🚀 go-pugleaf

> Aside from the appropriateness of the RSA algorithm itself for patenting,
> how about the manner in which it was distributed?  In a paper distributed
> by MIT and in Communications of the ACM, the authors described RSA without
> any mention of a patent or pending patent.
> 
> Now, I know zero about patent law, but shouldn't this place the algorithm
> in the public domain? ...

No.  Whether the publication mentions intent to patent is entirely irrelevant.
(A related issue:  it is permissible for something like 18 months to elapse
between publication and filing for a patent.)  It would have been nice for
them to have mentioned it, and perhaps wise, but it is not compulsory, as
I understand it.

Consider:  Popular Science does an article about RSA, based on interviews
etc.  They decide not to mention the pending patent.  Does this void the
patent?  Clearly not.  Does saying "well, I read about it in Popular Science,
and they didn't mention a patent, so I figured it must be public domain"
constitute a valid defense in court?  Obviously not.  It's entirely possible
that the original CACM paper, as *submitted*, mentioned the patent but the
editors deleted it for some silly policy reason.  Should this void the patent?
Nonsense.

> ... Suppose, eg, that I hadn't read in BYTE or in this
> newsgroup that it's patented, and built some large system based on RSA.
> How can they claim I should have known it's theirs?

They don't; what they claim is that you are using their invention, which
is all that matters.  Whether you knew about it or not DOES NOT MATTER
(although they might be more polite if your infringement did appear to be
ignorance rather than malice).  Even inventing it yourself, entirely
independently and with no knowledge of their work, is not a defense.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry