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
Return to January 1993
- Return to “Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>”
Return to “Hal <74076.1041@CompuServe.COM>”
- 1993-01-15 (Fri, 15 Jan 93 10:13:47 PST) - RIPEM vs PEM - Hal <74076.1041@CompuServe.COM>
- 1993-01-21 (Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:48:34 PST) - RIPEM vs PEM - Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>