Re: News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents

[jamesd@echeque.com]

At 05:31 PM 3/8/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote:
>	Is RSA now saying that the original Diffie-Hellman patent
> (#4,200,770) is not valid?  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.

That is what this court decision says:  If Diffie-Hellman does not cover
RSA, then it does not cover El Gamal either.



 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              				|  
We have the right to defend ourselves	|   http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind	|  
of animals that we are. True law	|   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the	|  
arbitrary power of the state.		|   jamesd@echeque.com