17 Dec
2003
17 Dec
'03
11:17 p.m.
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