Joachim Strömbergson wrote: > Nate Lawson skrev: >>> Some EC primitives in the latest OpenSSL. >> >> Because various standard forms of EC were never covered by patents. >> This has been rehashed many times, for example: >> http://www.xml-dev.com/pipermail/fde/2007-July/000450.html > > IANAL but IMHO this is only partially true. Try doing an efficient > implementation in HW of ECC and not stepping on Certicom patent toes. SW > implementations are probably ok though.
I disagree. I was referring to the *standard* case (no point compression, no special performance tweaks). If you're building something high performance, choosing special curves, etc., you're in a different playing field. Whether it's possible to do an efficient implementation in hw without resorting to those techniques is a very specific question that I won't answer here. I won't go into any more detail since it's not a good policy to publicly discuss patents. I just wanted to respond to the FUD that the original poster was spreading re: EC being covered by patents that had expired. -- Nate --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
