News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents

[Perry E. Metzger]

Adam Shostack writes:
> 	Is RSA now saying that the original Diffie-Hellman patent
> (#4,200,770) is not valid?

A hoot, ain't it?

> 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.

It all matters very little to me, as the patents expire next year.

Perry