1993-01-21 - RIPEM vs PEM

Header Data

From: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 36e76a6f4ae973e7d43f78a3636f92f4134af7aebd7a41ab9d3df85087fb10fc
Message ID: <9301211646.AA02423@soda.berkeley.edu>
Reply To: <930115175946_74076.1041_DHJ57-1@CompuServe.COM>
UTC Datetime: 1993-01-21 16:48:34 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:48:34 PST

Raw message

From: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:48:34 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RIPEM vs PEM
In-Reply-To: <930115175946_74076.1041_DHJ57-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <9301211646.AA02423@soda.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Hal writes:

>A remailer that wanted to charge, such as the ones that 
>Eric Messick is discussing, would probably have to license the technology 
>from PKP directly to be legal.  

A note on licensing: PKP is the holder of the patents.  The Partners
are RSA Data Security, Cylink, MIT, and Stanford.  PKP has a staff of
two.

RSADSI is also entitled to license the technology.  Most people go
through them.  IBM dealt with PKP directly, evidently.

Eric





Thread