[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > The world is not so simple, not so black and white.
> > > For example, you're completely omitting any outside
> > > factors beyond the crypto algorithm itself.
>
> > Such as...? (Please restrict your answer to topics
> > pertinent to this discussion list).
>
> Oh come on. The original statement assumes that the ONLY factor
> entering into the intellectual property decision is that of the
> cryptography itself. That's ridiculous. Cost recovery, trading for
> rights to use something else, establishing credibility with venture
> capitalists, etc. Yes, the net effect *might* be: everyone can use it,
> or everyone cannot use it, but to claim that as *the reason* is
> ridiculous.
>
> I believe this explanation of the obvious is off-topic, and I won't
> discuss it further.
> /r$
It's not obvious. Note that your reply did not
address or reference anything specific in the
commented-upon message. You might be talking about
anything -- possibly off-topic stuff.
Moreover, *is* it off-topic to discuss such aspects
of cryptographic technology deployment? [Making clear
which what is under consideration undoubtedly helps.]
Paulo Barreto.
[I've filtered a lot of these messages so far.
I'm happy to see a discussion of patent issues and how they impact
cryptographic deployment, but I think the discussion so far has been
pretty uninteresting and largely has consisted of cliches. If people
want me to forward their messages about this, they're going to have to
say things that are a lot more interesting. --Perry]
