Subject: Re: Novel anti-software-patent article
From: <>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:07:28 -0800
Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:07:28 -0800
On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 01:07:30PM +0100, Bernard Lang wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 03:20:29PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> >   I'm not sure how it's pointless.  I'm sure the NSA has some strong
> > crypto that it keeps pretty secret.  (Of course, they are one of the few
> > institutions that employs enough cryptographers to make this reasonable).
> totally different case...
> they do not want anyone to use the crypto algorithm. They would not
> even dream of getting a patent, taht would necessarily make the
> technique public, and thus permit (possibly illegal, but so what ...)
> use by others (for their own, not necessarily industrial purposes).

Blowing major smoke here, but IIRC, the NSA actually has filed, and
recieved (?) patents on crypto technologies without being required to
file a fully disclosing patent claim.  Essentially, using the patent
office to enforce crypto policy (natch:  the patent wasn't licensed).

I may also recall that this was challenged in court.  However I don't
have either reference handy.  This is just coming out of the grey mists.

> -- 
>             ,   /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
>             INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
>          Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion

Karsten M. Self (
    What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?

SAS for Linux:
Mailing list:  "subscribe sas-linux" to

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]