en.swpat.org is a wiki.   You can edit it.   May contain statements End Software Patents does not endorse.

November 2014: About Microsoft’s patent licence for .NET core

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits


Difference between revisions of "RSA patent"

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search
(Clifford Cocks)
(Thanks for that info! I've added a reference: http://www.cesg.gov.uk/publications/media/notense.pdf)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
The '''RSA patent''' covers an encryption algorithm which was used in secure communications.
 
The '''RSA patent''' covers an encryption algorithm which was used in secure communications.
  
This patent was the result of a lot of research and it was innovative.  It was not possible to overturn the patent by any form of re-examination.  The RSA patent is thus a good example of why we need to exclude software from [[patentable subject matter]] if we want to be free of harmful software patents.
+
This [[software patent]] was the result of a lot of research and it was innovative.  It was not possible to overturn the patent by any form of re-examination.  The RSA patent is thus a good example of why we need to exclude software from [[patentable subject matter]] if we want to be free of harmful software patents.
  
 
That said, the key technology for the use of RSA is the production of large prime numbers.  Fortunately, this was never patented.  RSA itself is icing on the cake.
 
That said, the key technology for the use of RSA is the production of large prime numbers.  Fortunately, this was never patented.  RSA itself is icing on the cake.
  
In 1973 Clifford Cocks of GCHQ had developed the same algorithm.  But it remained classified until 1997.  Suprisingly, this prior art did not seem to invalidate the RSA patent.
+
==Prior art==
 +
 
 +
In 1973 Clifford Cocks of GCHQ had developed the same algorithm.<ref>http://www.cesg.gov.uk/publications/media/notense.pdf</ref> But it remained classified until 1997.  Suprisingly, this prior art did not seem to invalidate the RSA patent.
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
Line 12: Line 14:
 
* [http://progfree.org/Newsletter/programming.freedom.11.html#rubin Software Patent = Protection Racket], 1995 by Paul Rubin, using RSA as an example
 
* [http://progfree.org/Newsletter/programming.freedom.11.html#rubin Software Patent = Protection Racket], 1995 by Paul Rubin, using RSA as an example
  
 +
==References==
 +
<references />
  
 +
{{page footer}}
 
[[Category:Example software patents]]
 
[[Category:Example software patents]]

Revision as of 05:20, 27 January 2010

The RSA patent covers an encryption algorithm which was used in secure communications.

This software patent was the result of a lot of research and it was innovative. It was not possible to overturn the patent by any form of re-examination. The RSA patent is thus a good example of why we need to exclude software from patentable subject matter if we want to be free of harmful software patents.

That said, the key technology for the use of RSA is the production of large prime numbers. Fortunately, this was never patented. RSA itself is icing on the cake.

Prior art

In 1973 Clifford Cocks of GCHQ had developed the same algorithm.[1] But it remained classified until 1997. Suprisingly, this prior art did not seem to invalidate the RSA patent.

External links

References

  1. http://www.cesg.gov.uk/publications/media/notense.pdf

This wiki is part of the End Software Patents (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see:
>> endsoftwarepatents.org (Main ESP website) <<
>> endsoftwarepatents.org/news (News) <<

This wiki is publicly editable. (See: en.swpat.org:About) It's a pool of information, not a statement of ESP's views or policies, so no permission is required. Add your knowledge! (See: Help:How to make a good contribution)