Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:50
James A. Donald (jamesd@echeque.com)
Tue, 9 Mar 1999 20:27:46 -0500
At 01:06 AM 3/8/99 -0800, Wei Dai wrote:
> I'll try to stop answering my own posts, but apparently David Wagner did
> propose a blind MAC scheme (see
> http://x9.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=145097228) based on Diffie-Hellman.
> This also answers the original Anonymous request for a blind variant of
> something not covered by patents. T
A third party cannot determine that the token is bank issue except by
asking the bank, therefore the token is not a signature, therefore it is
not a blind signature, therefore seemingly not covered by Chaum's patent.
Is there a lawyer in the house?
Chaum clearly patented the concept of blinding signatures by any means
whatsoever, and clearly patented the use of any kind of blinded signatures
to implement unlinkable tokens. None of this seems relevant to David
Wagner's scheme.
Is there any plausible argument that David Wagner's scheme is covered by
Chaum's patent?
-----------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:50