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