1994-12-02 - Re: Brands excluded from digicash beta

Header Data

From: mccoy@io.com (Jim McCoy)
To: wolfgang@wi.WHU-Koblenz.de (Wolfgang Roeckelein)
Message Hash: f05f0635312f2c38f861911a386851bc6fb18beccf3da52d2cb0e533d6206267
Message ID: <199412021311.HAA10131@pentagon.io.com>
Reply To: <9412021004.AA03854@sirius.wi.WHU-Koblenz.de>
UTC Datetime: 1994-12-02 13:11:54 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 2 Dec 94 05:11:54 PST

Raw message

From: mccoy@io.com (Jim McCoy)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 94 05:11:54 PST
To: wolfgang@wi.WHU-Koblenz.de (Wolfgang Roeckelein)
Subject: Re: Brands excluded from digicash beta
In-Reply-To: <9412021004.AA03854@sirius.wi.WHU-Koblenz.de>
Message-ID: <199412021311.HAA10131@pentagon.io.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Wolfgang Roeckelein <wolfgang@wi.WHU-Koblenz.de> writes:
> Does anybody know how the chaum patents (I think they claimed somewhere
> that they had applied for some) affect Brands system?

Chaum has several patents relating to digital cash, the core one being a
patent on the blind signature methods commonly in use.  When I last heard
an update on the Chaum/Brand saga it was that Brand believed his system
avoided Chaum's patents while Chaum "had not yet been convinced that this
was so, but it was a possibility."