Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 +MULTI+2.11; site stc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!stc!andrew From: andrew@stc.UUCP (Andrew Macpherson) Newsgroups: net.crypt,net.legal Subject: Re: RSA cryptographic algorithm patented? Message-ID: <468@stc-b.stc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 15:27:39 EDT Article-I.D.: stc-b.468 Posted: Mon Jul 15 15:27:39 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 06:08:58 EDT References: <9028@ucbvax.ARPA> Reply-To: andrew@stc.UUCP (Andrew Macpherson) Followup-To: net.legal Organization: STC Telecoms, London N11 1HB. Lines: 39 Xref: watmath net.crypt:410 net.legal:1834 Xpath: stc stc-b stc-a In article <9028@ucbvax.ARPA> phr@ucbvax.ARPA (Paul Rubin) writes: >The following letter appeared in the July, 1985 issue of BYTE magazine. > ... The letter: > > ... Charles Kluepfel described an > implementation of the RSA Public Key algorithm and the BASIC code required. > Unfortunately, he did not reference that this RSA Public Key Cryptosystem > was patented by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1983 > (U.S. Patent 4,405,829). The worldwide exclusive license to this patent > was then purchased from MIT by RSA Security Inc., a company founded by > the inventors of the RSA algorithm to develop this technology. > ... Rather, the purpose is to make you aware of our > patent position and ask for your help in educating your readership as > to its existence. Based on Mr. Kluepfel's article, more people are > going to start expending money and effort developing RSA-based software > for commercial purposes. Regrettably, their effort will be wasted > unless they obtain a sublicense from us. This seems strange. I was under the impression that: 1 algorithms cannot be patented, hence the use of copyright and/or trade secret law to protect software. 2 software independently developed to perform a given function is the property (copyright etc.) of the developer to use as he sees fit, and it is only that based on someone else's *CODE* which is open to legal attack. Since I don't claim to be a Legal expert, much less an American Legal expert (US Patent after all :-) I'm cross-posting to net.legal, with followup to net.legal only. I'ld be interested also in comments from anyone qualified in the legal aspects in europe. -- Regards, Andrew Macpherson.{creed, datlog, idec, iclbra, root44, stl, ukc}!stc!andrew