[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Cylink

anonymous claims the WSJ said:
>  The arbitrators ruled that RSA hasn't had the right to sublicense
>  the Stanford patents since 1990.
>
>  Cylink said it would seek royalties from companies that have licensed
>  software code from RSA and are redistributing it, arguing that they
>  are infringing the Stanford patents.

hahahaha, this is funny if it's true...  Anyone know which two patents they  
are referring to? (diffie-hellman and merkle-hellman?)

Any ideas on how this will change the legal status of RSAREF and PGP?

andrew