[7534] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: FYI: Intelectual property discussion on AES
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rodney Thayer)
Sat Jul 22 13:41:42 2000
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000721211041.031b9cb0@limbo.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:23:47 -0700
To: "Heyman, Michael" <Michael_Heyman@NAI.com>
From: Rodney Thayer <rodney@tillerman.to>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <87k8epdpli.fsf@hedonism.subnet.hedonism.cluefactory.org.uk
>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
The old timers who used to get crypto products patented
back in the dark ages tell us there were always patent
examiners 'who were funded by multiple agencies', meaning
the NSA. There is folklore about how certain features
were 'suggested to be removed', etc.
In other words, I think I'd not assume the USPTO rule book
excludes cheating by the government, including NIST.
At 10:32 AM 7/14/00 +0100, Paul Crowley wrote:
>"Heyman, Michael" <Michael_Heyman@NAI.com> writes:
> > >
>... much discussion of patents and AES,
including submarine patents...
>That the three best-regarded ciphers should be the unpatented ones
>should be of interest to patent watchers.
