Yes but the other context from the related group of blog postings, is
Kim Cameron's (microsoft) "laws of identity" [1] that this comment is
made in the context of.

It is relatively hard to see how one could implement an identity
system meeting the stated laws without involving blind signatures of
some form...



On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 11:17:04AM -0700, David Wagner wrote:
> ><>
> >The Identity Corner
> >Stephan Brands
> >
> >I am genuinely excited about this
> >development, if it can be taken as an indication that Microsoft is getting
> >serious about "privacy by design" for identity management. That is a big
> >"if," however: indeed, the same Microsoft researcher who came up with the
> >patent (hello Dan!) was also responsible for Microsoft e-cash patent no.
> >5,768,385 that was granted in 1998 but was never pursued.
> What a strange criticism of Microsoft!  Here is something to know about
> patents: many companies file patents all the time.  That doesn't mean
> they are committing to build a product around every patent they file.
> The fact that Microsoft hasn't pursued patent 5,768,385 tells you
> essentially nothing about what they are going to do with this patent.
> I wouldn't take patent filings as an indicator of intent or of future
> business strategy.

The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to