2074 lines
87 KiB
Plaintext
2074 lines
87 KiB
Plaintext
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 93 18:32:04 PDT
|
|
Reply-To: <surfpunk@osc.versant.com>
|
|
Return-Path: <cocot@osc.versant.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <surfpunk-0091@SURFPUNK.Technical.Journal>
|
|
Mime-Version: 1.0
|
|
Content-Type: text/plain
|
|
From: surfpunk@osc.versant.com (gehgu be snyfrubbq)
|
|
To: surfpunk@osc.versant.com (SURFPUNK Technical Journal)
|
|
Subject: [surfpunk-0091] CRYPT: deadline for NIST/PKP comment, this sunday
|
|
|
|
Time is running out on this one, from sci.crypt.
|
|
|
|
I'm back, after three weeks off the net.
|
|
If you've sent material for surfpunk, I'll try and get it out tomorrow.
|
|
I gotta go.... strick
|
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________
|
|
________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: ross@wattle.itd.adelaide.edu.au (Ross Williams)
|
|
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
|
|
Subject: NIST/PKP scandal: All you need to act.
|
|
Date: 4 Aug 1993 04:21:12 GMT
|
|
Organization: Rocksoft Pty Ltd.
|
|
Distribution: world
|
|
Message-ID: <23ndfo$nur@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au>
|
|
Summary: NIST/PKP scandal: All you need to act.
|
|
Keywords: nist pkp dsa dss patent digital signature
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why It Is Important That You Read This Document and Address This Issue
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Right now there are some fairly significant political things happening
|
|
in the area of digital signatures that will determine how they are
|
|
managed for the next two decades. This matters because digital
|
|
signatures will be a key technology in the future. It is likely that,
|
|
in the future, most commercial transactions, and most digital
|
|
communications (including email) will be sealed with a digital
|
|
signature. In 1999 when J.Random Citizen goes the supermarket and
|
|
swipes his credit card to buy a chocolate bar, he will most likely be
|
|
issuing a digital signature. Digital signatures are going to be an
|
|
extremely important technology in future society, not just in the US,
|
|
but throughout the world. Because of the propagation of patents
|
|
through GATT and other agreements, what happens in the US affects
|
|
everyone.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, this is a technology that the
|
|
general public is not even aware of. As a result, the entire legal and
|
|
political foundation for the technology is being layed down right now
|
|
by the US Government and other organizations, without much interaction
|
|
with the outside world. Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing;
|
|
governments do a lot of good things. However, recent political
|
|
developments have alarmed many people.
|
|
|
|
A difficulty with the situation is that the issues are rather complex
|
|
and the approach one takes to them will depend on one's attitudes
|
|
towards Government, industry, intellectual property, patents and so
|
|
on. And even if you have firm convictions on any of these issues,
|
|
deciding what one's position on the issue is, and what one should do
|
|
can be difficult. It's easy to be a radical and shoot from the hip,
|
|
and it's easy to be a cynic and do nothing, but I don't like either of
|
|
these approaches. The only alternative is to think it through properly
|
|
and make a measured response (which may well happen to be radical!).
|
|
|
|
The document below is my attempt to enumerate the facts, identify the
|
|
key constraints and issues and identify a number of possible positions
|
|
and responses. Rather than attempting to "precompile" all this
|
|
information and advocate a particular course of action, I have
|
|
provided information so that you can make up your own mind. To this
|
|
end, I have added appendices containing reference material that you
|
|
might otherwise have to look up (as I had to).
|
|
|
|
The deadline for action (by fax) is midnight ending Monday 9 August
|
|
1993 Washington D.C. time, but it would be best to act well before
|
|
then to be on the safe side. I urge you, at the very least, to read
|
|
this document and make up your own mind about this important issue.
|
|
|
|
Ross Williams (ross@guest.adelaide.edu.au.)
|
|
4 August 1993.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AN ANALYSIS OF THE NIST/PKP DIGITAL SIGNATURE PATENT LICENSING PROPOSAL
|
|
=======================================================================
|
|
Version : 3.
|
|
Date : 4 August 1993.
|
|
Author : Ross N. Williams.
|
|
Net : ross@guest.adelaide.edu.au.
|
|
Snail : 16 Lerwick Avenue, Hazelwood Park 5066, Australia.
|
|
Fax : +61 8 373-4911.
|
|
Phone : +61 8 379-5020 (10am to 10pm Adelaide Australia time).
|
|
Thanks : The following people have provided me with information:
|
|
Noah Friedman (friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu.).
|
|
Jack Larsen (jl@epsilon.eecs.nwu.edu.).
|
|
Richard Stallman (rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu.).
|
|
Dan Bernstein (djb@silverton.berkeley.edu.)
|
|
Cleared : Cleared for public release 1:18am 04-Aug-1993: RNW.
|
|
Status : Copyright (C) Ross Williams 1993. However, permission is granted to
|
|
make and distribute verbatim copies of this document provided
|
|
that this copyright notice is included.
|
|
Disclaimer: Where this document expresses opinions on behalf of the
|
|
author, those opinions are the author's only and are not representative
|
|
of any organization associated with the author.
|
|
|
|
Note: A GLOSSARY appears at the end of this document. If you are
|
|
unsure of an acronym, look it up. Search for the word "glossary".
|
|
|
|
|
|
0. TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
====================
|
|
1. The Facts of the Case
|
|
1.1 Public Key Cryptography
|
|
1.2 The Digital Signature Standard
|
|
1.3 The Choice
|
|
1.4 The Gift
|
|
1.5 Objecting and Appealing
|
|
2. What People Think (and Feel!)
|
|
3. Analysis.
|
|
3.1 Enumerating The Objections
|
|
3.2 The US Code
|
|
3.3 Alternatives for NIST
|
|
3.4 A Modern Aesops Fable
|
|
4. What You Can Do.
|
|
4.1 Many Options
|
|
4.2 To Whom To Write
|
|
4.3 A Selection of Things To Say
|
|
--
|
|
A. Glossary.
|
|
B. NIST's Announcement
|
|
C. United States Code Title 35.
|
|
D: 37 CFR 404.7 (Checklist for License Application)
|
|
E: Dan Bernstein's Posting and Form Letter
|
|
F: The LPF Announcement
|
|
G. The letters I intend to send.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. THE FACTS OF THE CASE
|
|
========================
|
|
As far as I can determine, these are the facts of the case. I have not
|
|
checked all these facts, and welcome corrections. I regret that I do
|
|
not have the time to substantiate the stuff in this section with
|
|
formal references.
|
|
|
|
1.1 Public Key Cryptography
|
|
----------------------------
|
|
* In late 1970's and early 1980's there was a revolution in
|
|
cryptography caused by the invention of public-key cryptography by
|
|
researchers at MIT and Stanford. Those researchers created patents
|
|
covering much of the new technology, and these patents were assigned
|
|
to their respective institutions.
|
|
|
|
* In order to exploit the new technology, MIT and Stanford created a
|
|
company called Public Key Partners (PKP) to whom they granted
|
|
exclusive sublicensing rights to the cryptography patents. As a result
|
|
PKP has controlled the use of public key cryptography for the last
|
|
decade or so.
|
|
|
|
* PKP claims that its patents are very broad and cover not just
|
|
specific public key cryptography techniques such as the RSA technique,
|
|
but also cover the IDEA of public-key cryptography too. Like most
|
|
issues involved in this whole situation, this issue is not clear and
|
|
can only be resolved in the courts. This document assumes that the PKP
|
|
patends are broad.
|
|
|
|
* The PKP patents expire between 1997 and 2008. The most important
|
|
ones expire between 1997 and 2000.
|
|
|
|
* Public key cryptography is a seminal enabling technology that solves
|
|
most information integrity problems, including the ability to create
|
|
unforgeable digital signatures. Digital signatures are just like real
|
|
handwritten signatures except that they can be applied to digital
|
|
documents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2 The Digital Signature Standard
|
|
----------------------------------
|
|
* Digital signatures are extremely powerful, but also rather
|
|
technologically messy to implement. Keys have to be generated and
|
|
managed. In particular, the issuing of a digital signature is a social
|
|
and commercial event most likely requiring network events. In my
|
|
opinion digital signatures will not enter widespread use until they
|
|
are standardized.
|
|
|
|
* Several years ago, the US Congress, recognising the need for a
|
|
standard, instructed NIST (The US National Institute of Standards and
|
|
Technology) to perform a study and come up with a proposal for a
|
|
digital signature standard.
|
|
|
|
* NIST evaluated the options and, among other things, commissioned its
|
|
own signature scheme called DSA (Digital Signature Algorithm). The DSA
|
|
was prepared with assistance from the NSA (National Security Agency).
|
|
|
|
* When all the dust settled, there were two proposals to choose from:
|
|
a proposal by PKP based on RSA, and DSA. NIST patented DSA which meant
|
|
that both proposals were embodied in patents, one owned by PKP and the
|
|
other by NIST.
|
|
|
|
* There were many pros and cons for each proposal including:
|
|
|
|
- PKP asserted that the NIST proposal was technically more
|
|
arbitrary than the RSA and was created in a more politically
|
|
impure environment (with help from the NSA) and so was more
|
|
likely to have a backdoor in it somewhere. RSA is based on prime
|
|
numbers and is simpler and more self-evidently backdoor-free.
|
|
|
|
- The PKP proposal was privately owned and so, if it was chosen,
|
|
everyone would have to pay PKP royalties.
|
|
|
|
* Because the use of digital signatures requires the interaction
|
|
between random pairs of individuals in society and other organizations
|
|
and agencies, it would appear that there is no room for two standards.
|
|
It might be possible for two standards to coexist, but once one
|
|
catches on, no one will want to know about the other, as "hardly
|
|
anybody uses it". Furthermore, whatever is chosen as the standard is
|
|
likely to become mandatory when interacting with various government
|
|
institutions. Thus, whatever happens, the standard that catches on is
|
|
likely to dominate and will be hard to supplant even by
|
|
technologically better rivals. This makes right-now a critical time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3 The Choice
|
|
--------------
|
|
* The decision was up to NIST. In the end it chose its own proposal
|
|
which was subsequently named in its DSS (Digital Signature Standard)
|
|
as the standard algorithm.
|
|
|
|
* NIST's problem then was how to cope with PKP. It seems that earlier
|
|
on, NIST declared the DSA free of coverage from other patents:
|
|
|
|
"[We] believe this technique is patentable and that no other patents
|
|
would apply to the DSS."
|
|
-- NIST --US Federal Register, 30 August 1991.
|
|
|
|
However, it seems that since that time, PKP applied pressure to NIST
|
|
claiming that the DSA was covered by PKP's broader patents. It is
|
|
still not clear what the practical scope of PKP's patents is and the
|
|
only way to tell is go to court. What is certain is that the PKP
|
|
patents THREATEN the DSA patent and can cause trouble for it at any
|
|
time.
