Um. I found the tone of your reply to my contribution uncalled for
and very offensive, and it's made the business of composing a reply
that bit less pleasant. I hope you don't feel the need to address
other contributors here that way too often.
I don't think I want to name the company, the prod
My understaind is that the purpose of trade marks is to indicate
origin or quality. If so, assuming RC4 is a valid trademark of RSA
Datasystems for a crypto algorithm, which I am not asserting, its use
to label a crypto algorithm is a trademark violiation unless the
implementation originated fro
First off, anybody could make a cipher called 'RC7'. RC7 isn't
trademarked, and 'RC' as a prefix isn't either. It's the same reason why
we have an MP4 unrelated to MP3, and why Intel makes Pentiums instead of
586's.
I'm a little confused about what exactly constitutes 'causing customer
confusion'
Arnold G. Reinhold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
>Are you sure RC4 is a registered trademark? I've never seen anything
>that would indicate that.
RSADSI first filed for a US trademark on "RC4" in 1993.
RSA has used RC4 (R) since 1988 in "trade and commerce" (as the
phra
Vin McLellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suspect that RSA did send out more than a few nastygrams to OEMs
> or other mass marketeers about "illicit use" of RC4, but -- at least in
> recent years -- its complaints probably went to commercial enterprises which
> both (a) sought to resell
Eric Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> queried the Listocracy:
>Does anyone know the legal status of RC4 in the US?
>
>I know that a cipher purporting to be RC4 was published on
>Cypherpunks by Anonymous, and that various crypto packages
>have RC4 or "EC4". My question is, has RSA taken anyone
At 10:45 AM 1/25/00 , Eric Murray wrote:
>Real-To: Eric Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>Does anyone know the legal status of RC4 in the US?
>
>I know that a cipher purporting to be RC4 was published on
>Cypherpunks by Anonymous, and that various crypto packages
>have RC4 or "EC4". My question is
