Article View: gnu.misc.discuss
Article #73467Re: NIST & RSA Data Security, Inc.
From: Joe Buck
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 18:37
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 18:37
19 lines
1487 bytes
1487 bytes
In article <9109121340.AA11810@lemming.webo.dg.com>, pds@lemming.webo.dg.com (Paul D. Smith) writes:
|> A little later on in the article we find out (one reason) why NIST
|> decided not to go with RSA:
|>
|> "... NIST officials rejected the RSA method, which is protected by
|> a number of patents in the United States, and developed an
|> alternative approach that, according to government lawyers, isn't
|> covered by existing patents..."
Interesting. Similarly, POSIX has dropped "compress" because of Unisys's
patent claims.
But I thought that the Public Key Partners' patent claims were so broad
as to cover practically anything you could do with any public-key technique.
How does NIST get around all their claims?
--
Joe Buck
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1991Sep12.183732.14632@agate.berkeley.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!forney.berkeley.edu!jbuckReferences:
<9109121340.AA11810@lemming.webo.dg.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,9033f78077fa13a9 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1991-09-12 23:41:45 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!forney.berkeley.edu!jbuck From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: NIST & RSA Data Security, Inc. Message-ID: <1991Sep12.183732.14632@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 12 Sep 91 18:37:32 GMT References: <9109121340.AA11810@lemming.webo.dg.com> Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator) Distribution: gnu Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 19