From: "Mr. Nobody" <mixmaster@anon.alias.net>William Bennet <x@x.x>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 17:21:30 +0800
To: frantz@netcom.com.cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: None
In-Reply-To: <199601050311.TAA27567@netcom5.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199601060905.DAA21075@fuqua.fiftysix.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In article <199601050311.TAA27567@netcom5.netcom.com> frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz) writes:

> From: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)
> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 19:13:58 -0800
> 
> At 20:05 1/4/96 -0500, anonymous@freezone.remailer wrote:
> >Does anyone understand what this "Concryption" really is? Reading the
> >press blurbs, it could be nothing more than simply compressing the
> >stream before encrypting it. A patent on that idea would be rather
> >awkward.
> 
> What I interpreted their press release as saying was that they had patented
> the idea of doing the compression AND the encryption in one pass over the
> data.  If they got a patent for this, then the patent office has totally
> lost the concept that in order to be patentable, the idea must not be
> obvious to those well versed in the state of the art.

Unfortunately, the patent office has totally lost that concept, with
rather disastrous consequences for people who can't afford to fight
bogus patents in court.  http://www.lpf.org for more info.