On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 03:28:09PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I never said the approach was "clearly covered," but I suspect it is probably covered.
I am not sure why you suspect it is covered by Chaum's patents. You said in response to anonymous and I quote: | Wagner's scheme appears to reply on Chaum's (original) patents, so it | wasn't relevant. I explained to you in the post you are replying to why I don't think this claim is accurate. Wagner's scheme was designed explicitly to avoid being covered by Chaum's patents by people who have read Chaum's patents. Wagner's scheme is clearly not a signature, blind or otherwise.
If you can point me to authority to the contrary, I would be delighted to read it. I suspect you can't.
I have not personally asked a lawyer for an opinion. Neither have you I take it. This was why I suggested "unclear" was a better description of the current understanding than "appears to rely on Chaum's patents" which you appear to have made up. Perhaps the berkeley lawyers opinion could be tracked down? Adam