[cryptography] NSA's position in the dominance stakes
James A. Donald
jamesd at echeque.com
Thu Nov 18 16:33:43 EST 2010
On 2010-11-19 6:07 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>> Go to
>>> 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.
> Having been involved in a fair number of patent suits, I can tell you
> it's much more venal.
> Certicom: You're infringing our patents.
> Sony: They're junk.
> Certicom: Prove it. See you in court.
> Sony, to their lawyers: How much will this cost?
> Lawyers: This case is pretty simple, about $100K/yr for three years.
> Sony: Yow!
> Sony, to Certicom: If we pay you $100K, will you go away?
> Certicom: Deal!
But if Sony paid Certicom, certicom would be crowing from the rooftops,
since such a concession could be used to extract further concessions
from all Sony's competitors.
So more likely what happened is:
Certicom: You're infringing our patents.
Sony: They're junk.
Certicom: Prove it. See you in court.
Sony, to their lawyers: How much will this cost Certicom
Lawyers: Depends. If you are trying to spin it out, perhaps a 100K per
year, for as many years as you like. If you are prepared to ramp up the
action, perhaps ten million a year, for as many years as you like.
Sony to their accountants: How long can Certicom hold out at one
million per year?
More information about the cryptography