Subject: Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
From: simo <s@ssimo.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:38:24 -0400

On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 13:27 -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
> simo wrote:
> > [re RSA]
> > Not only that, you should also ask your self how much that patent
> > actually slowed down adoption of that technology and research around
> > that area. (Exactly the opposite goals of what a patent system should
> > serve for).
> >
> >   
> 
> 
> I'm not sure it slowed adoption at all.  I think it might have saved
> the day.
> 
> What I've read tells me that the NSA was promoting dubious
> alternatives around the same time.   I do seem to remember, from
> back then, some very big firms pushing these dubious alternatives
> even in hardware form.

Can you point out which dubious standard was it? And exactly why the NSA
was pushing it?

> The patent, and the clever way it was used, meant that there
> was a bunch of capital and some smart people out there
> pushing really hard to establish RSA in the economy.  They
> succeeded.  

I am not saying you are wrong, but you should prove what you claim to
make it a fact.

> It's hard to evaluate the counter-factual... what would have
> happened under a different agreement.  But at least don't
> go making presumptions about it.

So, you can make presumptions but I shouldn't?
Funny way to make an argument :-)