[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)


(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) 
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Reply to sender(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)to list(074db819ec%END%074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email == 'j.heald@ucl.ac.uk' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
Holger Blasum wrote:

The exhibition by the European Patent Office in the European Parliament tomorrow highlights the RSA (US4200770)
and DH patents US4405829 on public-key cryptography.
One obvious line of attack of course is that this was research by academics who would have done without the patent too (just to get published) and that it was in the air at that
time (eg Pohlig/Hellman). And of course there is http://swpat.ffii.org/pikta/xrani/schnorr/index.en.html and Flinn's critique http://www.cyberlaw.com/rsa.html
Other suggestions?


One could point to the Irish company Baltimore Technologies, which thrived at the time of the dot-com boom (though it has subsquently faded), which was able to get oing only becuase the RSA patents did /not/ apply in Europe.


(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)