[6535] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: legal status of RC4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Donald E. Eastlake 3rd)
Sat Jan 29 17:08:00 2000
Message-Id: <200001290237.VAA28443@torque.pothole.com>
To: cryptography@c2.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 28 Jan 2000 12:57:03 PST."
<Pine.LNX.4.10.10001281246150.19561-100000@ultra.gawth.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:37:00 -0500
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
My understaind is that the purpose of trade marks is to indicate
origin or quality. If so, assuming RC4 is a valid trademark of RSA
Datasystems for a crypto algorithm, which I am not asserting, its use
to label a crypto algorithm is a trademark violiation unless the
implementation originated from RSA or was approved by RSA as meeting
some standards set by RSA.
My understanding of "dilution" is that it is based on "unrelated" use
of a mark, not use for the same type of thing.
Donald
From: bram <bram@gawth.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 12:57:03 -0800 (PST)
To: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <E12E6DF-0001yc-00@nautilus.shore.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10001281246150.19561-100000@ultra.gawth.com>
>First off, anybody could make a cipher called 'RC7'. RC7 isn't
>trademarked, and 'RC' as a prefix isn't either. It's the same reason why
>we have an MP4 unrelated to MP3, and why Intel makes Pentiums instead of
>586's.
>
>I'm a little confused about what exactly constitutes 'causing customer
>confusion' with regards to using the term RC4. If I publish something
>clearly labelled 'Bram's crypto library' and list RC4 as one of the
>ciphers supported, there's no implication of anything coming from RSA, it
>comes from Bram. There's always the trademark dilution claim, although my
>understanding is that only applies to 'famous' trademarks, which RC4
>clearly isn't, and the proper legalese response to a claim of dilution can
>be roughly translated into plain english as 'blow me'.
>
>-Bram
>
>
