Re: RSA and libcrypt for COMMERCIAL use

[Peter Galbavy <Peter.Galbavy@knowledge.com>]

On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 10:01:36AM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
> > [ RSA developed with federal money, then patented, but it's ok
> >   because the government can use it ]
> 
>     Always has fascinated my how the US taxpayer puts up with that 
> sort of thing. 

At least in the US (and I guess Canada, from you comment) there is
some form of control of ownership of products and IP developed using
public funds. In the UK, the usual way of doing things is to get a
research grant, develop a product or idea and then run away with the
patent etc. This is nasty, evil and a fact of life.

>     Unless RSA Inc. renews it. You can renew patents in the US.
> You're a fool if you believe that both RSA Inc. wouldn't have the
> financial interest in doing it, and that the nice folks in the NSA
> wouldn't be more than willing to help grease the skids for it. This
> given that the patent is a more effective way of preventing widespread
> deployment of strong crypto than the ITAR Regs are.

I would have thought that those people on sci.crypt would have noticed
this. There musdt be some limitations ?

Regards,
-- 
Peter Galbavy
Knowledge Matters Ltd
http://www.knowledge.com/