From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 14:12:41 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Why RSA?
In-Reply-To: <9309212049.AA00561@lynx.cs.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <9309212109.AA22702@snark.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Derek Zahn says:
> I was under the impression that
> many people participated in the development of P.K.Crypto...
> how can somebody patent all of their work?

Three people essentially were involved -- Diffie, Helman, and Merkle.
Two of them (I forgot which) filed a patent on the idea itself.

> Don't these
> kind of patents apply only to specific algorithms?

It can be easily argued that at the time the patent was filed
algorithm patents were impermissable, and it can also be argued that
the patent was overbroad. However, no one has ever tried to challenge
the patent properly. It would be a very expensive proposition.

> * in broad terms, what would I have to do to develop an
>   algorithm that works from a user's perspective like
>   p.k.c. (ie public/private keys, the central functional
>   point of all the wonderful schemes based on pkc) but
>   doesn't violate patents?

My interpretation is that there isn't anything you could do that
wouldn't be seen to violate the patents. Personally, I feel the
patents are invalid. Care to donate enough money to challenge them?

Perry