Paul Robichaux <paul@poboy.b17c.ingr.com> writes:
Andrew Loewenstern writes:
Any ideas on how this will change the legal status of RSAREF and PGP?
Then Perry Metzger replied:
I'm much more interested in how this changes the legal status of the D-H derived encryption systems like ElGamal, and how it alters the patent status on the DSS, which is basically also derived from the same root.
What I'm waiting to see is who sues RSADSI for recovery of royalties paid to Cylink. Imagine how Apple, Lotus, and all of the other bigcorps using RSA must feel right about now: they licensed a patent from the wrong people, and it appears that RSADSI may have known that their rights had expired.
It's sooo gratifying seeing the err, ever so slightly litigious folks from RSADSI get a dose of their own medicine. :-) Does it apply to RSA and hence PGP by way of RSAREF, and a claimed general patent on PK, or was this court decision on specific DH patents only? If so I hope the proud new owners have better marketing sense than to stomp on their huge advertisment of RSA, PGP. Adam