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile, NIST has certainly behaved as if the PKP patents are a
|
|
problem as it stated in its DSA license proposal announcement (see
|
|
Appendix B of this document):
|
|
|
|
>The prospective license is a cross-license which would resolve a
|
|
>patent dispute with Public Key Partners and includes the right to
|
|
|
|
If PKP are right then patent law says that neither party can use the
|
|
technology without obtaining a license from the other party. However,
|
|
the coverage of PKP's patents is far from clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4 The Gift
|
|
------------
|
|
* In the end, NIST decided to simply GIVE its DSA patent to PKP.
|
|
Actually, it's not giving, it's an exclusive license, which is
|
|
effectively the same thing. We will use the word "give" in this
|
|
document.
|
|
|
|
* This decision has been, to say the least, controversial. At least is
|
|
has within the subculture that knows about these things. It hasn't hit
|
|
Donahue yet.
|
|
|
|
* The PKP patents run out between 1997 and 2000. The DSA patent runs
|
|
out in about 2010. Thus, if PKP's patents have teeth then NIST is
|
|
GIVING PKP a monopoly of a major national standard for 10 years. If
|
|
PKP's patents don't have coverage, then NIST is GIVING PKP the
|
|
monopoly for about 16 years. Either way, it's an unnecessarily
|
|
generous gift and one that will probably cost the public hundreds of
|
|
millions of dollars.
|
|
|
|
* Monopolistic control over DSA is a gold mine. I can't put a figure on
|
|
how much it would be worth, but certainly more than three flat rocks and a
|
|
piece of string. Just remember that most commercial transactions of the
|
|
future and probably most electronic communications will be executed using
|
|
digital signatures and you get an idea of the scope of the monopoly.
|
|
It's almost like simultaneously owning a patent on the pens with which
|
|
all people must sign contracts and on sealing wax with which people seal
|
|
envelopes (or did in more romantic eras).
|
|
|
|
* PKP has stated its INTENT to license DSA free for non-commercial use:
|
|
|
|
>It is PKP's intent to make practice of the DSA royalty free for
|
|
>personal, noncommercial and U.S. Federal, state and local
|
|
>government use. As explained below, only those parties who enjoy
|
|
>commercial benefit from making or selling products, or certifying
|
|
>digital signatures, will be required to pay royalties to practice
|
|
>the DSA.
|
|
|
|
However, this apparently does not cover software distribution schemes
|
|
that operate at cost or which cross-subsidize distribution to yield a
|
|
non-profit. Note also that this statement of intent does not represent
|
|
a binding committment.
|
|
|
|
* PKP has issued a statement committing itself to charging a maximum
|
|
royalty rate of 5% if the deal goes through. However, there are also
|
|
"minimum fees" which are going to be $10000 per year, plus $10000 for
|
|
small companies and $25000 for big companies.
|
|
|
|
* An important aspect of the situation is that after PKP's patents run
|
|
out, there will be nothing stopping anyone from creating and using new
|
|
digital signature algorithms that are not DSA. The trouble is that by
|
|
that stage DSA will be so well established that no one will want to
|
|
use anything else. So, while PKP will eventually lose control over
|
|
public-key cryptography, they will still have control over the DSA,
|
|
and by then nobody will be able to supplant it with a free standard.
|
|
|
|
* If the deal does go through then we are likely to see an interesting
|
|
effect as the PKP patent expiry dates approach. At roughly that time,
|
|
PKP's RSA patents will expire and we will find that PKP is promoting
|
|
the DSA (over which it holds a patent) and downplaying (and possibly
|
|
denigrating) the RSA algorithms upon which the company was
|
|
founded!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.5 Objecting and Appealing
|
|
---------------------------
|
|
* The DSA patent has not yet been licensed to PKP. By 37 CFR 404.7,
|
|
this cannot occur unless NIST first advertises the fact that the
|
|
licensing is to take place, and solicits objections from the public.
|
|
NIST made such an advertisement in the US Federal Register on 8 June
|
|
1993:
|
|
|
|
>The prospective license will be granted unless, within sixty (60)
|
|
>days of this notice, NIST receives written evidence and argument
|
|
>which established that the grant of the license would not be
|
|
>consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
|
|
>Dated: June 2, 1993.
|
|
|
|
This noticed was published on about 8 June 1993 so the deadline for
|
|
responses is 8 August 1993 Washington D.C. time. However, this is a
|
|
Sunday and we have obtained a verbal commitment from NIST that Monday
|
|
is OK too.
|
|
|
|
* A lawyer I know who has knowledge of this case has indicated that he
|
|
thinks that there is no likelihood that NIST will back out of the deal
|
|
at this stage. However, he feels that this stance is a result of
|
|
leftovers from the Bush administration. Apparently appeals will be
|
|
heard by the new Clinton administration and so there is a chance of a
|
|
change of mind by NIST.
|
|
|
|
* An appeal can be made later to the new administration by anyone who
|
|
submitted written comments to NIST (as explained above) in opposition
|
|
to the proposal. Appealants can appeal "de novo" which means that they
|
|
are not limited to facts and arguments submitted now.
|
|
|
|
* The word "algorithm" appears in the DSA patent, despite the fact
|
|
that it is officially impossible to register a software patent (it has
|
|
to be framed in terms of hardware) so it may be that the DSA patent is
|
|
invalid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. WHAT VARIOUS PEOPLE THINK (AND FEEL!)
|
|
========================================
|
|
* Many people do not believe that algorithmic processes, and in
|
|
particular, software should be patentable at all. This is an extremely
|
|
complex issue, but if you do not believe that software patents should
|
|
exist, you will also believe that the PKP patents should not exist.
|
|
|
|
* Many people are worried that public key cryptography was patented,
|
|
given its origins. They point out that most of the research leading to
|
|
it was funded by public (i.e. taxpayer's) money granted by the US
|
|
Federal Government to Universities. They point out that if the result
|
|
of such research should be framed as property at all (e.g. patents)
|
|
then it should be public property. In fact, a database search of the
|
|
relevant patents reveals that many of them have the following note
|
|
attached which would seem to indicate that the government may have
|
|
some direct rights to the patents:
|
|
|
|
>GOVERNMENT INTEREST (GI) The Government has rights in this
|
|
> invention pursuant to Grant No. ENG-10173 of
|
|
> the National Science Foundation and IPA No.
|
|
> 0005.
|
|
|
|
* One of the purposes of the patent system is to cause technology to
|
|
be exploited. Some people have suggested that PKP has not been
|
|
effective in allowing the diffusion public key cryptography. I am not
|
|
in a position to establish the truth or falsehood of this statement.
|
|
However, there is intuitive evidence in the fact that public key
|
|
cryptography was invented almost 20 years ago, and yet is not yet in
|
|
widespread use. A visit to the supermarket checkout counter reveals no
|
|
digital signatures. Why not?
|
|
|
|
* Some people have suggested that the reason for the lack of diffusion
|
|
of public key cryptography is that a cosy unspoken understanding
|
|
exists between PKP and various US Government agencies that are
|
|
none-too-happy about the prospect of a diffusion of this technology.
|
|
Evidence for the attitude of government agencies is: 1) the smoking
|
|
gun of the 56-bit DES key, 2) the fact that much cryptographic
|
|
technology is currently classified as "munitions" and cannot be
|
|
exported without a license. Evidence of the lack of diffusion is the
|
|
supermarket argument above. The rest is speculation.
|
|
|
|
* Many people were worried when NIST patented the DSA. They felt that
|
|
no good could come from embodying a public standard as a piece of
|
|
intellectual property. Their fears have been realized as NIST is about
|
|
to license that property exclusively to PKP.
|
|
|
|
* It is very easy to get hot under the collar at NIST. However, it is
|
|
also important to realize that their actions MAY be motivated by no
|
|
more than a desire for the public good - to disseminate digital
|
|
signature technology as quickly as possible. In this quest they ran up
|
|
against a problem - PKP - and solved it as quickly and as easily as
|
|
they could - by giving the DSA patent to PKP.
|
|
|
|
* I do not particularly hold any bad feelings towards PKP or its
|
|
employees. I have been developing a product recently that has required
|
|
me to interact with PKP and to license one of their algorithms. They
|
|
have been nothing but polite and helpful and have provided me with
|
|
useful information. My concern is not with PKP, but with the future of
|
|
digital signatures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. ANALYSIS
|
|
===========
|
|
|
|
3.1 Enumerating The Objections
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
I you are at all like me, by this stage your brain will be feeling as
|
|
if it is full of cotton wool so let's attempt to crystalize it all.
|
|
First, why should we care at all? The answer to this is that digital
|
|
signatures are going to be very important in the future. Second, what
|
|
bad things have happened, or are about to happen? This depends on your
|
|
stand on various issues in intellectual property. Combing through
|
|
previous sections, we can assemble at least the following list of
|
|
potential objections:
|
|
|
|
* Object to software patents in general.
|
|
* Object to publicly funded universities creating patents at all.
|
|
* Object to such universities assigning such patents to commercial companies.
|
|
* Object to PKP allegedly holding up the diffusion of public key technology.
|
|
* Object to the involvement of the NSA in creating the DSA.
|
|
* Object to NIST choosing DSA as standard instead of RSA.
|
|
* Object to NIST embodying DSA in a patent.
|
|
* Object to government agencies assigning patents to commercial companies.
|
|
* Object to NIST assigning the patent to just ONE company.
|
|
* Object to NIST effectively extending PKP's patent powers.
|
|
* Object to NIST making it more difficult for companies that
|
|
wish to fight PKP to do so.
|
|
|
|
So there is certainly a lot to grumble about! This is a problem with
|
|
this issue: there are too many ducks to shoot at and the more
|
|
idealistic you are the easier it becomes to get angry and confused.
|
|
However, right now we are right near the end of NIST's 60-day deadline
|
|
and coherent focussed action is required.
|
|
|
|
From the legal tactical point of view, there are many many angles of
|
|
attack. I won't go into them here; the situation touches on
|
|
constitutional law, administrative law, patent law and I don't
|
|
understand it all. Just be assured that "teams of lawyers are working
|
|
around the clock" :-) What we really need of course is a turbo-charged
|
|
Hillary, but this is not possible at this time.
|
|
|
|
What IS important is that the current situation seems to be largely a
|
|
result of the leftovers of the Bush administration. The new Clinton
|
|
administration may take different view on all this. I have heard that
|
|
soon the top few people in NIST will be replaced by Clinton people.
|
|
This means that if enough people object now with enough good reasons,
|
|
the issue might get held up long enough for it to be caught by the new
|
|
administration. And the "de novo" aspect of the appeals process means
|
|
that new arguments can be created and presented later, so you are not
|
|
limited later to what you say now. So say anything, but please say
|
|
something, now.
|
|
|
|
As we have seen, there are many legitimate objections that could be
|
|
made. In my mind the key ones are:
|
|
|
|
* That NIST is placing a key international standard in the
|
|
hands of a single company.
|
|
|
|
* That by handing DSA to PKP, NIST is giving PKP power
|
|
unnecessarily. It may be that some companies believe that they
|
|
can beat PKP's broad patents in court. However, if the NIST/PKP
|
|
deal goes through, such companies will have to break not only
|
|
the broad PKP patents, but the more specific DSA one as well.
|
|
If the PKP patents are so strong, why should NIST need to give
|
|
PKP the DSA patent at all?
|
|
|
|
In addition to these general objections, we can also respond directly
|
|
and formally to NIST's requests for comments on the deal. The next
|
|
section discusses this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2 The US Code
|
|
---------------
|
|
NIST has requested objections to its proposal before 8 August 1993.
|
|
Furthermore, it has specified exactly what its criterion is for
|
|
evaluating objections:
|
|
|
|
>The prospective license will be granted unless, within sixty (60)
|
|
>days of this notice, NIST receives written evidence and argument
|
|
>which established that the grant of the license would not be
|
|
>consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
|
|
>Dated: June 2, 1993.
|
|
|
|
I have obtained copies of 35 U.S.C. 209 (see Appendix C) and 37 CFR 404.7
|
|
(see Appendix D). The latter is basically the former repeated over a few
|
|
times with some bits added.
