17 Dec
2003
17 Dec
'03
11:17 p.m.
baldwin wrote: | The following press release from RSA may be of interest to the | folks on this list. | --Bob | ----------------------------------- | In denying the motion the court found that "RSA has raised serious question | (sic) regarding the validity of the first of the Stanford patents, the | Diffie-Hellman patent." 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. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume