Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cubsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!rna!cubsvax!winston
From: winston@cubsvax.UUCP (Ken Winston)
Newsgroups: net.crypt
Subject: RSA cryptographic algorithm patented?
Message-ID: <358@cubsvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Sep-85 20:37:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: cubsvax.358
Posted: Mon Sep  9 20:37:55 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Sep-85 05:08:40 EDT
Organization: Columbia Univ Biology, New York City
Lines: 29

One point that seems quite important to me in this discussion hasn't
been touched on (at least I haven't seen it). That is, how can you patent
something that's already been published and generally distributed?

It seems to me that the RSA article preceded by some years the patenting.
I have a copy of an MIT Laboratory for Computer Science paper by RSA dated
April 1977 (does this make me a criminal?). I'm not sure when they obtained
the patent, but my impression is that it was pretty recent.

The problem here is: suppose, on obtaining the published paper that I said
to myself, "This is a great idea, and it has lots of commercial potential."
I develop a commercial product based on the paper. Then someone comes along
sometime later and tells me that I'm violating a patent that didn't exist
when I read the paper and developed my product.

I notice nothing in the paper about a patent being applied for. I do notice,
however, that the work was supported by the NSF and the Office of Naval
Research, which raises some other questions. Wasn't there a case with the
people who developed Gatorade at the University of Florida having to turn over
their earnings on the commercial product to a government agency that supported
the research?

Anyway, does this mean that one shouldn't try to develop products based on
published papers, because the authors may apply for a patent sometime later
and screw one?

Ken Winston
Winston Capital Management, Inc.
{cubsvax,cmcl2}!wealth!ken