| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Filing after publication (in the US and *not* in thee EU)Filing after publication (in the US and *not* in thee EU)Posted Feb 26, 2009 19:13 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (guest, #50784)In reply to: Filing after publication (in the US and *not* in thee EU) by dps Parent article: Microsoft sues TomTom
There can be no doubt about the inventive steps and non-obviousness of RSA. That is maybe how you perceive that work, but there is plenty of material in the "History" section of the Wikipedia article on public-key cryptography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography) to make a sound argument against granting monopolies on such works, let alone doing so in a near-arbitrary way based on the vagaries of some patent regime or other.
(Log in to post comments)
Filing after publication (in the US and *not* in thee EU) Posted Feb 27, 2009 15:20 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Don't forget ... RSA had been *in* *use* for *seven* years before the patent was applied for.
GCHQ had been using it for secret-agent communications that long ...
Cheers,
|
|
||||||||||||