2 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
Two lawsuits were recently filed in federal court, northern district of Calif, which may cripple Public Key Partners. Cylink v. RSA Data Security, C-94-02332-CW, June 30, 1994, San Fran. It alleges that the RSA patent is invalid. RSA Data had denied Cylink a patent license. This one is really fascinating -- Cylink is one of the owners of PKP, along with RSADSI...
smb@research.att.com says: > Two lawsuits were recently filed in federal court, northern district > of Calif, which may cripple Public Key Partners. > > Cylink v. RSA Data Security, C-94-02332-CW, June 30, 1994, San Fran. > It alleges that the RSA patent is invalid. RSA Data had denied Cylink > a patent license. > > This one is really fascinating -- Cylink is one of the owners of PKP, along > with RSADSI... "Owners" is not strictly speaking the case -- they are a partner in PKP. Since the PKP partnership agreement is secret (or at least I am told it is secret), it is impossible to determine precisely what the rules of the partnership are, but I had assumed that free cross licensing had been part of it. I believe that Cylink has used RSA as part of various security products in the past, so they appear to have *HAD* a license. If Bruce has access to the exact language in the suit, it would be of interest to hear what it says. (Since the court papers are all public domain, perhaps a person with a scanner might want to put them on line...) Perry