|
|
|
|
Here are the juicy clauses of 35 U.S.C. 209 - the ones that specify the
|
|
criteria that NIST is supposed to be using to determine whether to license
|
|
DSA to PKP. NIST is most likely to respond favourably to objections lodged
|
|
to it that address these criteria and explain why they are not being met.
|
|
Here we go:
|
|
|
|
>(A) the interests of the Federal Government and the public will
|
|
>best be served by the proposed license, in view of the applicant's
|
|
>intentions, plans, and ability to bring the invention to practical
|
|
>application or otherwise promote the invention's utilization by
|
|
>the public;
|
|
|
|
I think it's fairly clear from the history of the computer industry in
|
|
the last two decades that computer companies will need little
|
|
encouragement in adopting and implementing this standard without the
|
|
help of PKP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
>(B) the desired practical application has not been achieved, or is not
|
|
>likely expeditiously to be achieved, under any non-exclusive license
|
|
>which has been granted, or which may be granted, on the invention;
|
|
|
|
DSS has only recently been declared a standard, so it's hard to judge.
|
|
It depends on how good PKP's is at preventing companies from
|
|
implementing DSA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
>(C) exclusive or partially exclusive licensing is a reasonable and
|
|
>necessary initiative to call forth the investment of risk capital and
|
|
>expenditures to bring the invention to practical application or
|
|
>otherwise promote the invention's utilization by the public; and
|
|
|
|
This condition absolutely is not met. The history of the computer
|
|
industry and the potential for the DSA clearly indicates that there
|
|
will be, if anything, a glut of risk capital for implementing DSA.
|
|
And it's probably not even likely to be "risk" capital!
|
|
|
|
|
|
>(D) the proposed terms and scope of exclusivity are not greater than
|
|
>reasonably necessary to provide the incentive for bringing the invention
|
|
>to practical application or otherwise promote the invention's
|
|
>utilization by the public.
|
|
|
|
Even if DSA is a subset of PKP's patents and NIST is assigning DSA to
|
|
PKP to simplify the situation, this condition is definitely not met as
|
|
NIST is licensing DSA to PKP for at least 10 years longer than it
|
|
needs to - more than half the life of the patent. PKP's patents expire
|
|
before 2000, but NIST is granting DSA until the year 2010. This is FAR
|
|
greater than is reasonably necessary. Because technology tends to
|
|
diffuse in accordance with an exponential curve (at least until it
|
|
saturates), it is likely that the royalties PKP will receive between
|
|
2000 and 2010 will be a hundred times greater than those it receives
|
|
beween 1993 and 2000. Thus, in practice, NIST may be being
|
|
overgenerous by a factor of one hundred or more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUMMARY: If we assume that NIST's goal is to get DSA in use as quickly
|
|
as possible, then their only obstacle is PKP. The clauses above
|
|
address the issues of technology diffusion and the attraction of risk
|
|
capital. These issues are not central in this case as it must be
|
|
blindingly obvious to anyone who knows the computer industry that the
|
|
DSA standard would go like curry through a senior citizen if all the
|
|
patents were lifted from it (remember, we are most likely talking
|
|
about most commercial outlets in the US and nearly all electronic mail
|
|
in the future). Thus, the only reason why NIST should consider handing
|
|
over the DSA patent under these clauses is because PKP has the
|
|
industry by the throat. But this is not certain, and even if it was,
|
|
under clause (D) above, NIST should attempt to minimize its commitment
|
|
to PKP. If it is to license DSA to PKP AT ALL, it should license it
|
|
only until PKP's patents run out, not until the year 2010. And even
|
|
licensing DSA to PKP until the patents run out is unnecessary because
|
|
if NIST offered a public license of DSA, companies could simply fight
|
|
PKP's patents in the courts directly without DSA being involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.3 Alternatives for NIST
|
|
-------------------------
|
|
As we have seen above, NIST's actions are at least inconsistent with
|
|
the code with respect to section (D). So, we can write to them and
|
|
complain about that specifically.
|
|
|
|
By now, you should have a pretty good feel for the situation. My
|
|
personal opinion is that NIST are simply eager to diffuse the
|
|
technology, but because they feel "blocked" by PKP, have folded to
|
|
them. Unfortunately, they seem to giving up far more than they need
|
|
to. So let's help them get their confidence back :-) by coming up with
|
|
some alternatives:
|
|
|
|
A1: ISSUE A GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE: This would knock NIST out of it,
|
|
allowing those wishing to implement DSA to deal with PKP directly,
|
|
either through the courts, or the banks. :-) At least PKP's power
|
|
would not be increased.
|
|
|
|
A2: FIND ANOTHER STANDARD OR ENCOURAGE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ANOTHER
|
|
STANDARD: Do we want DSA at all? Given that the NSA had a finger in
|
|
it, it's not clear how secure it is. Is it really desirable for
|
|
certain U.S. government agencies, perhaps a little out of control, to
|
|
be able to digitally prove in court that any citizen it particularly
|
|
feels like targetting has taken out a $200,000 loan which has not been
|
|
repayed? Well, of course, it's not that simple. Even so, these
|
|
technologies have a habit of being used for increasingly serious
|
|
applications and this sort of abuse is not unimaginable. In the new
|
|
commercial world, a backdoor to the DSA would be a license to print
|
|
money, without all the hassles of running a printing press.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps it is better to take a completely different approach.
|
|
Independent of licensing issues, I don't think that NIST are going to
|
|
back down from their own standard. However, they could assist the free
|
|
market along by specifying that all implementations of DSA incorporate
|
|
a general digital signature framework into which a variety of digital
|
|
signature algorithms could be inserted, including DSA.
|
|
|
|
If all manufacturers implemented this, then, at a later date it would
|
|
be easy to switch to another standard or choose one or another
|
|
standard at the supermarket till. Even if NIST gave PKP DSA, by
|
|
enforcing this "slot" openness in the implementation of DSA, it could
|
|
pave the way for the standard to be replaced in the future by a better
|
|
one (perhaps RSA!) when the PKP patents expire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.4 A Modern Aesops Fable
|
|
-------------------------
|
|
During times of drought a farmer noticed that his cow was looking a bit
|
|
thin so he sent his son out with the cow to find some nice green grass
|
|
to munch on so that the cow would grow fat and yield lots of milk. The
|
|
son walked the cow for miles and miles (making the cow even thinner in the
|
|
process), but couldn't find any grass (it's the Australian outback).
|
|
In the end he found a nice green paddock and set the cow grazing.
|
|
|
|
Later the son returned to the homestead:
|
|
|
|
Farmer : How'd it go son? Do we have a happy cow now?
|
|
Son : Well sort of; I had trouble finding a grassy paddock.
|
|
Farmer : But you found one in the end didn't you?
|
|
Son : Yes, and I put the cow in the paddock. But soon another farmer
|
|
came running out. He said it was his paddock --- he had rented it
|
|
for three years --- and that I couldn't graze my cow there without
|
|
giving him some milk. It was the only green paddock there was.
|
|
Farmer : So what did you do?
|
|
Son : I gave him the cow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. WHAT YOU CAN DO
|
|
==================
|
|
|
|
4.1 Many Options
|
|
----------------
|
|
If you've read this far, the extra amount of work required to print
|
|
out a letter of objection and mail it to NIST will seem trivial by
|
|
comparison! Furthermore, if you act, you may be able to secure a DSA
|
|
license for yourself from NIST before DSA is handed over to PKP.
|
|
|
|
It is important to realize that NIST are actually SOLICITING
|
|
objections. So it's not as if you are writing in cold. Regardless of
|
|
what NIST's real attitude is, the fact is that they have to receive
|
|
and collate all the objections they receive and pay some sort of
|
|
attention to them.
|
|
|
|
As we've seen above, the issues are complicated, and the sort of
|
|
response you'll want to send NIST will depend on your point of view.
|
|
I'm not going to tell you what to send to NIST. However, I am going to
|
|
make it as easy as possible to send SOMETHING to NIST by providing
|
|
handy information such as the address of the person to send to :-)
|
|
along with various form letters.
|
|
|
|
One interesting aspect of objecting is stated by NIST in their
|
|
announcement:
|
|
|
|
>Applications for a license filed in response to this notice will be
|
|
>treated as objections to the grant of the prospective license.
|
|
|
|
Thus, if you do no more than simply file an application for a DSA
|
|
license (to NIST before it hands it over to PKP), you will be
|
|
objecting implicitly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.2 To Whom To Write
|
|
--------------------
|
|
NIST states in their announcement that "Inquiries, comments, and other
|
|
materials relating to the prospective license shall be submitted to:
|
|
|
|
Michael R. Rubin
|
|
Active Chief Counsel for Technology
|
|
Room A-1111, Administration Building,
|
|
National Institute of Standards and Technology
|
|
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
|
|
Phone: +1(301) 975-2803.
|
|
Fax: +1(301) 926-2569.
|
|
|
|
The formal deadling is the end of 08-Aug-1993. However as that is a
|
|
Sunday, Michael Rubin has stated to others that correspondence
|
|
received on Monday 09-Aug-1993 will be accepted. Furthermore, in a
|
|
telephone conversation between Michael Rubin and myself between 1:22am
|
|
and 1:24am on 04-Aug-1993 Adelaide time, he informed me that faxed
|
|
correspondence would be accepted until midnight ending Mon 09-Aug-1993
|
|
[implicitly Washington DC time]. (Sorry, I forgot to ask him his email
|
|
address - fax is probably better anyway, as I understand that faxed
|
|
signatures are accepted in law (no digital signatures in email yet
|
|
:-)).
|
|
|
|
The LPF has requested that you send a copy of your letter to them at:
|
|
|
|
League for Programming Freedom
|
|
1 Kendall Square #143
|
|
P.O.Box 9171
|
|
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
|
|
|
|
The League for Programming Freedom is an organization which defends
|
|
the freedom to write software, and opposes monopolies such as patented
|
|
algorithms and copyrighted languages. It advocates returning to the
|
|
former legal system under which if you write the program, you are free
|
|
to use it. Please write to the League if you want more information.
|
|
Sending copies to the League will enable them to show them to elected
|
|
officials if that is useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.3 A Selection of Things To Say
|
|
--------------------------------
|
|
Here is a list of actions to give you ideas.
|
|
|
|
* Write to NIST and ask for a personal or implementors license. The
|
|
personal license will allow you to use the DSA technology in
|
|
5,231,668. The implementors license will allow you to create
|
|
for-private-use or public domain DSA implementations. You can use the
|
|
Dan Bernstein form letters in Appendix E to do this. NIST may or may
|
|
not grant the license, but at least you can try.
|
|
|
|
* Write to NIST objecting to the DSA deal on one or more of the following
|
|
grounds:
|
|
|
|
- Various idealistic reasons such as the creation of the technology
|
|
using public money, the assignment of the technology to a private
|
|
company, and the involvement of the NSA in formulating the standard.
|
|
|
|
- Because the deal "is not consistent with requirements of
|
|
35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7." More specifically
|
|
|
|
>(C) exclusive or partially exclusive licensing is a reasonable and
|
|
>necessary initiative to call forth the investment of risk capital and
|
|
>expenditures to bring the invention to practical application or
|
|
>otherwise promote the invention's utilization by the public; and
|
|
|
|
There will be no shortage of risk capital for DSA!
|
|
|
|
>(D) the proposed terms and scope of exclusivity are not greater than
|
|
>reasonably necessary to provide the incentive for bringing the invention
|
|
>to practical application or otherwise promote the invention's
|
|
>utilization by the public.
