Cryptography-Digest Digest #752, Volume #12 Sat, 23 Sep 00 06:13:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Software patents are evil. ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: IBM analysis secret. (Roger Schlafly)
Re: Tying Up Loose Ends - Correction (Tim Tyler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 04:59:14 -0400
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Software patents are evil.
I seem to have missed the preceding couple of messages. Usenet in action I suppose.
There are a couple of observations worth making:
1. Patents are not monopolies. They protect intellectual property not business
entities. Trade secrecy would seem to be a better target for monopolistic claims in
that the life of a trade secret is unbounded.
2. Using the USSR as a foundation for attacking the patent system is silly. The
dominant characteristic of the economy of the USSR was the lack of incentives. The
patent system is by design an incentive system. Thus the existence of the patent
system is for precisely the opposite of the reasons for the economic failure of the
USSR
3. The USSR was not an attempt to set up a fairer economic system, although that
claim has been widely spread. It was a tyranny. Check the official definition of
the term pravda (truth). It means "whatever will foster success". This is fairly
orthogonal to our concept of truth as a relationship between axioms and theorems
(math) or reality and statements (science).
4. The example in re coffee is particularly malformed. We do not grant monopolies
on coffee. We grant monopolies on improvements to coffee to encourage the
development of superior coffee. The example is reminiscent of the British
experience with monopolies. Essentially the Queen granted a huge list of monopolies
like importing salt to her friends. The ensuing economic distortion (strangulation)
and resentment are characteristic of the experience of living in the USSR. See also
the British Navigation Acts (long defunct) and our Merchant Marine laws (still
killing the shipping industry)..
The patent system is the exact polar opposite of this kind of thing. Given an
patent on improved coffee, everyone can still sell regular coffee. They just can't
sell improved coffee without the permission of the patent holder. This is _not_ a
monopoly on coffee.
5. The term monopoly is a distraction. The issue is not whether monopolies should
be granted or not, but whether incentives for innovation should exist. If
incentives should exist then time-limited monopolies can be used as incentives. So
can other things. But state-supported R&D is notoriously bad. Guess what country's
decline most clearly demonstrates that?
6. The claim "you rapidly have to be best or you are out" [of the software business]
is false by inspection. Consider IBM at its peak. It was far from the best at
hardware or software development. People knew and understood that. Yet they were
not "out". Consider Microsoft which, in spite of the incredibly bad software, seems
not to be "out". (N.B. I assume there is no dispute that we can take the statements
of Microsoft(R)'s product development managers to the effect that there is no reason
to fix bugs as evidence of the low quality of their products.)
7. Patents are not barriers to competition. They expire. New and better techniques
are invented even before they expire. Thus they are a way of _scoring_ the
competition.
8. I think the suggestion that patents do not lead to improvements should be
withdrawn rather than disputed. Thus MU.
9. The harping upon the bad side effects of monopolies and government mandates has
little or nothing to do with patents. The system is only supposed to secure
intellectual property, not dictate business.
The distinction can be seen by postulating the suspension of all laws securing real
property. There's a fixed supply and it is "the common heritage of all mankind"
according to the United Nations, so we should all share it equally. And live in
tents, mud huts, or caves. No thanks.
Paul Pires wrote:
[...]
> > ]> Low quality is almost always due to a lack of comptetition, not a lack
> > ]> of intellectual property rights. The USSR had immense itelletual and
> > ]> other property rights protections-- manufacturers were handed monopolies
> > ]> on all kinds of goods. There is no evidence whatsoever that this
> > ]> resulted in the manufacturers spending time and effort to make sure that
> > ]> their products were the best possible. Just the reverse.
> >
> > ]Why do you continually insert the monopoly practices of the former USSR into
> > ]the discussion? What, it happend there so it could happen here? The issue
> isn't
> > ]whether state sanction monopolistic practices are good or bad but whether
> > ]the particular one under discussion is. Hey, they were bad. Guess what, they
> > ]are gone. Move on.
> >
> > Because it is an example of a country which instituted precisely the
> > kind of restrictions on the economic system, for reasons which are very
> > similar to the reasons which you give.
>
>
> "Precicely" and "similar"? I don't think so (Just my opinion). Their reasons are
> unimportant, it was their actions that proved to be problematical.
