cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1997-12-17 - Re: UK spooks invent RSA, DH in 1973

Header Data

From: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com>
To: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Message Hash: 24956c14a222827ddd819e5dfef7f3198514daa95e89b282b1a337ebc2bbdbcc
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971217131821.977B-100000@is-chief>
Reply To: <199712171946.OAA08750@homeport.org>
UTC Datetime: 1997-12-17 20:43:23 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 04:43:23 +0800

Raw message

From: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 04:43:23 +0800
To: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Subject: Re: UK spooks invent RSA, DH in 1973
In-Reply-To: <199712171946.OAA08750@homeport.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971217131821.977B-100000@is-chief>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Adam Shostack wrote:

> Jim Burnes wrote:
> 
> | >      http://jya.com/ellisdoc.htm
> | 
> | Can patents be revoked due to prior art arguments?
> 
> 	I think its a really bad precedent to revoking patents based
> on the basis of secret documents released after the fact.  If you
> believe in patents, then having your work nullifiable by government
> claims is a bad idea.

I was not advocating that they should be revoked, just curious
as to whether they could be.

But your analysis makes sense.  It would be simple for the
government, within the context of the secrets act, to simply
crank out phony secrets and destroy the financial viability
of companies they don't like.

Interesting....

Jim

Thread