1994-06-18 - Re: (None)

Header Data

From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu>
To: cypherpunks list <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: 4a3a142b16be0aeaad63e9ec261b144fa278fb42425759cc25eb840cd14952ca
Message ID: <9406181936.AA10330@toad.com>
Reply To: <940618133142c6Njgostin@eternal.pha.pa.us>
UTC Datetime: 1994-06-18 19:36:50 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 18 Jun 94 12:36:50 PDT

Raw message

From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 94 12:36:50 PDT
To: cypherpunks list <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: (None)
In-Reply-To: <940618133142c6Njgostin@eternal.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <9406181936.AA10330@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> From: Jeff Gostin <jgostin@eternal.pha.pa.us>
> Now that they have a real opponent, who can meet (and surpass) their
> level of gameplaying, it'll be interesting to see what happens.

I think some people are misinterpreting the situation.  The case
of DSS is atypical, because RSADSI doesn't hold a patent on DSS.
They hold another patent which they claim can be stretched to
cover DSS; NIST's and ATT's lawyers apparently disagree.

This is different from, say, using RSA.  They hold a patent which
does quite clearly cover RSA.

   Eli   ebrandt@hmc.edu