|
|
|
|
PKP's patents run out by 2000, but NIST is granting them DSA to 2010.
|
|
|
|
* Write to NIST and suggest that they issue a general public license.
|
|
|
|
* Write to NIST objecting, explaining the importance of DSA in future
|
|
society and urging them to (as the LPF puts it) "pursue all possible
|
|
means, judicial and legislative, to invalidate or annull the PKP
|
|
patents", and failing that "take them by eminent domain". This would
|
|
be cheaper in the long run than the current plan. (Note: I can't help
|
|
you with the details here: I don't know what eminent domain is. I
|
|
presume it's what happens when congress finds out that someone has
|
|
patented the slush fund :-)
|
|
|
|
* Send a copy of the farmer fable :-)
|
|
|
|
That's it! Over to you now!
|
|
|
|
=====================================================================
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY
|
|
====================
|
|
DES = Data Encryption Standard.
|
|
DSA = Digital Signature Algorithm.
|
|
DSS = Digital Signature Standard.
|
|
LPF = League for Programming Freedom
|
|
NIST = National Institute of Standards and Technology.
|
|
NSA = National Security Agency.
|
|
PKP = Public Key Partners.
|
|
RSA = Rivest Shamir Adelman - an important public-key cypher.
|
|
|
|
=====================================================================
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX B: NIST'S ANNOUNCEMENT
|
|
===============================
|
|
|
|
** The following notice was published in the Federal Register, Vol.
|
|
58, No. 108, dated June 8, 1993 under Notices **
|
|
|
|
National Institute of Standards and Technology
|
|
|
|
Notice of Proposal for Grant of Exclusive Patent License
|
|
|
|
This is to notify the public that the National Institute of
|
|
Standards and Technology (NIST) intends to grant an exclusive
|
|
world-wide license to Public Key Partners of Sunnyvale, California
|
|
to practice the Invention embodied in U.S. Patent Application No.
|
|
07/738.431 and entitled "Digital Signature Algorithm." A PCT
|
|
application has been filed. The rights in the invention have been
|
|
assigned to the United States of America.
|
|
|
|
The prospective license is a cross-license which would resolve a
|
|
patent dispute with Public Key Partners and includes the right to
|
|
sublicense. Notice of availability of this invention for licensing
|
|
was waived because it was determined that expeditious granting of
|
|
such license will best serve the interest of the Federal Government
|
|
and the public. Public Key Partners has provided NIST with the
|
|
materials contained in Appendix A as part of their proposal to
|
|
NIST.
|
|
|
|
Inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the prospec-
|
|
tive license shall be submitted to Michael R. Rubin, Active Chief
|
|
Counsel for Technology, Room A-1111, Administration Building,
|
|
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
|
|
Maryland 20899. His telephone number is (301) 975-2803. Applica-
|
|
tions for a license filed in response to this notice will be
|
|
treated as objections to the grant of the prospective license.
|
|
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are
|
|
received by NIST within sixty (60) days for the publication of this
|
|
notice will be considered.
|
|
|
|
The prospective license will be granted unless, within sixty (60)
|
|
days of this notice, NIST receives written evidence and argument
|
|
which established that the grant of the license would not be
|
|
consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
|
|
|
|
Dated: June 2, 1993.
|
|
|
|
Raymond G. Kammer
|
|
Acting Director, National Institute Standards and Technology.
|
|
|
|
Appendix "A"
|
|
|
|
The National Institute for Standards and Technology ("NIST") has
|
|
announced its intention to grant Public Key Partners ("PKP")
|
|
sublicensing rights to NIST's pending patent application on the
|
|
Digital Signature Algorithm ("DSA").
|
|
|
|
Subject to NIST's grant of this license, PKP is pleased to declare
|
|
its support for the proposed Federal Information Processing
|
|
Standard for Digital Signatures (the "DSS") and the pending
|
|
availability of licenses to practice the DSA. In addition to the
|
|
DSA, licenses to practice digital signatures will be offered by PKP
|
|
under the following patents:
|
|
|
|
Cryptographic Apparatus and Method ("Diffie-Hellman")
|
|
No. 4,200,770
|
|
Public Key Cryptographic Apparatus and Method
|
|
("Hellman-Merkle") No. 4,315,552
|
|
Exponential Cryptographic Apparatus and Method
|
|
("Hellman-Pohlig") No. 4,434,414
|
|
Method For Identifying Subscribers And For Generating
|
|
And Verifying Electronic Signatures In A Data Exchange
|
|
System ("Schnorr") No. 4,995,082
|
|
|
|
It is PKP's intent to make practice of the DSA royalty free for
|
|
personal, noncommercial and U.S. Federal, state and local
|
|
government use. As explained below, only those parties who enjoy
|
|
commercial benefit from making or selling products, or certifying
|
|
digital signatures, will be required to pay royalties to practice
|
|
the DSA.
|
|
|
|
PKP will also grant a license to practice key management, at no
|
|
additional fee, for the integrated circuits which will implement
|
|
both the DSA and the anticipated Federal Information Processing
|
|
Standard for the "key escrow" system announced by President Clinton
|
|
on April 16, 1993.
|
|
|
|
Having stated these intentions, PKP now takes this opportunity to
|
|
publish its guidelines for granting uniform licenses to all parties
|
|
having a commercial interest in practicing this technology:
|
|
|
|
First, no party will be denied a license for any reason other that
|
|
the following:
|
|
|
|
(i) Failure to meet its payment obligations,
|
|
(ii) Outstanding claims of infringement, or
|
|
(iii) Previous termination due to material breach.
|
|
|
|
Second, licenses will be granted for any embodiment sold by the
|
|
licensee or made for its use, whether for final products software,
|
|
or components such as integrated circuits and boards, and regard-
|
|
less of the licensee's channel of distribution. Provided the
|
|
requisite royalties have been paid by the seller on the enabling
|
|
component(s), no further royalties will be owned by the buyer for
|
|
making or selling the final product which incorporates such
|
|
components.
|
|
|
|
Third, the practice of digital signatures in accordance with the
|
|
DSA may be licensed separately from any other technical art covered
|
|
by PKP's patents.
|
|
|
|
Fourth, PKP's royalty rates for the right to make or sell products,
|
|
subject to uniform minimum fees, will be no more than 2 1/2% for
|
|
hardware products and 5% for software, with the royalty rate
|
|
further declining to 1% on any portion of the product price
|
|
exceeding $1,000. These royalty rates apply only to noninfringing
|
|
parties and will be uniform without regard to whether the licensed
|
|
product creates digital signatures, verifies digital signatures or
|
|
performs both.
|
|
|
|
Fifth, for the next three (3) years, all commercial services which
|
|
certify a signature's authenticity for a fee may be operated
|
|
royalty free. Thereafter, all providers of such commercial
|
|
certification services shall pay a royalty to PKP of $1.00 per
|
|
certificate for each year the certificate is valid.
|
|
|
|
Sixth, provided the foregoing royalties are paid on such products
|
|
or services, all other practice of the DSA shall be royalty free.
|
|
|
|
Seventh, PKP invites all of its existing licensees, at their
|
|
option, to exchange their current licenses for the standard license
|
|
offered for DSA.
|
|
|
|
Finally, PKP will mediate the concerns of any party regarding the
|
|
availability of PKP's licenses for the DSA with designated
|
|
representatives of NIST and PKP. For copies of PKP's license
|
|
terms, contact Michael R. Rubin, Acting Chief Counsel for Technolo-
|
|
gy, NIST, or Public Key Partners.
|
|
|
|
Dated: June 2, 1993.
|
|
|
|
Robert B. Fougner, Esq.,
|
|
Director of Licensing, Public Key Partners,
|
|
310 North Mary Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94033
|
|
|
|
[FR Doc. 93-13473 Filed 8-7-93; 8:45 am]
|
|
|
|
=====================================================================
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX C: UNITED STATES CODE (U.S.C.) TITLE 35 - PATENTS SECTION 209
|
|
======================================================================
|
|
|
|
Note: 37 CFR 404.7. is basically the following repeated over a few
|
|
times with some irrelevant bits added.
|
|
|
|
S 209. Restrictions on licensing of federally owned inventions
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
(a) No Federal agency shall grant any license under a patent or patent
|
|
application on a federally owned invention unless the person requesting
|
|
the license has supplied the agency with a plan for development and/or
|
|
marketing of the invention, except that any such plan may be treated
|
|
by the Federal agency as a commercial and financial information obtained
|
|
from a person and privileded and confidential and not subject to disclosure
|
|
under section 552 of title 5 of the United States Code.
|
|
|
|
(b) A Federal agency shall normally grant the right to use or sell any
|
|
federally owned invention in the United States only to a licensee that
|
|
agrees that any products embodying the invention and produced through
|
|
the use of the invention will be manufactured substantially in the United
|
|
States.
|
|
|
|
(c)
|
|
|
|
(1) Each Federal agency may grant exclusive or partially
|
|
exclusive licenses in any invention covered by a federally owned domestic
|
|
patent or patent application only if, after public notice and opportunity
|
|
for filing written objections, it is determined that ---
|
|
|
|
(A) the interests of the Federal Government and the public will
|
|
best be served by the proposed license, in view of the applicant's
|
|
intentions, plans, and ability to bring the invention to practical
|
|
application or otherwise promote the invention's utilization by
|
|
the public;
|
|
|
|
(B) the desired practical application has not been achieved, or is not
|
|
likely expeditiously to be achieved, under any non-exclusive license
|
|
which has been granted, or which may be granted, on the invention;
|
|
|
|
(C) exclusive or partially exclusive licensing is a reasonable and
|
|
necessary initiative to call forth the investment of risk capital and
|
|
expenditures to bring the invention to practical application or
|
|
otherwise promote the invention's utilization by the public; and
|
|
|
|
(D) the proposed terms and scope of exclusivity are not greater than
|
|
reasonably necessary to provide the incentive for bringing the invention
|
|
to practical application or otherwise promote the invention's
|
|
utilization by the public.
|
|
|
|
(2) A Federal agency shall not grant such exclusive or partially exclusive
|
|
license under paragraph (1) of this subsection if it determines that the grant
|
|
of such license will tend substantially to lessen competition or result in
|
|
undue concentration in any section of the country in any line of commerce
|
|
to which the technology to be licensed relates, or to create or maintain
|
|
other situations inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
|
|
|
|
(3) First preference in the exclusive or partially exclusive licensing of
|
|
federally owned inventions shall go to small business firms submitting
|
|
plans that are determined by the agency to be within the capabilities of
|
|
the firm and equally likely, if executed, to bring the invention to
|
|
practical application as any plans submitted by applicants that are not
|
|
small business firms.
|
|
|
|
<<<<Note: The rest of the clauses are mainly administrative dealing with
|
|
foreign patents and record keeping. There are clauses that enable the
|
|
government to terminate the license if the licensees misbehave. In particular,
|
|
the final clause (given below) is rather interesting.>>>>
|
|
|
|
(f)...(4) the right of the Federal agency to terminate the license
|
|
in whole or in part if the agency determines that such action is
|
|
necessary to meet requirements for public use specified by Federal
|
|
regulations issued after the date of the license and such requirements
|
|
are not reasonably satisfied by the licensee.
|
|
|
|
=====================================================================
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX D: 37 CFR 404.8 (Checklist for License Application)
|
|
============================================================
|
|
|
|
37 CFR 404.8 gives a checklist of the things you have to do to apply
|
|
for a license.
