From: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 10:17:42 PDT
To: Jeff Barber <jeffb@sware.com>
Subject: Re: Q&A on the RSA/Cylink legal dispute
Message-ID: <199509291716.KAA06480@ix8.ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:27 AM 9/29/95 -0400, Jeff Barber <jeffb@sware.com> wrote:
>That's pretty clear to me folks, but make your own judgements.
>>      If you're using RSA's software -you didn't write your own- you don't
need 
>>      a separate patent license under either the MIT or Stanford patents.
>Again, only to the extent that you're not infringing the Stanford patents.
>
>So, pay your nickel, take your chances.  Does RSA's software infringe
>the Stanford patents?

The RSA algorithm, and thus RSA's software, uses public-key cryptography,
and is therefore within the scope of the claims of the Merkle-Hellman
and/or Hellman-Pohlig patents.  Also, the recent RSAREF versions contain
Diffie-Hellman code, which is covered by the Diffie-Hellman patents (but
PGP doesn't use that version of RSAREF.)

On the other hand, the RSAREF license says that RSA will defend any patent
claims for use of its code (I forget if that was RSADSI or RSA Labs),
and Jim Bidzos confirms that that's still the case even after the PKP breakup.
#---
# Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# Phone +1-510-247-0664 Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281
#---