Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:20:54 ADT
Jim Gillogly (jim@mentat.com)
Fri, 24 Jul 98 17:16:14 PDT
Vin McLellan says:
> Baldwin argues that some 20-odd modes -- some of which are already
> patented by IBM, Certicom, and others -- should be part of the
> (free-for-all-users) AES when it is issued. He's suggesting a broader
> definition of the royalty-free AES, not a more narrow one!
He's suggesting that NIST specifically enumerate all the royalty-free
modes in which the AES may be used. What others claim is that NIST
should require that all possible uses of the AES should be royalty-free
with respect to the inventor of the AES, including uses for which we
have not yet realized a need. Some of us thought that this was what
NIST already <did> require.
> This teapot furor about whether a patented algorithm ... will be
> made available by the inventor free of patent encumberances is absurd.
> Of course it will be!
And this has not been questioned. The issue at hand is whether NIST
must think of all possible uses for the AES in advance in order for
those uses to be protected.
> The idea of making those modes freely available to all as part of
> the AES _is_ Baldwin's issue.
Fine. Then let's have language that says something like "the AES may be
used free in any application and mode" and not worry about enumerating them.
Some of us didn't realize this was an issue or that such language was
needed before this week.
Note that this would not preclude the McLellan Corporation from enforcing
its patent on Quantum Data Tunnelling simply because the infringer was
using AES on the channel -- it would merely keep the inventor of AES from
enforcing their patent on the use of AES in this application.
Jim Gillogly
Hevensday, 2 Wedmath S.R. 1998, 00:06
12.19.5.6.14, 3 Ix 7 Xul, Eighth Lord of Night
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:20:54 ADT