Cryptography-Digest Digest #729, Volume #12 Wed, 20 Sep 00 19:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: BUG in CryptLib 3.0. Is there a fix? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A conjecture - thoughts? (Anton Stiglic)
Re: SUN SPOT 6.51 BILLION square kilometers in size (Eugene Griessel)
Even-Mansour extension? (Doug Kuhlman)
Re: Quasi Algorithms / Quasi Functions and Polymorph Encryption [an (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Quasi Algorithms / Quasi Functions and Polymorph Encryption [an (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Questions about how to run a contest (Doug Kuhlman)
Re: Music Industry wants hacking information for cheap (zapzing)
Re: SUN SPOT 6.51 BILLION square kilometers in size (Doug Berry)
Does this mean anything? (JustAsking)
md5 fail -x test under Digital UNIX C Compiler ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Software patents are evil. (Bill Unruh)
Re: ExCSS Source Code (Bill Unruh)
Re: Even-Mansour extension? (David A. Wagner)
Re: CDMA tracking (was Re: GSM tracking) (Jerry Coffin)
Re: Simple hash function (Jerry Coffin)
Re: Stream cipher (Jerry Coffin)
Re: SUN SPOT 6.51 BILLION square kilometers in size ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Tying Up Loose Ends - Correction ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Software patents are evil. ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Software patents are evil. ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: Software patents are evil. ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BUG in CryptLib 3.0. Is there a fix?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:59:28 GMT
Question resolved
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Anton Stiglic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A conjecture - thoughts?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:11:01 -0400
Ian Goldberg wrote:
>
> What do you do when f(x) = x * 2 and g(x) = x * sqrt(3) ?
>
> - Ian
That's an interesting example.
You won't get an answer of the form b(x_0, x) = cx + x_0,
for any c, because you end up with
b(x_0, x)^i = (i-1)*c*x,
but you won't get 2*x and sqrt(3)*x for some pair
(i,j) of exponents (this is a side effect of the fact
that the additive group of the field R (Reals) is not
cyclic).
Same thing if you look at the form b(x_0, x) = cx,
since the mult. group of R is not cyclic.
Note: maybe there is some other form for which you
could get the answer, but from a quick look I don't
see any.
Looks like you could have better luck if you work in a
field where the add. and mult. group are cyclic (Z is a
cyclic add. group, for example, or some set having some
similar extra structure).
-- Anton.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eugene Griessel)
Crossposted-To: sci.military.naval,alt.conspiracy,sci.geo.earthquakes
Subject: Re: SUN SPOT 6.51 BILLION square kilometers in size
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:28:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ichinin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Eugene Griessel wrote:
><SNIP>
>
>Let me guess, you want sci.crypt feedback?
Yep - I have rightly been slapped smartly on the wrist and taken to
task by some creature calling itself Stanislav Shalunov who is
indignant that I allowed my drivel to soil its pristine newsgroup.
I immediately tore open an emergency pack of sackcloth and ashes and
have been chastising myself ever since for this dastardly deed of
unpremeditated crossposting. Inbetween beating my breast and
scourging myself I keep asking myself the "why? Oh why? Why must that
particular newsgroup not suffer its share of off-topic crossposts,
lunatic foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy whackos and plain
dyed-in-the-wool clueless newbies?
Eugene L Griessel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
SAAF Crashboat Page - www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/eug3.htm
Snake Page - www.web.netactive.co.za/~sean
------------------------------
From: Doug Kuhlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Even-Mansour extension?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:00:21 -0500
OK, so I've read and sorta understood Biryukov and Wagner's paper on
sliding attacks, specifically implemented against Even-Mansour schemes.
I was wondering about possible exentensions of the E-M scheme and
whether they would be secure. Any advice/comments appreciated.
Throughout, n=# of bits of the scheme,
k = n-bit key
P = a fixed (known) psuedo-random permutation (n bits -> n bits)
m = n-bit message
^ = XOR
Idea #1: ciphertext = P(m ^ k) ^ (k~) where (k~) is k with the bit order
reversed.
