Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!think!ames!aurora!labrea!rocky!andy
From: andy@rocky.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.misc
Subject: Re: public key encryption and RSA patent status
Message-ID: <622@rocky.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Mon, 28-Sep-87 04:01:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocky.622
Posted: Mon Sep 28 04:01:12 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Sep-87 02:44:08 EDT
References: <106@lll-risky.arpa>
Reply-To: andy@rocky.UUCP (Andy Freeman)
Organization: Stanford University Computer Science Department
Lines: 29
Keywords: RSA patent
Xref: utgpu sci.crypt:535 comp.misc:1192

In article <106@lll-risky.arpa> tjt@lll-tis.arpa (Tim Tessin) writes:
[He quoted the abstract of the patent.  Someone tell him that
 facts are less important than uninformed opinion. :)

 Surprise!  The abstract says that it covers the use of one function
 for encryption.  The patent doesn't claim to cover other functions
 with similar properties.]

[He then discusses the impact of this patent.]

>Barring any procedural errors MIT and RSA made in obtaining the patent
>(a low probability) and barring excruciating analysis of the patent to
>determine just exactly how one might implement a crypto-system without
>infringment, the legal-eagles say you're screwed.

If that the abstract is a fair representation of what the patent
actually covers, the RSA patent is quite narrow.  It covers the use
of ONE trapdoor function.  Devices that work with RSA encryption systems
are covered, but devices/programs that use other functions are not.

So, what are the relevant properties (to encryption) of the function RSA
chose?  What are other functions with these properties?

-andy
-- 
Andy Freeman
UUCP:  {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!sushi.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:  andy@sushi.stanford.edu
(415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle