From: Vicente Silveira <vicente@certisign.com.br>
To: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Message Hash: 7d31903a4bba166e0d3dc8c30155fd5f8241f19535e2c1122c1b544ed437d622
Message ID: <3499A38A.61C7A738@certisign.com.br>
Reply To: <199712181435.JAA13916@homeport.org>
UTC Datetime: 1997-12-18 22:36:45 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 06:36:45 +0800
From: Vicente Silveira <vicente@certisign.com.br>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 06:36:45 +0800
To: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Subject: Re: UK spooks invent RSA, DH in 1973
In-Reply-To: <199712181435.JAA13916@homeport.org>
Message-ID: <3499A38A.61C7A738@certisign.com.br>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Adam Shostack wrote:
>
> While this does prevent making things up out of whole cloth, it does
> not address the possibility that the hash has been broken by the
> agency, nor the possibility that documents will be selectively
> released by the agency to hurt certain parties.
>
> None of this addresses the real flaw, which is the inability to value
> your patent if theres a chance that a party will remove the secrecy in
> whihc they invented it, and thus nullify your patent.
>
> The whole prior art argument is that you could reasonably have heard
> about this other thing, or that the patent office could have found it,
> and thus your patent should not have been granted.
>
> If the patent office had examiners with clearence who checked patents
> agianst various government claims and denied the patent on the ground
> that there exists prior, classified art, that would be vaugely fine;
> it would be a predictable risk as the patent is pending.
>
> Adam
>
I agree with you, I just mentioned that it was technically
feasible, but, as you pointed out, the ethical and legal
aspects of this issue makes this kind of ( submarine ? )
patents undesirable.
--
Vicente Silveira - vicente@certisign.com.br
CertiSign Certificadora Digital Ltda.
Return to December 1997
Return to ““William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@invweb.net>”