News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents
Adam Shostack
adam at lighthouse.homeport.org
Fri Mar 8 19:23:48 PST 1996
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
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list