Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!jade!topaz.berkeley.edu!newton2 From: newton2@topaz.berkeley.edu Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: encryption with public keys (being patented) Message-ID: <2059@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Fri, 26-Dec-86 04:11:35 EST Article-I.D.: jade.2059 Posted: Fri Dec 26 04:11:35 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 26-Dec-86 18:35:54 EST References: <3072@ihuxf.UUCP> <9001@duke.duke.UUCP> <7447@utzoo.UUCP> <230@gaia.UUCP> <112@uw-apl.UUCP> Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: newton2@topaz.berkeley.edu.UUCP () Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 21 Keywords:Confirmed: patents don't necess. mean much As a several-times successful patent applicant (batting 1000), I endorse and agree with Spencer's remarks. Particularly if the claims are drawn with the specific intent of not obviously conflicting with extant granted claims (as I suppose every amoral lawyer would draw them, rather than point out that the *matter* claimed might well be equivalent), it would be a conscient- ious examiner who'd be as assiduous in protecting *all* the relevent prior patents as their holders might be in court. I'm not alluding specifically to the RSA patent, which discloses a method which really is novel, useful and (on the non-legally-technical level at least) self-evidently inventive and deserving of the grudging, teeth-gnashing admiration of all who now find it self-evident. What's eyebrow-raising about the patent is the seeming ease with which a hitherto hazy zone of invention was brought under the patent tent. Doug Maisel 56 Panoramic Way Berkeley, CA 94704 (415) 848-5247