Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!pt!ius2.cs.cmu.edu!ralphw From: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: non-RSA public-key encryption systems Message-ID: <1228@ius2.cs.cmu.edu> Date: Mon, 6-Jul-87 15:28:13 EDT Article-I.D.: ius2.1228 Posted: Mon Jul 6 15:28:13 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 7-Jul-87 06:43:10 EDT References: <8248@utzoo.UUCP> <12@nl.cs.cmu.edu> Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 30 In article <12@nl.cs.cmu.edu> mlm@nl.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Mauldin) writes: > >I have heard Michael Shamos of Unilogic (who is both a practicing >attorney and a PhD in Computer Science) lecture on copyrights, patents, >trade secrets and trademarks on several occasions. Each time, he has >said that one cannot patent algorithms (at least in the US). There is >an exclusion clause that says you cannot patent something that can be >done "with pencil and paper," so algorithms by themselves are not >protectable. > >One way around this is to patent a system with an algorithm embedded in >it. The system then enjoys patent protection. So ROM code in firmware >is protected along with the rest of the device using it. > >How does this relate to the legal status of RSA? Is it just Rivest's >special purpose chip that is patented? A particular setting of some of >the parameters? Or are all exponentiation ciphers (M^e mod pq) protected? I believe that the use of RSA in a "cryptographics communications system" is patented. Unfortunately this seems to cover most of the normal applications in which RSA is useful. (encrypting a message, transmitting it to someone, and decrypting it.) I'd appreciate it if someone could post the specifics (ie definition of a cryptographics commuications system, etc.) -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu Phone:(412)268-{2847,3275} CMU-{BUGS,DARK} Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA