[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52F4F556.607@cs.rit.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:01:42 -0500
From: Alan Kaminsky <ark@...rit.edu>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Never read a patent
In their book "Practical Cryptography" (Wiley Publishing, 2003), pages
375-376, noted cryptographers Neils Ferguson and Bruce Schneier say this:
"One word of advice: never read a patent. That's right. You'd think that
reading patents to see what they cover is a good idea. It is not. If you
infringe on a patent without having known that you did so, you may end up
paying damages to the patent holder. But if they can prove that you willfully
infringed (because you knew about their patent), you may end up paying triple
damages. So if you read a patent, you automatically increase your liability
for infringing that patent by a factor of three.
"And now for the real stinger: even if you read a patent and decide, as an
expert in your field, that your work is not covered by the patent, the judge
might still find that you willfully infringed. You see, you as an expert are
not qualified to judge what a patent covers. Only a patent lawyer can do that.
So if you want to avoid the possibility of having to pay triple damages, you
have to pay a patent lawyer to figure out whether you are infringing the
patent or not. There are millions of patents out there, and you cannot
possibly afford to pay a patent lawyer to read every one of them.
"Therefore, the safest solution is to never read a patent. At least you can
then claim that you didn't willfully infringe on the patent."
I would think long and hard before starting to analyze patents related to
password hashing. I would think even longer and harder before designing a
password hashing algorithm specifically to try to avoid a patent's claims.
--
-Alan Kaminsky
Professor
Department of Computer Science
B. Thomas Golisano College of Computing and Information Sciences
Rochester Institute of Technology
Powered by blists - more mailing lists