cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-03-09 - Re: News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>
Message Hash: 29bcd8c5d2bfb4e9c26f7f5689f0308355b9c4bf8be39707a9dd4833cdabc28a
Message ID: <199603092000.PAA16523@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <199603082231.RAA11593@homeport.org>
UTC Datetime: 1996-03-09 21:41:50 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 05:41:50 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 05:41:50 +0800
To: Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>
Subject: Re: News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents
In-Reply-To: <199603082231.RAA11593@homeport.org>
Message-ID: <199603092000.PAA16523@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Adam Shostack writes:
> 	Is RSA now saying that the original Diffie-Hellman patent
> (#4,200,770) is not valid?

A hoot, ain't it?

> I'm curious, because in the past, as I understand things, RSA has
> said that the DH patent covers El Gamal.  If RSA no longer considers
> DH to be a valid patent, that would mean El Gamal is not patent
> encumbered.

It all matters very little to me, as the patents expire next year.

Perry

Thread