Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3196 comp.misc:12647 comp.dcom.modems:9890
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!midway!news
From: geyer@galton.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.misc,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: hayes lawsuit
Message-ID: <1991May22.003451.9886@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 22 May 91 00:34:51 GMT
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress)
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 26


In article <1991May20.032227.20127@midway.uchicago.edu> I wrote:

  I see no reason whatsoever to fear that RSA would have been kept as a
  trade secret if software patents had not been invented by the courts.
  R, S, and A are academics.  They have to publish or perish, not so?
  The patents are held by their universities, which are mainly in the
  business of free intellectual inquiry the last time I checked.  This

In article <1991May20.172012.9445@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com
(Kee Hinckley) writes:

>The RSA patent is held by a private company.  Last time we checked
>they were licensing permission to use it for about $20K + royalties.

Several recent postings have said that the patents were granted to Stanford
and MIT.  They may be assigned to some private company for the purpose of
making money, but the behavior of the universities is still deplorable.

By the way, are these patents making money? or just holding up the widespread
use of public key cryptography for another ten years.

Charles Geyer
Department of Statistics
University of Chicago
geyer@galton.uchicago.edu