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

Re: News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents

To: Adam Shostack <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 15:00:14 -0500
Cc: [email protected]
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 08 Mar 1996 17:31:16 EST." <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]


Adam Shostack writes:
> 	Is RSA now saying that the original Diffie-Hellman patent
> (#4,200,770) is not valid?

A hoot, ain't it?

> I'm curious, because in the past, as I understand things, RSA has
> said that the DH patent covers El Gamal.  If RSA no longer considers
> DH to be a valid patent, that would mean El Gamal is not patent
> encumbered.

It all matters very little to me, as the patents expire next year.

Perry

References:
- Re: News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents
  - From: Adam Shostack <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Index of Coincidence
Next by Date: frequency of remailer use?
Prev by thread: Re: News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents
Next by thread: Re: News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread