home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.crypt
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!strnlght
- From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
- Subject: Re: The PGP debate: Is it legal?
- Message-ID: <1992Dec28.190457.12206@netcom.com>
- Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
- References: <18959@mindlink.bc.ca>
- Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:04:57 GMT
- Lines: 31
-
-
- Stephen Kawamoto is inaccurate in one of his assumptions, which makes
- his conclusions doubtful.
-
- PKP does not have a patent on the algorithm. As many here have pointed
- out, algorithms cannot be patented. What they have is a patent on
- a method, process, device. It is general and covers the notion
- of public keys using a particular mathematical insight.
-
- PGP uses the same method, process, device of public keys using the
- RSA mathematical insight. That the details aren't identical doesn't
- affect the validity of the patents in the U.S.
-
- In Japan, were it patented there, it might. The Japanese patent system
- is much more specific, which is how Japanese "steal" U.S. inventions
- (according to some). They make minor modifications in the patented
- device, and under Japanese law (but not U.S. patent law), they are
- entitled to a separate patent. In this way they surround a perfectly
- good U.S. patent with Japanese patents that make it impossible for the
- U.S. patent holder to use his invention in Japan without Japanese
- permission. Naturally, the Japanese patent holders then only give
- permission in a way that destroys the market and profits for the U.S.
- patent holder--usually by forcing him to cross-license his patent to
- the Japanese. There have been several PBS programs and parts of books
- written about this.
-
- David
- --
- David Sternlight
- RIPEM Public Key on server -- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
-
-