ietf-openpgp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Subject: Re: Legal issues in implementing OpenPGP

1998-05-05 15:34:05
From: Uri Blumenthal <uri(_at_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
To: Rich Ankney <rankney(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
Cc: ietf-open-pgp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Legal issues in implementing OpenPGP
Date: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 3:56 PM

Rich Ankney says:
You are, of course, correct.  I should have said "implementation
tricks."

"Implementation trick" won't cut it either. "Implementation trick" would
be something that takes input A, produces output B, but does that 
differently, saving time, memory, etc. But one would be able
to do a "straightforward unoptimized" implementation that
would take the same A and output the same B, possibly
spending twic as many seconds. Easy.

In this case however, we are talking about the DATA FORMATS. So if 
the "licensed" product uses point compression, and your freeware
does not ('cause it's patented) - you'd have sweet time trying
to interoperate.

Do you see my concern?

Sorry; I get your point now.  What about the new HP proposal for
"point compression"?  I haven't done any research as to patent
status etc.



I'll try to track down the letter ANSI got from Certicom about MQV.

Please!!
--

OK.  I Emailed Don Johnson about this.  I'll try to get info on all of
the standards bodies they've sent letters to.
 
Regards,
Uri           uri(_at_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
<Disclaimer>

Regards,
Rich