14 May 1997: See RSA v. PGP complaint.
13 May 1997: Add new report from Kevin Connolly.

8 May 1997

    To: cyberia-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
    Date:         Thu, 8 May 1997 11:02:39 -0500
    From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <kconnolly@EVW.COM>
    Subject:      Encryption--RSA v. PGP

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    RSA Data Security, Inc. filed an action in the Superior Court of California,
    San Mateo County, against Pretty Good Privacy, Inc.  PGP has been
    claiming that its license to distribute RSA-based encryption software is
    based on a chain running from Public Key Partners to Viacrypt, Inc.  PGP
    acquired Viacrypt, Inc. in January 1996 and has been selling RSA-based
    encryption software for commercial use ever since.  The complaint, filed
    by Tomlinson Zisko Morosoli & Maser, alleges that PGP's license is
    derived from a license to Lemcom, which in turn has been terminated.

    This might well mean the end of PGP.  This would certainly be a bad
    outcome for security and freedom on the Internet.  I will be following
    these developments and report to the list.  It's ironic that RSA is doing this
    while complaining about PGP conduct as a freeloader.  I doubt that public
    key encryption would be anywhere as notorious as it has become if it
    were not for Phil Zimmermann's crusade; and I haven't noticed RSA
    offering to help with Phil's legal expenses.

    Kevin J. Connolly
    The opinions expressed in this communication are those of the author,
    not of Eaton & Van Winkle.
    This communication is not legal advice.  If it were legal advice, it would
    be accompanied by an invoice.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: 2.6.2

    iQCVAwUBM3HrGTQOqu5WyMfpAQFX7AP/T0R54+S05FqKJ+zZXVb1uCHMrPZmagEm
    aiW9Dfgwo/K3tXbkrbS0WEtCc8tZobXbL7fLOT82qzKvXehRsERILV2keeaXlAe7
    WN5c66SjaWe/xGfLQ/8UAnzaBl6l+olG8gN2zxGatbLDcKuakP7j0LGRuzhTXAaG
    BOYGDUbsSAY=
    =VCFW
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    To: cyberia-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
    Date:         Tue, 13 May 1997 11:03:31 -0500
    From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <kconnolly@EVW.COM>
    Subject:      Re: Encryption--RSA v. PGP

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    There are several additional bits and pieces to report.

    First, RSA is not seeking to enjoin the distribution of PGP products.  The
    lawsuit is seeking solely to revise the royalties to be paid.

    Second, it can be said that the suit represents something of a stretch.
    RSA (the original patent holder) assigned the patent to Public Key
    Partners, whose membership consists of RSA Data Security, Inc. and
    Cylink Corporation.  Public Key Partners had granted a license to
    ViaCrypt, Inc., which was acquired by Lemcom, Inc.  Then Pretty Good
    Privacy, Inc. acquired Lemcom and performed a reverse subsidiary
    merger, with Lemcom as the surviving entity.  Lemcom then changed its
    corporate style to (surprise!) Pretty Good Privacy, Inc.  Cylink--the other
    half of Public Key Partners-- was not consulted before RSA purported to
    terminate the license and sue PGP.

    Third, It appears that one major reason for RSA's purported termination
    of the license agreement was to get around the very broad arbitration
    clause in the license agreement.

    Finally, it appears that RSA commenced the suit in reaction to PGP's
    development of algorithm-independent encryption.  This innovation would
    make it possible for PGP to embrace not only the RSA Algorithm but also
    Diffy-Helman, El Gamal (a variant of Diffy-Helman), elliptical curve
    cryptography or even n-dimensional lattice vector schemes.  In the
    meantime, however. PGP continues and will continue to incorporate the
    RSA algorithm, if for no other reason than downward compatibility and
    the need to continue to support the significant number of existing
    RSA-based keypairs.

    It should be noted that any bias apparent in this posting stems from the
    failure of RSA's counsel to return my calls, even though I identified
    myself and the fact that I am preparing an article for print in a significant
    news weekly (which I will not identify until and unless the article actually
    runs).  However, I did identify the publication to RSA's counsel, and he
    chose to let me get my information from PGP, Cylink, and other industry
    sources.

    Kevin J. Connolly

    The opinions expressed in this communication are those of the author,
    not of Eaton & Van Winkle.
    This communication is not legal advice.  If it were legal advice, it would
    be accompanied by an invoice.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: 2.6.2

    iQCVAwUBM3iC4jQOqu5WyMfpAQECGQP+IkL0fslR6M/GSHKNdrnCVqQNoYllXurt
    qcPM0okSKCGEnySvBdeHJE2nf/7nn/CpYtFiPe36hkbfplpjOE4cRgupbr57AL9V
    kxQluZQdJwJJKNwXrdhiCHHBleM7l7RUSSwIRovsMxy6+4Zd3MNweGKX7wfmFnX8
    yRFOV1z7CGs=
    =W5P9
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[End]