>
> >Of course it is not the same. Of
> > course it differs in detail. But your argument is that monopoly leads to
> > better products for the consumer. My counterargument is that it does
> > not, as has been tested by various countries. One should learn from
> > history, not just "move on" or we will repeat all of the same mistakes.
> > The USSR did not get where it was on purpose or through evil intent. It
> > was trying to set up a much fairer economic system than the predatory,
> > wasteful, exploitative capitalist system, a system which would produce
> > more and better goods for the consumers without the costs of capitalism.
>
> Why it failed is a matter of opinion and I have one different from yours.
>
> > It failed. Monopolies are not a good idea. Patents are monopolies.
>
> > Thus the question arises as to whether the benefits which accrue to
> > society through the conditions set on the monopolies granted by patents
> > outweigh the costs that monopolies invariably bring with themselves.
> > In the case where those benefits do not clearly and demonstrably (not
> > thoeretically) outweigh the costs, monopolies should not be granted, and
> > then should be granted for as short a time as possible and still reap
> > the clear benefits to society.
> >
> > In my opinion software patents do not fulfill these criteria. They grant
> > monopolies without a clear benefit ( except of course to the
> > monopolist).
> >
> > YOur arguments were all theoretical and of exactly the kind used by the
> > Soviets to justify their experiment.
>
> Bad logic. Just because The rational behind A & B are identical, doesn't
> mean the processes A & B are identical. Both of our arguments are equally
> theoretical. Any claim that you have that history is behind yours is just bad
> science.
> >
>
[...]
> > ]>
> > ]> Yes, just like coffee. We should institute laws that only allow say
> > ]> starbucks to open coffee shops in any city. Think of how great the
> > ]> coffee would be then! Competition does far far more for increasing
> > ]> quality than does nay intellectual property protection.
> >
> > ]Too much prior art for such a grant. The reason it hasn't happend is that the
> > ]process you deride will not allow it. You are citeing its hypothetical
> > ]non-operation
> > ]as an example of its poor operation.
> >
> > No, I am not claiming this as an example where a patent should be
> > granted but an example where one could argue that a monopoly should be
> > granted to bring about the kind of benefits you listed as arising from
> > monopolies.
>
> You miss an intentional limitation of the process. It was designed NOT to
> stop someone from doing something that they have already been doing
> in the public domain. This is very important, a patent should not be issued
> for this example regardless of the hypothetical benefit you cite to mankind.
> >
> > The first question one needs to answer is whether monopolies should be
> > granted at all. (patents and copyright are both monopoly grants). Then,
> > if so, under what conditions should they be granted. My claim is that in
> > the first approximation they should not be granted. They have too many
> > flaws. Competition is far more effective in delivering the consumer
> > goods than is any monopolistic practice.
>
> I have been there, I have a different opinion.
> >
> > If one believes that they should be granted, under what conditions? I
> > believe that the conditions should be very stringent, and that the
> > monopoly should be granted only for as short a time as at all possible
> > in order to reap the supposed benefits to society (not the monopolist).
>
> Now we are to the meat! This is a topic that this group is well equipped to
> Work on. It is very much like a crypto protocol. How do you prevent:
> denial of service, man in the middle, replay attacks and other malicious use.
> It is far more similar than you would think because it is dealing with
> information
> where its value is its unknown (as yet) nature. I think the USPTO could profit
> alot from employing cryppies to consult on reforms. Unfortunately, they wouldn't
> stay on topic very long and would drift of into social engineering.
> >
> > In software I see no evidence whatsoever of any benefit to society of
> > granting such monopolies, and huge costs. People are willing to write
> > software, people are willing to write software for free, and of a very
> > high standard (see Linux as an example). In the face of that evidence to
> > claim that software would only get written if monopolies were granted
> > seems to me to fly in the face of all evidence. The software industry
> > took off with no patents. patents as a corporate tool in software has
> > really only taken ahold in the past few years, and is being used to
> > stifle not enhance competition and innovation. As in a criminal court,
> > the evidence should be there beyond a reasonable doubt that the monopoly
> > is essential befor any such monopoly should be granted.
>
> A trial to grant a patent? If you want to kill it, get out your gun i.e.
> A constitutional ammendment against this task as a role of our (US) government
> don't offer reasonable compromise to leave it castrated but in place.
