On 2010-11-20 4:45 PM, Ian G wrote: > I think this is one thing that the courts can do. If it can > be narrowed down to something as simple as "are you using > MVQ?" then the question is simply popped. > > The reason this works is that neither side will lie on a > baldfaced issue. If they are found to be lying on something > as technical and solid as this (no matter the question of > how we would show that) then not only would the entire case > be compromised, but the lier would be likely punished.
But they lie all the time on matters perfectly solid, such as when a mortgage was made, and who made it, and no consequences follow. Psychiatric experts testify about their examination of people they never bothered to meet - saves time that way. Everyone knows they are lying, and no one calls them on it. Secondly, the issue is not technical and solid. It is impossible to draw a clear border around an idea, to say what is, and is not MQV, to say what is a trivial change, and what is a meaningful difference. It is impossible to have a technical and solid patent issue, which is in practice treated by courts and "experts" as a license to lie barefaced about anything whatsoever. Intellectual property rights are like trying to fence off a patch of deep blue ocean - it would be practical with continent sized patches of ocean, but we are trying to fence around tiny and minutely precise patches. Members of the elite no longer get punished for perjury, and bare faced perjury is absolutely routine. Observe in the mortgage crisis, banks have repeatedly lied before the court, have repeatedly been caught out, and been "dismissed without prejudice" - that is to say, offered the chance to withdraw their old testimony, and cook up some new testimony. Then they have come back with new forged documents, been caught again, withdrawn them again, and been offered yet another chance to have another go, and come back with yet another set of forged documents with the obvious impossibilities of the previous forged documents fixed up. As in the Soviet Union before the fall, we are seeing a collapse in discipline within the elite. Bad conduct goes unpunished. Every so often we see a judge pushing back on perjury, for example here is judge Schack, complaining of massive and multiple perjury. <http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/judge-schac k-lights-up-robo-signer-erica-johnson-seck-onewest-bank-v-dra yton-3/> He complains, but he then dismisses the perjury based cases "without prejudice" Judge Schack rants indignantly that plaintiff committed multiple and massive perjury, but the rant boils down to that the defendant caught the plaintiff lying, so, Judge Schack is throwing out the plaintiff's case AND INVITING THE PLAINTIFF TO COME BACK AND HAVE ANOTHER GO WITH FRESHLY PERJURED DOCUMENTS AND HOPE THE PLAINTIFF WILL NOT CATCH HIM NEXT TIME. Mortgage documents with impossible dates are simple black and white perjury, and no bad consequences follow. Whether an algorithm is or is not MQV is not simple black and white perjury - it is genuinely hard to draw a boundary around an idea. Is it still MQV if the code is generated by the boost template library, and superficially does not look anything like MQV as described in the patent? _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
