Cryptography-Digest Digest #726, Volume #12 Wed, 20 Sep 00 14:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: Software patents are evil. (Bill Unruh)
Re: Software patents are evil. (Bill Unruh)
Re: Proper way to intro a new algorithm to sci.crypt? (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Software patents are evil. (Terry Ritter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Software patents are evil.
Date: 20 Sep 2000 17:05:20 GMT
In <RrBx5.8171$hu1.1645@client> "Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>So if someone else implemented encryption using RC5 before the patent ran
>out, there would have been no problem with that?
>What exactly is owned then, if it isn't the algorithm? A hardware device
>only? Can I implement the same algorithm without fear of reprisal?
What is owned is the right to make a device or program to accomplish
certain ends via a series of mathematical operations. I have not read
the claims of the RC5 patent, so do not know what is claimed. But let us
assume that what is claimed is the use of a certain sequence of
mathemtical operations on an input to produce an encrypted output. Then
I am perfectly at liberty to use exactly those same sequence of
operations to produce say a random number generator for use in my
physics simulations. It is not the algorithm which is patented but the
use of that algorithm to accomplish certain ends, in this case
cryptography. Just as the paper clip patents did not patent the bending
of wire, but the bending of wire to accomplish certain ends, namely the
production of a paper clip with certain properties.
(I am not a lawyer, so the above is not legal advice. If you have
anything riding on it, please consult a lawyer)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Software patents are evil.
Date: 20 Sep 2000 17:12:32 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Runu Knips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
]Not to note that using rotation is the oldest concept of
]encryption, even the first of all ciphers, the caesar one, was
]a rotation in 26 alphabetic characters, this patent was also given
]long after, for example, DES has been published (DES rotates the
]key bits), and this is a practical example how people patent maths.
]If you can get a patent on "using rotation in encryption", you
]can also get a patent on any piece of math you wish, don't you ?
]Why don't you patent "using addition in mercantile computations
]to get the sum of something" ? Hey, its patentable ! Maybe
]nobody has been so original to patent it yet ! But I'm not sure
]about that, of course.
You can get a patent on obvious stuff because the people working in the
patent office are sometimes incompetent. That is why a granting of a
patent is not final. The valididty of the patent can and often has been
successfully challenged.
]> Patents an copyrights are both monopoly rights granted by the govenment.
]> They may have a social benefit. They also have a social cost, as the
]> USSR found in their granting of monopoly rights to businesses. Society
]> should make sure that they get back a lot for the grant of such monopoly
]> rights.
]Software patents will, for example, destroy free software if we
]can't hinder it. I can't see how you want to get such losses
]back.
The argument is that what you get back is increased inventiveness in
return for the granting of limited monopoly. Whether such is needed in
the software industry is something which has been debated far too
little. My own feeling is that no encouragement is needed for
inventiveness in software, that patents do hinder in that area more than
they help. this is something which needs social debate. Instead it is
largely companies and individuals arguing that have a natural right to
monopoly power. There is no such natural right.
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Proper way to intro a new algorithm to sci.crypt?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:55:42 +0200
Albert Yang wrote:
>
> Can anybody give me a quick run-through of the proper way to introduce a
> new algorithm to Sci.crypt?
I think it is conceivable that responses you have got
are not very satisfactory for your original need. Thus
I'll try a bit on my part to see if I could eventually
do better:
Give a good English description of your algorithm.
To ease comprehension, you may do it in two phases.
In the first phase, give a concise sketch, indicating
what you think are the specically interesting
features of you cipher. In the second phase, give
sufficiently detailed elaborations such that
a third person with good programming experiences
can independently do an implementation. If you
employ some constants, explain exactly how you have
obtained these, so that others may reproduce them
and hence it is clear that there are no backdoors
behind these constants. (Don't follow the very bad
examples of DES and AES in this connection!) If
something is well described in an easily accessible
paper, it is sufficient to simply provide a reference
and assume that the reader knows it. Soruce codes
need not be provided and are in fact undesirable
for bandwidth reason. To better illustrate some
intricate points, you could use some short pieces
of pseudo-code. Never post examples of ciphertext
with challenges for others to crack. Nover vaunt
that your cipher is unbreakable or that your ideas
are genious or revolutionary, for these are
certainly illusions stemming from one's own limited
knowledge.
M. K. Shen
=====================
http://home.t-online.de/home/mok-kong.shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter)
Subject: Re: Software patents are evil.
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:57:47 GMT
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:21:49 GMT, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
sci.crypt Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Terry Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Patents grant ownership of the manufacture, sale or use, but mainly
>: sale for use. Society appears to believe this will encourage
>: invention and that such is a worthwhile goal. Patents also provide an
>: economic basis for new ideas to transition into the old society
>: structure. Note that all of this occurs at virtually no public cost
>: except to those who consider the expense of the new thing to be
>: reasonable, even in the context of an established market.
>
>"Virtually no public cost"?
>
>Who funds the patent office?
The US PTO is self-supporting from fees. It doesn't take money from
the treasury, it puts money in.
The cost of patents is factored into the cost of an item. When
somebody purchases that item -- with the hidden patent load -- they
are testifying that the item provides what they want at the cost they
want to pay better than the alternative. It is not at all unusual for
a patented thing to be better and no more expensive than unpatented
versions.
Patents reward successful research. If we have a situation where
patents are ineffective, the only research we get is what happens for
free. I am satisfied that this is by far the lesser research that
normally happens in a technical industry.
>Also, the lawsuits and lawyers patents result in result in internal
>friction in the economy. Large sums of money are spent by businesses
>sueing one another over patent disputes. This money winds up in the
>pockets of the lawyers.
Patent infringement is hardly the major source of lawsuits. Most
suits are undertaken with the hope of winning a financial advantage,
in the context of a possible loss. It is a business decision. The
real money ends up in the hands of owners and management; lawyers are
just a cost of doing business.
>Personally, I don't think the benefits justify the costs. I think that
>if the government got it's oar out of the commercial sector, in both
>the copyright and patent arenas, the whole country would benefit.
Players who effectively have a monopoly position do not need patents
-- they already have what a patent can provide. Instead, it is the
little guy who must confront the existing market who can best benefit
from a patent.
A patent can prevent a new idea from being copied by the current
market leader who already has management, production and distribution
in place. We can claim that it is unambiguously good to have new
ideas in products, but without patent protection, those who are
spending their life finding new ideas are not the ones who are
profiting from them. We have seen this in computing.
I would argue that it is the general lack of patents in software which
has allowed the present undesirable situation to develop and continue.
>It's in the nature of bureaucracies to graw larger and more powerful.
>The legal system is just such a bureaucracy - and to my eyes it shows
>severe signs of bloat in the area of intellectual property. I think
>these two branches should be severed at their roots, and all the
>associated lawyers put on the streets.
Having had some interesting business experiences, I am no fan of
lawyers.
But, short of changing the entire legal system (which I think should
be looked at), only lawyers have the knowledge needed to make the
current system work. This system is all we have to protect individual
rights against virtually unlimited power without integrity or
conscience. So until we get something better, we would be wise to
support what we have.
---
Terry Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.io.com/~ritter/
Crypto Glossary http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and sci.crypt) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
