lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 04:16:37 +0000
From: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@...auckland.ac.nz>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>,
	Jeremy Spilman <jeremy@...link.co>
Subject: RE: [PHC] patents

Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com> writes:


>However, it looks pretty bad.  Patenting well known work done by other's is
>illegal,

... but fairly standard in the US patent regime...

>and I've seen one guy go to prison for an absurdly long time over it (that
>guy complicated the situation by forging docs "proving" his prior invention,
>then trying to hire someone to kill the judge in his case).

Yeah, that would get you into trouble.  I've never heard of anything happening
to someone who simply patented someone else's work, or re-patented someone
else's patent, unless one of the parties felt aggrieved enough to go to court
over it (and spend a fortune in legal fees and years of time over it).

>The right thing in this case, IMO, would be for Jeremy to volunteer to have
>his patent adjusted in light of the prior art I listed above.

Since it was done for a company (TapLink), and it looks like their business
model revolves around the patent, I doubt very much whether they have any
interest in doing this.

Peter.


Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists