[51765] in Cypherpunks
Re: News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perry E. Metzger)
Sat Mar 9 15:14:44 1996
To: Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 08 Mar 1996 17:31:16 EST."
<199603082231.RAA11593@homeport.org>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 15:00:14 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Adam Shostack writes:
> Is RSA now saying that the original Diffie-Hellman patent
> (#4,200,770) is not valid?
A hoot, ain't it?
> 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.
It all matters very little to me, as the patents expire next year.
Perry
