From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8947310381c2a3f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Ada & Encryption / Compression Date: 1997/03/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 224042109 References: <5fikh7$ras$1@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au> <1997Mar6.123219.1@eisner> <1997Mar8.130624.1@eisner> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Larry says <<"Prime Numbers" is irrelevant, as those are made up by end users (with the help of software or hardware) in any trustworthy implementation. If you substitute "code" for "prime numbers", the answer is A for both cases. The key phrase is "for the U.S. market".>> Has this patent been successfuly litigated? Remember that the existence of a patent per se does NOT mean that license fees have to be paid. They have to be paid only if the patent is valid. The fact that the patent office accepts a patent is an a priori suggestion that at least omeone in the patent office thought it might be valid, but until it is litigated no one can say for sure. For my taste the RSA claims are *awfully* broad, but I have not followed the progress of this patent in any detail.