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