[51776] in Cypherpunks
Re: News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jamesd@echeque.com)
Sat Mar 9 18:44:18 1996
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 15:24:59 -0800
To: Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>,
baldwin@RSA.COM (RobertW.Baldwin) (baldwin)
From: jamesd@echeque.com
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
At 05:31 PM 3/8/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote:
> 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.
That is what this court decision says: If Diffie-Hellman does not cover
RSA, then it does not cover El Gamal either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind |
of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the |
arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd@echeque.com
