[cryptography] NSA's position in the dominance stakes

Steven Bellovin smb at cs.columbia.edu
Wed Nov 17 23:30:37 EST 2010


On Nov 17, 2010, at 11:01 45PM, James A. Donald wrote:

>> On 17/11/10 7:26 AM, David G. Koontz wrote:
>>> On 17/11/10 9:01 AM, David G. Koontz wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> A. US6704870, granted on March 9, 2004 (Yes, published)
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sony asserted prior art against this patent in the 2007 case before
>>> agreeing
>>> Certicom's motion to end the lawsuit, which was granted without
>>> prejudice.
> 
> On 2010-11-18 8:42 AM, Ian G wrote:
>> What does that mean?
> 
> It means that Sony pointed out that Certicom's claim is as full of shit as we all know it to be, and that the court case ended without the court, which found Certicom's claim and Sony's defense equally incomprehensible, finding for or against anyone.
> 
Go to http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2007cv00216/103383/112/ and read the document.  It says that the case is being dismissed because the parties have settled.  It says nothing about why either party chose to settle.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb








More information about the cryptography mailing list