🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 29230@netcom.com, rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>...
>This is the Diffie-Merkle patent.  It is owned by PKP as well as the
>first Hellman-Diffie-Merkle patent 4,200,770.  These did in fact precede
>RSA but since PKP owns them anyway, it doesn't matter.  I believe though
>that it does matter that the second patent claims something invented
>in the first but not specifically claimed, the entire concept of public
>key.  There is opinion that the claims in the second patent would not
>stand anyway because the knapsack method described as an embodyment is
>not in fact secure and as such isn't a valid method of cryptography.
>
>That's what sucks about this patent system, it doesn't matter really
>whether the patent is valid, what matters is whether one has the money
>to prove it isn't.  I'm not sure what the answer to that problem is 
>either.  Consortium anyone?
>
I'm not sure what you mean by consortium, but I for one would be willing to pay
$100 towards hiring a patent attorney to challenge PKP`s patents in court.  If
you think the matter is worth pursuing, you might find an ally in the Free
Software Foundation as well.

--
Bill Dorsey	dorsey@lila.com

"The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws." -- Tacitus