Re: ECC patents?

On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 12:41:46AM +0200, Alexander Klimov wrote: > US 6,141,420 "Elliptic Curve Encryption Systems" pertains to > point compression [...] > From my POV point compression in the EC(GF_p) case is absolutely > trivial, but the case of EC(GF_{2^p}) probably is less so. In any > ca

Re: ECC patents?

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Alexander Klimov wrote: > Does anyone know a good survey about ECC patent situation? I have made a shallow review (comments are welcome!) of the patents that Certicom claims are pertained to ECC implementation and it looks like there are no real road-blocks for ECDH and ECDSA

Re: ECC patents?

On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:18:14PM +0300, Alexander Klimov wrote: > http://www1.ietf.org/proceedings_new/04nov/slides/saag-2/sld9.htm: > > What is Really Covered > o The use of elliptic curves defined over GF(p) where p is a prime > number greater than 2^255 when the product satisfies t

RE: ECC patents?

day, September 16, 2005 11:53 PM > To: cryptography@metzdowd.com > Subject: RE: ECC patents? > > -- > Whyte, William" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > $25MM figure: > > > > http://lists.jammed.com/ISN/2003/10/0097.html > > I stand corrected. > >

RE: ECC patents?

-- Whyte, William" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > $25MM figure: > > http://lists.jammed.com/ISN/2003/10/0097.html I stand corrected. However as was pointed out previously: : : Further, the license would be limited to only : : prime field curves where the prime was : : greater than 2255.

RE: ECC patents?

MAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James A. Donald > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:54 PM > To: cryptography@metzdowd.com > Subject: RE: ECC patents? > > -- > Whyte, William: > > It hints that only some particular curves have been > > licensed. It could be that N

RE: ECC patents?

They paid $25MM. William > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James A. Donald > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:54 PM > To: cryptography@metzdowd.com > Subject: RE: ECC patents? > > -- > Whyte,

RE: ECC patents?

At 09:54 2005-09-15 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: I doubt that the NSA paid any money whatsoever for this license, making it profoundly unimpressive as evidence that *any* curves have a plausible valid patent. If the NSA paid real money, the patent holders would be sticking it in our face as a p

Re: ECC patents?

If the NSA paid anything significant for any of the curves, we would be told. You were better off not responding; you have lost your credibility on this topic. Given the NSA's history of secrecy; and the fact that it's common practice to not disclose (financial) terms

Re: ECC patents?

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James A. Donald" writes: >-- >Whyte, William: >> It hints that only some particular curves have been >> licensed. It could be that NSA has decided not to buy >> a license for the other curves, or it could be that >> operations on those curves aren't patented.

Re: ECC patents?

James A. Donald wrote: > -- > Whyte, William: > >>It hints that only some particular curves have been >>licensed. It could be that NSA has decided not to buy >>a license for the other curves, or it could be that >>operations on those curves aren't patented. The >>presentation doesn't give

RE: ECC patents?

-- Whyte, William: > It hints that only some particular curves have been > licensed. It could be that NSA has decided not to buy > a license for the other curves, or it could be that > operations on those curves aren't patented. The > presentation doesn't give enough information to > estab

RE: ECC patents?

> http://www1.ietf.org/proceedings_new/04nov/slides/saag-2/sld9.htm: > > What is Really Covered > o The use of elliptic curves defined over GF(p) where p is a prime > number greater than 2^255 when the product satisfies the Field of > Use conditions > o Both compressed and uncom

Re: ECC patents?

At 12:18 PM +0300 9/14/05, Alexander Klimov wrote: This hints that indeed only some particular curves are patented. It's not just curves. Certicom has patents for some optimizations and methods for validating the strength of some uses of ECC. Grepping -list_curves of the new openssl (0.9.8)

Re: ECC patents?

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 9:32 AM -0700 9/12/05, James A. Donald wrote: > >It has been a long time, and no one has paid out > >money on an ECC patent yet. > > That's pretty bold statement that folks at Certicom might disagree > with, even before >

Re: ECC patents?

> Anyone can claim to have patented anything. Someone > recently patented the wheel, to show how bad the > situation is. I agree the system doesn't work well. > I think these guys are just blowing > smoke. It has been a long time, and no one has paid out > money on an ECC patent yet. NSA lice

Re: ECC patents?

At 9:32 AM -0700 9/12/05, James A. Donald wrote: It has been a long time, and no one has paid out money on an ECC patent yet. That's pretty bold statement that folks at Certicom might disagree with, even before . --Paul Hoff

Re: ECC patents?

On Sep 12, 2005, at 11:32, James A. Donald wrote: Someone recently patented the wheel, to show how bad the situation is. That's a bit misleading without the context. Google patented-the- wheel for details. - The Cryptogr

Re: ECC patents?

-- Alexander Klimov > But (potential) problem still persists: even if > openssl implements ECC it does not save you from > patent issues if they exist. Anyone can claim to have patented anything. Someone recently patented the wheel, to show how bad the situation is. I think these guys are

Re: ECC patents?

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Laurie writes: >Alexander Klimov wrote: >> >> But (potential) problem still persists: even if openssl implements ECC >> it does not save you from patent issues if they exist. > >It does if they are owned by Sun. > It does if *all necessary patent rights* are o

Re: ECC patents?

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:58:14 +0300 (IDT), Alexander Klimov said: > There is also work on ECC for gnupg > http://www.g10code.de/tasklist.html#gcrypt-ecc Yes, there exists an implementation for an ECC implementation for GnuPG. The problem is that OpenPGP does not define ECC and thus it does not ma

Re: ECC patents?

Alexander Klimov wrote: On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Ben Laurie wrote: Alexander Klimov wrote: ECC is known since 1985 but seems to be absent in popular free software packages, e.g., neither gnupg nor openssl has it (even if the relevant patches were created). It looks like the main reason is some p

Re: ECC patents?

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Ben Laurie wrote: > Alexander Klimov wrote: > > ECC is known since 1985 but seems to be absent in popular free > > software packages, e.g., neither gnupg nor openssl has it (even if the > > relevant patches were created). It looks like the main reason is some > > patent uncert

Re: ECC patents?

Alexander Klimov wrote: Hi. ECC is known since 1985 but seems to be absent in popular free software packages, e.g., neither gnupg nor openssl has it (even if the relevant patches were created). It looks like the main reason is some patent uncertainty in this area. An internet research shows tha