Bernstein's Continued Progress in Crypto Suit

corz writes "On October 18 Daniel J. Bernstein went back to court in his battle with the government over cryptography regulations. From his post to the export mailing list: 'Department of Justice attorney Tony Coppolino told the court that the government would not enforce the regulations against cryptographers working together at conferences. He also told the court that the government would treat "assembly language" as source code.' What does this mean for us? Wired News has more."

Comments

If I make a painting of source code....

[EnVisiCrypt]

Is it still source code?

What if I have a program that takes "illegal" code and turns it into cubist art. Is it still source code?

Now, if I have a program that does the opposite, and a cubist accidentally paints my program, does he go to jail?

I'm dumb

[presearch]

I didn't know anything about this case but when I read the article headline I thought:
"Hmmm, some guy's wearing a crypto suit.
Probably someone from MIT walking around and scaring people.
What'll those nerds think up next?"

Re:I'm dumb

[codexus]

Hmmm, some guy's wearing a crypto suit.

Well, those crypto t-shirts have been available for a long time. So I guess it was only a matter of time until they made a whole suit.

Can the outcome of this apply to patents too?

[tchuladdiass]

As far as I know, there is nothing in patent legislation that prevents one from publishing papers which describe a patented process or algorithm. So, if it is held that source code is the same as speech, then would non-binary distributed open source programs be free from patent suits? Now, if this were the case, it would still be up to the individual that obtains and compiles the source to rectify any patent issues (i.e., paying license fees, etc.). But, does patent law prevent an individual from producing an instance of that invention for personal use, as long as it is not distributed? What about for research purposes?

Re:Can the outcome of this apply to patents too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely it will simply open up a new realm for patent attorneys--Patents on Speech. I'm filing for the letter q.

Re:Can the outcome of this apply to patents too?

[anthony_dipierro]

As far as I know, there is nothing in patent legislation that prevents one from publishing papers which describe a patented process or algorithm.

No, but if you're profiting off someone else's patent infringement you're guilty of contributory patent infringement.

So, if it is held that source code is the same as speech, then would non-binary distributed open source programs be free from patent suits?/i>

Same thing with software. If you run the software you're guilty of patent infringement. If you sell someone the software so that they can run it, you're guilty of contributory patent infringement. Source code vs. binary doesn't matter.

Re:Can the outcome of this apply to patents too?

[Pogue Mahone]

I'm filing for the letter q

Sorry, I already hold a patents on 4, q and 2.

Re:Can the outcome of this apply to patents too?

[fstanchina]

It already works like this, as far as I know. Example: the FreeType bytecode interpreter, which is shipped in source code but disabled in the binaries as supplied by most distributions.

In Writing

[Jahf]

... told the court that the government would not enforce the regulations against cryptographers working together at conferences.

There's a law that can make it illegal, but the US DOJ says they won't enforce it in a specific circumstance.

Ok. Probably true ... for now. But nothing changes the law if they don't enforce it ...

Get it in writing and signed. Better yet, try and get the law changed.

Complacency == Approval.