From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 04:06:32 +0800
To: jim.burnes@ssds.com (Jim Burnes)
Subject: Re: UK spooks invent RSA, DH in 1973
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971217101817.423B-100000@is-chief>
Message-ID: <199712171946.OAA08750@homeport.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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.

	The work of DH and RSA was clearly original and non-obvious.
Since the government grants software patents, DH and RSA are
patentable.  I'm not claiming that the Ellis paper is a hoax, but
consider this scenario--Cypherpunks Alice and Bob bought the RSA
patent in 1980.  Incorporate a Cayman Islands company to sell the
patent rights.  Sells to millions of cypherpunks on a non
discriminatory basis.  They're getting ready for an IPO.  Uncle Sam,
who readlly dislikes Alice and Bob, releases a document showing prior
art.  The patent is thrown out, along with Alice & Bob's plans to
retire.


	Allowing this sort of thing is clearly not in the interests of
rule of law.  No process of discovery could reasonably have expected
to turn up these formerly classified documents.  Alice, Bob, their
investors, can not evaluate the value of their patents because Uncle
Sam can destroy them with small forgeries.

	Feh!

Adam



-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume