Re: Subject: Re: Legal issues in implementing OpenPGP

["Rich Ankney" <rankney@xxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Uri Blumenthal <uri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Rich Ankney <rankney@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: ietf-open-pgp@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Legal issues in implementing OpenPGP
> Date: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 3:56 PM
> 
> Rich Ankney says:
> > You are, of course, correct.  I should have said "implementation
tricks."
> 
> "Implementation trick" won't cut it either. "Implementation trick" would
> be something that takes input A, produces output B, but does that 
> differently, saving time, memory, etc. But one would be able
> to do a "straightforward unoptimized" implementation that
> would take the same A and output the same B, possibly
> spending twic as many seconds. Easy.
> 
> In this case however, we are talking about the DATA FORMATS. So if 
> the "licensed" product uses point compression, and your freeware
> does not ('cause it's patented) - you'd have sweet time trying
> to interoperate.
> 
> Do you see my concern?

Sorry; I get your point now.  What about the new HP proposal for
"point compression"?  I haven't done any research as to patent
status etc.

> 
> 
> > I'll try to track down the letter ANSI got from Certicom about MQV.
> 
> Please!!
> --

OK.  I Emailed Don Johnson about this.  I'll try to get info on all of
the standards bodies they've sent letters to.
 
> Regards,
> Uri		uri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-
> <Disclaimer>

Regards,
Rich