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

Re: Rivest Patent

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rivest Patent
From: Eric Cordian <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:25:26 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <2FBF98FC7852CF11912A0000000000010D19AD69@DINO> from "Harvey Rook" at Nov 13, 98 01:45:05 pm
Sender: [email protected]

Harvey Rook writes:

> It's a little bit more complicated than that. RC-6, which also uses data
> dependant rotations is patent free. 

Wasn't that a requirement for being an AES submission? 

As you may have guessed, I'm not a fan of permitting software to be
patented.  Particularly things like RSA for which obvious prior art
existed, and the plethora of microprocessor patents which cover things
like doing branch prediction and switching instruction sets in absurdly
obvious and simple ways.  Then you have the resulting silly lawsuits over
the silly patents and other innovation-suppressing and time-wasting
exercises.

The corporate "Push to Patent" is remarkably similar to the academic "Push
to Publish."  90% of the output of either is not worth reading. 

-- 
Sponsor the DES Analytic Crack Project
http://www.cyberspace.org/~enoch/crakfaq.html

References:
- RE: Rivest Patent
  - From: "Harvey Rook (Exchange)" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: network associates back in kra
Next by Date: RE: Rivest Patent
Prev by thread: RE: Rivest Patent
Next by thread: RE: Rivest Patent
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread