[51695] in Cypherpunks
Re: News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Shostack)
Fri Mar 8 17:55:12 1996
From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
To: baldwin@RSA.COM (RobertW.Baldwin) (baldwin)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 17:31:16 -0500 (EST)
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <9602088263.AA826308428@snail.rsa.com> from "baldwin" at Mar 8, 96 10:06:41 am
baldwin wrote:
| The following press release from RSA may be of interest to the
| folks on this list.
| --Bob
| -----------------------------------
| In denying the motion the court found that "RSA has raised serious question
| (sic) regarding the validity of the first of the Stanford patents, the
| Diffie-Hellman patent."
Is RSA now saying that the original Diffie-Hellman patent
(#4,200,770) is not valid? I'm curious, because in the past, as I
understand things, RSA has said that the DH patent covers El Gamal.
If RSA no longer considers DH to be a valid patent, that would mean El
Gamal is not patent encumbered.
Adam
--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
-Hume
