NODE b0919287RE: Rivest Patent
"Harvey Rook (Exchange)" <hrook@exchange.microsoft.com>Sat, 14 Nov 1998 06:27:01 +0800
It's a little bit more complicated than that. RC-6, which also uses data
dependant rotations is patent free.
Harv.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Cordian [mailto:emc@wire.insync.net]
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 11:25 AM
> To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
> Subject: Re: Rivest Patent
>
>
> JYA writes:
>
> > Ron Rivest received on November 10 "US Patent 5835600:
> > Block encryption algorithm with data-dependent rotations:"
> > http://jya.com/rivest111098.htm (22K)
>
> So we can't use the rotate instruction with a data-dependent shift
> count in a block encryption algorithm without a license from Ron?
>
> Foo on that.
>
> --
> Sponsor the DES Analytic Crack Project
> http://www.cyberspace.org/~enoch/crakfaq.html
>
NODE c37df31eRe: Rivest Patent
Eric Cordian <emc@wire.insync.net>Sat, 14 Nov 1998 07:46:31 +0800
Harvey Rook writes:
> It's a little bit more complicated than that. RC-6, which also uses data
> dependant rotations is patent free.
Wasn't that a requirement for being an AES submission?
As you may have guessed, I'm not a fan of permitting software to be
patented. Particularly things like RSA for which obvious prior art
existed, and the plethora of microprocessor patents which cover things
like doing branch prediction and switching instruction sets in absurdly
obvious and simple ways. Then you have the resulting silly lawsuits over
the silly patents and other innovation-suppressing and time-wasting
exercises.
The corporate "Push to Patent" is remarkably similar to the academic "Push
to Publish." 90% of the output of either is not worth reading.
--
Sponsor the DES Analytic Crack Project
http://www.cyberspace.org/~enoch/crakfaq.html