|
|
|
|
S 404.8 Application for a License
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
An application for a license should be addressed to the Federal agency
|
|
having custody of the invention and should normally include:
|
|
|
|
(a) Identification of the invention for which the license is desired
|
|
including the patent application, serial number or patent number,
|
|
title, and date, if known;
|
|
|
|
(b) Identification of the type of license for which the application is
|
|
submitted.
|
|
|
|
(c) Name and address of the person, company, or organization applying
|
|
for the license and the citizenship or place of incorporation of the
|
|
applicant;
|
|
|
|
(d) Name, address, and telephone number of the representative of the
|
|
applicant to whom correspondence should be sent;
|
|
|
|
(e) Nature and type of the applicant's business, identifying products
|
|
and services which the applicant has successfully commercialized;
|
|
and approximate number of the applicant's employees;
|
|
|
|
(f) Source of information concerning the availability of a
|
|
license on the invention.
|
|
|
|
(g) A statement indicating whether the applicant is a small business
|
|
firm as defined in S404.3(c)
|
|
|
|
[S404.3 (c) SMALL BUSINESS FIRM means a small business concern as
|
|
defined in section 2 of Pub. L. 85-536 (U.S.C.632) and implementing
|
|
regulations of the Administrator of the Small Business Administration.]
|
|
|
|
(h) A detailed description of applicant's plans for developing or
|
|
marketing the invention, or both, which should include:
|
|
|
|
(1) A statement of the time, nature and amount of anticiapted investment
|
|
capital and other resources which applicant believes will be required to
|
|
bring the invention to practical application;
|
|
|
|
(2) A statement as to the applicant's capability and intention to fulfill
|
|
the plan, including information refarding manufacturing, marketing,
|
|
financial and technical resources;
|
|
|
|
(3) A statement of the fields of use for which applicant intends to
|
|
practice the invention; and
|
|
|
|
(4) A statement of the geographic areas in which applicant intents to
|
|
manufacture any products embodying the invention and geographic areas
|
|
where applicant intents to use or sell the invention, or both;
|
|
|
|
(i) Identification of licenses previously granted to applicant under
|
|
federally owned inventions;
|
|
|
|
(j) A statement containing applicant's best knowledge of the extent to
|
|
which the invention is being practiced by private industry or Government,
|
|
or both, or is otherwise available commercially; and
|
|
|
|
(k) Any other information which applicant believes will support a
|
|
determination to grant the license to the applicant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
=====================================================================
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX E: DAN BERNSTEIN'S POSTING AND FORM LETTER
|
|
===================================================
|
|
|
|
The following is a recent posting to sci.crypt by Dan Bernstein. It
|
|
provides two form letter that can be used to apply for a DSA license.
|
|
The first letter requests a personal license. The second requests an
|
|
implementer's license. Dan's letters seems to provide all the
|
|
information required by some sort of US code. I don't know which one
|
|
though. Certainly the information provided seems very similar to that
|
|
specified in 37 CFR 404.8 (see Appendix D).
|
|
|
|
Path: news.adelaide.edu.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!fang.dsto.gov.au!foxhound.dsto.gov.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!ucbvax!silverton.berkeley.edu!djb
|
|
From: djb@silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
|
|
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
|
|
Subject: You want to use DSA? Apply for a personal license from NIST!
|
|
Message-ID: <13176.Jul2706.22.0393@silverton.berkeley.edu>
|
|
Date: 27 Jul 93 06:22:03 GMT
|
|
Organization: IR
|
|
Lines: 103
|
|
|
|
NIST plans to give Public Key Partners exclusive rights to the Digital
|
|
Signature Algorithm. Do you want to guarantee your own rights to this
|
|
technology? You can! It's free, if you can spare a stamp.
|
|
|
|
Attached is a form letter you can send to NIST to apply for a personal
|
|
license. Put in your own name, address, country, and the right date;
|
|
print it out; read through to check it over; sign it; and drop it in the
|
|
mail. You don't have to get everything right the first time---NIST will
|
|
contact you if they need more information to make a decision. And, as a
|
|
bonus, your application will automatically count as an objection to the
|
|
NIST-PKP deal!
|
|
|
|
I believe that NIST must receive your application by next Friday, the
|
|
6th of August, but the due date might be earlier. You might want to
|
|
check immediately with Michael Rubin at 301-975-2803. If necessary you
|
|
can fax your letter to him.
|
|
|
|
---Dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
[address]
|
|
[date]
|
|
|
|
Michael R. Rubin
|
|
Acting Chief Counsel for Technology
|
|
Room A-1111
|
|
Administration Building
|
|
National Institute of Standards and Technology
|
|
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Rubin:
|
|
|
|
I hereby apply for a personal license to use the Digital Signature
|
|
Algorithm.
|
|
|
|
1. Title of invention: Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA).
|
|
|
|
2. Patent Application Serial Number: 07/738.431.
|
|
|
|
3. United States Patent Number: To be issued as 5,231,668, I believe.
|
|
|
|
4. Source of information concerning availability of a license: Various
|
|
sources, including your Federal Register notice.
|
|
|
|
5. Name and address of applicant: [name], [address, phone, etc.].
|
|
|
|
6. Applicant's representative: not applicable.
|
|
|
|
7. I am a [country] citizen.
|
|
|
|
8. Approximate number of persons employed: not applicable.
|
|
|
|
9. I am not a small business firm.
|
|
|
|
10. Purpose: I would like a personal license allowing me to implement
|
|
and use DSA. See #12.
|
|
|
|
11. Business and commercialization: not applicable; see #10.
|
|
|
|
12. Plans: I plan to use DSA to attach digital signatures to a variety
|
|
of electronic documents, primarily for authentication. I plan to use DSA
|
|
implementations, initially in software but perhaps later in hardware,
|
|
from a variety of potential future sources. Investments: I may spend
|
|
many hours programming a DSA implementation.
|
|
|
|
13. Fields of commercialization: not applicable; see #10.
|
|
|
|
14. I am not willing to accept a license for less than all fields of use
|
|
of DSA.
|
|
|
|
15. I intend to implement and use DSA only in [country].
|
|
|
|
16. Type of license: I would like a non-exclusive license which does not
|
|
require royalty payments.
|
|
|
|
17. I have never been granted a license to a federally owned invention.
|
|
|
|
18. Known uses of DSA by industry or government: I have heard that ISC
|
|
sells a product called dsaSIGN, and that Bellcore has implemented DSA.
|
|
|
|
19. Other information: I understand that NIST may grant an exclusive
|
|
DSA license to PKP, and that this license application will be treated as
|
|
an objection to the PKP license.
|
|
|
|
Please note that PKP has stated its intent to make DSA free for personal
|
|
use. Therefore, if NIST grants PKP a license and PKP acts according to
|
|
its stated intent, there is no harm to anyone if I am granted this
|
|
personal license. However, I do not trust PKP to act according to its
|
|
stated intent, and I do not want to have to apply for a license from PKP
|
|
even if it is royalty-free. So I ask that you grant me a license
|
|
directly.
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your kind attention. Please let me know if you need more
|
|
information.
|
|
|
|
Sincerely,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[name]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Path: news.adelaide.edu.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!fang.dsto.gov.au!foxhound.dsto.gov.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!ucbvax!silverton.berkeley.edu!djb
|
|
From: djb@silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
|
|
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
|
|
Subject: You want to publish your dsa.c? Apply for a license from NIST!
|
|
Message-ID: <13238.Jul2706.22.3993@silverton.berkeley.edu>
|
|
Date: 27 Jul 93 06:22:39 GMT
|
|
Organization: IR
|
|
Lines: 101
|
|
|
|
NIST plans to give Public Key Partners exclusive rights to the Digital
|
|
Signature Algorithm. Do you have a free DSA implementation, or have you
|
|
been thinking of writing one for the benefit of the net community? Do
|
|
you want to guarantee your users the rights to this technology? You can!
|
|
It's free, if you can spare a stamp.
|
|
|
|
This is another form letter---just like the personal license application
|
|
exhibited in my previous message. You should make sure to apply for a
|
|
personal license. Once you've done that, follow the same instructions
|
|
for the implementor's license. Once again, as a bonus, your application
|
|
will automatically count as an objection to the NIST-PKP deal!
|
|
|
|
I believe that NIST must receive your application by next Friday, the
|
|
6th of August, but the due date might be earlier. You might want to
|
|
check immediately with Michael Rubin at 301-975-2803. If necessary you
|
|
can fax your letter to him.
|
|
|
|
---Dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
[address]
|
|
[date]
|
|
|
|
Michael R. Rubin
|
|
Acting Chief Counsel for Technology
|
|
Room A-1111
|
|
Administration Building
|
|
National Institute of Standards and Technology
|
|
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Rubin:
|
|
|
|
I hereby apply for an implementor's license permitting me to sublicense
|
|
the use of the Digital Signature Algorithm.
|
|
|
|
1. Title of invention: Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA).
|
|
|
|
2. Patent Application Serial Number: 07/738.431.
|
|
|
|
3. United States Patent Number: To be issued as 5,231,668, I believe.
|
|
|
|
4. Source of information concerning availability of a license: Various
|
|
sources, including your Federal Register notice.
|
|
|
|
5. Name and address of applicant: [name], [address, phone, etc.].
|
|
|
|
6. Applicant's representative: not applicable.
|
|
|
|
7. I am a [country] citizen.
|
|
|
|
8. Approximate number of persons employed: not applicable.
|
|
|
|
9. I am not a small business firm.
|
|
|
|
10. Purpose: I would like a license allowing me to let others freely
|
|
use my implementation of DSA, i.e., allowing me to sublicense the use of
|
|
DSA at no cost. See #12.
|
|
|
|
11. Business and commercialization: not applicable; see #10.
|
|
|
|
12. Plans: I plan to create a source-code implementation of DSA in
|
|
software, using computer resources which are already available to me.
|
|
I plan to give this implementation to anyone who asks, and perhaps to
|
|
publish this implementation via electronic or non-electronic means, for
|
|
study and use by the academic and non-academic communities. I hope to
|
|
have people hear about this implementation by a variety of means,
|
|
including word of mouth.
|
|
|
|
13. Fields of commercialization: not applicable; see #10.
|
|
|
|
14. I am not willing to accept a license for less than all fields of use
|
|
of DSA.
|
|
|
|
15. I intend to implement DSA in [country].
|
|
|
|
16. Type of license: I would like a non-exclusive license which does not
|
|
require royalty payments.
|
|
|
|
17. I have never been granted a license to a federally owned invention.
|
|
|
|
18. Known uses of DSA by industry or government: I have heard that ISC
|
|
sells a product called dsaSIGN, and that Bellcore has implemented DSA.
|
|
|
|
19. Other information: I understand that NIST may grant an exclusive
|
|
DSA license to PKP, and that this license application will be treated as
|
|
an objection to the PKP license.
|
|
|
|
Let me emphasize that this is not a commercial license application. I do
|
|
not intend to collect any fees for the use of this implementation.
