From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 06:29:32 PDT
To: Andrew Loewenstern <andrew_loewenstern@il.us.swissbank.com>
Subject: Re: Cylink
In-Reply-To: <9509192145.AA01100@ch1d157nwk>
Message-ID: <199509201328.JAA04874@frankenstein.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Andrew Loewenstern writes:
> >  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?

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.

Perry