Does this still carry the Even-Mansour "guarantee"? Can a sliding
attack (or another attack) work on this?
Idea #2: ciphertext = P(P(m ^ k) ^ k) ^k
How much does the sliding attack "degrade" in this case? Other attack
ideas?
Thanks,
Doug
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quasi Algorithms / Quasi Functions and Polymorph Encryption [an
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:59:00 +0200
Kostadin Bajalcaliev wrote:
>
> I am sorry to say, but the only advice i can give you in order to properly
> understand what we are talking about is to find 16th century dictionary and
> try to find the word computer in it.
But you said that the terms were 'existing' :-) They
are not existing and I showed why they could be very
misleading.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quasi Algorithms / Quasi Functions and Polymorph Encryption [an
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:59:07 +0200
Kostadin Bajalcaliev wrote:
>
> We are not discussing any program implementation right now. I hope you are
> pretty aware about the difference between the syntax and semantic of a given
> structure. Using case, union or anything else is just a syntax, a matter of
> implementation. Something more important is what I am trying to express with
> that code.
Do you claim that the specification of a programming
language provides only the syntax of the constructs
and not the semantics?? What you expressed with your
code is, as I explained, commonplace in the codes of
programmers who use such languages as ADA and C++
that support polymorphism. Of cource, these persons
work in other fields, like simulations etc, and you
work in cryptology. But there is fundamentally nothing
novel in carrying over techniques well tried out in
some fields into other fields. Yes, Hitachi has indeed
to obtain a patent of rotations in crypto. But I suppose
most people of this group would agree that that patent
is not well deserved. See however my comment below on
the merit of your paper.
>
> There was different ad-hoc solution in block cipher design, there was also
> some intentional chooses made in others which are similar or may be the same
> with Polymorph encryption. But not many of those designer have explained why
> they have chosen variability and what is the effect of that choice.
>
> We are all perfectly aware that in this cruel world something without a
> strict mathematical definition can not be counted as scientific.
I have explained in the follow-up to Savard that you
presently answered what is the positive (good) side of
the content of your paper. See the following quote.
But beyond that I am sorry to be unable to see additional
essential contributions.
> >from the standpoint of programming. His explicitly
> >pointing out (stressing) the advantage of using
> >polymorphism (because of increase of variability) may
> >on the other hand be considered 'new' in the sense
> >that he calls one's attention to polymorphism as a
> >general technique useful in crypto design and
> >implementation. As you pointed out, you and several
> >others have earlier employed certain polymorphic
> >constructs.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Doug Kuhlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Questions about how to run a contest
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:29:11 -0500
Sylvain,
I just want to thank you for being civil and listening to what people
here said. Too many people claim their algorithm is wonderful without
giving code or anything. I think your contest is hard (but, hey! It's
your money) but at least it gives analysts a shot (better than the SDMI
contest and they're supposed to be professionals). You've been a
pleasant breeze....
Doug
------------------------------
From: zapzing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Music Industry wants hacking information for cheap
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:55:23 GMT
In article <8q8ap9$jfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Sagie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I suppose your one of those guys that actually do acquire DVDs
from
> your own region alone? ;)
>
> Seriously now, any type of content restriction that has been
presented,
> to this date, is already defeated/ignored. I suppose you did not know
this,
> but your audio CDs also contain a copy-protect flag that theoretically
> should have stopped any CD ripping action from taking place. The point
is
> that nobody cares about it, just as most DVD players don't care much
about
> regions. This is the same future that is expected for this SDMI.
>
I suspect that some high up industry executive,
fearful for his job, knows this, but told some of
his underlings, who also know this, to "Do
something about this mess", so he could look like
he was doing something, and so on and so forth.
SDMI is a joke and almost everyone knows it except
for some poor investors in record companies.
Widows and orphans, probably.
