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 Message-ID: <2069@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Wed, 31-Dec-86 04:07:14 EST Article-I.D.: jade.2069 Posted: Wed Dec 31 04:07:14 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 31-Dec-86 18:42:01 EST References: <3072@ihuxf.UUCP> <9001@duke.duke.UUCP> <7447@utzoo.UUCP> <230@gaia.UUCP> <2050@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <7452@utzoo.UUCP> Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: newton2@topaz.berkeley.edu.UUCP () Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 23 Keywords:Fair use of RSA patent; Licensing status I didn't make myself sufficiently clear. I was responding narrowly to an earlier posting that seemed to warn against someone *writing* an RSA based package, motivated by the absence of extant public domain software, and posting it. That act seems to me akin to developing an improved version, or just a model confirming the truth and adequacy of the patent disclosure. You might not be able to patent it yourself, due to the prior art, but you don't need permission from RSA to try. Publishing the results of your own effort (not making a crypto device using RSA, which is what's patented) seems OK to me (and this all begs the question of the never-tested merits of the RSA patent). After all, there have been plenty of papers published about RSA- no infringement was claimed by Ralph Bennett :>). By the way, I didn't mean to leave the impression that RSA Data Security placed insurmountable hurdles athwart any attempt to sublicense the MIT patent; only that the company seemed a little shaky, and it wasn't clear what they could/would offer beyond hands off. Doug Maisel 56 Panoramic Way Berkeley, CA 94704 (415) 848-5247