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