Re: RC4

>From: Alex Tang <altitude@umich.edu>
>> I talked with RSA yesterday specifically about free servers and RC4.
>> They just said that they would need a business plan for the
>> server product.  When i said that the product would be free, they started
>> talking in circles about how everyone who uses RC4 needed a license (but i
>> was asking about the licenses...)  I asked flat out "how much would a
>> license for RC4 cost for a free server product".  They only reponded with
>> "Very Expensive", and then went on about a business plan.
>
>Ask them about the free version of RC4 which is circulating.  If they say
>it is patented ask them for the patent number.  Ask them why you should
>pay them big bucks if you can get it for free.

Here's their reply to a similar correspondence:

>The RC4 algorithm is copyrighted by and intellectual property of RSA Data
>Security.  For use of this algorithm in a product or service you plan to
>sell, you may use the RC4 software implementation from our BSAFE toolkit.
>Licenses are not available for other commercial software implementations of
>this algorithm other than what is included in our BSAFE toolkit.

I wasn't aware that you could copyright an algorithm.  Patent, yes, but not
copyright.  Intellectual property meens secret, right?  Aren't there any
precendence cases involving propriety schemes that are reverse engineered?
I know there have been, I just can't remember what they are.  In any case,
RSADSI is likely to sue anyone who attempts to use the RC4 code openly, and
even if they lose there are considerable legal fees involved for whoever
tries it.  What if a bunch of people put secure HTTPd servers online at the
same time, without any clear trail pointing to the first one?  If the RC4
code really is legal to use, this would make it hard for RSADSI to pinpoint
anyone to sue, thus eliminating the intimidation factor.

By the way, since RSA is such a vocal opponent of the Clipper chip on the
grounds of its secret Skipjack algorithm, why does it market secret
algorithms like RC4 and RC2?  Does this seen like a double face to anyone
else?

-----------------------------------------------------------
Russell Ross                     email: rross@sci.dixie.edu
1260 N 1280 W                    voice: (801)628-8146
St. George, UT 84770-4953

Russell Ross writes:
> In any case,
> RSADSI is likely to sue anyone who attempts to use the RC4 code openly, and
> even if they lose there are considerable legal fees involved for whoever
> tries it.

I'll just have to put it into my IPSP implementation, then. I am more
than willing to pay a few tens of thousands to lawyers for this
particular purpose. I will produce a text description of the algorithm
and have an intern re-implement it from scratch just to make sure --
I'll probably prepare some notarized documents attesting to the
development methodology, too.  It will be fun to see if Jim Bidzos
actually tries to pull something under those circumstances.

Perry

On Wed, 26 Jul 1995, Russell Ross wrote:

> I wasn't aware that you could copyright an algorithm.  Patent, yes, but not
> copyright.  Intellectual property meens secret, right?  Aren't there any
> precendence cases involving propriety schemes that are reverse engineered?
> I know there have been, I just can't remember what they are. 

There was one a few years back with a special chip in Nintendo cartridges 
that you needed to buy from them... it was against a company called Atari 
(no, not THAT atari (i think)), and was decided in Atari's favor.

Hope that helps...
Jon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lasser                <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu>            (410) 494-3253 
          Visit my home page at http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/
  You have a friend at the NSA: Big Brother is watching. Finger for PGP key.

> 
> On Wed, 26 Jul 1995, Russell Ross wrote:
> 
> > I wasn't aware that you could copyright an algorithm.  Patent, yes, but not
> > copyright.  Intellectual property meens secret, right?  Aren't there any
> > precendence cases involving propriety schemes that are reverse engineered?
> > I know there have been, I just can't remember what they are. 
> 
> There was one a few years back with a special chip in Nintendo cartridges 
> that you needed to buy from them... it was against a company called Atari 
> (no, not THAT atari (i think)), and was decided in Atari's favor.

There has only been one company called "Atari".  They did split between home
computers and video games/PC game software when Jack Tramiel left Commodore
and bought Atari.

I thought that it wasn't decided in Atari's favor, but maybe I didn't hear
the final word.  I believe that they used a form of rom access that they
had patented and restricted producers by only licensing roms to those
they wanted.

If I remember, it had something to do with address auto-increment.

I always wondered how the 'Game Genie' people got enough information
to do what they did.  (A true 'wedge' cartridge that you could program
codes into for all games to give extra lives, hard to find abilities,
change parameters, etc.)

> Hope that helps...
> Jon
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Lasser                <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu>            (410) 494-3253 
>           Visit my home page at http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/
>   You have a friend at the NSA: Big Brother is watching. Finger for PGP key.

sdw
-- 
Stephen D. Williams 25Feb1965 VW,OH (FBI ID) sdw@lig.net http://www.lig.net/sdw
Consultant, Vienna,VA Mar95- 703-918-1491W 43392 Wayside Cir.,Ashburn, VA 22011
OO/Unix/Comm/NN       ICBM/GPS: 39 02 37N, 77 29 16W home, 38 54 04N, 77 15 56W
Pres.: Concinnous Consulting,Inc.;SDW Systems;Local Internet Gateway Co.;28May95