Cryptographic patent... and research.

[David GLAUDE <dglaudemailing@gmx.net>]

I have been talking to a cryptographer (scientist doing cryptographic 
research)...

He is against patent and think the worst case is medical patent (because 
of AIDS and such).

But if patent are granted for ABS, then he don't understand why they 
should not be granted for "methode". And he was explicitly talking about 
RSA saying that it took brillant mind years do discover something that 
changed completely the shape of cryptography.

He was not able to see the difference between testing in the real world 
the best way to activate the brake to stop a car and testing a 
cryptographic "methode" for robustness.

He wanted for those who discovered RSA some "protection". I told him it 
was only a few basic mathematical equation and they should not receave 
patent for that. I talked about Pytagor and basic reason why IDEA should 
not be patented, even if they are great.

He was ready to agree to topological sorting should not get a patent, 
and the program that store data in basic database should not get patent 
either... but for cryptographic "methode" it was something else (and 
actually he readed many "apartus" that do cryptography described in 
patent. And he started to understand why they use "trick" to patent 
cryptography.

One thing he said is that research on a specific algorithme seems to 
stop as soon a cryptographic algorithme is patented. Because no one is 
interested to use it anymore (also it cost a lot).

In university there is a huge pressure to get patent. Because "public 
research" is not funded, the political world want university to get 
patent and use the money to fund themself... but university (in belgium) 
do not have much money to fund patent granting... nor to pay for research.

Now I don't see the difference between public research and private 
research in a world were we don't fund public research.

I don't see how research made with public money should be paid a second 
time in licence fee for using that patent.

I can understand that MP3 compression tell us something about the force 
of nature since the filtering of sound that human do not hear is not 
something that can be done without real testing.

I don't see how LZW tell us something about force of nature.

And RSA, even if great tell us nothing about nature, is not technical 
but just a great formulat that should be free as E=MC^2.

Any comment on the above?

David GLAUDE

--
Don't let the computer/expert control the election
Information for Belgium in french: http://www.poureva.be/