Silent Runner

[Owen Lewis]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of M Taylor
> Sent: 21 June 2001 15:33
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Silent Runner
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Julian T. J. Midgley wrote:
>
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Owen Lewis" <oml@eloka.demon.co.uk>
> > >
> > > > 2. The product is underpinned by 50 patents, all alleged as
> owned by the
> > > > NSA.
> > >
> >
> > Surely not - if they're patented then the technical details
> must be in the
> > public domain, by definition.
>
> So they licensed these technologies from the NSA?
>
> In the USA the NSA, as well other members of DoD can protect patents, or
> something to that effect. I don't know the details but some mention is
> made in Crypto by Steven Levy about early cryptographic patents (Lucifer,
> or DEA/DES I think). Perhaps a 'secrecy order'.

Perhaps you are thinking of something different.

There are, I think two points:

	1. Every patent application must be first filed with the national patent
office of the applicant. All applications are screened for matters affecting
national security. Where there is concern that the subject material of an
application has a material effect on national security, the state has a
finite period of time in which to react and prevent both the publication of
the material or further work on it. This can lead to some pretty weasel
worded applications (or so one is told).

	2. A patentee may not refuse the use of his invention to the state, which
may use it as of right (but for which use it makes appropriate financial
compensation).

Owen