-infringement is not that, rather it is that at no time has
any judicial entity even entertained the accusation, much less
determined that he did it.
> > On the issue of "whether he [PZ] was complicit in a felony violation
> > of ITAR", I believe that to be complicit in a felony, is, well, a
> > felony. One would have the ability to provide reference to a
> > conviction in a court of law of the felony, or at least a finding by a
> > Grand Jury that such felony has transpired. One cannot be complicit,
> > to the best of my understanding, to a felony that exists only in the
> > mind of a rumor-bearer, or in hallway conversation. Again, if any
> > felony case has been made by any judicial entity in this matter, I
> > would appreciate being advised of it. ITAR was complex, and could be
> > misunderstood, and thus a "felony violation" might be suspected by a
> > layman or bandied in loose and biased conversation, while the Justice
> > Department made no such finding or allegation, even preliminarily.
> Again the elements of the crime are clearly defined.
Evidently, defined clearly enough that no legal body has found that
any felony was committed in this matter, much less than PZ was
involved therein. Provide cite if this is in error.
> If one has met
> those tests, one has committed the crime.
Black's Law Dictionary says:
"Crime. A positive or negative act in violation of penal law; an
offense against the State or United States."
Tolerating the inconvenience of due process for a moment, first, it
must be determined
read more »