-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This was an issue last year. We've covered the same ground that was
covered elsewhere last year, including the same proposed names.
Having been awakend by a thunderstorm, I took a little time to check
on progress over in IEEE. The latest letter that I found, in
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1363/P1363/patents.html, says:
"... we do not intend to rely on our trademark rights in the RSA
brand to prevent the use of ... the terms 'RSA public key', 'RSA
private key', and 'RSA key pair'."
I think we are relatively safe. I think we are even safer satisfying
their concerns in their final paragraph by adding explicit language to
documentation saying:
"Due to the acrimonious nature of previous interactions, we don't
use any products sourced from, licensed from, or endorsed by,
RSA Data Security, Inc."
Note that somebody is claiming patents on RIPEMD and SHA1, among many
other problems. I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised. (heavy sigh)
Rodney Thayer wrote:
> However, given the, ah, acrimonious nature of this corner of this
> marketplace,
> it seems prudent to consider another name.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1
iQCVAwUBOYFxLNm/qMj6R+sxAQHLZQP+OpGPlVHlhd/yLzYo4+kbDUwUypHaZFWT
zCpf+1gRNyMBB1cc2U5CmIN9/i4gnUHOTOb9LJY4GGWHzcl25g87yceTS1rJQu12
wau71YDinBJCbEYTI/VRr1J2XWdT4eIKn2n5NOT+lmhDv8szs3HNCXmOPo9lJQFF
415fSIeeQPw=
=13UZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
