[cryptography] NSA's position in the dominance stakes

Adam Back adam at cypherspace.org
Sat Nov 20 05:09:26 EST 2010

I'm sure one can come up with minor variant schemes.  The arguable area is
between patents which are intentionally drawn up to cover as much as
possible and people who bother to read the patents and then try to use some
minor variant that is different.  But also its a minefield so the offical
policy in several large companies is for non-legal people to _never_ look at
patents.  So then its a post-hoc rationalization of why what they did is
different enough to not be covered.  

Also as others have noted, with large companies it often comes down to some
MAD (mutually-assured destruction) negotiation and settling out of court for
undisclosed terms.


On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 07:41:44PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
>On 2010-11-20 4:45 PM, Ian G wrote:
>> 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.
>But they lie all the time on matters perfectly solid, such as
>when a mortgage was made, and who made it, and no
>consequences follow. Psychiatric experts testify about their
>examination of people they never bothered to meet - saves
>time that way.  Everyone knows they are lying, and no one
>calls them on it.
>Secondly, the issue is not technical and solid.  It is
>impossible to draw a clear border around an idea, to say what
>is, and is not MQV, to say what is a trivial change, and what
>is a meaningful difference.  It is impossible to have a
>technical and solid patent issue, which is in practice
>treated by courts and "experts" as a license to lie barefaced
>about anything whatsoever.  Intellectual property rights are
>like trying to fence off a patch of deep blue ocean - it
>would be practical with continent sized patches of ocean, but
>we are trying to fence around tiny and minutely precise
>Members of the elite no longer get punished for perjury, and
>bare faced perjury is absolutely routine.
>Observe in the mortgage crisis, banks have repeatedly lied
>before the court, have repeatedly been caught out, and been
>"dismissed without prejudice" - that is to say, offered the
>chance to withdraw their old testimony, and cook up some new
>Then they have come back with new forged documents, been
>caught again, withdrawn them again, and been offered yet
>another chance to have another go, and come back with yet
>another set of forged documents with the obvious
>impossibilities of the previous forged documents fixed up.
>As in the Soviet Union before the fall, we are seeing a
>collapse in discipline within the elite.  Bad conduct goes
>Every so often we see a judge pushing back on perjury, for
>example here is judge Schack, complaining of massive and
>multiple perjury.
>He complains, but he then dismisses the perjury based cases
>"without prejudice"
>Judge Schack rants indignantly that plaintiff committed
>multiple and massive perjury, but the rant boils down to that
>the defendant caught  the plaintiff lying, so, Judge Schack
>is throwing out the plaintiff's case AND INVITING THE
>Mortgage documents with impossible dates are simple black and
>white perjury, and no bad consequences follow.  Whether an
>algorithm is or is not MQV is not simple black and white
>perjury - it is genuinely hard to draw a boundary around an
>idea.  Is it still MQV if the code is generated by the boost
>template library, and superficially does not look anything like
>MQV as described in the patent?

More information about the cryptography mailing list