Rijndael & Hitachi

[Arnold G. Reinhold]

At 5:43 AM -0400 10/5/2000, Vin McLellan wrote:
>...
>
>        As the basis of an AES conspiracy theory, the two Hitachi 
>patents strike me as pretty frail. (Rijndael is clearly a powerful 
>and elegant algorithm, fully a peer if not the Obvious Choice among 
>the five great cryptographic creations matched in the AES Finals.) 
>OTOH, far more specious allegations have entangled millions in 
>Byzantine mystery scenarios, on far less obtuse topics.
>
>        My impression is that NIST covered itself with glory in its 
>handling of the AES competition, but -- really! -- who in their 
>right mind is gonna take the word of a US federal agency that the 
>existence of issued US patents, and the scope of the patent-owner's 
>claims, was irrelevant to their deliberations. (Even if it is true;-)

...

>        My comment was simply that the Hitachi patent claims set the 
>stage for rumors that may shadow the AES choice for years. I think 
>that is unfortunate. Personally, I think it is embarrassing that the 
>Hitachi patents were ever issued.

Maybe I am missing something, but what would be the big deal if NIST 
did take patent claims into account?  There were five excellent 
candidates. If NIST picked Rijndael in part because it least likely 
to be tied up in court for the next N years, does that diminish their 
glory?


>        My impression is that -- despite their vigorous competitive 
>impulses -- the cryptographers who carried their work into the AES 
>Finals all showed a great deal of respect for each other's work. 
>They all shared the Pantheon of their Craft, and even the contenders 
>were ennobled.  In the aftermath of the NIST decision, I haven't 
>heard sour grapes comments from any of them -- and I would be very 
>surprised if I did. All the grumbling is just background noise from 
>the wee folk, and I suspect it would be pretty much the same tenor, 
>no matter which algorithm was chosen.

Quite right. There is plenty of credit to go around.  I was 
particularly pleased that NIST had the guts to pick a non-U.S. 
design. That's risky in Washington.

Arnold Reinhold

P.S. What is the licensing status of the other finalists? For 
example, I seem to recall reading that RC6 would be licensed to the 
public at no charge if it won the competition. What now?