[39580] in Cypherpunks
Re: Cylink
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perry E. Metzger)
Wed Sep 20 09:32:28 1995
To: Andrew Loewenstern <andrew_loewenstern@il.us.swissbank.com>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:45:20 CDT."
<9509192145.AA01100@ch1d157nwk>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 09:28:55 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Andrew Loewenstern writes:
> > The arbitrators ruled that RSA hasn't had the right to sublicense
> > the Stanford patents since 1990.
> >
> > Cylink said it would seek royalties from companies that have licensed
> > software code from RSA and are redistributing it, arguing that they
> > are infringing the Stanford patents.
>
> hahahaha, this is funny if it's true... Anyone know which two patents they
> are referring to? (diffie-hellman and merkle-hellman?)
>
> Any ideas on how this will change the legal status of RSAREF and PGP?
I'm much more interested in how this changes the legal status of the
D-H derived encryption systems like ElGamal, and how it alters the
patent status on the DSS, which is basically also derived from the
same root.
Perry
