From: aba@dcs.exeter.ac.uk
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 07:30:31 PDT
To: paul@poboy.b17c.ingr.com (Paul Robichaux)
Subject: Re: Cylink
Message-ID: <4454.9509201427@exe.dcs.exeter.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Paul Robichaux <paul@poboy.b17c.ingr.com> writes:
> Andrew Loewenstern writes:
> > Any ideas on how this will change the legal status of RSAREF and PGP?
> 
> Then Perry Metzger replied:
> > I'm much more interested in how this changes the legal status of the
> > D-H derived encryption systems like ElGamal, and how it alters the
> > patent status on the DSS, which is basically also derived from the
> > same root.
> 
> What I'm waiting to see is who sues RSADSI for recovery of royalties
> paid to Cylink. Imagine how Apple, Lotus, and all of the other
> bigcorps using RSA must feel right about now: they licensed a patent
> from the wrong people, and it appears that RSADSI may have known that
> their rights had expired.

It's sooo gratifying seeing the err, ever so slightly litigious folks
from RSADSI get a dose of their own medicine.

:-)

Does it apply to RSA and hence PGP by way of RSAREF, and a claimed
general patent on PK, or was this court decision on specific DH
patents only?

If so I hope the proud new owners have better marketing sense than to
stomp on their huge advertisment of RSA, PGP.

Adam