[cryptography] NSA's position in the dominance stakes

Ian G iang at iang.org
Sat Nov 20 01:45:02 EST 2010

On 20/11/10 2:42 PM, James A. Donald wrote:

> On 2010-11-20 9:35 AM, Jon Callas wrote:
>  > Forgive me, but that is insulting to both judges and
>  > juries. In that particular case, it is easy to defend
>  > because the question is "are you using MQV" and the
>  > answer is no.
> But the defendant is always going say he is not using MVQ,
> and the plaintif is always going to say the defendent *is*
> using MVQ. How are the judge and jury going to figure out
> which one is telling the truth?

I think this is one thing that the courts can do.  If it can be narrowed 
down to something as simple as "are you using MVQ?" then the question is 
simply popped.

The reason this works is that neither side will lie on a baldfaced 
issue.  If they are found to be lying on something as technical and 
solid as this (no matter the question of how we would show that) then 
not only would the entire case be compromised, but the lier would be 
likely punished.  I would guess the case and patent would be at risk, 
the lier would be risking perjury, *and* the lawyers might be called to 

So, typically the game is about presenting the most favourable truth, 
not about baldfaced lying.  There's a bit of a distinction!

(In my time in court, I found the judges quite adept at seeing through 
nonsense.  I was quite surprised, and since then I've factored it into 
my protocols work to great benefit.)

> The judge and the jury do
> not know MVQ from a dog that bit them, reading the
> plaintiff's patent will not enlighten them in the slightest,
> and they cannot read the defendant's code.

This is what the expert witness process is supposed to cover.  I know 
they're expensive, but I suppose they do a reasonable job some of the time.

> On 2010-11-20 9:35 AM, Jon Callas wrote:
>  > So you're saying that patent suits are won by bribing the
>  > judge?
> If you examine most patent cases, it is usually perfectly
> obvious that the fix was in before the case started. As to
> whether this was done by bribing the judge, bribing the
> politician who controls the judge's career, pulling strings on
> the old boy network, threatening the judge, or whatever, I
> have no way of knowing.
> I do know that threatening the judge with physical harm is
> becoming a more popular and increasingly common move in
> corporate lawsuits, though this move was unknown and
> unthinkable not very long ago. As to whether this is true in
> patent cases, again I have no way of knowing.

Given the drugification of the justice arms following the success in 
wiping out the civil society in Mexico, it's reasonable to predict that 
at some stage this will happen in USA.  It's a question worth 
speculating on....

However, I'd suspect the patent area to not be the first place we'll see 
outright bribery or threats.  Also this is federal court, which is 
somewhat tougher.  We'll see it elsewhere first, in my humble and 
foreign opinion.


More information about the cryptography mailing list