David Jablon (dpj@world.std.com)
Mon, 09 Mar 1998 23:55:26 -0500
Sorry Eric, but Bill was right. Inventions are typically not
patentable outside the U.S. if they're publicly disclosed
before *any* patent filing.
But a U.S. filing date gives about a year-long window
during which a first public disclosure can be made,
and then a somewhat later "foreign" filing can be initiated.
Call my attorney for details.
(Also, see below for the real scoop on crypto patents.)
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Bill Stewart wrote:
>> It's not clear that RC5 will be a legal option for non-USA people.
>> Some algorithms, like RSA, are unpatentable because they're disclosed
>> to the public before the patent applications are made, ...
At 10:53 AM 3/10/98 +1000, Eric Young replied:
>My understanding is that Patents can be disclosed, it is trade secrets that
>cannot. [...]
Not quite, as explained above.
>[...] RSA Inc claimed trade secret on RC2 and RC4 but they were 'disclosed'
>anyway. RSA Inc now defends RC4 via the 'Trademark' defence, of threatening
>people who use the name RC4 without their blessing.
This assessment of the "are see four" mess seems correct.
But this is just the standard formula for turning a
crypto invention into $$:
If you can't get a patent, try a trade secret. But when
the secret gets out, or if you just can't lean on your
reputation to make people trust your stuff, you have to get
a trademark. But if the world still wants to use it for free,
they'll just rename it. So then you'd better crack it and
invent a better one, like RC5, etc. And this time get that
patent!
Without crypto patents, cryptographers would have a hard
time keeping food on the table. :-)
-- dpj
------------------------------------
David Jablon
Integrity Sciences, Inc.
dpj@world.std.com
<http://world.std.com/~dpj/>
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:15:55 ADT