On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Alexander Klimov wrote:
Does anyone know a good survey about ECC patent situation?
I have made a shallow review (comments are welcome!) of the
patents that Certicom claims are pertained to ECC implementation
and it looks like there are no real road-blocks for ECDH and
ECDSA
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:18:14PM +0300, Alexander Klimov wrote:
http://www1.ietf.org/proceedings_new/04nov/slides/saag-2/sld9.htm:
What is Really Covered
o The use of elliptic curves defined over GF(p) where p is a prime
number greater than 2^255 when the product satisfies the
--
Whyte, William [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$25MM figure:
http://lists.jammed.com/ISN/2003/10/0097.html
I stand corrected.
However as was pointed out previously:
: : Further, the license would be limited to only
: : prime field curves where the prime was
: : greater than 2255. On
To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Subject: RE: ECC patents?
--
Whyte, William [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$25MM figure:
http://lists.jammed.com/ISN/2003/10/0097.html
I stand corrected.
However as was pointed out previously:
: : Further, the license would be limited to only
: : prime
http://www1.ietf.org/proceedings_new/04nov/slides/saag-2/sld9.htm:
What is Really Covered
o The use of elliptic curves defined over GF(p) where p is a prime
number greater than 2^255 when the product satisfies the Field of
Use conditions
o Both compressed and
James A. Donald wrote:
--
Whyte, William:
It hints that only some particular curves have been
licensed. It could be that NSA has decided not to buy
a license for the other curves, or it could be that
operations on those curves aren't patented. The
presentation doesn't give enough
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], James A. Donald writes:
--
Whyte, William:
It hints that only some particular curves have been
licensed. It could be that NSA has decided not to buy
a license for the other curves, or it could be that
operations on those curves aren't patented. The
If the NSA paid anything significant for any of the
curves, we would be told.
You were better off not responding; you have lost your credibility on
this topic.
Given
the NSA's history of secrecy; and
the fact that it's common practice to not disclose
(financial) terms
At 09:54 2005-09-15 -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
I doubt that the NSA paid any money whatsoever for this
license, making it profoundly unimpressive as evidence
that *any* curves have a plausible valid patent. If the
NSA paid real money, the patent holders would be
sticking it in our face as a
They paid $25MM.
William
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James A. Donald
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:54 PM
To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Subject: RE: ECC patents?
--
Whyte, William:
It hints that only some
] On Behalf Of James A. Donald
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:54 PM
To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Subject: RE: ECC patents?
--
Whyte, William:
It hints that only some particular curves have been
licensed. It could be that NSA has decided not to buy
a license for the other
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 9:32 AM -0700 9/12/05, James A. Donald wrote:
It has been a long time, and no one has paid out
money on an ECC patent yet.
That's pretty bold statement that folks at Certicom might disagree
with, even before
At 12:18 PM +0300 9/14/05, Alexander Klimov wrote:
This hints that indeed only some particular curves are patented.
It's not just curves. Certicom has patents for some optimizations and
methods for validating the strength of some uses of ECC.
Grepping -list_curves of the new openssl
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:58:14 +0300 (IDT), Alexander Klimov said:
There is also work on ECC for gnupg
http://www.g10code.de/tasklist.html#gcrypt-ecc
Yes, there exists an implementation for an ECC implementation for
GnuPG. The problem is that OpenPGP does not define ECC and thus it
does not
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben Laurie writes:
Alexander Klimov wrote:
But (potential) problem still persists: even if openssl implements ECC
it does not save you from patent issues if they exist.
It does if they are owned by Sun.
It does if *all necessary patent rights* are owned (or
--
Alexander Klimov
But (potential) problem still persists: even if
openssl implements ECC it does not save you from
patent issues if they exist.
Anyone can claim to have patented anything. Someone
recently patented the wheel, to show how bad the
situation is. I think these guys are
On Sep 12, 2005, at 11:32, James A. Donald wrote:
Someone recently patented the wheel, to show how bad the
situation is.
That's a bit misleading without the context. Google patented-the-
wheel for details.
-
The
At 9:32 AM -0700 9/12/05, James A. Donald wrote:
It has been a long time, and no one has paid out
money on an ECC patent yet.
That's pretty bold statement that folks at Certicom might disagree
with, even before
http://www1.ietf.org/proceedings_new/04nov/slides/saag-2/sld1.htm.
--Paul
Anyone can claim to have patented anything. Someone
recently patented the wheel, to show how bad the
situation is.
I agree the system doesn't work well.
I think these guys are just blowing
smoke. It has been a long time, and no one has paid out
money on an ECC patent yet.
NSA licensed
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Ben Laurie wrote:
Alexander Klimov wrote:
ECC is known since 1985 but seems to be absent in popular free
software packages, e.g., neither gnupg nor openssl has it (even if the
relevant patches were created). It looks like the main reason is some
patent uncertainty in
Alexander Klimov wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Ben Laurie wrote:
Alexander Klimov wrote:
ECC is known since 1985 but seems to be absent in popular free
software packages, e.g., neither gnupg nor openssl has it (even if the
relevant patches were created). It looks like the main reason is some
21 matches
Mail list logo
