[109627] in Cypherpunks
Re: P1363: RSA claiming trademark on all uses of "RSA" to
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael J. Markowitz)
Wed Mar 31 04:06:29 1999
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:51:54 -0600
To: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
From: "Michael J. Markowitz" <markowitz@infoseccorp.com>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com, jya@pipeline.com, gnu@toad.com,
stds-p1363@mail.ieee.org
In-Reply-To: <199903300127.RAA19778@toad.com>
Reply-To: "Michael J. Markowitz" <markowitz@infoseccorp.com>
At 05:27 PM 3/29/99 -0800, John Gilmore wrote:
>
>Now that their patent is getting ready to expire (next fall), RSA is
>trying to crack down on anyone who refers to the use of the
>algorithm by calling it "RSA". They don't mind if you call it "type
>1" or something else meaningless and irrelevant, though. This is a
>new low for a company known for self-serving legal bluster.
>
>You would think they'd prefer to have people mentioning their corporate
>name all over the place, but now that the algorithm has wide recognition,
>they seem to want to make sure that nobody *else* can say their product
>does RSA. Even if it does. If they can't keep you from competing,
>at least they want to prevent you from advertising that you compete.
>They aren't asking much...
One correction, John, this is not a "new" low -- they've been this
absurd for a long time. Over a decade ago, in the consent judgement
Schlafly and I were forced into signing, they insisted on denying us
any use of those letters in a commercial context.
As we *are* allowed to call it "Rivest-Shamir-Adleman," I strongly
suspect they have a large investment in cephalopod farms and are
busy milking the hell out of the poor creatures as I write this.
>STB is RSA+1 (as in IBM and HAL); any good phrases lurking in there?
Unfortunately, that's already taken.
>PS: The alternative, of course, is to ignore them and keep using the
>term "RSA". Let them prove to a court that they own the term, which
>was in use before they formed the company and which was created in the
>traditional scientific community naming convention (after the names of
>the inventors).
This tactic did not work for us in our patent infringement suite. I
lugged an entire stack of books in to her chambers to support my case but
the judge simply wasn't interested. I have no idea what legal precedent
there might be in such matters, but it seemed to suffice that RSADSI
lawyers were merely *asking* for protection on that mark for the judge
to stifle my repeated protests over the matter. Although I would
certainly like the opportunity to try again, I'm afraid that consent
judgement will hang around my neck for the rest of my life. In any case,
I'd greatly enjoy watching someone else try it.
>Or intervene in their trademark filings, saying the
>term has wide use in the scientific and technical literature and that
>they're trying to inappropriately monopolize it to replace their
>expiring patent protection.
Now this idea I like! (Some of the most fun I've had in years was
instigating interference in the ANSI X9.31 standards process.)
Anyone know if there are formal procedures for third parties to file
such complaints with the PTO? Are trademark applications even public
or are they like patent applications -- secret until granted?
-mjm
==========
Michael J. Markowitz, VP R&D Email: markowitz@infoseccorp.com
Information Security Corporation Voice: 847-405-0500
1141 Lake Cook Road, Suite D Fax: 847-405-0506
Deerfield, IL 60015 WWW: http://www.infoseccorp.com
