Re: UK spooks invent RSA, DH in 1973

[Vicente Silveira <vicente@certisign.com.br>]

Adam Shostack wrote:
> 
> While this does prevent making things up out of whole cloth, it does
> not address the possibility that the hash has been broken by the
> agency, nor the possibility that documents will be selectively
> released by the agency to hurt certain parties.
> 
> None of this addresses the real flaw, which is the inability to value
> your patent if theres a chance that a party will remove the secrecy in
> whihc they invented it, and thus nullify your patent.
> 
> The whole prior art argument is that you could reasonably have heard
> about this other thing, or that the patent office could have found it,
> and thus your patent should not have been granted.
> 
> If the patent office had examiners with clearence who checked patents
> agianst various government claims and denied the patent on the ground
> that there exists prior, classified art, that would be vaugely fine;
> it would be a predictable risk as the patent is pending.
> 
> Adam
> 

I agree with you, I just mentioned that it was technically
feasible, but, as you pointed out, the ethical and legal
aspects of this issue makes this kind of ( submarine ? )
patents undesirable.


-- 

Vicente Silveira - vicente@certisign.com.br
  CertiSign Certificadora Digital Ltda.