Re: more info from talk at MIT yesterday.

[Jeremiah A Blatz <darklord+@CMU.EDU>]

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 3-Jun-94 Re: more info from talk at
.. by Adam Shostack@bwh.harvar 
> Bill Sommerfeld says:
> > They also confirmed Tom Knight's suspicions about what they're going
> > to do when someone reverse engineers the chip and publishes the
> > Skipjack algorithm & the family key: they've got a patent application
> > filed, under a secrecy order; if the algorithm is published, they'll
> > lift the secrecy order and have the patent issued, and use that to go
> > after anyone making a compatible version.
> 
>         An interesting variant of this tactic might be for the folks
> who reverse engineer Clipper/SkipJack to go off and patent it in
> *other* countries, thus making it impossible to sell or use Clipper
> outside of the USA.

Or to just write the software/burn the chips in other countries and
freely distribut the code/plans. Either way, the U.S. patent is
compromised.

Jer

darklord@cmu.edu | "it's not a matter of rights  / it's just a matter of war
finger me for my |  don't have a reason to fight / they never had one before"
   Geek Code and |                                    -Ministry, "Hero"
  PGP public key | http://www.cs.cmu.edu:8001/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr25/jbde/