--
Void where prohibited by law.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Doug Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.military.naval,alt.conspiracy,sci.geo.earthquakes
Subject: Re: SUN SPOT 6.51 BILLION square kilometers in size
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:15:18 -0700
And lo, it came to pass on Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:28:40 GMT that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eugene Griessel), wrote thusly:
>Yep - I have rightly been slapped smartly on the wrist and taken to
>task by some creature calling itself Stanislav Shalunov who is
>indignant that I allowed my drivel to soil its pristine newsgroup.
I'm sort of confused as to what sort of conspriacy is inviolved
in creating sunspots. Or why geo.earhtquakes is included. And
why isn't sci.astro on this list?
--
Douglas E. Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Hear the voices in my head, swear to God it sounds like
they're snoring." -Harvey Danger, "Flagpole Sitta"
------------------------------
From: JustAsking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Does this mean anything?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:18:36 -0400
Don't know if this has been mentioned (i'm sure it has, but anyway...)
ANY product of two primes has only 4 divisors: 1, [prime1], [prime2],
and itself. Look at the following:
[aPerfectSquare] - [aProductOfTwoPrimes] = [anotherPerfectSquare]
When the above equation holds true, the two primes are:
prime1 = sqRt(aPerfectSquare) - sqRt(anotherPerfectSquare)
prime2 = sqRt(aPerfectSquare) + sqRt(anotherPerfectSquare)
So we have aProductOfTwoPrimes (N).
Take a seed number of sqr(aProductOfTwoPrimes)+1 (S).
Loop
T = S^2 - N
if sqr(T) is an integer, end loop, calculate prime1 and prime2
S = S + 1
until ??
comments?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: md5 fail -x test under Digital UNIX C Compiler
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:25:16 GMT
Hi!
I have md5 running on Alpha and it fails md5 -x self-test producing
garbage instead of the expected digest.
The version of md5 was taken from
http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/crypto-security.html#Algorithms
(as distributed by RSA DSI)
Here is the cc version info:
Digital UNIX Compiler Driver 3.11
DEC C V5.9-005 on Digital UNIX V4.0 (Rev. 1229)
Operating system: OSF1 V4.0 1229 alpha
I assume it is not an algorithm bug, most likely the compiler,
but I can't figure out what is going on. Any suggestions ?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Software patents are evil.
Date: 20 Sep 2000 21:32:28 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter) writes:
>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.
Horseshit. The whole scientific edifice is founded on patent and copyright free
publishing, an industry which underlies the whole technical industry.
Patents have a place, but should constantly be reviewed as to whether or
not they fulfill their purpose of stimulating research and innovation
because they reveal the invention, or stultify it because of the
monopoly powers they grant. I think in the software field there is no
evidence that the present patent situation stimulates more than
stultifies.
>I would argue that it is the general lack of patents in software which
>has allowed the present undesirable situation to develop and continue.
Most patents in any area go to big established companies. What is the
undesireable situation you see in computing? That the industry has taken
over a substantial share of the economy in 15 years?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: ExCSS Source Code
Date: 20 Sep 2000 21:36:47 GMT
In <8qb30m$cr3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bryan Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Who ever said it isn't player control? The PURPOSE is the
>question. We've now come full circle and what you say above
>seems to agree with what the industry said all along. The
>system has all those controls you list, for the purpose of
>controlling access to copyrighted works.
The whole purpose in copyright is to free access to copyrighted works,
not to control them It does so by controlling copying so that the person
can feel free to make them accessible. Access control is contrary to the
theoretical basis of copyright. Copy control may not be, but access
control is. CSS controls access, it does not control copying. It should
be thrown out under the copyright act for that very reason.
>The reality is that CSS is part of a system of technical
>measures to control access to copyrighted works. That does
>not settle the question of whether the DMCA is
>constitutional or fair or well-written. What it does mean is
>that DeCSS violates the DMCA.
So does anything. So do computers since they allow one to take a work
published on a CDrom and copy it to a floppy. Should we therefor outlaw
all computers? Access control does not belong in any copyright act.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David A. Wagner)
Subject: Re: Even-Mansour extension?
