🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul27.130448.41907@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> paul@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> The industry newspaper/magazine "Network World" has an excellent
> article about the NIST's Digital Signature Standard (DSS) and the
> controversy surrounding it, as opposed to international acceptance of
> RSA for both signatures and encryption.

One of NIST's stated goals for the standard was freedom from royalties,
for both government and industry. Obviously ``acceptance of RSA'' is out
of the question, given this requirement. Let me guess: Network World
quotes Bidzos as claiming that RSA is used by a majority of companies
around the world...

---Dan

 In <25590.Jul2801.38.4492@virtualnews.nyu.edu> brnstnd@nyu.edu
 (Dan Bernstein) writes:


>One of NIST's stated goals for the standard was freedom from royalties,
>for both government and industry. Obviously ``acceptance of RSA'' is out

 If that is the case, then isn't it a shame that NIST does not own
 the public key patents.  They seem to be awfully free with rights
 they do not own.  There are at least two patent holders who claim
 that DSS infringes their patents [1].  Anyone using DSS commercially
 without licensing those patents is treading on thin ice.

 Yes, NIST is said to have received a patent on DSS, but a new
 patent is *not* a license to practice the invention.  A new patent
 is *not* a decision by the PTO that previous patents do not apply.
 Depending upon the quality of the NIST claims, the new patent may
 not even represent a bargaining position.


 [1]  Hellman, M.  1992.  Response to NIST's Proposal.  Communications
      of the ACM.  35(7):47-49.  (this is the current July issue)

 ---
 Terry Ritter   ritter@cactus.org

In article <1992Jul28.055837.10815@cactus.org> ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) writes:
>  If that is the case, then isn't it a shame that NIST does not own
>  the public key patents.

NIST seems to believe that DSS can be used without royalties. If it is
incorrect then it will almost certainly withdraw DSS.

>  There are at least two patent holders who claim
>  that DSS infringes their patents [1].

Let's not mince words here: *RSA Data Security Incorporated* claims that
DSS is insecure, that DSS infringes upon its patents, etc., etc., etc. I
am astounded that people like Rivest have the nerve to comment on DSS
without admitting their financial interest in RSA. I am unhappy, though
not so surprised, that people go around repeating RSADSI's claims as if
they were true.

---Dan

 In <4788.Jul2812.30.2492@virtualnews.nyu.edu> brnstnd@nyu.edu
 (Dan Bernstein) writes:


>NIST seems to believe that DSS can be used without royalties. If it is
>incorrect then it will almost certainly withdraw DSS.

 Oh, I see.  After the banks have all installed DSS and are finally
 sued, and after the suit prevails (say 6..8 years), *then* NIST
 will say:  "Gee, I guess we were wrong after all."

 That will be very comforting to the patent holders, who will demand
 compensation for many years of losses, and to intellectual property
 users, who could be liable for considerable expense.

 The fact that the NIST legal crew has an opinion which states that
 DSS does not infringe is not particularly comforting.  If lawyers
 did not hold (or *say* they hold) conflicting opinions, there would
 be no need for courts.


>Let's not mince words here: *RSA Data Security Incorporated* claims that
>DSS is insecure, that DSS infringes upon its patents, etc., etc., etc. I

 One of the patents claimed to be infringed by DSS is the US version
 of a European patent.

 ---
 Terry Ritter   ritter@cactus.org