[cryptography] NSA's position in the dominance stakes

Marsh Ray marsh at extendedsubset.com
Thu Nov 18 12:02:36 EST 2010


On 11/17/2010 10:30 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
> On Nov 17, 2010, at 11:01 45PM, James A. Donald wrote:
>>
>> 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.

I imagine it went something like that scene in Crocodile Dundee:

"Look out Sony, he's got a bunch of patents!"

"That's not a bunch of patents."
[Sony lawyer motions over forklift with pallet of printed documents.]*
"This is a bunch of patents. So many, in fact, that we could initiate a 
new infringement lawsuit against Certicom and its customers every few 
days if we felt like it. And never run out. Are you sure you want to 
proceed down this road?"

Then they all went golfing together.

- Marsh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_top_United_States_patent_recipients *



More information about the cryptography mailing list