Date: 20 Sep 2000 14:52:48 -0700
Doug Kuhlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Idea #1: ciphertext = P(m ^ k) ^ (k~) where (k~) is k with the bit order
> reversed.
> Does this still carry the Even-Mansour "guarantee"? Can a sliding
> attack (or another attack) work on this?
The sliding attack works against the general Even-Mansour scheme,
c = P(m^k) ^ k', where k,k' are arbitrary pieces of key material,
so yes, it works against the case where k' = k~, too. The attack
complexity, as in the original Even-Mansour scheme, is 2^{n/2} texts
and 2^{n/2} time for the analysis, for a n-bit permutation P.
> Idea #2: ciphertext = P(P(m ^ k) ^ k) ^k
> How much does the sliding attack "degrade" in this case? Other attack
> ideas?
Hmm. I don't think this helps -- I think it is no more secure than
Even-Mansour. The slide attack can be extended to break this scheme,
with similar complexity to the original attack against Even-Mansour.
The trick is to set up a slide relation as depicted here:
k
P
k k
P P
k k
P
k
The left-hand column represents an encryption of message m to ciphertext c;
the right-hand represents encryption of m' to c'. To form a slid pair,
we hope that m' = P(m^k); when this is true, we will have c' = P(c)^k.
Thus, if we let Q denote the inverse of the permutation P, we have
Q(m') ^ c' = (m^k) ^ (P(c)^k) = m ^ P(c)
for a slid pair.
Consequently, we may store Q(m')^c' in a lookup table for each known text
(p',c'), and store m^P(c) for each text (p,c), and look for collisions as
in the original slide attack. Each such collision discloses a possible
slid pair, and each slid pair discloses the key k.
The total complexity is 2^{n/2} known texts and 2^{n/2} time for the analysis.
------------------------------
From: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CDMA tracking (was Re: GSM tracking)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:29:26 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, roger_95073@my-
dejanews.com says...
> Jerry Coffin wrote:
> > IIRC, it receives, but does not normally transmit.
>
> Suppose I live in Calif, and I drive to Vegas and back with
> my CDMA phone in the car. With live batteries but turned off
> the entire time.
>
> Is there any electronic evidence that I left Calif? You say
> the phone doesn't transmit while off, but conceivably it
> could keep a record of where I have been and report it the
> next time the phone is turned on or there is a live connection.
The phone keeps a list of the base stations it most recently
received, so yes, there would usually be a record of your having left
home. Since it would get updated as you traveled back home, chances
of still having a Las Vegas base station in the list by the time you
made it back to somewhere on the coast would be essentially nil.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
From: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Simple hash function
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:29:22 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> dexMilano wrote:
>
> > I'm loloking a very simple/fast hash function to identify if a record in a
> > table has been modified since last check.
>
> Hash functions are practically always approximate -- that is, you just
> might get a false positive or negative.
At least as usually used, a hash can only be wrong in one direction.
The strings might be different even if the hashes are the same, but
they strings are definitely different if the hashes are different.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
From: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stream cipher
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:29:21 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I am trying to implement a stream cipher with low resource requirements
> > [...] the encryption algorithm should be free and not patented (no RC4
> > or SEAL or Shareware).
>
> RSADSI has a trademark and trade secret "RC4". Because the algorithm has
> been published anonymously 1994 in this newsgroup, it isn't a secret
> anymore. Everyone can use it freely IF AND ONLY IF one calls it
> "Arcfour"
> instead of "RC4", because RSADSI still has the trademark on "RC4".
You're NOT required to call it "Arcfour" by any means -- you simply
can't call it "RC4". If you decide to call it "Joe-Bob's cool
encryption", that's perfectly legal. Of course, you might _want_ to
use a name that implies the alleged relationship with RC4, but that's
an entirely separate question.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:50:12 -0400
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.military.naval,alt.conspiracy,sci.geo.earthquakes
Subject: Re: SUN SPOT 6.51 BILLION square kilometers in size
Eugene Griessel wrote:
> Ichinin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Eugene Griessel wrote:
> ><SNIP>
> >
> >Let me guess, you want sci.crypt feedback?
