1995-09-19 - Re: Cylink
Header Data
From: Andrew Loewenstern <andrew_loewenstern@il.us.swissbank.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: b347d1bc900e5dacd2eb25828a3179ffe767e92efa0273ca16b0dfe0b56cb9f2
Message ID: <9509192145.AA01100@ch1d157nwk>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-09-19 22:10:11 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 15:10:11 PDT
Raw message
From: Andrew Loewenstern <andrew_loewenstern@il.us.swissbank.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 15:10:11 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Cylink
Message-ID: <9509192145.AA01100@ch1d157nwk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
anonymous claims the WSJ said:
> The arbitrators ruled that RSA hasn't had the right to sublicense
> the Stanford patents since 1990.
>
> Cylink said it would seek royalties from companies that have licensed
> software code from RSA and are redistributing it, arguing that they
> are infringing the Stanford patents.
hahahaha, this is funny if it's true... Anyone know which two patents they
are referring to? (diffie-hellman and merkle-hellman?)
Any ideas on how this will change the legal status of RSAREF and PGP?
andrew
Thread
Return to September 1995
- Return to “Andrew Loewenstern <andrew_loewenstern@il.us.swissbank.com>”
- Return to “paul@poboy.b17c.ingr.com (Paul Robichaux)”
- Return to ““Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>”
Return to “Rob L <robl@on-ramp.ior.com>”
- 1995-09-19 (Tue, 19 Sep 95 15:10:11 PDT) - Re: Cylink - Andrew Loewenstern <andrew_loewenstern@il.us.swissbank.com>
- 1995-09-20 (Wed, 20 Sep 95 06:29:32 PDT) - Re: Cylink - “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
- 1995-09-20 (Wed, 20 Sep 95 06:55:15 PDT) - Re: Cylink - paul@poboy.b17c.ingr.com (Paul Robichaux)
- 1995-09-20 (Wed, 20 Sep 95 07:54:16 PDT) - [NOISE] Re: Cylink - Rob L <robl@on-ramp.ior.com>
- 1995-09-20 (Wed, 20 Sep 95 06:55:15 PDT) - Re: Cylink - paul@poboy.b17c.ingr.com (Paul Robichaux)
- 1995-09-20 (Wed, 20 Sep 95 06:29:32 PDT) - Re: Cylink - “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>