> >
> >
> >
> > ]>
> > ]> ]If effective IP were available it would be worth investing great effort
> into
> > ]being the
> > ]> ]best. Without effective IP protection such effort is wasted because it
> can
> > ]be cloned
> > ]> ]cheaply and the fruits squandered. Some consider this a good thing in
> that
> > ]it makes
> > ]> ]whatever accidentally turns out to be good (more accurately popular)
> widely
> > ]available
> > ]> ]within a short time span.
> > ]>
> > ]> ]Others consider this to be a bad thing because there is a positive
> > ]disincentive toward
> > ]> ]quality. It costs time. And the sine qua non of modern software
> marketing
> > ]is to be
> > ]> ]first rather than best.
> > ]>
> > ]> And you raplidly have to be best as well, or you are out.
> > ]>
> > ]>
> > ]> ]In the short term, we can economically purchase the best that is available
> in
> > ]the market
> > ]> ]because any innovation is rapidly emulated. In the long term the best
> that
> > ]is available
> > ]> ]in the market is far lower that it would be because there is no incentive
> > ](differential
> > ]> ]advantage) for production of better software. Since short term effects
> > ]dissipate and
> > ]>
> > ]> I disagree completely with this anticompetitive stance. Barriers to
> > ]> competition simply enrich the monopolists, and do not lead to
> > ]> improvements.
> >
> > ]The intent of the patent process is to remove barriers to competition and
> > ]therefore stimulate innovation. You can rightly cite some examples where the
> > ]Process has failed or been abused to do the opposite. So what? No law or
> > ]practice
> > ]shall be allowed unless it is demonstratably perfect in the presence of a
> > ]determined
> > ]adversary? Wasn't it the Polish who had a practice that regulations could
> only
> > ]be
> > ]passed by unanimous approval of their senate.
> > ]>
> > ]> ]long term effects accumulate, at some point past initialization the market
> > ]will be
> > ]> ]dominated by long term effects, and saturated with bad software.
> > ]>
> > ]> Just like it is saturated with bad coffee? Wouldn;t it be nice if we
> > ]> only had one coffee company, one car company( with no imports allowed),
> > ]> one runhing shoe company,... Think of how great all of our products
> > ]> would be then!
> > ]> The arguements you give were exactly the arguements made by the
> > ]> Communists in setting up their economic system. Competition is wasteful.
> > ]> Competition means that the manufacturers spend all their time wasting
> > ]> time worrying about their competitors rather than worrying about how to
> > ]> make the best product for the consumer. Unfortunately that is not the
> > ]> way the world works. Competition is the best incentive for improving
> > ]> both the range AND quality AND price of products in the vast majority of
> > ]> situations. It is not universal, and there are times when limits on
> > ]> competition are beneficial. But those need to be thought through very
> > ]> carefully, that those anticompetitive practices really do more good than
> > ]> harm. The problem is that all industries love anticompetitive laws--
> > ]> they no longer have to worry since there is noone to take their market
> > ]> away. And those industries will put immense pressure on corrupting the
> > ]> governments to grant them anticompetitive laws. Those pressures should
> > ]> almost always be resisted. And they should especially be resisted in the
> > ]> software industry.
> > ]>
> > ]> For example, software copyrights should be reduced to say 3 years,
> > ]> extendible to 7 is the source is published. Any more than that is just
> > ]> silly. And given MS claim that they lost the source code for DOS, giving
> > ]> copyright protection where the code is not made public is strongly
> > ]> against the public interest. (Note that this would have made the Y2K
> > ]> problem a hell of a lot more manageable.)
> >
> > ]You wish to ammend law on the basis of the antics of bad boy Bill?
> > ]I'm sure he is flattered.
> > ]>
> > ]>
> > ]> ]Some observers attribute the low quality of software to its commodity
> status,
> > ]reasoning
> > ]> ]that if the customers cannot tell the difference between high and low
> > ]software quality
> > ]> ]there will never be any reason to "waste" effort on raising quality
> because
> > ]it will not
> > ]> ]result in more sales. In fact it will result in less revenue based on
> > ]upgrades.
> > ]>
> > ]> Ah, yes, the theory that governments should be there to protect the
> > ]> stupid consumer from having to make uninformed choices.
