My opinion: 2 times 2 = 4 no matter what approach you take, and so no one
can sue you to doing that Math. However, if someone comes up with a math
logic (software, hardware, combo, whatever) that does the same operation in
a superior way, then that is patentable.
Similarly, ECC is based on (as the name says) Elleciptic curves. This
theory has been around for at least 2 decades (if I am right?). We cannot
be prohibited from using it the "simple" way. However, if you use better
(faster, more efficient) ways to do the same point operation, etc, that
method may have been patented. E.g., if I remember right, a faster way to
check if a point is on the curve, you need to do a cube of just the x or y
coordinate. This is patented by Certicom. But no one can stop you from
doing a straightforward/basic "point on the curve" check for free.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Bugbee
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:41 PM
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: Re: About ECC patent and OpenSSL ECC code
Perhaps, and I'm not disagreeing, but for the most part, the crypto
libraries have had ECC support for some time. I'm seeing vendors
beginning to support ECC, and a couple of CAs discussing and preparing
their CPs. Couple all this with the NIST/NSA Suite B recommendation
to go there, it is only a matter of time.
My personal guess is that before the end of this year we will see
major implementations, first as an option. Most will be "vanilla"
implementations staying away from the patented subtopics. In
2009-2010 I expect to see ECC in fairly common use, starting with in
niche applications, the mainstream to follow.
Our challenge as developers is to understand and be ready. My 2 cents.
On Jan 10, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Rodney Thayer wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned, ECC isn't a legitimate public key
> algorithm for enterprise use at this time because you can't
> buy a cert from a CA listed in a major browser where the
> cert uses ECC.
>
> Also, those of use who went through the onerous and in the end
> counterproductive experience of licensing RSA can tell you that
> the "give me money or I'll sue you" business model got old after a
> while. I'm not a lawyer but I do have to give CTO-class advice
> and, assuming you've found a business case for ECC, I always recommend
> people do a build/buy/license/"let them threaten litigation we don't
> care" comparison before entering into not-obviously-useful patent
> licensing deals. So I recommending paying a lawyer to determine if
> you even care about some vendor's alleged patent portfolio.
>
> The fact ECC is in OpenSSL is cute. In the "oh, isn't that cool,
> they implement IDEA, RC-6, and ECC" kind of exotic crypto side-show
> kind of way. It's not part of "openssl, the open source TLS/SSL
> implementation you can use in the real world" any more than any other
> non-IE/Firefox-supported TLS ciphersuite combination would be.
>
> I'd be more impressed with the NSA/Certicom deal if I could find any
> public evidence there's any PKI anywhere using ECC for a US .gov.
> As it
> is this just ends up looking like another exotic military purchase not
> related to the enterprise world. Show me an HSPD-12 spec that tells
> me
> I have to use ECC ;-)
>
> Larry Bugbee wrote:
>> There is no substitute for legal counsel, but Tom had a summary
>> that you might be interested in...
>> http://libtom.org/pages/toorcon8_ecc_tstdenis.pdf
>> See slides 24-27.
>> Larry
>>
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Anilkumar Bollineni wrote:
>>> Thanks a lot for the responses.
>>> Bill, I agree with you that the use of ECC is really matters here,
>>> the area where Certicom holds ECC patents. One of our application
>>> with respect to ECC that are planning to use ECDSA (Elliptic Curve
>>> DSA) signature based certificate generation/verification,
>>> signature generation/verification. Meanwhile I talked to one of
>>> the sales guy from Certicom, and he is saying that one of certicom
>>> patents is related to ECDSA and he said if I want to do ECDSA from
>>> OpenSSL, then I need to get license.I am not sure whether that
>>> information is correct or not.
>>> The OpenSSL does not say anyword about the EC/ECDSA usage and its
>>> patents information in Certicom. The only thing I got about that
>>> is that Sun has donated the EC code to OpenSSL.
>>> If OpenSSL users are really violating the Certicom patents then if
>>> users need to be aware of that, then it is better that OpenSSL
>>> tell some information about it in the release notes. Or May be
>>> that OpenSSL EC implementation does not violate any certicom
>>> patents and that's why OpenSSL is not mentioning? Could somebody
>>> has any insight in it?
>>> Thanks again.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Anil
>>>
>>> Bill Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I would characterize the Certicom patents as falling into 3 main
>>> categor
