Re: Cylink

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>]

Andrew Loewenstern writes:
> >  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?

I'm much more interested in how this changes the legal status of the
D-H derived encryption systems like ElGamal, and how it alters the
patent status on the DSS, which is basically also derived from the
same root.

Perry