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your kind attention. Please let me know if you need more
|
|
information.
|
|
|
|
Sincerely,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[name]
|
|
|
|
=====================================================================
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX F: THE LPF ANNOUNCEMENT
|
|
================================
|
|
|
|
From lpf-all-members-request@prep.ai.mit.edu Tue Jun 29 09:13:45 1993
|
|
...
|
|
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 93 17:25:32 edt
|
|
Resent-Message-Id: <9306282125.AA13550@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
|
|
Message-Id: <9306282125.AA13550@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
|
|
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
|
|
Sender: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu
|
|
To: lpf-all-members@prep.ai.mit.edu
|
|
Resent-To: lpf-all-members@prep.ai.mit.edu
|
|
Resent-From: league-request@prep.ai.mit.edu
|
|
Subject: Digital Signature Scandal
|
|
Reply-To: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu
|
|
Status: OR
|
|
|
|
[The following is an official announcement from the League for Programming
|
|
Freedom. Please redistribute this as widely as possible.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Digital Signature Scandal
|
|
|
|
Digital signature is a technique whereby one person (call her
|
|
J. R. Gensym) can produce a specially encrypted number which anyone
|
|
can verify could only have been produced by her. (Typically a
|
|
particular signature number encodes additional information such as a
|
|
date and time or a legal document being signed.) Anyone can decrypt
|
|
the number because that can be done with information that is
|
|
published; but producing such a number uses a "key" (a password) that
|
|
J. R. Gensym does not tell to anyone else.
|
|
|
|
Several years ago, Congress directed the NIST (National Institute of
|
|
Standards and Technology, formerly the National Bureau of Standards)
|
|
to choose a single digital signature algorithm as a standard for the
|
|
US.
|
|
|
|
In 1992, two algorithms were under consideration. One had been
|
|
developed by NIST with advice from the NSA (National Security Agency),
|
|
which engages in electronic spying and decoding. There was widespread
|
|
suspicion that this algorithm had been designed to facilitate some
|
|
sort of trickery.
|
|
|
|
The fact that NIST had applied for a patent on this algorithm
|
|
engendered additional suspicion; despite their assurances that this
|
|
would not be used to interfere with use of the technique, people could
|
|
imagine no harmless motive for patenting it.
|
|
|
|
The other algorithm was proposed by a company called PKP, Inc., which
|
|
not coincidentally has patents covering its use. This alternative had
|
|
a disadvantage that was not just speculation: if this algorithm were
|
|
adopted as the standard, everyone using the standard would have to pay
|
|
PKP.
|
|
|
|
(The same patents cover the broader field of public key cryptography,
|
|
a technique whose use in the US has been mostly inhibited for a decade
|
|
by PKP's assiduous enforcement of these patents. The patents were
|
|
licensed exclusively to PKP by the Massachusetts Institute of
|
|
Technology and Stanford University, and derive from taxpayer-funded
|
|
research.)
|
|
|
|
PKP, Inc. made much of the suspect nature of the NIST algorithm and
|
|
portrayed itself as warning the public about this.
|
|
|
|
On June 8, NIST published a new plan which combines the worst of both
|
|
worlds: to adopt the suspect NIST algorithm, and give PKP, Inc. an
|
|
*exclusive* license to the patent for it. This plan places digital
|
|
signature use under the control of PKP through the year 2010.
|
|
|
|
By agreeing to this arrangement, PKP, Inc. shows that its concern to
|
|
protect the public from possible trickery was a sham. Its real desire
|
|
was, as one might have guessed, to own an official national standard.
|
|
Meanwhile, NIST has justified past suspicion about its patent
|
|
application by proposing to give that patent (in effect) to a private
|
|
entity.
|
|
|
|
Instead of making a gift to PKP, Inc., of the work all of us have paid
|
|
for, NIST and Congress ought to protect our access to it--by pursuing
|
|
all possible means, judicial and legislative, to invalidate or annull
|
|
the PKP patents. If that fails, even taking them by eminent domain is
|
|
better (and cheaper in the long run!) than the current plan.
|
|
|
|
You can write to NIST to object to this giveaway. Write to:
|
|
|
|
Michael R. Rubin
|
|
Active Chief Counsel for Technology
|
|
Room A-1111, Administration Building,
|
|
National Institute of Standards and Technology
|
|
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
|
|
(301) 975-2803.
|
|
|
|
The deadline for arrival of letters is around August 4.
|
|
|
|
Please send a copy of your letter to:
|
|
|
|
League for Programming Freedom
|
|
1 Kendall Square #143
|
|
P.O.Box 9171
|
|
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
|
|
|
|
(The League for Programming Freedom is an organization which defends
|
|
the freedom to write software, and opposes monopolies such as patented
|
|
algorithms and copyrighted languages. It advocates returning to the
|
|
former legal system under which if you write the program, you are free
|
|
to use it. Please write to the League if you want more information.)
|
|
|
|
Sending copies to the League will enable us to show them to elected
|
|
officials if that is useful.
|
|
|
|
=====================================================================
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX G: THE LETTERS I INTEND TO SEND
|
|
========================================
|
|
|
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
|
Dr Ross N. Williams
|
|
Rocksoft Pty Ltd (ACN 008-280-153).
|
|
16 Lerwick Avenue
|
|
Hazelwood Park 5066
|
|
Australia
|
|
Net : ross@guest.adelaide.edu.au.
|
|
Fax : +61 8 373-4911 (C/-Internode Systems)
|
|
Work : +61 8 379-9217
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael R. Rubin
|
|
Acting Chief Counsel for Technology
|
|
Room A-1111
|
|
Administration Building
|
|
National Institute of Standards and Technology
|
|
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
|
|
|
|
4 August 1993.
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr Rubin,
|
|
|
|
As a concerned member of the Australian public, and as a director of
|
|
an Australian software company, I am writing in response to the notice
|
|
"Notice of Proposal for Grant of Exclusive Patent License" published by
|
|
NIST in the U.S. Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 108, dated June 8, 1993
|
|
under Notices and relating to U.S. Patent Application No. 07/738.431 and
|
|
entitled "Digital Signature Algorithm." This notice affects myself and my
|
|
company in its relationship to the US commercial environment and because
|
|
of the propagation of patent claims internationally. The notice states
|
|
that:
|
|
|
|
>The prospective license will be granted unless, within sixty (60)
|
|
>days of this notice, NIST receives written evidence and argument
|
|
>which established that the grant of the license would not be
|
|
>consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
|
|
|
|
I am writing because I believe that the license is NOT consistent with
|
|
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209. Here's why.
|
|
|
|
In 35 U.S.C. 209. part (c)(1), the requirements specify a list of conditions
|
|
(A)..(D) all of which must be met before a U.S. Federal agency may grant an
|
|
exclusive or partially exclusive license. Part (A) says:
|
|
|
|
>(A) the interests of the Federal Government and the public will
|
|
>best be served by the proposed license, in view of the applicant's
|
|
>intentions, plans, and ability to bring the invention to practical
|
|
>application or otherwise promote the invention's utilization by
|
|
>the public;
|
|
|
|
I do not wish to debate this clause as satisified or not satisifed except
|
|
to note that this clause defines NIST's primary goal as the public benefit,
|
|
not the private.
|
|
|
|
|
|
>(B) the desired practical application has not been achieved, or is not
|
|
>likely expeditiously to be achieved, under any non-exclusive license
|
|
>which has been granted, or which may be granted, on the invention;
|
|
|
|
There is no reason why the DSA standard should not be widely
|
|
implemented without the benefit of any patents at all. I am aware of
|
|
the potential conflict that prospective implementers might have with
|
|
Public Key Partners (PKP) of Sunnyvale California. However, I believe
|
|
that this problem should be resolved by the free market and the patent
|
|
system rather than by NIST.
|
|
|
|
|
|
>(C) exclusive or partially exclusive licensing is a reasonable and
|
|
>necessary initiative to call forth the investment of risk capital and
|
|
>expenditures to bring the invention to practical application or
|
|
>otherwise promote the invention's utilization by the public; and
|
|
|
|
The history of innovation and technology diffusion in the computing
|
|
industry clearly indicates that, in the absence of PKP, there would be
|
|
no requirement to boost risk capital with the use of patents in order
|
|
to diffuse the technology. As soon as a technologically workable
|
|
standard is proclaimed, it will be adopted. In particular, the cost of
|
|
implementing the standard in software is likely to be less than
|
|
$30,000. As a result there will soon be many implementations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
>(D) the proposed terms and scope of exclusivity are not greater than
|
|
>reasonably necessary to provide the incentive for bringing the invention
|
|
>to practical application or otherwise promote the invention's
|
|
>utilization by the public.
|
|
|
|
It is clause (D) to which I mainly take exception. In (A) I asserted
|
|
that the goal of NIST should be the public good. In (B) and (C) I
|
|
asserted that for a much-awaited cheap-to-implement standard such as
|
|
the DSA, patents are not required in order to attract risk capital.
|
|
These two clauses in combination with (D) imply that NIST should be
|
|
doing its best to deliver the standard into the public domain, and if
|
|
this is not possible, licensing it in the least-restrictive manner
|
|
possible.
|
|
|
|
Under the current proposal, NIST will license the DSA patent to PKP
|
|
indefinitely; that is, until it runs out in the year 2010. However,
|
|
PKP's patents, (which in the light of (A),(B), and (C) should be the
|
|
sole motivation for the license proposal) expire in 1997 or soon
|
|
after. This flies in the face of clause (D) which permits NIST to
|
|
grant at most only the minimum reasonable license, in this case a
|
|
license lasting only until 1997, after which the DSA patent should be
|
|
placed in the public domain. This argument applies independent to any
|
|
arguments stating that PKP have committed to behave in a certain
|
|
"limited" way once granted the DSA patent licence; my argument applies
|
|
to the time period over which the patent license is granted not the
|
|
manner in which PKP conduct themselves during the period in which it
|
|
is granted. Ideally thought, NIST should not grant DSS to PKP at all.
|
|
|
|
I hope that the above provides a convincing argument that NIST would
|
|
not be complying with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209.(c)(1)(D)
|
|
if it executed the proposed license.
|
|
|
|
--O--
|
|
|
|
There are many alternatives to the proposed license that NIST could
|
|
pursue. For example, NIST could simply issue a general public license
|
|
to DSA. Or NIST could use it's patent powers to impose the following
|
|
condition on all implementors:
|
|
|
|
Condition: All implementations of the DSA must be constructed in
|
|
accordance with <<new standard that NIST suboffice can create>>
|
|
so that DSA can be quickly and cheaply replaced with other algorithms
|
|
at a later date.
|
|
|
|
If this move were adopted now, it would pave the way for RSA in 2000,
|
|
or perhaps for an even better, hitherto uncreate, algorithm.
|
|
|
|
Other, more aggressive strategies exist that could solve the problem
|
|
too, the extreme being the taking of PKPs patents by "eminant domain".
|
|
However, I realize that this would be extreme and am writing primarily
|
|
to submit the objections given above.
|
|
|
|
In addition to the above, I enclose three letters applying for:
|
|
|
|
1) A license of DSA for myself to use DSA.
|
|
2) A license of DSA for myself to implement and distribute DSA for free.
|
|
3) An unlimited commercial license for my company Rocksoft Pty Ltd,
|
|
or failing this a non-commercial license.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to end this letter on a lighter note...
|
|
|
|
During times of drought a farmer noticed that his cow was looking a bit
|
|
thin so he sent his son out with the cow to find some nice green grass
|
|
to munch on so that the cow would grow fat and yield lots of milk. The
|
|
son walked the cow for miles and miles (making the cow even thinner in the
|
|
process), but couldn't find any grass (this is actually the Australian
|
|
outback). In the end he found a nice green paddock and set the cow grazing.
|
|
|
|
Later the son returned to the homestead:
|
|
|
|
Farmer : How'd it go son? Do we have a happy cow now?
|
|
Son : Well sort of; I had trouble finding a grassy paddock.
|
|
Farmer : But you found one in the end didn't you?
