From: Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:23:48 +0800
To: baldwin@RSA.COM (RobertW.Baldwin) (baldwin)
Subject: Re: News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents
In-Reply-To: <9602088263.AA826308428@snail.rsa.com>
Message-ID: <199603082231.RAA11593@homeport.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


baldwin wrote:

|         The following press release from RSA may be of interest to the
| folks on this list.
|                 --Bob
| -----------------------------------

| In denying the motion the court found that "RSA has raised serious question 
| (sic) regarding the validity of the first of the Stanford patents, the 
| Diffie-Hellman patent."

	Is RSA now saying that the original Diffie-Hellman patent
(#4,200,770) is not valid?  I'm curious, because in the past, as I
understand things, RSA has said that the DH patent covers El Gamal.
If RSA no longer considers DH to be a valid patent, that would mean El
Gamal is not patent encumbered.

Adam

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume