RE: RC5/6 patents

Bob Baldwin (baldwin@rsa.com)
Mon, 20 Jul 1998 12:12:41 -0700

• Next message: John Gilmore: "Re: John Gilmore and the Great Internet Snake Drive"
• Previous message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: The Cost of Snakeoil (was Re: John Gilmore and the Great Internet Snake Drive)"
• In reply to: C Matthew Curtin: "Re: The Cost of Snakeoil (was Re: John Gilmore and the Great Internet Snake Drive)"

        It seems like I hit the RSA-bashing
nerve :-) It is a pretty big nerve ending and
hard to miss. Sigh.
        My understanding of RSADSI's intent is that
if RC6 is selected as the AES, then any use of it
will be OK without payment to RSADSI.
                --Bob Baldwin
                  Technical Director, RSA Data Security

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Perry E. Metzger [SMTP:perry@piermont.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 1998 11:45 AM
> To: Bob Baldwin
> Cc: CodherPlunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: RC5/6 patents
>
>
> Bob Baldwin writes:
> > Similarly, if the RC6 cipher is used in modes that are
> > not covered by the FIPS, then implementations of those
> > modes could be subject to patent enforcement. For example,
> > if the modes do not cover building a digest function out
> > of AES, then the winner will does not need to give up rights
> > to AES as the basis for a digest function.
>
> Great.
>
> Just when I thought I could trust RSA DSI, you use weasel words in
> this context to make us all feel as though, as interesting as RC6 may
> be, we dare not make it the AES.
>
> > These ground rules are basically the same ones that
> > were applied to IBM's DES submission, so if you are
> > comfortable (from a legal viewpoint, not a security
> > viewpoint) using DES, then you should be comfortable
> > (legally) using the AES winner.
>
> DES has been routinely used in weird new modes, and IBM never
> attempted to enforce the patent on it under any circumstances. They
> accepted that DES was no longer something they should expect to profit
> from. Here, however, I think you are making it clear that RSA DSI will
> probably make the users of the AES miserable if the deviate in the
> slightest from the FIPS. Thanks, but no thanks. I think we'd rather
> just sleep well at night. The only way now I'd be able to support the
> use of RC6 as the AES would be if RSA DSI agreed to dedicate the
> patent to the public domain if it won, which I'm sure you'll never do.
>
> Perry

• Next message: John Gilmore: "Re: John Gilmore and the Great Internet Snake Drive"
• Previous message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: The Cost of Snakeoil (was Re: John Gilmore and the Great Internet Snake Drive)"
• In reply to: C Matthew Curtin: "Re: The Cost of Snakeoil (was Re: John Gilmore and the Great Internet Snake Drive)"