|
|
Son : Yes, and I put the cow in the paddock. But soon another farmer
|
|
came running out. He said it was his paddock --- he had rented it
|
|
for three years --- and that I couldn't graze my cow there without
|
|
giving him some milk. It was the only green paddock there was.
|
|
Farmer : So what did you do?
|
|
Son : I gave him the cow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your kind attention. Please do not hesitate to contact
|
|
me if you require any more information or clarification of the above.
|
|
|
|
Yours sincerely,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ross Williams
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
|
|
|
Dr Ross N. Williams
|
|
Rocksoft Pty Ltd (ACN 008-280-153).
|
|
16 Lerwick Avenue
|
|
Hazelwood Park 5066
|
|
Australia
|
|
Net : ross@guest.adelaide.edu.au.
|
|
Fax : +61 8 373-4911 (C/-Internode Systems)
|
|
Work : +61 8 379-9217
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael R. Rubin
|
|
Acting Chief Counsel for Technology
|
|
Room A-1111
|
|
Administration Building
|
|
National Institute of Standards and Technology
|
|
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
|
|
|
|
4 August 1993.
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr Rubin,
|
|
|
|
I am writing in response to the notice "Notice of Proposal for Grant of
|
|
Exclusive Patent License" published by NIST in the U.S. Federal Register,
|
|
Vol. 58, No. 108, dated June 8, 1993 under Notices and relating to
|
|
U.S. Patent Application No. 07/738.431 and entitled "Digital Signature
|
|
Algorithm." The notice states that:
|
|
|
|
>Applications for a license filed in response to this notice will be
|
|
>treated as objections to the grant of the prospective license.
|
|
>Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are
|
|
>received by NIST within sixty (60) days for the publication of this
|
|
>notice will be considered.
|
|
|
|
As such, I would like to apply, on behalf of my company Rocksoft Pty Ltd
|
|
for a license of this patent. The following information is provided in
|
|
accordance with 37 CFR 404.8.
|
|
|
|
(a) Identification of the invention:
|
|
Title: "Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA)."
|
|
Patent Application Serial Number: 07/738.431.
|
|
United States Patent Number: To be issued as 5,231,668, I believe.
|
|
|
|
(b) The type of license required is a commercial license requiring
|
|
no royalties, OR FAILING THAT A NON-COMMERCIAL (i.e. non-profit) LICENSE
|
|
requiring no royalty payments.
|
|
|
|
(c) The organization applying for the license is "Rocksoft Pty Ltd",
|
|
a company incorporated in Australia, whose formally registered address is
|
|
c/- Nelson Wheeler
|
|
200 East Terrace
|
|
Adelaide 5000
|
|
Australia
|
|
whose Australian Company Number is 008-280-153, and whose postal
|
|
address (please address correspondence to this address) is:
|
|
16 Lerwick Avenue
|
|
Hazelwood Park 5066
|
|
Australia.
|
|
|
|
(d) The representative of Rocksoft is:
|
|
Name : Dr Ross N. Williams.
|
|
Address: 16 Lerwick Avenue, Hazelwood Park 5066 Australia.
|
|
Phone: +61 8 379-5020.
|
|
|
|
(e) Rocksoft is a software consultancy employing only Ross Williams.
|
|
The company has not yet successfully commercialized any products.
|
|
|
|
(f) Source of information concerning availability of a license: various
|
|
sources, including your Federal Register notice.
|
|
|
|
(g) I am unable to determine whether Rocksoft Pty Ltd may be formally
|
|
classified as a small business firm under 404.3(c). However, I would
|
|
be very surprised if it is not, unless there is some requirement for
|
|
it to be incorporated in the US.
|
|
|
|
(h) Development plan. If a license is granted, Rocksoft will attempt
|
|
to create an implementation of the DSA and either sub license it as a
|
|
component or embed it in products requiring digital signatures. No plans
|
|
more specific than this can be provided at this time.
|
|
|
|
(1) Rocksoft expects that many hundreds of programmer hours could be
|
|
committed to the project. Very little capital is available.
|
|
However, if a license is secured, this may become available.
|
|
|
|
(2) NO further statement on a development plan can be made at present.
|
|
|
|
(3) Fields of use: Rocksoft wishes to use the technology in many
|
|
diverse fields.
|
|
|
|
(4) Geographic are of use: The whole world. Failing this, just Australia.
|
|
|
|
(i) No previous licenses have been granted to Rocksoft under Federally owned
|
|
inventions.
|
|
|
|
(j) Known uses of DSA by industry or government: I have heard that ISC
|
|
sells a product called dsaSIGN, and that Bellcore has implemented DSA.
|
|
|
|
(k) Any other information. I am aware that one of the goals of the
|
|
licensing of Federally owned inventions is to promote small business
|
|
in the US and Rocksoft is a small business in Australia. I am
|
|
hoping however that this application will be successful because it
|
|
is an application for a non-exclusive, non-transferrable license.
|
|
|
|
I understand that NIST may grant an exclusive DSA license to PKP,
|
|
and that this license application will be treated as an objection
|
|
to the PKP license. I would like this application to be treated as
|
|
such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your kind attention. Please do not hesitate to contact
|
|
me if you require any more information or clarification of the above.
|
|
|
|
Yours sincerely,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ross Williams
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
|
|
|
Dr Ross N. Williams
|
|
16 Lerwick Avenue
|
|
Hazelwood Park 5066
|
|
Australia
|
|
Net : ross@guest.adelaide.edu.au.
|
|
Fax : +61 8 373-4911 (C/-Internode Systems)
|
|
Work : +61 8 379-9217
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael R. Rubin
|
|
Acting Chief Counsel for Technology
|
|
Room A-1111
|
|
Administration Building
|
|
National Institute of Standards and Technology
|
|
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
|
|
|
|
4 August 1993.
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Rubin:
|
|
|
|
I hereby apply for a personal license to use the Digital Signature
|
|
Algorithm.
|
|
|
|
1. Title of invention: Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA).
|
|
|
|
2. Patent Application Serial Number: 07/738.431.
|
|
|
|
3. United States Patent Number: To be issued as 5,231,668, I believe.
|
|
|
|
4. Source of information concerning availability of a license: Various
|
|
sources, including your Federal Register notice.
|
|
|
|
5. Name and address of applicant:
|
|
Dr Ross N. Williams
|
|
16 Lerwick Avenue
|
|
Hazelwood Park 5066
|
|
Australia
|
|
Net : ross@guest.adelaide.edu.au.
|
|
Fax : +61 8 373-4911 (C/-Internode Systems)
|
|
Work : +61 8 379-9217
|
|
|
|
6. Applicant's representative: not applicable.
|
|
|
|
7. I am an Australian citizen.
|
|
|
|
8. Approximate number of persons employed: not applicable.
|
|
|
|
9. I am not a small business firm.
|
|
|
|
10. Purpose: I would like a personal license allowing me to implement
|
|
and use DSA. See #12.
|
|
|
|
11. Business and commercialization: not applicable; see #10.
|
|
|
|
12. Plans: I plan to use DSA to attach digital signatures to a variety
|
|
of electronic documents, primarily for authentication. I plan to use DSA
|
|
implementations, initially in software but perhaps later in hardware,
|
|
from a variety of potential future sources. Investments: I may spend
|
|
many hours programming a DSA implementation.
|
|
|
|
13. Fields of commercialization: not applicable; see #10.
|
|
|
|
14. I am not willing to accept a license for less than all fields of use
|
|
of DSA.
|
|
|
|
15. I intend to implement and use DSA throughout the world. However,
|
|
failing this a license for Australia and the U.S.A. would be appreciated.
|
|
Failing this, a license for just Australia would still be useful.
|
|
|
|
16. Type of license: I would like a non-exclusive license which does not
|
|
require royalty payments.
|
|
|
|
17. I have never been granted a license to a federally owned invention.
|
|
|
|
18. Known uses of DSA by industry or government: I have heard that ISC
|
|
sells a product called dsaSIGN, and that Bellcore has implemented DSA.
|
|
|
|
19. Other information: I understand that NIST may grant an exclusive
|
|
DSA license to PKP, and that this license application will be treated as
|
|
an objection to the PKP license.
|
|
|
|
Please note that PKP has stated its intent to make DSA free for personal
|
|
use. Therefore, if NIST grants PKP a license and PKP acts according to
|
|
its stated intent, there is no harm to anyone if I am granted this
|
|
personal license. However, I do not trust PKP to act according to its
|
|
stated intent, and I do not want to have to apply for a license from PKP
|
|
even if it is royalty-free. So I ask that you grant me a license
|
|
directly.
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your kind attention. Please let me know if you need more
|
|
information.
|
|
|
|
Yours sincerely,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ross Williams
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
|
|
|
Dr Ross N. Williams
|
|
16 Lerwick Avenue
|
|
Hazelwood Park 5066
|
|
Australia
|
|
Net : ross@guest.adelaide.edu.au.
|
|
Fax : +61 8 373-4911 (C/-Internode Systems)
|
|
Work : +61 8 379-9217
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael R. Rubin
|
|
Acting Chief Counsel for Technology
|
|
Room A-1111
|
|
Administration Building
|
|
National Institute of Standards and Technology
|
|
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
|
|
|
|
4 August 1993.
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Rubin:
|
|
|
|
I hereby apply for an implementor's license permitting me to sublicense
|
|
the use of the Digital Signature Algorithm.
|
|
|
|
1. Title of invention: Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA).
|
|
|
|
2. Patent Application Serial Number: 07/738.431.
|
|
|
|
3. United States Patent Number: To be issued as 5,231,668, I believe.
|
|
|
|
4. Source of information concerning availability of a license: Various
|
|
sources, including your Federal Register notice.
|
|
|
|
5. Name and address of applicant:
|
|
Dr Ross N. Williams
|
|
16 Lerwick Avenue
|
|
Hazelwood Park 5066
|
|
Australia
|
|
Net : ross@guest.adelaide.edu.au.
|
|
Fax : +61 8 373-4911 (C/-Internode Systems)
|
|
Work : +61 8 379-9217
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Applicant's representative: not applicable.
|
|
|
|
7. I am an Australian citizen.
|
|
|
|
8. Approximate number of persons employed: not applicable.
|
|
|
|
9. I am not a small business firm.
|
|
|
|
10. Purpose: I would like a license allowing me to let others freely
|
|
use my implementation of DSA, i.e., allowing me to sublicense the use of
|
|
DSA at no cost. See #12.
|
|
|
|
11. Business and commercialization: not applicable; see #10.
|
|
|
|
12. Plans: I plan to create a source-code implementation of DSA in
|
|
software, using computer resources which are already available to me.
|
|
I plan to give this implementation to anyone who asks, and perhaps to
|
|
publish this implementation via electronic or non-electronic means, for
|
|
study and use by the academic and non-academic communities. I hope to
|
|
have people hear about this implementation by a variety of means,
|
|
including word of mouth.
|
|
|
|
13. Fields of commercialization: not applicable; see #10.
|
|
|
|
14. I am not willing to accept a license for less than all fields of use
|
|
of DSA.
|
|
|
|
15. I intend to implement DSA in Australia (but distribute my implementations
|
|
throughout the world).
|
|
|
|
16. Type of license: I would like a non-exclusive license which does not
|
|
require royalty payments.
|
|
|
|
17. I have never been granted a license to a federally owned invention.
|
|
|
|
18. Known uses of DSA by industry or government: I have heard that ISC
|
|
sells a product called dsaSIGN, and that Bellcore has implemented DSA.
|
|
|
|
19. Other information: I understand that NIST may grant an exclusive
|
|
DSA license to PKP, and that this license application will be treated as
|
|
an objection to the PKP license.
|
|
|
|
Let me emphasize that this is not a commercial license application. I do
|
|
not intend to collect any fees for the use of this implementation.
