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