From: Alex Tang <altitude@umich.edu>
I talked with RSA yesterday specifically about free servers and RC4. They just said that they would need a business plan for the server product. When i said that the product would be free, they started talking in circles about how everyone who uses RC4 needed a license (but i was asking about the licenses...) I asked flat out "how much would a license for RC4 cost for a free server product". They only reponded with "Very Expensive", and then went on about a business plan.
Ask them about the free version of RC4 which is circulating. If they say it is patented ask them for the patent number. Ask them why you should pay them big bucks if you can get it for free.
Here's their reply to a similar correspondence:
The RC4 algorithm is copyrighted by and intellectual property of RSA Data Security. For use of this algorithm in a product or service you plan to sell, you may use the RC4 software implementation from our BSAFE toolkit. Licenses are not available for other commercial software implementations of this algorithm other than what is included in our BSAFE toolkit.
I wasn't aware that you could copyright an algorithm. Patent, yes, but not copyright. Intellectual property meens secret, right? Aren't there any precendence cases involving propriety schemes that are reverse engineered? I know there have been, I just can't remember what they are. In any case, RSADSI is likely to sue anyone who attempts to use the RC4 code openly, and even if they lose there are considerable legal fees involved for whoever tries it. What if a bunch of people put secure HTTPd servers online at the same time, without any clear trail pointing to the first one? If the RC4 code really is legal to use, this would make it hard for RSADSI to pinpoint anyone to sue, thus eliminating the intimidation factor. By the way, since RSA is such a vocal opponent of the Clipper chip on the grounds of its secret Skipjack algorithm, why does it market secret algorithms like RC4 and RC2? Does this seen like a double face to anyone else? ----------------------------------------------------------- Russell Ross email: rross@sci.dixie.edu 1260 N 1280 W voice: (801)628-8146 St. George, UT 84770-4953
Russell Ross writes:
In any case, RSADSI is likely to sue anyone who attempts to use the RC4 code openly, and even if they lose there are considerable legal fees involved for whoever tries it.
I'll just have to put it into my IPSP implementation, then. I am more than willing to pay a few tens of thousands to lawyers for this particular purpose. I will produce a text description of the algorithm and have an intern re-implement it from scratch just to make sure -- I'll probably prepare some notarized documents attesting to the development methodology, too. It will be fun to see if Jim Bidzos actually tries to pull something under those circumstances. Perry
On Wed, 26 Jul 1995, Russell Ross wrote:
I wasn't aware that you could copyright an algorithm. Patent, yes, but not copyright. Intellectual property meens secret, right? Aren't there any precendence cases involving propriety schemes that are reverse engineered? I know there have been, I just can't remember what they are.
There was one a few years back with a special chip in Nintendo cartridges that you needed to buy from them... it was against a company called Atari (no, not THAT atari (i think)), and was decided in Atari's favor. Hope that helps... Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lasser <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu> (410) 494-3253 Visit my home page at http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/ You have a friend at the NSA: Big Brother is watching. Finger for PGP key.
On Wed, 26 Jul 1995, Russell Ross wrote:
I wasn't aware that you could copyright an algorithm. Patent, yes, but not copyright. Intellectual property meens secret, right? Aren't there any precendence cases involving propriety schemes that are reverse engineered? I know there have been, I just can't remember what they are.
There was one a few years back with a special chip in Nintendo cartridges that you needed to buy from them... it was against a company called Atari (no, not THAT atari (i think)), and was decided in Atari's favor.
There has only been one company called "Atari". They did split between home computers and video games/PC game software when Jack Tramiel left Commodore and bought Atari. I thought that it wasn't decided in Atari's favor, but maybe I didn't hear the final word. I believe that they used a form of rom access that they had patented and restricted producers by only licensing roms to those they wanted. If I remember, it had something to do with address auto-increment. I always wondered how the 'Game Genie' people got enough information to do what they did. (A true 'wedge' cartridge that you could program codes into for all games to give extra lives, hard to find abilities, change parameters, etc.)
Hope that helps... Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lasser <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu> (410) 494-3253 Visit my home page at http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/ You have a friend at the NSA: Big Brother is watching. Finger for PGP key.
sdw -- Stephen D. Williams 25Feb1965 VW,OH (FBI ID) sdw@lig.net http://www.lig.net/sdw Consultant, Vienna,VA Mar95- 703-918-1491W 43392 Wayside Cir.,Ashburn, VA 22011 OO/Unix/Comm/NN ICBM/GPS: 39 02 37N, 77 29 16W home, 38 54 04N, 77 15 56W Pres.: Concinnous Consulting,Inc.;SDW Systems;Local Internet Gateway Co.;28May95
participants (4)
-
Jon Lasser -
Perry E. Metzger -
rross＠sci.dixie.edu -
sdw＠lig.net