Re: RC4

Hi,

>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?

Game cartridges (I think sega was involved)

  Wolfgang
---
Dipl.-Wirtsch.-Inf.	Voice:	+49 261 6509 173
Wolfgang Roeckelein	Fax:	+49 261 6509 179
WHU Koblenz		E-Mail:	roeckelein@wi.whu-koblenz.de
Burgplatz 2			(NeXTmail ok)
D-56179 Vallendar	WWW:	http://www.whu-koblenz.de/~wolfgang/
Germany
--rsa--------------------------------8<-------------------------------------
#!/usr/local/bin/perl -s-- -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-in-3-lines-PERL
($k,$n)=@ARGV;$m=unpack(H.$w,$m."\0"x$w),$_=`echo "16do$w 2+4Oi0$d*-^1[d2%
Sa2/d0<X+d*La1=z\U$n%0]SX$k"[$m*]\EszlXx++p|dc`,s/^.|\W//g,print pack('H*'
,$_)while read(STDIN,$m,($w=2*$d-1+length($n||die"$0 [-d] k n\n")&~1)/2)
-------------------------------------8<-------------------------------------
TRY: echo squeamish ossifrage | rsa -e 3 7537d365 | rsa -d 4e243e33 7537d365
Residents of the USA & France *MUST NOT* include this .sig if following up!
*** Residents of France & Russia *MUST NOT* make any use of this -sig !  ***

Wolfgang Roeckelein writes:
    >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?

    Game cartridges (I think sega was involved)

You might be referring to Nintendo vs. Galoob, which was used as a
sample case in an January 1994 article in the Communications of the
ACM titled "Copyright's Fair use Doctrine and Digital Data".  The
article states

    Nintendo charged Lewis Galoob Toys with contributory copyright
    infringement because Galoob's Game Genie allowed users to alter
    certain aspects of the play of Nintendo video games....
    Nintendo's theory was that Galoob provided consumers with a device
    knowing they would use it to alter the audiovisual sequences of
    the Nintendo games, thereby creating an unauthorized derivative
    work.  Galoob argued fair use in defense.

Nintendo lost the case mostly because Nintendo wasn't going to lose
any money over the device -- after all, you still have to buy the game
cartridge....

As for the quoted material, "Intellectual property meens [sic]
secret" is quite mistaken.  Copyright and patents are the two most
common forms of intellectual property (AFAIK), and neither of them are
secret (unless they're classified patents, but never mind...).