> > ]>
> > ]>
> > ]> ]But this misses the point. Customers _can_ tell the difference. But that
> > ]difference is
> > ]> ]dominated by cost differences. So a company that prices its software
> higher
> > ]than the
> > ]> ]competition to cover serious development effort will price themselves out
> of
> > ]the market
> > ]> ]composed of competitors who "me too!" the fruits of the development effort
> > ]without
> > ]> ]paying for it. So customers will always pay less for approximately the
> same
> > ]quality.
> > ]>
> > ]> ]Effective IP would restore the balance between quality and cost and reduce
> > ]the
> > ]> ]domination of the first-to-market mentality.
> > ]>
> > ]> All the evidence is to the contrary in country after country, century
> > ]> after century. Monopoly powers breed contempt of the consumer, not
> > ]> heightened regard for his/her well being.
> > ]>
> > ]> Consumers are perfectly capable of making the choice between price and
> > ]> quality on their own without governments and laws to "help" them.
> > ]>
> > ]> ]Conclusion: I can say that software has suffered in the US if low quality
> > ]counts as
> > ]> ]suffering.
> > ]>
> > ]>
> > ]> ]Is this off topic? Perhaps not. Crypto is similar to software as an
> > ]industry with an
> > ]> ]abstract, almost ineffable, product. And crypto -- as an industry -- is
> > ]younger than
> > ]> ]software. Perhaps crypto can do better.
> > ]>
> > ]>
> > ]> Not if it is going to get mandated by the government.
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: Roger Schlafly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM analysis secret.
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 02:48:29 -0700
"Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
> If Coppersmith had to do the work, the officially correct procedure
> would have been to get him cleared and read into the program, but I
> suspect time constraints caused the IBM staff to cut corners here.
Coppersmith said that his group preferred to work without clearances.
Another group at another IBM location had clearances.
DES was going to be published, and NSA had already made a decision
to assist it, so it wasn't super-secret. NSA had to expect that
people would eventually figure out how DES was designed.
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tying Up Loose Ends - Correction
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 09:51:24 GMT
David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Tim Tyler wrote:
:> ... David is discussing the effect of adding an additional section
:> of known plaintext to the end of the file. This normally has the
:> effect of decreasing the keyspace by almost exactly five bits -
:> provided the effective keyspace doesn't go negative, of course.
: With all due respect, this is complete nonsense.
: When we talk about "reducing the keyspace", that means reducing the
: size of the set of keys that need to be considered at all; it does
: not mean finding a test that will eliminate keys by testing them one
: by one.
I try to use the term "effective keyspace", when discussing this type of
rapid elimination of whole classes of keys - I used the word "effective"
in the section quoted above - though I see that Icould have used it again
where I did not, and gained some clarity.
The technique can reduce the time taken to deal with specific keys,
and can /sometimes/ speed up the process of a keyspace search.
I'm reasonably happy with describing the effect as "a reduction in the
effective keyspace" - despite the fact that the keys still exist, and may
still require /some/ consideration.
If you have better terminology that you think I should be using,
I'd be happy to hear about it, I would like to be able to concisely say
that some volume of keys can be rapidly and certainly ruled out.
Currently, I would normally describe this as ``a reduction in the
effective keyspace of "n" bits.'' If this is going to rub people up the
wrong way, how would they like me to put it.
:> [This may not necessarily reduce the difficulty of searching the
:> keyspace, but does allow certain automated rejection of many keys.]
: You can in practice always reject keys, if you loop over each possible
: key, because plaintext messages are almost always automatically
: recognisable.
You can't in practice always reject keys. Ever heard of the unicity distance?
: In particular, whether they are recognisable is not changed by
: compression, including "1-to-1 compression".
That doesn't appear to be correct:
Whether decrypts can be recognised as plaintexts *can* be affected -
for example, if the message is brought within the unicity distance by the
process of compression.
In general decompressed messages should more closely resemble plausible
messages, the better the compressor becomes targetted at the messages in
question. The better the compressor becomes, the harder it should be to
reject possible decrypts.
Of course making a good compressor may itself give the attacker
information about the nature of the traffic that he didn't already have
(since we must assume the enemy gains access to the compressor by
espionage or capture of equipment). This issue should not be ignored.
Anyway, the idea that recognisability of messages is not ever affected by
compression is plainly false.
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ Goodbye cool world.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
