Declan misses the mark on ecash

[Adam Back]

On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 03:28:09PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> I never said the approach was "clearly covered," but I suspect it is
> probably covered. 

I am not sure why you suspect it is covered by Chaum's patents.

You said in response to anonymous and I quote:

| Wagner's scheme appears to reply on Chaum's (original) patents, so it
| wasn't relevant.

I explained to you in the post you are replying to why I don't think this
claim is accurate.  Wagner's scheme was designed explicitly to avoid being
covered by Chaum's patents by people who have read Chaum's patents.

Wagner's scheme is clearly not a signature, blind or otherwise.

> If you can point me to authority to the contrary, I would be delighted to
> read it. I suspect you can't.

I have not personally asked a lawyer for an opinion.  Neither have you I
take it.  This was why I suggested "unclear" was a better description of the
current understanding than "appears to rely on Chaum's patents" which you
appear to have made up.

Perhaps the berkeley lawyers opinion could be tracked down?

Adam