1994-06-03 - Re: more info from talk at MIT yesterday.

Header Data

From: Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>
To: perry@imsi.com
Message Hash: 27756ed4fa6093cb00e78029f9edf308fa442a0ba6359ac8ece6fb86e175102d
Message ID: <199406031503.LAA15327@duke.bwh.harvard.edu>
Reply To: <9406031436.AA04161@snark.imsi.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-06-03 15:04:26 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 3 Jun 94 08:04:26 PDT

Raw message

From: Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 94 08:04:26 PDT
To: perry@imsi.com
Subject: Re: more info from talk at MIT yesterday.
In-Reply-To: <9406031436.AA04161@snark.imsi.com>
Message-ID: <199406031503.LAA15327@duke.bwh.harvard.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Bill Sommerfeld says:
> They also confirmed Tom Knight's suspicions about what they're going
> to do when someone reverse engineers the chip and publishes the
> Skipjack algorithm & the family key: they've got a patent application
> filed, under a secrecy order; if the algorithm is published, they'll
> lift the secrecy order and have the patent issued, and use that to go
> after anyone making a compatible version.

	An interesting variant of this tactic might be for the folks
who reverse engineer Clipper/SkipJack to go off and patent it in
*other* countries, thus making it impossible to sell or use Clipper
outside of the USA.

Adam






Thread