>
> Yep - I have rightly been slapped smartly on the wrist and taken to
> task by some creature calling itself Stanislav Shalunov who is
> indignant that I allowed my drivel to soil its pristine newsgroup.
> I immediately tore open an emergency pack of sackcloth and ashes and
> have been chastising myself ever since for this dastardly deed of
> unpremeditated crossposting. Inbetween beating my breast and
> scourging myself I keep asking myself the "why? Oh why? Why must that
> particular newsgroup not suffer its share of off-topic crossposts,
> lunatic foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy whackos and plain
> dyed-in-the-wool clueless newbies?
While I sympathize with your victimhood (in re chastisement) I doubt you'd
profit by an exchange eccentrics. The sc entertainers (*) tend to be both
newbies and whackos, so reasoning with them is a challenge.
(*) you know, turn lemons into lemonade.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:55:25 -0400
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tying Up Loose Ends - Correction
Tim Tyler wrote:
> John Savard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : I think that trying to remove redundancy as far as possible is a good
> : idea. While I disagree with Mr. Scott on one detail on his 1-1 scheme []
>
> It seems that any technique which takes a bitstreams and converts them
> reversibly to files of 8-bit bytes will exhibit some statistical
> anomolies, of the type I believe you're objecting to.
>
> Any system which attempts to avoid such artefacts completely seems
> obliged to use some sort of random padding.
>
> John's scheme proposes adding such padding after coompressing, and before
> encryption.
>
> An alternative - which I've not seen discussed on this forum - would be
> to use an encryption device which is capable of encrypting variable length
> bitstrings, and is not confined to multiples of 8 bits. I attribute this
> idea to David Scott.
>
> Indeed - if dealing with the output of an arithmetic compressor, files
> of a fractional number of bits in length are also possible - i.e. a
> message may be 10.5 bits long.
>
> After the compresssed file is encrypted, it can be safely padded out with
> zeros, to a byte boundary without any security concerns. If you want to
> obscure the length of the file from your adversary, as much random padding
> as you like can be used at this stage.
The fails to meet his criteria that any bitstream be both plain and compressed
text.
>
>
> It seems that this would removes concerns of known plaintext occurring as
> a result of padding with zeros (or padding with less-than-random "random"
> data).
>
> The downside, appears to be that most modern block cyphers can't easily
> handle arbitrary-length files (unless you use them as stream cyphers
> in OFB mode, or something).
> --
> __________ http://alife.co.uk/ http://mandala.co.uk/
> |im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hex.org.uk/ http://atoms.org.uk/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:01:53 -0400
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Software patents are evil.
Terry Ritter wrote:
> 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.
Not quite. To make the preceding sentence accurate one needs to insert
"public" prior to "research". Vast amounts of research would still occur,
but every research lab would be a skunk works, and trade secrecy would
dominate good engineering. No thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:03:59 -0400
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Software patents are evil.
Dann Corbit wrote:
> "Terry Ritter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snip]
> > 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.
>
> And yet it is the huge conglomerates like IBM and AT&T that own almost all
> of the software patents. Really small operators cannot afford the legal
> battles that can ensue.
In general this is false. Really small operators with good cases have no
problem finding legal representation against deep pockets. In fact the problem
is very much in the other direction as regards lawyer-driven inequity.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:10:31 -0400
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Software patents are evil.
Bill Unruh wrote:
> Most patents in any area go to big established companies.
This is an irrelevant factoid. Comparing the numbers of patents to the amount of
effort (research $) would normalize the number into a somewhat useful statistic.
But all such statistics will be distorted by the presence of ego patents, patents
needed to justify IPOs or share prices, and the unreasonably large fraction that
are just plain idiocy.
The "working" patents -- those on which businesses are based -- are the interesting
ones for evaluating the utility of the patent system. Since the US leads the world
in patents and seems to be at least as healthy as other developed countries, there
is reason to believe the patent system is a beneficial influence on our society.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