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your kind attention. Please let me know if you need more
|
|
information.
|
|
|
|
Yours sincerely,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ross Williams
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
=====================================================================
|
|
|
|
---<End of Document>---
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________
|
|
________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
The SURFPUNK Technical Journal is a dangerous multinational hacker zine
|
|
originating near BARRNET in the fashionable western arm of the northern
|
|
California matrix. Quantum Californians appear in one of two states,
|
|
spin surf or spin punk. Undetected, we are both, or might be neither.
|
|
________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Send postings to <surfpunk@osc.versant.com>,
|
|
subscription requests to <surfpunk-request@osc.versant.com>.
|
|
________________________________________________________________________
|
|
________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 93 06:22:09 EST
|
|
From: FBARNHAR@ucs.indiana.edu
|
|
X-To: @QLIST.DIS
|
|
Subject: Copyright query
|
|
To: distribution@indiana.edu; (see end of body)
|
|
|
|
, cel@andrew.cmu.edu,
|
|
aforum@moose.uvm.edu, sokay@cyclone.mitre.org, wjh+@cmu.edu,
|
|
wilfred@hansen@cs.cmu.edu, apasdcf@gwuvm.bitnet,
|
|
steveh@orbital.demon.co.uk, amass-request@cs.bu.edu,
|
|
thomas@smaug.uio.no, ae547@yfn.ysu.edu, au329@cleveland.freenet.edu,
|
|
u19466@uicvm, nu_alawash@cua.edu, spbeac@sovamsu.sovusa.com,
|
|
cri@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu, blass@goliath.pbac.edu,
|
|
guedon@ere.umontreal.ca, sandy.arlingaus@um.cc.umich.edu,
|
|
solstice@umichum, garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu,
|
|
441495@acadvm1.uottawa.ca, enl5105@nexus.yorku.ca,
|
|
lib3@uhupvm1.uh.edu, harnad@princeton.edu, 054340@acadvm1.uottawa.ca,
|
|
x91007@phillip.edu.au, pochs@drew.drew.edu, pmc@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu,
|
|
ce-jones@uchicago.edu, jfjbo@acad1.alaska.edu,
|
|
horizons@suvm.acs.syr.edu, rothfarb@husc.harvard.edu,
|
|
savage@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu, meckler@jvnc.net, hslljw@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu,
|
|
mzltov@nwu.edu, fox@csf.colorado.edu, msanders@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu,
|
|
jiahred@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu, telionis@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu,
|
|
hoymand@joe.uwex.edu, cmacknkigh@ucs.umass.edu, acrlsts@hal.unm.edu,
|
|
dreimer4@mach1.wlu.ca, berge@guvax.georgetown.edu,
|
|
visbms@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu, support@vm.its.rpi.edu,
|
|
winter@ucc.uwindsor.ca, asa@chara.gsu.edu, ejournal@rachel.albany.edu,
|
|
atgvg@asuvm.inre.asu.edu, morten@nki.no, hipgt@marlin.jcu.edu.au,
|
|
savage@vtvm1, jod@ccat.sas.upenn.edu, jkirkbride@asrr.arsusda.gov,
|
|
arcitron@kentvm.kent.edu, dkovacs@kentvm.kent.edu, u50095@uicvm
|
|
|
|
To the Editor:
|
|
|
|
As part of a research project on electronic publishing and
|
|
copyright, I am inquiring about the copyright policy of various
|
|
electronic publications. If you have a written statement, I would
|
|
appreciate if you would either snail-mail or e-mail a copy of it
|
|
to me. Or, if you maintain a coyright policy, but it has not been
|
|
committed to print form yet, I would still like to receive a brief
|
|
description of it.
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, if anyone has a strong feeling about how their
|
|
journal's copyright policy will change in the future, please write
|
|
something about that too. Any idea, no matter how unusual or seemingly
|
|
out of reach technologically, would still be interesting to hear about.
|
|
|
|
This information will be very helpful in allowing me to chart
|
|
the direction which copyright is taking on the Internet. I will also
|
|
be more than happy to share the results with anyone else interested
|
|
in the outcome of this research.
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking time to reply to this query.
|
|
|
|
F.D. Barnhart
|
|
School of Library and Information Science
|
|
Indiana University
|
|
Bloomington, IN 47405
|
|
|
|
FBARNHAR@UCS.INDIANA.EDU
|
|
|
|
%%% overflow headers %%%
|
|
To: dfox@fennec.com, tgray@igc.apc.org, moly@charlie.usd.edu, tibbetts@hsi.com,
|
|
ccmolly@mizzou1.missouri.edu, sue@dcs.bbk.ac.uk, bnj@ecl.psu.edu,
|
|
mss1@cornell.edu, info@tidbits.com, ace@tidbits.com,
|
|
nabtexm@rigel.tamu.edu, nabtexm@tamvenus.BITNET,
|
|
jhailman@wiscmacc.BITNET, jhailman@macc.wisc.edu, palmer@world.std.com,
|
|
mbcs@gradient.cis.upenn.edu, czas@musica.mcgill.ca, alamut@netcom.com,
|
|
telecom@eecs.nwu.edu, 76200, 3025@compuserve.com,
|
|
au462@cleveland.freenet.edu, strick@osc.versant.com, brucem@ptltd.com,
|
|
roberts@triton.unm.edu, aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu, sound@itsa.ucsf.EDU,
|
|
bernhard.helander@antro.uu.se, misiak@plwrtu11.bitnet,
|
|
lewanowi@plwrtu11.bitnet, xorg@cup.portal.com, fishwick@cis.ufl.edu,
|
|
sop@dartmouth.edu, budlao@uccvma.ucop.edu, bladex@wixer.cactus.org,
|
|
mt0296@albnyvms.bitnet, rp0358@albnyvms.bitnet, jqrqc@cunyvm.cuny.edu,
|
|
dadadata@world.std.com, neumann@cs1.sri.com, mannd@rfer1.org,
|
|
hamelpj@inrs-urb.uquebec.ca, nev@renews.relcom.msk.su,
|
|
hcf1dahl@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, radiohc@tinored.cu, dan@visix.com,
|
|
hailotis@socpsy.sci.fau.edu, libpacs@uhupvm1.bitnet,
|
|
dircompg@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu, sarah-noell@ncsu.edu,
|
|
fheyligh@vnets.vub.ac.be, ctmunson@macc.wisc.edu,
|
|
davep@acsu.buffalo.edu, jdav@igc.org, lees@fordmurh.bitnet,
|
|
kraft@ccat.sas.upenn.edu, eveleth@nwnet.net, mcclaskie@ohsthr.BITNET,
|
|
sabbatini@ccvax.unicamp.br, support@rpitsvm.BITNET,
|
|
tuttle@gibbs.oit.unc.edu, romine@uncvx1.oit.unc.edu,
|
|
noonan@msus1.msus.edu, murph@maine.bitnet, nmonthed@untvm1.BITNET,
|
|
lando@brachot.jct.ac.il, nearnet-us@nic.near.net,
|
|
nearnet-staff@nic.near.net, navnews@nctamslant.navy.mil,
|
|
patmcg@merit.edu, userw02v@umichum.BITNET, daniel.forbush@sunysb.edu,
|
|
sippola@finfun.bitnet, mcg2@lehigh.edu, srcmuns@umslvma.umsl.edu,
|
|
nsfnet-info@merit.edu, jmalloy@well.sf.ca.us, hiatt@mail.loc.gov,
|
|
primate@brownvm.brown.edu, opresno@extern.uio.no,
|
|
stueber@vax.mpiz-koeln.mpg.dbp.de, sostaric@ean.uni-mb.ac.mail.yu,
|
|
sostaric@uni-mb.ac.mail.yu, ncgur@uccmvsa.ucop.edu,
|
|
intertxt@network.ucsd.edu, jsnell@ocf.berkeley.edu, imr@isi.edu,
|
|
isbalkits@ucdavis.edu, katherine_branch@quickmail.cis.yale.edu,
|
|
gartner@vax.ox.ac.uk, c73221dc@wuvmd.BITNET, org_zine@wsc.colorado.edu,
|
|
h4458orc@ella.hu, sjurist@ucsd.edu, slack@ncsu.edu,
|
|
mporter@nyx.cs.du.edu, david@stat.com, eikuras@plkrcy11.bitnet,
|
|
gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu, lpress@dhvx20.csudh.edu, anton@vax2.concordia.ca,
|
|
ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu, fulb@brlncc.BITNET, allison@tc.cornell.edu,
|
|
info-sunflash@sun.com, flash@sun.com, mts@ifasgnv.BITNET,
|
|
mts@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu, fast@garnet.berkeley.edu, fins@access.digex.com,
|
|
roblesc@farnet.org, breeden@farnet.org, jerod23@well.sf.ca.us,
|
|
tr@cbnea.att.com, carlos@cea.berkeley.edu, signell@umdd.umd.edu,
|
|
erofile@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, enews@fem.unicamp.br, wolff@ilncrd.BITNET,
|
|
ei@igc.apc.org, ed@cwis.unomaha.edu, well!ari@apple.com,
|
|
nelson_1@plu.BITNET, editors@eff.org, edupage@educom.edu,
|
|
zbigniew@engin.umich.edu, matthewk@ucs.indiana.edu,
|
|
matthewk@ucs.indiana.edu, donosy@fuw.edu.pl, hazards@vaxf.colorado.edu,
|
|
vita@gmuvax.gmu.edu, iekp898@tjuvm.tju.edu,
|
|
decnews-unix-request@pa.dec.com, decnews@mr4dec.enet.dec.com,
|
|
nic@nic.ddn.mil, data1701d@a01.com, s_natale@twu.edu,
|
|
white@duvm.BITNET, cn577@cleveland.freenet.edu,
|
|
drobison@library.berkeley.edu, obscure@mindvox.phantom.com,
|
|
bed_gdg@shsu.edu, t3b@psuvm.psu.edu, erikn@boa.mitron.tek.com,
|
|
service@cossack.cosmic.uga.edu, rita@eff.org, core-journal@eff.org,
|
|
bassili@cs.arizona.edu, consortium@forsythe.stanford.edu,
|
|
laws@ai.sri.com, betsy@ksuvm.ksu.edu, tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu,
|
|
stjs@vm.marist.edu, stjs@marist.BITNET, mgeller@athena.mit.edu,
|
|
cfs-news@list.nih.gov, tony.mcgregor@rdt.monash.edu.au,
|
|
anderson%chip.mic.cl@cunyvm.cuny.edu, cnd-editor@sdsc.edu,
|
|
trayms@cc.curtin.edu.au, jbcondat@attmail.com, help@cerf.net,
|
|
ccnews@educom.BITNET, trojan@csearn.bitnet, carolina@n.fsv.cuni.cs,
|
|
officers@cactus.org, newsletter@cactus.org, bytetorah@nysernet.org,
|
|
mark@btsgatep.caps.maine.edu, buffer@ducair.BITNET, buffer@du.edu,
|
|
wtm@bunker.afd.olivetti.com, dmorse@hsc.usc.edu,
|
|
mkwong@freedom.nmsu.edu, aceska@cue.bc.ca,
|
|
leiserab@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu, fjt@well.sf.ca.us
|
|
%%% end overflow headers %%%
|
|
|