News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:No Source Code == No Patent by beached_whale on Monday April 17, 2023 @09:26AM (#35600315)
I think RSA was a good software patent, or even lzw. Both had significant impacts and where novel
Re:No Source Code == No Patent by Jolter on Monday April 17, 2023 @09:57AM (#35600764)
Sure but was society better off because those were patented as opposed to open (or secret)?
Re:No Source Code == No Patent by beached_whale on Monday April 17, 2023 @10:19AM (#35601079)
Yes, and look at the history leading up to this(secret algorithms with a trust me it works non-guarantee). The cat was out of the bag on pki and there was no putting it back. People built on that knowledge and developed new techniques
Re:No Source Code == No Patent by pclmulqdq on Monday April 17, 2023 @10:04AM (#35600842)
Yes, because there's a reasonable chance they would not have been invented (or they would have taken much longer to appear) without the economic upside of a patent. Also, a patent trades forced disclosure for a limited monopoly. The disclosure in both of these cases has been very good.
Re:No Source Code == No Patent by beached_whale on Monday April 17, 2023 @10:34AM (#35601353)
Also, people immediately licensed the patents and it further research in the field that was owned by entities like the NSA prior
Re:No Source Code == No Patent by edflsafoiewq on Monday April 17, 2023 @03:48PM (#35605618)
Very dubious, given that both have since been superseded by better patent-free alternatives.
Re:No Source Code == No Patent by pclmulqdq on Monday April 17, 2023 @04:33PM (#35606222)
Which are all built on top of the public disclosure of these algorithms, which was required by... the patents!

Prior to RSA being patented, a lot of encryption was proprietary (and probably mostly broken), and nobody could build on top of it. Post-patent, the RSA inventors could publish details and publicize their invention, which led to the alternatives.