Re: NSA chooses ECC
From: Paul Rubin (//phr.cx_at_NOSPAM.invalid)
Date: 11/01/03
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: How To Handle Huge Numbers In 2048 Bit RSA"
- Previous message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Qauntum Computers and brute forcing encryption"
- In reply to: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: NSA chooses ECC"
- Next in thread: Roger Schlafly: "Re: NSA chooses ECC"
- Reply: Roger Schlafly: "Re: NSA chooses ECC"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 01 Nov 2003 13:35:01 -0800
"Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> writes:
> Difficulty has never been a criterion for a patent.
False. The current criterion is that the invention not be obvious to
a person having "ordinary skill in the art", though the PTO has used a
ridiculously low standard of obviousness. The obviousness standard
was legislated in 1952 replaced a much higher standard that required
patentable inventions to be be inspired by a "flash of creative
genius". Courts are also upholding far more patents than before.
http://www.booknoise.net/johnseabrook/stories/technology/flash/
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: How To Handle Huge Numbers In 2048 Bit RSA"
- Previous message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Qauntum Computers and brute forcing encryption"
- In reply to: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: NSA chooses ECC"
- Next in thread: Roger Schlafly: "Re: NSA chooses ECC"
- Reply: Roger Schlafly: "Re: NSA chooses ECC"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
