Re: NSA chooses ECC
From: Roger Schlafly (rogersc_at_mindspring.com)
Date: 11/05/03
- Next message: Benjamin Choi: "Re: ADVERT: Secure communications."
- Previous message: Mike Curry: "Re: Significance of an MD5 Hash Collision"
- In reply to: Paul Rubin: "Re: NSA chooses ECC"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: NSA chooses ECC"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 01:16:40 GMT
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote
> Courts are also upholding far more patents than before.
> http://www.booknoise.net/johnseabrook/stories/technology/flash/
That article is a little dated. The Federal Circuit court is dominated
by judges with no patent background, and they are not really as
pro-patent as a lot of people think. They regularly knock out
patents for silly reasons, and reinterpret patents to have narrow
scope. They also uphold silly patents. I don't really agree that
the Federal Circuit has brought fairness and logic to the system.
It was supposed to make patent enforcement more consistent,
but I don't think it has because it thinks that it should be setting
patent policy, and it keeps changing the rules.
- Next message: Benjamin Choi: "Re: ADVERT: Secure communications."
- Previous message: Mike Curry: "Re: Significance of an MD5 Hash Collision"
- In reply to: Paul Rubin: "Re: NSA chooses ECC"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: NSA chooses ECC"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]