🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Sep12.183732.14632@agate.berkeley.edu> jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>In article <9109121340.AA11810@lemming.webo.dg.com>, pds@lemming.webo.dg.com (Paul D. Smith) writes:
>|>    "... 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..."

>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?

Presumably, the very broad claims made by PKP (covering the concept
of public-key encryption) will not be upheld by the courts "according
to government lawyers".

The specific claims covering the RSA algorithm, on the other hand,
may well be upheld, so nobody wants to challenge them. Using the
ElGamal algorithm instead of RSA avoids these claims.

Nick Jacobs