Brian Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why, when the de-facto standard of internet development/protocol work is to
> use open (royalty-free) protocols, did the world of SSL seem to standardize
> on a patented algorithm such as SSL. I mean SSL is totally out there for
> the world to use, but t
t...
-brian
> -Original Message-
> From: Geoff Thorpe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 9:16 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: RSA Patent Issues... interesting article...
>
>
> Hi there,
>
> On Wed, 10 May 2000, Vin McLellan wro
Geoff Thorpe wrote:
> Which leaves
> the mathematical consideration of the multi-prime keys themselves, and
> their generation, to be debated (ie. I doubt the patent could rest on an
> argument that it is a physical process, or an implementation invention,
> because that should bang its head on t
Brian Snyder wrote:
>
>
> In short, this article only applies to SSL embedded clients, and that RSA is
> legal to use to authenticate a signature to a web server (who have paid the
> license fee)... in an embedded SSL client, the client doesnt really use RSA
> for encryption of data. In anycase
Hi there,
On Wed, 10 May 2000, Vin McLellan wrote:
> > http://www.cyberlaw.com/rsa.html
good read, it got my brain chewing anyway. :-)
> The RSA guys, for whom I have been a consultant for many years, got a
> bitter laugh out of it. They said, basically, that Flinn had tried out the
> s
> http://www.cyberlaw.com/rsa.html
Know that one. The author, Patrick Flinn, was the attorney for Cylink (and
Stanford University, I think) in the long RSA/Cylink litigation over the
viability of the RSApkc patent.
In some corners of the industry, Mr. Flinn is remembered as the f
